https://www.scribd.com/doc/136397890/Fema451DesignExamples
12/07/2013
text
original
of the National Institute of Building Sciences
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
FEMA 451  August 2006
Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland Security
National Institute of Building Sciences Washington, D.C.
NOTICE: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Additionally, neither FEMA nor any of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. The opinions expressed herein regarding the requirements of the International Residential Code do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the International Code Council. The building official in a jurisdiction has the authority to render interpretation of the code. This report was prepared under Contract EMW1998CO0419 between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. For further information on the Building Seismic Safety Council, see the Council’s website www.bssconline.org  or contact the Building Seismic Safety Council, 1090 Vermont, Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005; phone 2022897800; fax 2022891092; email bssc@nibs.org.
ii
FOREWORD
One of the goals of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encourage design and building practices that address the earthquake hazard and minimize the resulting risk of damage and injury. The 2003 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of New Buildings and Other Structures and its Commentary affirmed FEMA’s ongoing support to improve the seismic safety of construction in this country. The NEHRP Recommended Provisions serves as the basis for the seismic requirements in the ASCE 7 Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures as well as both the International Building Code and NFPA 5000 Building Construction Safety Code. FEMA welcomes the opportunity to provide this material and to work with these codes and standards organizations. This product provides a series of design examples that will assist the user of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. This material will also be of assistance to those using the ASCE 7 standard and the models codes that reference the standard. FEMA wishes to express its gratitude to the authors listed elsewhere for their significant efforts in preparing this material and to the BSSC Board of Direction and staff who made this possible. Their hard work has resulted in a guidance product that will be of significant assistance for a significant number of users of the nation’s seismic building codes and their reference documents. Department of Homeland Security/ Federal Emergency Management Agency
iii
iv
PREFACE
This volume of design examples is intended for those experienced structural designers who are relatively new to the field of earthquakeresistant design and to application of seismic requirements of the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures and, by extension, the model codes and standards because the Provisions are the source of seismic design requirements in most of those documents including ASCE 7, Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; the International Building Code; and the NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code. This compilation of design examples is an expanded version of an earlier document (entitled Guide to Application of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, FEMA 140) and reflects the expansion in coverage of the Provisions and the expanding application of the Provisions concepts in codes and standards. The widespread use of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions signals the success of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Building Seismic Safety Council efforts to ensure that the nation’s building codes and standards reflect the state of the art of earthquakeresistant design. In developing this set of design examples, the BSSC first decided on the types of structures, types of construction and materials, and specific structural elements that needed to be included to provide the reader with at least a beginning grasp of the impact the NEHRP Recommended Provisions has on frequently encountered design problems. Some of the examples draw heavily on a BSSC trial design project conducted prior to the publication of the first edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions in 1985 but most were created by the authors to illustrate issues not covered in the trial design program. Further, the authors have made adjustments to those examples drawn from the trial design program as necessary to reflect the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Finally, because it obviously is not possible to present in a volume of this type complete building designs for all the situations and features that were selected, only portions of designs have been used. The BSSC is grateful to all those individuals and organizations whose assistance made this set of design examples a reality: • James Robert Harris, J. R. Harris and Company, Denver, Colorado, who served as the project manager, and Michael T. Valley, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, Washington, who served as the technical editor of this volume
The chapter authors – Robert Bachman, Finley A. Charney, Richard Drake, Charles A. Kircher, Teymour Manzouri, Frederick R. Rutz, Peter W. Somers, Harold O. Sprague, Jr., and Gene R. Stevens – for there unstinting efforts
•
v
•
Greg Deierlein, J. Daniel Dolan, S. K. Ghosh, Robert D. Hanson, Neil Hawkins, and Thomas Murray for their insightful reviews William Edmands and Cambria Lambertson for their hard work behind the scenes preparing figures
•
Special thanks go to Mike Valley and Peter Somers for their work annotating the design examples to reflect the 2003 edition of the Provisions and updated versions of other standards referenced in the 2003 version. The BSSC Board is also grateful to FEMA Project Officer Michael Mahoney for his support and guidance and to Claret Heider and Carita Tanner of the BSSC staff for their efforts preparing this volume for publication and issuance as a CDROM.
Jim. W. Sealy, Chairman, BSSC Board of Direction
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. FUNDAMENTALS by James Robert Harris, P.E., Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1 Earthquake Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2 Structural Response to Ground Shaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3 Engineering Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1.4 Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1.5 Nonstructural Elements of Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 1.6 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2. GUIDE TO USE OF THE PROVISIONS by Michael Valley, P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS by Finley A. Charney, Ph.D., P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Irregular 12Story Steel Frame Building, Stockton, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.1.2 Description of Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.1.3 Provisions Analysis Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.1.4 Dynamic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.1.5 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 3.1.6 ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 3.1.7 ModalTimeHistory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 3.1.8 Comparison of Results from Various Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 3.2 SixStory Steel Frame Building, Seattle, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 3.2.1 Description of Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 3.2.2 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Preliminaries to Main Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Description of Model Used for Detailed Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 3.2.5 Static Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 3.2.6 TimeHistory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3115 3.2.7 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3143 4. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN by Michael Valley, P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.1 Shallow Foundations for a Seven Story Office Building, Los Angeles, California . . . . . . 44 4.1.1 Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.1.2 Design for Gravity Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.1.3 Design for MomentResisting Frame System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 4.1.4 Design for Concentrically Braced Frame System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 4.1.5 Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 4.2 Deep Foundations for a 12Story Building, Seismic Design Category D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 4.2.1 Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 4.2.2 Pile Analysis, Design, and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 4.2.3 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
vii
5. STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN by James R. Harris, P.E., Ph.D., Frederick R. Rutz, P.E.,Ph.D., and Teymour Manzouri, P.E., Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.1 Industrial HighClearance Building, Astoria, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.1.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.1.2 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.1.3 Structural Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.5 Proportioning and Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 5.2 SevenStory Office Building, Los Angeles, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 5.2.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 5.2.2 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 5.2.3 Structural Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 5.2.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 5.2.5 Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 5.3 TwoStory Building, Oakland, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 5.3.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 5.3.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 5.3.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 5.3.4 Design of Eccentric Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 6. REINFORCED CONCRETE by Finley A. Charney, Ph.D., P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.1 Development of Seismic Loads and Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.1.1 Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.1.2 Structural Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.1.3 Structural Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6.2 Determination of Seismic Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6.2.1 Approximate Period of Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.2.2 Building Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 6.2.3 Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 6.2.4 Accurate Periods from Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 6.2.5 Seismic Design Base Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 6.2.6 Development of Equivalent Lateral Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 6.3 Drift and Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 6.3.1 Direct Drift and Pdelta Check for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 6.3.2 Test for Torsional Irregularity for Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 6.3.3 Direct Drift and Pdelta Check for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 6.3.4 Test for Torsional Irregularity for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 6.4 Structural Design of the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 6.4.1 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 6.4.2 Combination of Load Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 6.4.3 Comments on the Structure’s Behavior Under EW Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 6.4.4 Analysis of FrameOnly Structure for 25 Percent of Lateral Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 6.4.5 Design of Frame Members for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 6.5 Structural Design of the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676 6.5.1 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 6.5.2 Combination of Load Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 6.5.3 Accidental Torsion and Orthogonal Loading (Seismic Versus Wind) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 6.5.4 Design and Detailing of Members of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
viii
6.5.5 Design of Members of Frame 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 7. PRECAST CONCRETE DESIGN by Gene R. Stevens, P.E. and James Robert Harris, P.E., Ph.D. 71 7.1 Horizontal Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7.1.1 Untopped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Buildings Located in Birmingham, Alabama, and New York, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7.1.2 Topped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Building, Los Angeles, California (See Guide Sec. 9.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 7.2 ThreeStory Office Building With Precast Concrete Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 7.2.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 7.2.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 7.2.3 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734 7.2.4 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734 7.2.5 Proportioning and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 7.3 OneStory Precast Shear Wall Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 7.3.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 7.3.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751 7.3.3 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 7.3.4 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754 7.3.5 Proportioning and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756 8. COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE byJames Robert Harris, P.E., Ph.D. and Frederick R. Rutz, P.E., Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 8.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 8.2 Summary of Design Procedure for Composite Partially Restrained Moment Frame System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 8.3 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.3.1 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.3.2 Structural Design Considerations Per the Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 8.3.3 Building Weight and Base Shear Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 8.4 Details of the PRC Connection and System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 8.4.1 Connection Mq Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 8.4.2 Connection Design and Connection Stiffness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 8.5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 8.5.1 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 8.5.2 Drift and Pdelta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 8.5.3 Required and Provided Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 8.6 Details of the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 8.6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 8.6.2 WidthThickness Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 8.6.3 Column Axial Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 8.6.4 Details of the Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 9 MASONRY by James Robert Harris, P.E., Ph.D., Frederick R. Rutz, P.E., Ph.D. and Teymour Manzouri, P.E., Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Warehouse with Masonry Walls and Wood Roof, Los Angeles, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 93 93 94
ix
9.1.3 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 9.1.4 Seismic Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 9.1.5 Longitudinal Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 9.1.6 Transverse Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 9.1.7 Bond Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940 9.1.8 InPlane Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940 9.2 Fivestory Masonry Residential Buildings in Birmingham, Alabama; New York, New York; and Los Angeles, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 9.2.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 9.2.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944 9.2.3 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947 9.2.4 Seismic Design for Birmingham 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949 9.2.5 Seismic Design for New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965 9.2.6 Birmingham 2 Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977 9.2.7 Seismic Design for Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984 9.3.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996 9.3.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997 9.3.3 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9100 9.3.4 Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9126 9.3.5 OutofPlane Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9131 9.3.6 Orthogonal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 9.3.7 Anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 9.3.8 Diaphragm Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 10 WOOD DESIGN by Peter W. Somers, P.E. and Michael Valley, P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 10.1 Threestory Wood Apartment Building; Seattle, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 10.1.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 10.1.2 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 10.1.3 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 10.1.4 Basic Proportioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 10.2 Warehouse with Masonry Walls and Wood Roof, Los Angeles, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 10.2.1 Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 10.2.2 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045 10.2.3 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046 10.2.4 Basic Proportioning of Diaphragm Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047 11 SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES by Charles A. Kircher, P.E., Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 11.1 Background and Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 11.1.1 Types of Isolation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 11.1.2 Definition of Elements of an Isolated Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 11.1.3 Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 11.1.4 Effective Stiffness and Effective Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 11.2 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 11.3 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 11.3.1 Isolation System Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 11.3.2 Design Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 11.4 Dynamic Lateral Response Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 11.4.1 Minimum Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
x
11.4.2 Modeling Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3 Response Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.4 Time History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Emergency Operations Center Using Elastomeric Bearings, San Francisco, California . . . 11.5.1 System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.3 Seismic Force Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.4 Preliminary Design Based on the ELF Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.5 Design Verification Using Nonlinear Time History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.6 Design and Testing Criteria for Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1114 1116 1116 1117 1117 1120 1127 1129 1141 1145
12 NONBUILDING STRUCTURE DESIGN by Harold O. Sprague Jr., P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 12.1 Nonbuilding Structures Versus Nonstructural Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 12.1.1 Nonbuilding Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 12.1.2 Nonstructural Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 12.2 Pipe Rack, Oxford, Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 12.2.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 12.2.2 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 12.2.3 Design in the Transverse Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 12.2.4 Design in the Longitudinal Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 12.3 Steel Storage Rack, Oxford, Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211 12.3.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211 12.3.2 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1212 12.3.3 Design of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1212 12.4 Electric Generating Power Plant, Merna, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 12.4.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 12.4.2 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217 12.4.3 Design in the NorthSouth Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218 12.4.4 Design in the EastWest Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1219 12.5 Pier/Wharf Design, Long Beach, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1219 12.5.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1219 12.5.2 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220 12.5.3 Design of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1221 12.6 Tanks and Vessels, Everett, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1222 12.6.1 FlatBottom Water Storage Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223 12.6.2 Flatbottom Gasoline Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1226 12.7 Emergency Electric Power Substation Structure, Ashport, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1228 12.7.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229 12.7.2 Provisions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1230 12.7.3 Design of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1230 13 DESIGN FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS by Robert Bachman, P.E., and Richard Drake, P.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Development and Background of the Provisions for Nonstructural Components . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.1 Approach to Nonstructural Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.2 Force Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.3 Load Combinations and Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.4 Component Amplification Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
131 132 132 133 134 134
xi
13.1.5 Seismic Coefficient at Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 13.1.6 Relative Location Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 13.1.7 Component Response Modification Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 13.1.8 Component Importance Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 13.1.9 Accommodation of Seismic Relative Displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 13.1.10 Component Anchorage Factors and Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 13.1.11 Construction Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 13.2 Architectural Concrete Wall Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 13.2.1 Example Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 13.2.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 13.2.3 Spandrel Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1311 13.2.4 Column Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317 13.2.5 Additional Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1318 13.3 HVAC Fan Unit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319 13.3.1 Example Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319 13.3.2 Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320 13.3.3 Direct Attachment to Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1321 13.3.4 Support on Vibration Isolation Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1324 13.3.5 Additional Considerations for Support on Vibration Isolators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1329 13.4 Analysis of Piping Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330 13.4.1 ASME Code Allowable Stress Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330 13.4.2 Allowable Stress Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1332 13.4.3 Application of the Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333 Appendix A THE BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1
LIST OF CHARTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES Figure 1.21 Figure 1.22 Figure 1.23 Figure 1.24 Figure 1.25 Figure 1.26 Chart 2.1 Chart 2.2 Chart 2.3 Chart 2.4 Chart 2.5 Chart 2.6 Chart 2.7 Chart 2.8 Chart 2.9 Chart 2.10 Earthquake ground acceleration in epicentral regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Holiday Inn ground and building roof motion during the M6.4 1971 San Fernando earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Response spectrum of NorthSouth ground acceleration recorded at the Holiday Inn, approximately 5 miles from the causative fault in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake . 16 Averaged spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Force controlled resistance versus displacement controlled resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Initial yield load and failure load for a ductile portal frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Overall Summary of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Scope of Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Application to Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Equivalent Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 SoilStructure Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Modal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Response History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Seismically Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
xii
Chart 2.11 Chart 2.12 Chart 2.13 Chart 2.14 Chart 2.15 Chart 2.16 Chart 2.17 Chart 2.18 Chart 2.19 Chart 2.20 Chart 2.21 Chart 2.22 Chart 2.23 Table 21
Strength Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deformation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Detailing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concrete Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Precast Concrete Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composite Steel and Concrete Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masonry Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navigating Among the 2000 and 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions and ASCE 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226
Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Figure 3.14 Table 3.13 Figure 3.15 Figure 3.16 Table 3.14 Figure 3.17 Table 3.15 Table 3.16 Table 3.17 Table 3.18 Table 3.19 Table 3.110 Table 3.111 Figure 3.18 Table 3.112 Figure 3.19 Figure 3.110 Table 3.113 Table 3.114 Table 3.115 Table 3.116 Table 3.117 Table 3.118 Table 3.119 Figure 3.112 Figure 3.113 Table 3.120
Various floor plans of 12story Stockton building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sections through Stockton building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Threedimensional wireframe model of Stockton building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Area Masses on Floor Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Line Masses on Floor Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Key Diagram for Computation of Floor Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Floor Mass, Mass Moment of Inertia, and Center Mass Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Computed ELF total acceleration response system spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 Computed ELF relative displacement response spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responses in X and Y Directions . . . . . . . . . 314 Amplification of accidental torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in X Direction . . . . . 316 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in Y Direction . . . . . 316 ELF Drift for Building Responding in X Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 ELF Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 Rayleigh Analysis for XDirection Period of Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Rayleigh Analysis for YDirection Period of Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Computation of Pdelta Effects for XDirection Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Basic load causes used in ELF analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Seismic and Gravity Load Combinations as Run on SAP 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using ELF analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Mode shapes as computed using SAP2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Computed Periods and Directions Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Response Structure Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Story Shears from ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Response Spectrum Drift for Building Responding in X Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Spectrum Response Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Computation of Pdelta Effects for XDirection Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Load combinations from responsespectrum analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using responsespectrum analysis . . . . 336 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
xiii
Figure 3.114 Figure 3.115 Table 3.121 Table 3.122 Table 3.123 Table 3.124 Table 3.125 Figure 3.116 Figure 3.117 Table 3.126 Table 3.127 Table 3.128 Figure 3.21 Figure 3.22 Table 3.21 Table 3.22 Figure 3.23 Table 3.23 Figure 3.24 Table 3.24 Table 3.25 Table 3.26 Figure 3.25 Table 3.27 Figure 3.26 Figure 3.27 Figure 3.28 Figure 3.29 Figure 3.210 Figure 3.211 Figure 3.212 Figure 3.213 Figure 3.414 Table 3.88 Figure 3.215 Figure 3.216 Figure 3.217 Figure 3.218 Table 3.29 Figure 3.219 Figure 3.220 Figure 3.221 Table 3.210 Figure 3.222 Figure 3.223 Figure 3.224 Figure 3.225 Figure 3.226
Unscaled SRSS of spectra of ground motion pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratio average scaled SRSS spectrum to Provisions spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TimeHistory Drift for Building Responding in X Direction to Motion . . . . . . . . . . . Scaled Inertial Force and Story Shear Envelopes from Analysis A00X . . . . . . . . . . . Computation of Pdelta Effects for XDirection Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combinations 1 and 2, beam shears (kips) as computed using timehistory analysis . All combinations, beam shears (kips) as computed using time history analysis . . . . . Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Story Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Story Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Beam Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of structural system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elevation of structural system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Sizes Used in NS Moment Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gravity Loads on Seattle Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Element loads used in analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equivalent Lateral Forces for Seattle Building Responding in NS Directions . . . . . . Simple wire frame model used for preliminary analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Preliminary Analysis Using Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Preliminary Analysis Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Periods of Vibration From Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demandtocapacity ratios for elements from analysis with Pdelta effects included . Lateral Strength on Basis of RigidPlastic Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic mechanism for computing lateral strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detailed analytical model of 6story frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model of girder and panel zone region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A compound node and attached spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Krawinkler beamcolumn joint model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column flange component of panel zone resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column web component of panel zone resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forcedeformation behavior of panel zone region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transforming shear deformation to rotational deformation in the Krawinkler model . Properties for the Krawinkler BeamColumn Joint Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumed stressstrain curve for modeling girders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment curvature diagram for W27x94 girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing momentdeflection diagrams for a typical girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of equations for deflection of momentdeflection curves . . . . . . . . . . . Girder Properties as Modeled in DRAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Momentdeflection curve for W27x94 girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of plastic hinge properties for the W27x97 girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yield surface used for modeling columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two base shear components of pushover response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response of strong panel model to three load pattern, excluding Pdelta effects . . . . Response of strong panel model to three loading patters, including Pdelta effects . . Response of strong panel model to ML loads, with and without Pdelta effects . . . . . Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads, with and without
338 339 340 340 342 342 342 343 344 345 346 347 352 353 353 353 356 358 360 362 362 362 363 365 366 367 367 368 369 371 372 373 374 375 378 379 380 382 384 385 386 387 389 390 391 392 392
xiv
Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: SP model under ML load, including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Table 3.211 Strength Comparisons: Pushover vs. Rigid Plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 Figure 3.228 Weak panel zone model under ML load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Figure 3.229 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model, excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Figure 3.230 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model, including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Figure 3.231 Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads, strong versus weak panels, including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Figure 3.232 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: weak panel zone model under ML load, including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 Table 3.212 Modal Properties and Expected Inelastic Displacements for the Strong and Weak Panel Models Subjected to the Modal Load Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . 3100 Figure 3.233 A simple capacity spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3102 Figure 3.234 A simple demand spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3102 Figure 3.235 Capacity and demand spectra plotted together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3103 Figure 3.236 Capacity spectrum showing control points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3104 Table 3.213 Damping Modification Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3105 Figure 3.237 Damping modification factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3106 Figure 3.238 Capacity spectrum used in iterative solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3107 Table 3.214 Results of Iteration for Maximum Expected Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3109 Table 3.215 Points on Capacity Spectrum Corresponding to Chosen Damping Values . . . . . . . . 3110 Figure 3.239 Capacity spectrum with equivalent viscous damping points and secant stiffnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3111 Figure 3.240 Demand spectra for several equivalent viscous damping values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3112 Figure 3.241 Capacity and demand spectra on single plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3113 Figure 3.242 Closeup view of portion of capacity and demand spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3114 Table 3.216 Summary of Results from Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3115 Table 3.217 Structural Frequencies and Damping Factors Used in TimeHistory Analysis . . . . . 3117 Table 3.218 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3118 Figure 3.243 Time histories and response spectra for Record A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3119 Figure 3.244 Time histories and response for Record B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3120 Figure 3.245 Time histories and response spectra for Record C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3121 Figure 3.246 Ground motion scaling parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3123 Table 3.219 Maximum Base Shear in Frame Analyzed with 5 Percent Damping, Strong Panels, Excluding Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3124 Table 3.220 Maximum Story Drifts from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 Percent Damping, Strong Panels, Excluding Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3124 Table 3.221 Maximum Base Shear in Frame analyzed with 5 Percent Damping, Strong Panels, Excluding Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3124 Table 3.222 Maximum Story Drifts from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 Percent Damping, Strong Panels, Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3125 Figure 3.247 Time history of roof and firststory displacement, ground Motion A00, excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3126 Figure 3.248 Time history of total base shear, Ground Motion A00, excluding Pdelta effects . . . 3126 Figure 3.249 Energy time history, Ground Motion A00, excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3127 Figure 3.227
xv
. . Ground motion A00. . . . . . . . 3132 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . .11 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3138 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . .263 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . .224 Table 3. 3129 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion B00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . including Pdelta effects . . . . .270 Figure 3.223 Figure 3. . with and without Pdelta effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257 Figure 3. . . . . . . .253 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Table 4. . . . . . . . 3130 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . Geotechnical Parameters . . 3134 Timehistory of roof displacement. . . . .271 Figure 3. . Ground Motion C00. . . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground motion B00. . . . . Critical sections for isolated footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3129 Energy time history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3141 Base shear time histories obtained from column forces . . . . . 3133 Time history of total base shear.260 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion B00. . . . . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strong Panels. 3128 Energy time history. . . . . 3140 Response of structure with discrete dampers and with equivalent viscous damping . . . . . . . 3133 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3131 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3141 Base shear time histories as obtained from inertial forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3143 Typical framing plan . . . . . Ground Motion B00. . . . . . . . . . .Figure 3. . .258 Figure 3. . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3138 Maximum Story Drifts (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3128 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . Soil pressure distributions . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) from TimeHistory Analysis Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 Figure 3. . Ground Motion A00. . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . 3136 Summary of All Analyses for Strong Panel Structure. . . . . . .12 Figure 4. . . . . . . 3127 Time history of total base shear. . excluding Pdelta effects . . . 3137 Comparison of inertial force patterns . . . . .251 Figure 3. . . 3132 Energy time history. . . 3135 Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strong Panels.225 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . .252 Figure 3. . . 135 with and without Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3131 Energy time history. . . . . . . . 44 45 47 47 xvi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . .262 Figure 3. . .264 Figure 3. . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272 Figure 3. . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . .267 Table 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . 3139 Modeling a simple damper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3134 Energy time history. . . .254 Figure 3. . . . . . . . 3135 Time history of base shear. . . . .273 Figure 4. . . . . . . .256 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . .261 Figure 3. . . . . .266 Figure 3. . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion B00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3142 Energy timehistory for structure with discrete added damping . .13 Time history of roof and first story displacement . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . .268 Table 3. . . . . . . . 3130 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . . . . . .255 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 4.25 Figure 4. . .22 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 4. 410 411 412 412 416 416 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 430 431 434 435 435 435 436 436 438 439 441 442 442 443 444 445 447 Framing elevation and sections . . . . . . .12 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Figure 4. . . . Foundation plan for gravityloadresisting system . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Footing Design for Gravity Loads . . . . . . .112 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Envelope of mat foundation flexural demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 ELF Analysis in NS Direction . . . . . . . . .11 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile – head displacement versus applied lateral load . . . .216 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Moment diagram for seismic load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation tie section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 xvii . . . . . .15 Figure 5. . . .13 Table 5. . . PM interaction diagram for Site Class C . . . . 516 Gable frame schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Foundation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 Design response spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 4. . . . . . . . .15 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 5. . . . . .210 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – moment versus depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 Moments in Gable Frame Members . . . . . Summary of Pile Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – applied lateral load versus head moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Table 4.13 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Material Quantities and Cost Comparison . . . . Pile Lengths Required for Axial Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation plan for concentrically braced frame system . . . . . . . . . . .113 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile detailing for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 4. 55 ELF Vertical Distribution for NS Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 4. . . .14 Figure 4. . . . .14 Figure 4. . . . . .11 Figure 5. . . . . . .Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM interaction diagram for Site Class E . . . . . . . . . . .215 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 4. . . . 512 Design Response Spectra . Results of pile analysis – displacement versus depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Axial Forces in Gable Frames Members . . . . Foundation plan for momentresisting frame system . Calculated group effect factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . .110 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figure 4. Schematic model of deep foundation system . . . Mat Foundation Section Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demands for MomentResisting Frame System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile cap free body diagram curves . . . Representative py curves . . . . . Framing plan for moment resisting frame system . .213 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . Framing plan for concentrically braced frame system . . . 54 Roof framing and mezzanine framing plan . Critical sections for shear and envelope of mat foundation shear demands . . . . . . . . . . . Pile detailing for Site Class E . . . . .23 Table 4. . . . . . Length. . Soil Pressures for controlling bidirectional case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 4.14 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – sheer versus depth . . Gravity and Seismic Demands . Section of mat foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Longitudinal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 4. . . Mat foundation flexural reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passive pressure mobilization curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 4. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WUFW weld detail . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 5. . . . . . Alternative A (Moment Frame) Story Drifts under Seismic Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section on Grid F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative B Amplification of Accidental Torison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whitmore section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 5. . . . .34 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . Alternative C Story Drifts under Seismic Load . . . . . . .24 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 519 520 524 526 528 530 531 531 535 541 541 542 544 545 545 546 547 548 548 549 549 550 554 554 555 556 557 559 559 561 562 563 564 565 568 569 570 571 572 572 573 575 576 577 579 579 585 xviii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free body diagram bounded by plastic hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NSdirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Table 5. . .16 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . .212 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SMRF frame in NS direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral force component in braces for NS direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Table 5. . . Bracetobrace connection . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical eccentric braced frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arrangement at knee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame in NS direction . Mezzanine framing . . . .211 Figure 5. . . . .210 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of AISC Seismic vs. . . .23 Figure 5.31 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame of dual system in NS direction . . . . .216 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . End plate connection at ridge .28 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative A Torsional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framing plan for special moment frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative B Story Drifts under Seismic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forces at beam/column connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Comparison of Standards . . . . . Summary of Critical Member Design Forces . . Main floor framing plan . . . . . . .29 Figure 5. Moment frame of dual system in NS direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 5.223 Table 5. . . . . . . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . Projection of expected moment strength of beam . . . . . . .18 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Bolted stiffened connection at knee . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 Figure 5. . . . . . . .28 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEMA 350 Methods for panel zone shear . . . . . . Alternative C Amplification of Accidental Torsion . . . . . . ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for FiveBay Frame . . .215 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Story height and clear height . . . . . . . . . . . . . Link and upper brace connection . . . . Concentrically braced frame elevations . . . . . . . . Braced Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column shears for EW direction . . . . ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for SevenBay Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SMRF frame in EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative A. . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . Braced frame of dual system in EWdirection . . . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . Shear force in roof deck diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment frame of dual system in EW direction . . . . .225 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Figure 5. . . . . . . . Diagram of eccentric braced bream . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Figure 5. . . Bracing connection detail . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 Figure 5.21 Figure 5. . . . . . . . .224 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . Typical floor framing plan and building section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual System Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approximate effect of accidental of torsion . .24 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative B. . . Column shears for NS direction . . . .24 Table 5. . . . .Table 5. . . . . . . . .110 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Second level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WUFW connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame in EW direction . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overstrength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 25 percent story shears. . . . . . . 613 Comparison of Approximate and “Exact” Periods . . . . . . . . . . . Seismic Shears Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Drift profile for the Honolulu building . . . . . . . . . . 635 25 percent story shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 Story forces in the EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 Story shears in the EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 Development length for top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frame 2 EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 typical elevations of the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 Layout for beam reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masses. . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 Periods and Modal Response Characteristics for the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Computing joint shear stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength for Beams in Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 Drift profile for Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . 627 Pdelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Shears forces for transverse reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Story Weights. . . . . . . . . . 613 Periods and Modal Response for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640 Preliminary rebar layout for Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . 646 Loading for determination of rebar cutoffs .000 psi LW Concrete . . . . 650 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Honolulu building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Vertical Distribution of NS Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . . . . . and Deflection Amplification Coefficients for Structural Systems Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 25 percent story shears. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . .36 Figure 61 Figure 62 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67a Table 67b Table 68 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65 Table 69a Table 69b Table 610a Table 610b Figure 66 Table 611a Table 611b Table 612a Table 612b Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 610 Figure 611 Figure 612 Figure 613 Table 613 Figure 614 Figure 615 Table 614 Figure 616 Figure 617 Figure 618 Figure 619 Figure 620 Figure 621 Table 615 Figure 622 Lower brace connections . . . 638 Bending moments Frame 1 . . . . 63 Response Modification. . . . . . . . . Frame 1 EW direction . . . . . . . 633 Story overturning moments in the EW direction . . . . 616 Vertical Distribution of EW Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Pdelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . 616 Vertical Distribution of NS and EW Seismic Forces for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 Diagram for computing column shears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Typical floor plan of the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 Free body diagrams . . . . . . . Frame 3 EW direction . . . . . . . 626 Pdelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 Final bar arrangement . . . . . . . 625 Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . 652 xix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Moments of Inertia . . . . . 621 Pdelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 Comparison of Periods. and Base Shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 Tension Development Length Requirements for Hooked Bars and Straight Bars in 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.11 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Birmingham 1 Fpx Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 7. Computation of column shears for use in joint . . . . . . . . . . 715 Interior joint reinforcement at the ends of plank and the collector reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 7. . Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . Column detail . . . . . Wind vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of Structural Wall for Shear . . . . . . . . Design forces and detailing of haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design interaction diagram for column on Gridline A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Shear Wall Overstrength . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Forces for Structural Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Details of structural wall boundary element . . . . Interaction diagram for structural wall . . .14 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout and loads on column of Frame A .2 . . . . . . . . . . 717 Joint 2 transverse wall joint reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 623 Figure 624 Figure 625 Figure 626 Figure 627 Figure 628 Table 616 Figure 629 Figure 630 Figure 631 Figure 632 Figure 633 Table 617 Table 618 Figure 634 Figure 635 Figure 636 Figure 637 Figure 638 Figure 639 Figure 640 Figure 641 Figure 642 Figure 643 Figure 644 Figure 645 Figure 646 Figure 647 Figure 648 Figure 649 Figure 650 Table 7. . . . . .2 . . . . 711 Diagram plan and critical design regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seismic shears in exterior bay of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear force envelope for haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary reinforcement layout for Level 5 of Frame 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear strength envelopes for Span AB of Frame 1 . . . . . Interaction diagram for column . 712 Joint 3 chord reinforcement at the exterior edge . . . . . Column loading . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Details for Column A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Diagram force distribution and analytical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Table 7. . . . . .17 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading for Column A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of Shear Reinforcement for Haunched Girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 Diaphragm plan and section cuts . . . . . Frame 3 . Details of reinforcement for column . Variation of neutral axis depth with compressive force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bending moment envelopes at Level 5 of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . and reinforcement for haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall details of structural wall . 725 Boundary member and chord and collector reinforcement . . .19 Figure 7. 653 655 656 658 659 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 673 674 675 676 679 681 682 683 686 687 689 691 692 695 697 698 699 Design Parameters from Example 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 Anchorage region of shear reinforcement and collector reinforcement . . . . . . Interaction diagram and column design forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . moments. . . . . . . 721 Design Parameters form Sec. . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Joint 4 exterior longitudinal walls to diaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage 720 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . . . . . . . 722 Fpx Calculations from Sec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computing joint shear force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With loading requirements from ASCE 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . Computing shear in haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction diagram for Column A . . Frame 3 . . . .13 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolated view of Column A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Detailed shear force envelope in Span BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.32 Figure 7. . 821 Story Drift (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Building side elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Design Parameters . 728 Threestory building plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 Freebody of the angle and the fillet weld connecting the embedded plates in the DT and the footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2D + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Figure 7.23 Figure 7. . . . 822 Maximum Connection Moments and Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Figure 7. 726 Walltowall diaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . . . . . . . . 741 Shear connection at base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Building and elevation . 736 Freebody diaphragm for longitudinal walls . . for W10x77 . . . . . . . . . . . . .310 Figure 81 Figure 82 Figure 83 Figure 84 Table 81 Figure 85 Figure 86 Table 82 Figure 87 Figure 88 Figure 810 Figure 811 Figure 812 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Figure 813 Figure 814 Figure 815 Collector reinforcement at the end of the interior longitudinal walls . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762 Section at the connection of the precast/prestressed shear wall panel and the footing 764 Details of the embedded plate in the DT at the base . . . . . . . . 727 Exterior longitudinal walltodiaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage . . . . . . . . . . 739 Overturning connection detail at the base of the walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Illustration of input for load combination for 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Mθ Curve for W18x35 connection with 6#5 . . . . . . 755 Cross section of the DT drypacked at the footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 7. . . . . . . 84 Typical composite connection . . . top view. . . . . . . . . 818 elevation of typical connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 Cross section of one DT leg showing the location of the bonded prestressing tendons or strand . . . . . 735 Forces on the transverse walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 7. . . . . . .113 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 Detail at column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826 xxi . .2DSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . .0QE + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 Sketch of connection of nonloadbearing DT wall panel at the roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 Moment diagram for typical beam . . .Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Design Parameters . . 826 Detail at building corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0QE 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Analysis of seatangle for tension . . . . . . . . 760 Freebody of angle with welds. . . . . . . . . . . . 811 Partially Restrained Composite Connection Design . . . . . . . . . 766 Sketch of connection of loadbearing DT wall panel at the roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 Mθ Curve for W21x44 connection with 8#5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 Shear connections on each side of the wall at the second and third floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5L + 1. . . . . . . . . .) and Pdelta Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9D + 1. . .111 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2SDSD . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . 750 Freebody diagram of a panel in the longitudinal direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 7.36 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . 731 Forces on the longitudinal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 Singlestory industrial warehouse building plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 Freebody diaphragm of the transverse walls . 825 Detail at spandrel . . . . .21 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 7. . . . . . 820 Illustration of input for load combination for 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . showing only shear forces and resisting moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . .311 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Column Strength Check. . 767 Typical floor plan . . . . . . . . .37 Figure 7. . . . . . . .35 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . 754 Freebody diagram of a panel in the transverse direction . . . . . . . .25 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 928 Cracked moment of inertia for end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957 ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . 954 Strength of Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933 Inplane seismic strength of pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 End wall elevation . . . . . 945 Birmingham 1 Seismic Forces and moments by Level . . . . . . 937 Inplane shear on end wall and pier . . . . . .Figure 816 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931 Input loads for inplane and end wall analysis .14 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 966 New York City Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . 943 Plan of walls . 964 New York City Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure 9. . . 917 Cracked moment of inertia (Icr) for 8in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 Table 9.27 Table 9. . . . .122 Table 9. .wide pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961 Birmingham 1 Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 Outofplane load diagram and resultant of lateral loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 Inplane ductility check for side walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 9. 972 xxii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .thick CMU walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Table 9. .27 Table 9. . . . 94 Comparison of Em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . 914 Comparison of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Figure 9. . . . . . . . .25 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 9. . . . . 944 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . .thick CMU wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912 Investigation ofoutplane ductility for the 8in. . . . . 942 Building elevation . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham 1 . . . . . . . 911 Trial design for 8in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 Force transfer from deck to column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wide pier . . .119 Figure 9.thick CMU side walls . . .18 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 9. . 941 Typical floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969 Demands for New York City Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923 Combined Loads for Shear in Side Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 Figure 9.23 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963 Deflections. . . . . . . . . .thick CMU side wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 Roof plan . .115 Figure 9. . . .13 Figure 9. . . . . . . .123 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . 951 Location of moments due to story shears . . . . . . . .29 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . 963 Shear wall deflections .24 Figure 9. . . . . . . . .15 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . 969 Strength of New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927 Investigation for outofplane ductility for end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 Shear Strength Calculations for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 Ductility check for Birmingham 1 Wall D . 917 Outofplane strength for 8in. . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fx . . 954 Demands for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . .26 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 932 Inplane design condition for 8ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 Trial design for piers on end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 Outofplane seismic strength of pier on end wall .23 Table 9.114 Figure 9. . . . . 932 Inplane ductility check for 8ft. . . .22 Figure 9.116 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915 Basis for interpolation of modulus of rupture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 Inplane loads on end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . 938 Combined Loads for Shear in End Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940 Inplane deflection of end wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 Inplane ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for pier . . . . 922 Grout cells solid within 10 ft of each end of side walls . . . . . . . . . . .120 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937 Combined Loads for Flexure in End Pier . .
. . . . . . . 9127 Deflection for ELF Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981 Shear Strength Calculations for Wall D. .217 Table 9. . . . . . . .211 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Table 9. . . . 995 Floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 9. . . 9111 Strength of Wall D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9103 Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 Los Angeles Load Combinations for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 10. . . 998 Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 Table 9. . . . . . .14 Ductility check for New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . 989 ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for Los Angeles Wall D . . . . . . . . . Mass Particiaptions Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load path and shear walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 992 Los Angeles Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . . . .35 Figure 9. .310 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . 974 New York City Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . .313 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976 Birmington 2 Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 . . . . . . . . 9118 Strength of Wall D at Level 7 . . . 991 Ductility check for Los Angeles Wall D . . . . . . Foundation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Table 9. . . . . . .312 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Table 9. .37 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 982 Typical wall section fro the Los Angeles location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass Participation Factors. . . . . . . . . . .36 Table 9. . .210 Table 9.220 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996 Elevation . . . .37 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9134 Typical floor plan . . . . . . .12 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 Variation in Reinforcement and Grout by Location . .34 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . 975 New York City Deflections . . . . . . . . . Longitudinal section and elevation . . . . . . . . . 9116 Bulb reinforcement at upper levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9110 Bulb reinforcement at lower levels . .32 Table 9. . . . . . .31 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9130 Floor anchorage to wall . . . . 104 104 105 107 xxiii . . . . . . . 9132 Shears and moments for diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986 Los Angeles Shear Strength Calculations for Wall D . . .215 Table 9. . . .311 Figure 9. . . 9119 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for Level 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 9. . . 982 Birmingham 2 Demands for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 9. . . . . . . . . .219 Figure 9. . . .312 Figure 9. . 9123 Shear Strength for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980 Birmingham Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Figure 9. . .213 Figure 9. . . . 9115 Ductility check for Wall D. . Mass Participation Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9112 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for Level 1 . . . . . . 9122 Ductility check for Wall D. . .36 Figure 9. . . . . . 993 Los Angeles Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 Diaphragm Seismic Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9125 Cracked Wall Determination . . Level 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9109 Load Combinations for Wall D . . 985 Los Angeles Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9129 Displacements from Modal Analysis . . . . . 9104 Relative Rigidities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Table 9. .311 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . .214 Figure 9. 9108 Periods. . . . . . 9107 Shear for Wall D . . . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . .212 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979 Birmingham 2 Seismic Forces and Moments by Level .33 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Figure 9. . . . . . . . 9106 Wall dimensions . . . . 988 Los Angeles: Strength of wall D . . . . 997 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass Participations Ratios. . . . . . . .13 Figure 10. . . . . . .
.28 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fastener slip equations .210 Figure10.16b Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diaphragm at roof opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Acceptable Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Isolation system displacement and shear force as function of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transverse wall: overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . maximum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 10.42 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Force distribution for flexural deflections . . . . . . .33 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross tie plan layout and subdiaphragm freebody diagram for side walls . . . . . Wall Deflection (per story) Due to Bending and Anchorage Slip . . . Forces. . . . .51 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure10.21 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Figure10. . . Cross tie plan layout and subdiaphragm freebody diagram for end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bearing wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Elastic Deflection and Drift of End Wall .32 Figure 11.41 Figure 11. .110 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . Seismic Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . .12 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Table 10. Transverse section: end wall . . . . . . .14 Table 10. . .13 Figure 10. . . . . . . . 1114 Moments due to horizontal shear and Pdelta effects . . . . . 1113 Summary of Minimum Design Criteria for Dynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . 1119 xxiv . Diaphragm framing and nailing layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord tie at roof opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Typical floor framing plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord forces and Element 1 freebody diagram . .116 Figure 10. . .115 Figure10. . . . . . . .53 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16a Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure10. . . . Perforated shear wall detail at floor framing . . . . .21 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anchorage of masonry wall perpendicular to joists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Deflection and Drift (Structural I Plywood Shear Walls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjustment for nonuniform nail spacing . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Longitudinal bracing elevation . . . . . . . . . .113 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Figure10. . . . . 1118 Penthouse roof framing plan . . .41 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roof Diaphragm Framing and Nailing Requirements . . . . . . . .17 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diaphragm chord splice . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Vertical shear distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . Building plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freebody diagram for Element 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Figure10. . . Total Deflection and Drift . . . . . . Plywood layout . . . . . 1116 Threedimensional model of the structural system . 1011 1012 1018 1020 1021 1021 1022 1022 1025 1028 1029 1029 1030 1032 1036 1036 1037 1039 1043 1043 1044 1049 1049 1050 1051 1052 1054 1055 1056 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 Isolation system terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 10. Anchorage of masonry wall parallel to joists . . . . . . . .25 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Effective stiffness and effective damping . . Perforated shear wall at exterior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonbearing wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear wall tie down at suspended floor framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 10. . . .24 Figure 10. . . . . Pdelta Stability Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord splice detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 10. 1115 Bilinear idealization of isolator unit behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Isolation system capacity and earthquake demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation wall detail . . and total maximum displacement . . Perforated shear wall detail at foundation . . . . . . .
. . . . . Shears and Overturning Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stiffness and damping properties of EOC isolator units . . . . . . . . .513 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 13.32 Figure 13. . Maximum Downward Force on Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earthquake Time History Records and Scaling Factors .511 Table 11. Maximum Uplift Displacement (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .510 Table 11. . .512 Figure11. . . . . . .31 Figure 13. . Typical detail of the isolation system at columns . . . . . . . . . . .514 Table 11. . . .53 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elevation of framing on Column Line 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Distribution of Reduced Design Earthquake Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elevation of framing on Column Line B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolator dimensions . . . . . . . . . . .511 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . Maximum Downward Force (kips) on Isolator Units . . . .) Of Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . Gravity Loads on Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514 Table 121 Figure 121 Figure 122 Figure 123 Table 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1311 Spandrel panel moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Table 11. . . . . . .51 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317 Air handling fan unit . . . . 1314 Spandrel panel connections forces . . . . Comparison of modeled isolator properties to test data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . 122 Combustion turbine building . . . . 1119 1121 1123 1124 1125 1132 1132 1133 1133 1134 1134 1135 1136 1136 1138 1139 1142 1143 1144 1144 1145 1145 1146 1147 Applicability of the Chapters of the Provisions . . . . 139 Spandrel panel connection payout from interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Figures11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 Pier plan and elevation . . . . . . .34 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . First floor framing plan . . . . . . . . .59 Figure11. . .26 Figure 13. .56 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .513 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Figure 11. . . . . . .512 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 13. 1327 Lateral restraint required to resist seismic forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Distribution of Unreduced DE and MCE Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320 Freebody diagram for seismic force analysis . . . . . . . . Maximum Downward Force for Isolator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .510 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . .54 Table 11. . . . . . 1214 Boiler building . . 1322 Anchor for direct attachment to structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Key Design Parameters . . .55 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211 Seismic Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229 Fivestory building evaluation showing panel location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Steel storage rack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Considered Earthquake Response Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 13. . . . . . . .57 Table 11. . 1325 Anchor and snubber loads for support on vibration isolation springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Table 11. . . . . . . 1220 Storage tank section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 124 Figure 125 Figure 126 Figure 127 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of design earthquake spectra .35 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum Downward Force for Isolator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Detailed building elevation . . . . . . . . 123 Pipe rack . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1329 xxv . . . . . . . . . . .36 Transverse bracing elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Earthquake Response Parameters . . . . . . . Prototype Test Requirements . . . 1323 ASHRAE diagonal seismic force analysis for vibration isolation springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example design spectra . . .23 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Uplift Displacement of Isolator Units . . . . . . .59 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316 Column cover connection layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223 Platform for elevated transformer . . . . .
Earthquake effects on structures systematically bring out the mistakes made in design and construction. Several points essential to an understanding of the theories and practices of earthquakeresistant design bear restating: 1. The levels of uncertainty are much greater than those encountered in the design of structures to resist other phenomena. In introducing their wellknown text. When appropriate. Ordinarily.. In a way. The details of construction are very important because flaws of no apparent consequence often will cause systematic and unacceptable damage simply because the earthquake loading is so severe and an extended range of behavior is permitted. Also. Otherwise.E. earthquake engineering is a cartoon. a large earthquake produces the most severe loading that a building is expected to survive. Note that through 2000. we must contend with appreciable probabilities that failure will occur in the near future. the definition of failure is altered to permit certain types of behavior and damage that are considered unacceptable in relation to the effects of other phenomena. 3. the NEHRP Recommended Provisions has been composed of two volumes of text and a separate set of maps. We must also face uncertainty on a large scale. . . Part 1 (referred to herein as the Provisions) contains the actual requirements and Part 2 (referred to herein as the Commentary) provides a discussion of various aspects of the requirements. and systems. [ ]. Annotations within brackets.D. members. even the minutest mistakes. important aspects of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures are mentioned and reference is made to particularly relevant portions of the document. P. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering. Ph. . . The probability that failure will occur is very real and is greater than for other loading phenomena.1 FUNDAMENTALS James Robert Harris. . Newmark and Rosenblueth (1971) comment: In dealing with earthquakes. This applies both to knowledge of the loading function and to the resistance properties of the materials. it is annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. While the general concepts of the changes are 11 . for it is our task to design engineering systems – about whose pertinent properties we know little – to resist future earthquakes and tidal waves – about whose characteristics we know even less. all the wealth of the world would prove insufficient to fill our needs: the most modest structures would be fortresses. in the case of earthquakes. . The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a very abbreviated discussion of fundamentals that reflect the concepts on which earthquakeresistant design are based. 2. Although the set of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions.
and seiches (longperiod sloshing) in lakes and inland seas can have similar effects along shorelines. Once again. Where related to the discussion in this chapter.1 EARTHQUAKE PHENOMENA According to the most widely held scientific belief. The amplitude of earthquake ground shaking diminishes with distance from the source. For example. the uncertainty (when considered as a fraction of the predicted level) about the hazard level is probably greater in areas where the mapped hazard is low than in areas where the mapped hazard is high. means that the uncertainty associated with earthquake loadings is higher in the central and eastern portions of the nation than in the West. large portions of a few metropolitan areas with the potential for significant ground shaking are susceptible to liquefaction. by the fact that the Provisions uses two sets of maps define the hazard of seismic ground shaking – one is pertinent for higher frequency motion (the SS maps) and the other for lower frequencies (the S1 maps). however. Earthquakes have many effects in addition to ground shaking. combined with the smaller amount of data about central and eastern earthquakes (because of their infrequency). The surface along which movement occurs is known as a fault. to an extent. called plates. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples described. and the rate of attenuation is less for lower frequencies of motion than for higher frequencies. (This commonly occurs in California earthquakes but apparently did not occur in the historic Charleston.FEMA 451. and gross settlement are the result of ground shaking on susceptible soil formations. most earthquakes occur when two segments of the earth’s crust suddenly move in relation to one another. There is evidence that extreme motions near the fault in certain types of large earthquakes 12 . design for such events is specialized. This is not to say. liquefaction.) Mass soil failures such as landslides. Longperiod sloshing of the liquid contents of tanks is addressed by the Provisions. South Carolina. earthquakes of the nineteenth century. seismic sea waves or tsunamis can cause very forceful flood waves in coastal regions. In the central and eastern United States. Designing structures to resist such hydrodynamic forces is a very specialized topic. earthquakes are not associated with such a plate boundary and their causes are not as completely understood. Lifelines that cross faults require special design beyond the scope of the Provisions. however. Even in the West. the North American continent and the Pacific basin. and it is this ground shaking that is the principal concern of structural engineering to resist earthquakes. they are associated with movements of and strains in large segments of the earth’s crust. The Commentary includes a method for prediction of susceptibility to liquefaction as well as general guidelines for locating potential fault rupture zones. the design examples and calculations in this book have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. However. The structural loads specified in the Provisions are based solely on ground shaking. The sudden movement releases strain energy and causes seismic waves to propagate through the crust surrounding the fault. These are outside the scope of the Provisions. that they should not be considered during site exploration and analysis. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. come together. they do not provide for ground failure. These waves cause the surface of the ground to shake violently. and it is common to locate structures so that mass soil failures and fault breakage are of no major consequence to their performance. 1. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Nearly all large earthquakes are tectonic in origin – that is. Abrupt ground displacements occur where a fault intersects the ground surface. and it is common to avoid constructing buildings and similar structures where such phenomena are likely to occur. This effect is captured. Missouri. This is the case with earthquakes in the far western portion of the United States where two very large plates. earthquake or the very large New Madrid. This factor. and virtually all such earthquakes occur at or near the boundaries of these plates. Modification of soil properties to protect against liquefaction is one important exception. For various reasons. the other effects generally are not major considerations in the design of buildings and similar structures.
their probabilistic basis. records of the acceleration at one point along one axis. Such data require very careful interpretation. 1. For most structures. the aboveground portion of a structure is not subjected to any applied force. the change from life safety to structural collapse prevention as the limit state will create significant changes in procedures for design analysis. The Commentary provides a more thorough discussion of the development of the maps. In particular. at this time. The increasing power and declining cost of computational aids are making such analyses more common but. the ground motions for use with present design procedures are simply taken as being twothirds of the MCE ground motions. Two basic data sources are used in establishing the likelihood of earthquake ground shaking. The stresses and strains within the superstructure are created entirely by its dynamic response to the movement of its base. But with earthquake ground shaking. 1. Fundamentals are not captured by the maps.21 shows accelerograms. As of the 1997 edition. or seismicity.2 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO GROUND SHAKING The first important difference between structural response to an earthquake and response to most other loadings is that the earthquake response is dynamic. it is not commonly done for ordinary structures. however. Even on the eastern seaboard. not static. some knowledge of the theory of vibrations of structures is essential. even the response to wind is essentially static. Given the infrequency of major earthquakes. and other related issues.1 Response Spectra Figure 1.Chapter 1. the basis became to “avoid structural collapse at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion. On the whole.” which was defined as having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50year reference period. Prior to its 1997 edition. Forces within the structure are due almost entirely to the pressure loading rather than the acceleration of the mass of the structure. Geological data have been developed for many locations as part of the nuclear power plant design process. for several representative earthquakes. In the present interim. but they are used widely to improve knowledge of seismicity. there are more geological data available for the far western United States than for other regions of the country. only a small minority of structures are analyzed for specific response to a specific ground motion. the ground. The first is the historical record of earthquake effects and the second is the geological record of earthquake effects. there is no place in the United States where the historical record is long enough to be used as a reliable basis for earthquake prediction – certainly not as reliable as with other phenomena such as wind and snow. In the long term. Both sets of data have been taken into account in the Provisions seismic hazard maps. Thus.” which is defined as having a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50year reference period. the historical record is too short to justify sole reliance on the historical record. Precise analysis of the elastic response of an ideal structure to such a pattern of ground motion is possible. the geological record is essential. Ground shaking.2. note the description of the newest generation of maps introduced in 1997 and their close relationship to the development of a new design criterion. at a given location. the necessarily crude lumping of parameters. Note the erratic nature of the ground shaking and the different characteristics of the different accelerograms. There are extended discussions of these issues in the appendices to the Commentary. 13 . the basis of the Provisions was to “provide life safety at the design earthquake motion. but interim adjustments to design requirements for such a possibility are included in the Provisions. Even though the most used design procedure resorts to the use of a concept called the equivalent static force for actual calculations. is known to vary considerably over small distances and the Provisions maps do not attempt to capture all such local variations (commonly called microzoning). however.
Part (b) shows the 14 . Part (a) shows the ground acceleration along with the ground velocity and ground displacement derived from it.21 Earthquake ground acceleration in epicentral regions (all accelerograms are plotted to the same scale for time and acceleration). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Northridge (Sylmar 360°) 1994 San Fernando (Pacoima Dam) 1971 Tabas 1978 Kern Taft 1952 El Centro 1940 Morgan Hill (Gilroy) 1984 Kobe 1995 Imperial 6 (Hudson) 1979 Northridge (Sylmar 90°) 1994 Loma Prieta (Oakland Wharf) 1989 San Fernando (Orion Blvd.22 shows further detail developed from an accelerogram.) 1971 Landers (Joshua Tree) 1992 North Palm Springs 1986 Mexico City 1985 Figure 1.FEMA 451. Great earthquakes extend for much longer periods of time. Figure 1.
250 Acceleration. Figure 1. and displacement and (b) northsouth roof acceleration. By recalculating the record of response versus time to a specific ground motion for a wide range of natural frequencies and for each of a set of common amounts of damping. cm\s 500 70 0 0 30 20 Displacement. s 30 40 (a) Ground acceleration.4 1971 San Fernando earthquake: (a) northsouth ground acceleration. 15 .22). cm\s\s Velocity. the family of response spectra for one ground motion may be determined. based on some normalization for different amplitudes of shaking.22(a) and illustrates that the erratic nature of ground shaking leads to a response that is very erratic in that a slight change in the natural period of vibration brings about a very large change in response. will lead to a smoother set of spectra. and displacement (b) Roof acceleration. The underlying theory is based entirely on the response of a singledegreeoffreedom oscillator such as a simple onestory frame with the mass concentrated at the roof.23 shows such a result for the ground motion of Figure 1. velocity. velocity. The first step in creating a design response spectrum is to determine the maximum response of a given structure to a specific ground motion (see Figure 1. Thus.22 Holiday Inn ground and building roof motion during the M6. Note that the peak values are larger in the diagrams of Figure 1. s 30 40 30 0 10 20 Time. computing response spectra for several different ground motions and then averaging them. was approximately 5 miles from the closest portion of the causative fault. It is simply the plot of the maximum value of response for each combination of frequency and damping. In design. Different earthquake ground motions lead to response spectra with peaks and valleys at different points with respect to the natural frequency. reinforced concrete frame building. and displacement Figure 1.22(b) (the vertical scales are different). velocity. The Holiday Inn. It depends very much on the vibrational characteristics of the structure and the characteristic frequencies of the ground shaking at the site. velocity.Chapter 1. Fundamentals acceleration. The recorded building motions enabled an analysis to be made of the stresses and strains in the structure during the earthquake. Note that the vertical scale of (b) is different from (a). cm 70 30 0 0 20 0 10 20 Time. This increase in response of the structure at the roof level over the motion of the ground itself is known as dynamic amplification. The vibrational characteristics of such a simple oscillator may be reduced to two: the natural frequency and the amount of damping. cm\s\s 500 Acceleration. velocity. cm 0 0 250 30 Velocity. the response of a specific structure to an earthquake is ordinarily predicted from a design response spectrum such as is specified in the Provisions. cm\s Displacement. a 7story. Such smoothed spectra are an important step in developing a design spectrum. and displacement for the same event at the roof of the building located where the ground motion was recorded. and displacement (Housner and Jennings 1982).
16 .23 Response spectrum of northsouth ground acceleration (0.23.02.20 of critical damping) recorded at the Holiday Inn. Figure 1. Figure 1.24 should be rotated about the line f = 1 to compare it with Figure 1.05. 0. 0. 0. Note that the horizontal axes of Figures 1. therefore. Cyclic frequency is the inverse of period.FEMA 451. or displacement may be obtained from Figure 1. Note that acceleration.10.24 are different. velocity.24 for a structure with known frequency (period) and damping.24 is an example of an averaged spectrum.23 and 1. 0.23 or 1. one being for the known frequency (period) while the other is for the cyclic frequency. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 1. approximately 5 miles from the causative fault in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (Housner and Jennings 1982).
Now the maps present spectral response accelerations at two periods of vibration. Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers. however. Few structures are so simple as to actually vibrate as a singledegreeoffreedom system. and Kapur 1973). Blume.0 percent of critical damping). The procedure involves dividing the total response into a number of natural modes. 17 . this procedure changed.Chapter 1. With the introduction of the MCE ground motions. The principles of dynamic modal analysis. if many specific conditions are met. and then estimating the maximum total response by statistically summing the responses of the individual modes.0 second. and design response spectra were created using expressions that amplified (or deamplified) the ground acceleration as a function of period and damping. horizontal components (2. the maps that characterized the ground shaking hazard were plotted in terms of peak ground acceleration. such as a multistory building. Mean and mean plus one standard deviation acceleration. and the design response spectrum is computed more directly. allow a reasonable approximation of the maximum response of a multidegreeoffreedom oscillator. The Provisions does not require consideration of all possible modes of vibration for most buildings because the contribution of the higher modes (higher frequencies) to the total response is relatively minor. This has removed a portion of the uncertainty in predicting response accelerations. determining the maximum response for each mode from a singledegreeoffreedom response spectrum. Fundamentals Figure 1. 0.2 and 1.24 Averaged spectrum (Newmark. Prior to the 1997 editions of the Provisions. modeling each mode as an equivalent singledegreeoffreedom oscillator.
on the structure’s response. Response spectra may be calculated for oscillators with different levels of ductility.25 illustrates the large amount of strain energy that may be stored by a ductile system in a displacementcontrolled event such as an earthquake. soft soils amplify the motion at the surface with respect to bedrock motions. 1.2. Figure 1. For structures with very high natural frequencies. while part (c) is characteristic of induced displacements such as foundation settlement or earthquake ground shaking. are not permitted to approach the elastic limit. The reason is economic. the acceleration response is reduced by a factor equivalent to the ductility ratio (the ratio of maximum usable displacement to effective yield displacement – note that this is displacement and not strain). due to yielding in the soil.0 g (the acceleration due to gravity) for a structure with moderately low damping – for only a moderately large earthquake! Even structures that are resisting lateral forces well will have a static lateral strength of only 20 to 40 percent of gravity. At the risk of gross oversimplification. The Commentary contains a thorough explanation of this feature. The principal extension beyond ordinary behavior referenced at the beginning of this chapter is that structures are permitted to strain beyond the elastic limit in responding to earthquake ground shaking.23 shows a peak acceleration response of about 1. but the displacement response is generally about the same for the ductile structure as for the elastic structure strong enough to respond without yielding. very different design response spectra are specified depending on the type of soil(s) beneath the structure. the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. the acceleration response of the ductile structure is essentially the same as that of the elastic structure. (The MCE ground motion maps are drawn for sites on rock. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The soil at a site has a significant effect on the characteristics of the ground motion and. Especially at low amplitudes of motion and at longer periods of vibration. therefore. the acceleration response is reduced. The figures should not be interpreted as a horizontal beam and a vertical column. The dynamic nature of earthquake ground shaking means that a large portion of the shaking energy can be dissipated by inelastic deformations if some damage to the structure is accepted. The degree to which a member or structure may deform beyond the elastic limit is referred to as ductility. part (b) of the figure is characteristic of the response to forces such as gravity weight or wind pressure. Thus. 3. Figure 1. This is dramatically different from the case of design for other types of loads in which stresses. Figure 1. The Provisions accounts for this effect by providing amplifiers that are to be applied to the 0. The two graphs are plotted with the independent variables on the horizontal axis and the dependent response on the vertical axis. Different materials and different arrangements of structural members lead to different ductilities. For intermediate frequencies (which applies to nearly all buildings). 18 .25(a) would represent a beam if the load W were small and a column if W were large.) Thus.2 and 1.0 second spectral accelerations for various classes of soils. The point being made with the figures is that ductile structures have the ability to resist displacements much larger than those that first cause yield. For structures with very low natural frequencies.FEMA 451. especially at shorter periods as the amplitude of basic ground motion increases.2 Inelastic Response The preceding discussion assumes elastic behavior of the structure. 2. and therefore strains. This amplification is diminished somewhat. but the displacement is increased.
but this is not the same as the classic definition used in mechanics of materials. the force producing the yield point stress is close to the force producing collapse. 19 . or system under a monotonically increasing load until failure can be very misleading.Chapter 1. the displacement can be increased 10 to 20 times the yield point displacement before the system collapses under the weight W. Yield must develop at four locations before the peak resistance is achieved. For a ductile element. stiffness. Earthquake ground motions involve a significant number of reversals and repetitions of the strains. the base moment (FR) increases until the yield point is reached. the displacement increases until the yield point stress is reached. As the displacement is increased. Note that a few key design standards (for example. The margin from the first yield to the peak strength is referred to as overstrength and it plays a significant role in resisting strong ground motion. Most structures are designed for seismic response using a linear elastic analysis with the strength of the structure limited by the strength at its critical location. Cycling the deformation can cause degradation of strength. the redistributions allowed therein are minor compared to what occurs in response to strong ground motion. In part (c) the displacement is the independent variable. member. Most structures possess enough complexity so that the peak strength of a ductile structure is not accurately captured by such an analysis. Figure 1.25 Force controlled resistance versus displacement controlled resistance (after Housner and Jennings 1982). This explains why ductile structures can survive ground shaking that produces displacements much greater than yield point displacement. Fundamentals W ∆ H ∆ ∆U H HU Force control HY Displacement control ∆Y HY HU /H Y y 1 HU H ∆Y ∆U ∆ U /∆ Y >> 1 ∆ (a) (c) (b) Figure 1. the oscillator is excited into vibrations by the ground motion and it behaves essentially as a displacementcontrolled system and can survive displacements much beyond the yield point. a plastic hinge forms giving large displacements. As the displacement increases still more. In part (b) the force H is the independent variable. Inelastic response is quite complex.) During an earthquake. This property is often referred to as toughness. observation of the inelastic properties of a material. however. ACI 318 for the design of concrete structures) do allow for some redistribution of internal forces from the critical locations based upon ductility. Therefore.26 shows the load versus displacement relation for a simple frame. or both. As H is increased. the base moment increases only a small amount. The ductility does not produce a large increase in load capacity. For this kind of system. this ductility is decreased dramatically. (As W increases. If H is given an additional increment (about 15 percent). Systems that have a proven capacity to maintain a stable resistance to a large number of cycles of inelastic deformation are allowed to exercise a greater portion of their ultimate ductility in designing for earthquake resistance.
Damping.FEMA 451. Computations of displacement based upon ground motion reduced by the factor R will underestimate the actual displacements. stability of resistance under repeated reversals of inelastic deformation. Sets of R. 1. and high damping combine to give timber 110 . or at least approximates. and overstrength. Much of this damping is caused by slip at the connections. Three coefficients – R.5 2 2. These structures also possess a much higher degree of damping than the damping that is assumed in developing the basic design spectrum. R is intended to be a conservatively low estimate of the reduction of acceleration response in a ductile system from that for an elastic oscillator with a certain level of damping. and overstrength depend primarily on the type of building system.2. ductility. It has some ductility in compression (generally monotonic). Conventional timber structures (plywood or board sheathing on wood framing) possess much more ductility than the basic material primarily because the nails and other steel connection devices yield and the wood compresses against the connector.3 Building Materials The following brief comments about building materials and systems are included as general guidelines only.5 5 (a) Structures (b) H . ductility. the natural period of vibration (the inverse of natural frequency). the characteristics important in determining a building’s seismic response are natural frequency. Ω0 is intended to deliver a reasonably high estimate of the peak force that would develop in the structure. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 HU HY 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 5 H 10 10 5 δ 4 3 2 1 0 0 0. the designer calculates. such as earthquake. not for specific application.1 Wood Timber structures nearly always resist earthquakes very well. ductility. The natural frequency is dependent on the mass and stiffness of the building.5 1 1.26 Initial yield load and failure load for a ductile portal frame. and overstrength. The margin from initial yield to failure (mechanism in this case) is known as overstrength. even though wood is a brittle material as far as tension and flexure are concerned. stability of resistance. but not the building’s size or shape. 1. damping.2. It is used to compute a required strength. Cd. To summarize.5 3 3.5 4 4. Cd is intended to be a reasonable mean for the amplification necessary to convert the elastic displacement response computed for the reduced ground motion to actual displacements. toughness. and Ω0 – are provided to encompass damping. Using the Provisions. connection ductility. The increased strength.3. and Ω0 are specified in the Provisions for the most common structural materials and systems.δ curve Figure 1. and its strength increases significantly for brief loadings. Cd.
Successful performance of such systems requires that the connections perform in a ductile manner. The Commentary and the commentary with the ACI 318 standard for design of structural concrete explain how controlling premature shear failures in members and joints. The moderatetolarge reduction from elastic response to design response allowed for steel structures is primarily a reflection of this ductility and the stability of the resistance of steel.g. but it can deliver successful performance. confinement of compression members) used with reinforced concrete to increase ductility and stability. This is confirmed by their generally good performance in earthquakes. if not impossible. 1. 1.2 Steel Steel is the most ductile of the common building materials. As a point of reference. but less is known about its inelastic response characteristics. Providing stability of the resistance to reversed inelastic strains. to take some of the steps (e.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Reinforced concrete achieves ductility through careful limits on steel in tension and concrete in compression.3. Other defects. and very little reduction from the elastic response is permitted. Members subject to buckling (such as bracing) and connections subject to brittle fracture (such as partial penetration welds under tension) are much less ductile and are addressed in the Provisions in various ways. will not do so. concrete compression failures (through confinement with transverse reinforcement). however.2.2. 1. such as stress concentrations and flaws in welds. the sequence of plastification. The connections between pieces of precast concrete commonly are not as strong as the members being connected. The basic and applied research program that grew out of that demonstration has greatly increased knowledge of how to avoid low ductility details in steel construction. however. Reinforced concrete beams with common proportions can possess ductility under monotonic loading even greater than common steel beams.3. Fundamentals structures a large reduction from elastic response to design level. The nature of the masonry construction. the most common wood 111 .Chapter 1. reinforced masonry behaves in a fashion similar to reinforced concrete. Clever arrangements of connections can create systems in which yielding under earthquake motions occurs away from the connections.2. there is a wide range of reduction factors from elastic response to design response depending on the detailing for stable and assured resistance. and other factors lead to larger reductions from the elastic response.5 Precast Concrete Precast concrete obviously can behave quite similarly to reinforced concrete. For certain types of members (such as pure cantilever shear walls). Thus.3.4 Masonry Masonry is a more diverse material than those mentioned above. Unreinforced masonry possesses little ductility or stability. except for rocking of masonry piers on a firm base. but it also can behave quite differently. however. Thus. the reduction factors for reinforced masonry are not quite as large as those for reinforced concrete. in which local buckling is usually a limiting factor. Further. the discrete differences between mortar and the masonry unit create additional failure phenomena.3. This requires some extra effort in design. makes it difficult. This large reduction should not be used if the strength of the structure is actually controlled by bending or tension of the gross timber cross sections. requires special detailing. 1. Some carefully detailed connections also can mimic the behavior of reinforced concrete. in which case the similarity to reinforced concrete is very real.. buckling of compression bars. also affect earthquake resistance as demonstrated in the Northridge earthquake. The large reduction in acceleration combined with the light weight timber structures make them very efficient with regard to earthquake ground shaking when they are properly connected. Many common connection schemes.
[The 2003 Provisions include proportioning and detailing rules for bucklingrestrained braced frames. such as unconfined concrete and the welded steel joint used before the Northridge earthquake.] 1. another is that axial compression generally reduces the flexural ductility of concrete and masonry elements (although small amounts of axial compression usually improve the performance of materials weak in tension.] Walls that are not load bearing are allowed a greater reduction than walls that are load bearing. Systems that combine different types of elements are generally allowed greater reductions from elastic response because of redundancy. ρ. some only for trial use and comment. 1. such as masonry and concrete). [In the 2003 Provisions.FEMA 451. Redundancy is one reason.2.6. Systems using connection details that have not exhibited good ductility and toughness. and buckling of compression members also limits their inelastic response. Connection details often make development of ductility difficult in braced frames. As with many new empirical measures. Redundancy is frequently cited as a desirable attribute for seismic resistance. In the context of the Provisions.0 and 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples seismic resisting systems perform well yet have connections (nails) that are significantly weaker than the connected elements (structural wood panels). 8. This new system has the advantages of a special steel concentrically braced frame. 1.6 Composite Steel and Concrete Reinforced concrete is a composite material.4 Building Systems Three basic lateralloadresisting elements – walls. are defined: 1. braced frames. A quantitative measure of redundance has been introduced in recent editions of the Provisions in an attempt to prevent use of large reductions from elastic response in structures that actually possess very little redundancy. Eccentrically braced steel frames and new proportioning and detailing rules for concentrically braced frames have been developed to overcome these shortcomings. Assignment of a value for ρ is based on explicit consideration of the consequence of failure of a single element of the seismicforceresisting system. having several different locations with approximately the same stress levels. The Provisions includes guidance.2. and unbraced frames (moment resisting frames) – are used to build a classification of structural types in the Provisions. composite is a term reserved for structures with elements consisting of structural steel and reinforced concrete acting in a composite manner. and common beamcolumn joints frequently exhibit an ability to maintain a stable response through many cycles of reversed inelastic deformations. A simple. a radical change was made to the requirements related to redundancy. it is not universally accepted and is likely to change in the future.3. for seismic design of precast structures. are penalized with small reduction factors. but with performance that is superior as brace buckling is prevented. Design provisions appear in 2003 Provisions Sec. deemedtocomply exception is provided for certain structures. In part.3 ENGINEERING PHILOSOPHY 112 . These structures generally are an attempt to combine the most beneficial aspects of each material. Only two values of the redundancy factor. Unbraced frames generally are allowed greater reductions from elastic response than walls and braced frames. this is because frames are more redundant.3.
stability. Thus. In the past. A third linear method. of the building. the Provisions stipulated adjustments to common reference standards for timber and masonry to arrive at a strength level equivalent to yield and compatible with the basis of the design spectrum. A combined classification called the Seismic Design Category (SDC) incorporates both the seismic hazard and the SUG. 1. Most of these adjustments were simple factors to be applied to conventional allowable stresses. Although strengthbased standards for both materials have been introduced in recent years. . due to any cause. methods have been introduced into model building codes and the ASCE standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures to factor downward the seismic load effects based on the Provisions for use with allowable stress design methods. . and a nonlinear method are also permitted. Yieldlevel strengths for steel and concrete structures are easily obtained from common design standards. The distortion criterion as a limit on story drift and is calculated by amplifying the linear response to the (reduced) design spectrum by the factor Cd to account for inelastic behavior. The basic structural criteria are strength. The SDC is used throughout the Provisions for decisions regarding the application of various specific requirements. a classification system is established based on the use and size of the building. . subject to certain limitations. under “Purpose. These methods use real or synthetic ground motion histories as input but require them to be scaled to the basic response spectrum at the site 113 . The yieldlevel strength provided must be at least that required by the design spectrum (which is reduced from the elastic spectrum as described previously). The two most fully constrained and frequently used are both linear methods: an equivalent static force procedure and a dynamic modal response spectrum analysis procedure. the engineering profession has not yet embraced these new methods. For most structures designed and constructed according to the Provisions. The flow charts in Chapter 2 illustrate how these classifications are used to control application of various portions of the Provisions. For ground motions larger than the design levels. This classification is called the Seismic Use Group (SUG). Analytical procedures are classified by two facets: linear versus nonlinear and dynamic versus equivalent static. structural damage from the design earthquake ground motion would be repairable although perhaps not economically so. The design earthquake ground motion level mentioned is twothirds of the MCE ground motion.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The Provisions sets forth several procedures for determining the force effect of ground shaking. The two points to be emphasized are that damage is to be expected when an earthquake (equivalent to the design earthquake) occurs and that the probability of collapse is not zero. With the deletion of these methods from the Provisions. The Provisions recognizes that the risk presented by a particular building is a combination of the seismic hazard at the site and the consequence of failure.” states: The design earthquake ground motion levels specified herein could result in both structural and nonstructural damage. For essential facilities. Fundamentals The Provisions. a full history of dynamic response (often referred to as a timehistory or responsehistory analysis).Chapter 1. The most common design standards for timber and masonry are based on allowable stress concepts that are not consistent with the basis of the reduced design spectrum. it is expected that the damage from the design earthquake ground motion would not be so severe as to preclude continued occupancy and function of the facility. the intent of the Provisions is that there be low likelihood of structural collapse. Structural elements that cannot be expected to perform in a ductile manner are to have strengths greater than those required by the Ω0 amplifier on the design spectral response. and distortion. The stability criterion is imposed by amplifying the effects of lateral forces for the destabilizing effect of lateral translation of the gravity weight (the Pdelta effect).
In many respects. This concept is referred to as horizontal torsion. The primary difference is that the natural period and corresponding deflected shape must be known for several of the natural modes of vibration. in part. [In the 2003 Provisions. and if the threshold is exceeded. With one exception. Total values for subsequent analysis and design are determined by taking the square root of the sum of the squares for each mode. The procedure requires inclusion of enough modes so that the dynamic model represents at least 90 percent of the mass in the structure that can vibrate. The particular acceleration for the building is determined from this spectrum by selecting a value for the natural period of vibration. This set of forces will produce. A nonlinear static method. The Provisions requires that the center of force be displaced from the calculated center of mass by an arbitrary amount in either direction (this torsion is referred to as accidental torsion). but limits are placed on the results of such calculations. The entire reduction from the elastic spectrum to design spectrum is accomplished by dividing the elastic spectrum by the coefficient R. the modal analysis procedure is very similar to the equivalent static force procedure. is described in an appendix for trial use and comment. and the value for R. the level of the design spectrum is set by determining the appropriate values of basic seismic acceleration. and rotational components in the basic ground shaking. the appropriate soil profile type. substantial changes were made to the appendix for the nonlinear static procedure based. and the modal procedure is required for structures with large periods (essentially this means tall structures) in the higher seismic design categories. an envelope of gross overturning moment that is larger than the dynamic studies indicate is necessary. which is generally the total permanent load. The distribution of forces. uncertainties in the strength and stiffness of the structural elements. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples for the range of periods of interest for the structure in question. The resulting internal forces are combined with the effects of gravity loads and then compared to the full strength of the members. and a part of the R factor accomplishes adjustments in the damping level. The specified elastic spectrum is based on a damping level at 5 percent of critical damping. which are not reduced by a factor of safety. The twist produced by real and accidental torsion is then compared to a threshold. and the resulting story shears and overturning moments. These are calculated from a mathematical model of the structure. the remainder of the equivalent static force analysis is basically a standard structural analysis. Nonlinear analyses are very sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis and a peer review is required. Once the overall response acceleration is found. If two or more of the modes have very 114 .] The two most common linear methods make use of the same design spectrum. Once the total lateral force is determined. particularly in tall buildings. These limits prevent the use of a very flexible model in order to obtain a large period and correspondingly low acceleration.FEMA 451. are determined for each mode directly from the procedure. This distribution is based on the results of dynamic studies of relatively uniform buildings and is intended to give an envelope of shear force at each level that is consistent with these studies. This summation gives a statistical estimate of maximum response when the participation of the various modes is random. That exception accounts for uncertainties in the location of the center of mass. the torsion must be amplified. The base shear for each mode is determined from a design spectrum that is essentially the same as that for the static procedure. Dynamic analysis is encouraged. also know as a pushover analysis. Equations that require only the height and type of structural system are given to approximate the natural period for various building types. the base shear is obtained by multiplying it by the total effective mass of the building. With the equivalent static force procedure.) Calculation of a period based on an analytical model of the structure is encouraged. which ranges from 11/4 to 8. on the results of the Applied Technology Council’s Project 55. (The area and length of shear walls come into play with an optional set of equations. The Provisions define the total effect of earthquake actions as a combination of the response to horizontal motions (or forces for the equivalent static force method) with response to vertical ground acceleration. the equivalent static force procedure specifies how this force is to be distributed along the height of the building.
A lower limit to the base shear determined from the modal analysis procedure is specified based on the static procedure and the approximate periods specified in the static procedure. need to be functional immediately following an earthquake. This may be very significant. yet. Both methods are based on purely elastic behavior and. or masses. Some components are rigid with respect to the structure (light weights and small dimensions often lead to fundamental periods of vibration that are very short). The modal analysis method is better for buildings having unequal story heights. Second. Fundamentals similar periods. The consideration of horizontal torsion is the same as for the static procedure. which is common. Both of the common methods require consideration of the stability of the building as a whole. indirect protection is provided by an overall limit on structural distortion. stiffnesses. Some buildings. however. Yielding of one component leads to redistribution of the forces within the structural system. For structures that are very uniform in a vertical sense. Third. many components must be anchored for an equivalent static force. First.Chapter 1. the results are not statically compatible (that is. the explicit design of some elements (the elements themselves. The Provisions treats damage to and from nonstructural elements in three ways. therefore. 115 . More restrictive limits are placed upon those SUGs for which better performance is desired given the occurrence of strong ground shaking. The technique is based on elastic amplification of horizontal displacements created by the action of gravity on the displaced masses. more advanced techniques for summing the values are required. neither will give a particularly accurate picture of behavior in an earthquake approaching the design event. A simple factor is calculated and the amplification is provided for in designing member strengths when the amplification exceeds about 10 percent. When this limit is violated. the moment calculated from the story forces will not match the moment from the summation). thus. the story shears. and the overturning moments are separately obtained from the summing procedure. Response spectra developed from the history of motion of a point on a structure undergoing ground shaking are called floor spectra and are a useful in understanding the demands upon nonstructural components. all results are scaled up in direct proportion. The modal procedure is required for such structures in higher seismic design categories. Early recognition of this will avoid considerable problems in later analysis and checking. Damage to nonstructural elements can pose a hazard to life in and of itself. none of the linear methods can account for it. many of their nonstructural elements must remain undamaged. as in the case of heavy partitions or facades. Because the forces applied at each story. Application of the response spectrum concept would indicate that the time history of motion of a building roof to which mechanical equipment is attached looks like a ground motion to the equipment. The response of the component is often amplified above the response of the supporting structure. as in the case of a fire suppression system. 1.5 NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BUILDINGS Severe ground shaking often results in considerable damage to the nonstructural elements of buildings. The dynamic response of the structure provides the dynamic input to the nonstructural component. these procedures must account for coupling in the response of close modes. or it can create a hazard if the nonstructural element ceases to function. The sum of the absolute values for each mode is always conservative. such as hospitals and fire stations. not just their anchorage) to accommodate specific structural deformations or seismic forces is required. The technique is referred to as the Pdelta analysis and is only an approximation of stability at inelastic response levels. may not offer enough protection to brittle elements that are rigidly bound by the structure. the limits specified. the two procedures give very similar results.
Furthermore. The function or importance of the component or the building. 3. soundly executed. The inertial force demands tend to control the seismic design for isolated or heavy components whereas the imposed deformations are important for the seismic design for elements that are continuous through multiple levels of a structure or across expansion joints between adjacent structures.FEMA 451. An estimate of component acceleration that depends on the structural response acceleration for short period structures. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The Provisions simplifies the concept greatly. Loads experienced during construction provide a significant test of the likely performance of ordinary buildings under gravity loads. Minimum levels of testing and inspection are specified in the Provisions for various types of systems and components. which is not the case for response to other loads.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE Since strong ground shaking has tended to reveal hidden flaws or weak links in buildings. there is no substitute for a sound design. those individuals who carry out the necessary inspection and testing must be technically qualified and must communicate the results of their work to all concerned parties. mistakes occasionally will pass this test only to cause failure later. This is coupled with the fact that the design is based on excursions into inelastic straining. 2. and 4. Tragically. The force for which components are checked depends on: 1. The component mass. 1. and a crude approximation of the flexibility of the component or its anchorage. The available ductility of the component or its anchorage. 116 . the relative height of the component within the structure. The Provisions also requires that the contractor and building official be aware of the requirements specified by the designer. No comparable proof test exists for horizontal loads. In the final analysis. Also included in the Provisions is a quantitative measure for the deformation imposed upon nonstructural components. The quality assurance provisions require a systematic approach with an emphasis on documentation and communication. but it is fairly rare. The designer who conceives the systems to resist the effects of earthquake forces must identify the elements that are critical for successful performance as well as specify the testing and inspection necessary to ensure that those elements are actually built to perform as intended. such as cladding or piping. detailed requirements for assuring quality during construction are contained in the Provisions. and experience has shown that flaws in construction show up in a disappointingly large number of buildings as distress and failure due to earthquakes.
E. For those readers coming from ASCE 705. being greater where questions of applicability of the Provisions are pertinent and less where a standard process of structural analysis or detailing is all that is required. The flow charts and table that follow are provided to assist the user of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and. P. the 2003 Provisions is available as FEMA 450 in CD form (only a limited number of paper copies are available) and the 2000 Provisions are available as FEMA 368 and 369 (2 volumes and maps).1 provides an overall summary of the process which begins with consideration of the Scope of Coverage and ends with Quality Assurance Requirements. User decisions are identified by sixsided cells. All of the specific provisions pertaining to nonbuilding structures are collected together on one page (Chart 2. including the content of all technical chapters.2 GUIDE TO USE OF THE PROVISIONS Michael Valley. but evaluation and rehabilitation of existing structures is not. by extension. therefore. see the cross reference table at the end of this chapter. On each chart the flow generally is from a heavyweight box at the topleft to a mediumweight box at the bottomright. Annotations within brackets. Notes indicate discrepancies and errors in the Provisions. 21 .20). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. [ ]. Order by FEMA Publication number. Although the examples in this volume are based on the 2000 Provisions. and NFPA 5000. changes of use in. the seismic provisions of ASCE 7. Additions to. Chart 2. The table that concludes this chapter provides cross references for ASCE 7 and the 2000 and 2000 editions of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Both editions of the Provisions can be obtained free from the FEMA Publications Distribution Center by calling 18004802520. and alterations of existing structures are covered by the NEHRP Recommended Provisions (see Chart 2. the actual flow of information when proportioning structural members for the seismic load effects specified in the Provisions will be considerably more complex. The details contained in the many standards referenced in the Provisions are not included. The level of detail shown varies. The flow charts provide an overview of the complete process for satisfying the Provisions. but they cannot substitute for a careful reading of the Provisions.3). they have been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. Optional items and modified flow are indicated by dashed lines. the International Building Code. The flow charts are expected to be of most use to those who are unfamiliar with the scope of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. application for nonbuilding structures requires the use of various portions of the Provisions with appropriate modification.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In recent years FEMA has sponsored several coordinated efforts dealing with seismic safety in existing buildings. and rehabilitation of earthquakedamaged concrete and masonry wall buildings (FEMA 306. A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings (FEMA 310) was developed as an update to the original FEMA 178. and 308) and for the evaluation. A prestandard (FEMA 356. 307. specific recommendations have been developed for the evaluation. repair. and repair of steel moment frame structures (FEMA 351 and 352). In addition. rehabilitation. postearthquake assessment. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings) based on FEMA 273 has been developed and is in balloting as ASCE 41.FEMA 451. Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273) and a corresponding Commentary (FEMA 274) have also been developed. 22 . although this document has since been replaced by the ASCE 31 Standard (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings).
1 Overall Summary of Flow Chart 2.12 Deformation Requirements Chart 2.23 Quality Assurance Requirements Chart 2. Mechanical. Electrical Requirements Chart 2.22 Architectural.9 Response History Analysis Chart 2.18 Masonry Chart 2.15 Concrete Chart 2.5 Structural Design Chart 2.11 Strength Requirements Chart 2.8 Modal Analysis Chart 2.2 Scope of Coverage Chart 2.14 Steel Chart 2.10 Seismically Isolated Chart 2.Chapter 2.20 Nonbuilding Structures Chart 2.21 Foundations 23 .17 Composite Chart 2.3 Application to Existing Structures Chart 2.4 Basic Requirements Chart 2.7 SoilStructure Interaction Chart 2.19 Wood Chart 2.16 Precast Chart 2.6 ELF Analysis Chart 2.13 Design and Detailing Requirements Chart 2. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.
or 2family dwelling? No Yes SDC A. offshore platform.5 and 5.2. 5.2 Scope of Coverage Determine if structure falls in scope of the Provisions (Sec.2 [1.2 [3.. [As a result of the complete rewrite of the Provisions at the beginning of the 2003 update cycle. S1 ≤ 0. 14.7.15? No Yes Is it a detached 1. consider as Seismic Design Category A)*. 4.2]). No Provisions not applicable. Is it a selfsupporting structure which carries gravity loads? Yes Is structure a bridge. nuclear power generation plant.6.] 24 . or C? No Yes Wood frame dwelling designed and constructed in accordance with Sec.5.4.5.3. Yes No Tank in SUG III? Satisfy Sec. Go to Chart 2. Satisfy freeboard requirement (Sec.3. 14.1.3.5? No Is it an existing structure? No Yes Yes No additional requirements.e. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.7. Although the framers of the Provisions intended application of only a few simple requirements in Seismic Design Category A.1]).6. 12.1 (i.FEMA 451. 1.2) [Sec. Yes Yes No requirements.1. this situation is improved considerably as the requirements for Seismic Design Category A all appear in Sec.1. B. a strict reading of the 2000 Provisions would lead to a substantial list of items that remain within the scope.04 and S S ≤ 0. Go to Chart 2.3].4. or dam? No Is the use agricultural with only incidental human occupancy? No Determine S S and S1 (Sec. *The Provisions has never defined clearly the scope of application for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A. 1.2.
4. Does alteration increase seismic forces to or decrease design strength of existing structural elements by more than 5 percent? No Is seismic force on existing structural elements increased beyond their design strength? No Is the design strength of existing structural elements required to resist seismic forces reduced? No Yes Such alteration not permitted.3 [1.4) [Sec. No Do the affected elements still Yes comply with the Provisions? No Entire structure designed as new structure.4].3 Application to Existing Structures * Addition to existing structure (Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.2. * Change of use (Sec. and alterations of such structures. Is addition structurally independent from existing structure? No Is any element's seismic force increased by more than 5% or its seismic resistance decreased? Yes Yes Only addition or alteration designed as new structure.1.Chapter 2.2.2]). Go to Chart 2. Change to higher Seismic Use Group? Yes No Change from Seismic Use Group I to II and S DS < 0. 1. * The Provisions applies to existing structures only in the cases of additions to.2.3? No Yes * Alteration of existing structure (Sec. 25 .2.1.3]). changes of use in. Yes Yes New structural elements and new or relocated nonstructural elements must be detailed and connected as required by the Provisions. 1. Go to Chart 2.4. No requirements. 1.2.1.2. 1.2 [1.
Calculate design earthquake acceleration parameters S DS and S D1 (Sec.4.4 of the 2003 Provisions defines reduced spectral ordinates for periods greater than T L. S D1 . all of the requirements for Seismic Design Category A appear in Sec.3. * [Sec.3.3) [Sec.2 [1. 4. 1.] 26 . and electrical requirements.1.23 for quality assurance requirements.5 and application is greatly simplified. 3.3.6 and Yes base isolated? No Adjust MCE acceleration parameters for site class (Sec.* Determine Seismic Design Category (Sec.3 [3. 4.or 2family No Fulfill site limitation dwelling of lightframe (Sec.2]).] Use Site Class D unless authority having jurisdiction determines that Site Class E or F could be present at the site.2. Soil properties known in sufficient No detail to determine Site Class? Yes Classify the site (Sec. 4.2.4 [1.3]).2]). compute S DS . Design response spectrum required Yes for the analysis to be used? No Go to Chart 2.5.2. 4.1. [As a result of the rewrite of the Provisions during the 2003 update cycle.5]. 3. mechanical.4]). 4.15 and S1 ≤ 0. Go to Chart 2.314].3]).2. Detached 1. S S ≤ 0. 3.04? No Yes Assign structure to Seismic Design Category A.3.FEMA 451.4.5 [3. Using Spectral Acceleration Maps 1 through 24 (or CDROM) [Fig.22 for architectural. and S M1 as indicated in Sec.2.2.1]).2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. Go to Chart 2. 4.] Calculate design response spectrum (Sec.4 Basic Requirements Determine Seismic Use Group (Sec.4]). 3.4.4 [3. 4. Yes Site Class E or F? No S1 > 0. 1. determine the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration at short periods (S S ) and at 1 second (S1). [For assignment of Seismic Design Category and determination of values needed for other calculations.2]) and Occupancy Importance Factor (Sec.6 [3.1 through 4. construction? Yes No Site Class F or Yes base isolated? Perform sitespecific evaluation to determine design response spectrum (Sec.5 for structural requirements.1.1 [1.1.3 [1.31 through 3.1. 1. S MS .1.
33]).1. interaction effects. 27 .3]). (Note that ρ = 1. 5. Go to Chart 2.4]). 4.2. deformational compatibility.4 [4.2.2.2. Seismic Design No Category F? Yes More stringent height limit (Sec. 5.] Classify diaphragm flexibility (Sec. Seismic Design Yes Category B or C? No Requirements for building height.2.5 [4. Seismically isolated? Yes Go to Chart 2.3. Opt to perform Yes more involved analysis? No Analyze for minimum lateral force.1 [4.4 [4. 4.Chapter 2.2.2]).2 and 5.4. Seismic Design Category A? No Classify the structural framing system and note R.6]).5. 5.31] apply.3]). 5.2. 5.5 [4. 5. Ω0. 5.1] and Table 5. 5. Calculate reliability factor.2 [4.2.5.3. Go to Chart 2.10.1 [4. and Cd for later use (Sec.5.1 [1. and special moment frame continuity (Sec.8 for modal analysis.2. Go to Chart 2.2.2.1 [4.3.3.2.6 for ELF analysis.01wx (Sec.1.3. Yes [A new "Simplified Design Procedure" that appears in the Appendix to Chapter 4 may be used in lieu of 2003 Provisions Chapters 4 and 5 for certain structures.2.11.1]).3.2.2.1]). and satisfy limitations for special moment frame systems (Sec.5 Structural Design Use load combinations and nonearthquake loads from ASCE 7 (Sec.) Determine required level of seismic force analysis (Sec.9 for response history analysis.1]). F x = 0.3 [4.32 and 4.2.5.31]). ρ.2. Comply with the stated design basis (Sec.2.3.0 for SDC B and C.3. Height limits in Table 5.2 [4. Examine plan and vertical regularity and meet minimum requirements for irregular structures (Tables 5. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.2 [4. 5. Go to Chart 2.
2. Consider soilstructureinteraction? (Optional) No Yes Go to Chart 2.1]) and the total base shear (Eqn.3 [5.2. 28 .6.6.4.1 [5. Go to Chart 2. 5.4.1 [5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.11.1.3 [5.4.2 [5. 5.6. 5.2.2.2.2 [5.6 Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Analysis Determine total weight.2.1]).4.21]).6. Calculate the overturning moments for all stories and apply the permitted reduction for foundations (Sec. 5.2.7 to calculate reduced base shear.4. 5. perform a linear elastic analysis with an appropriate distribution of forces within stories due to the relative lateral stiffnesses of vertical elements and diaphragms (Sec.4.3 [5.4.4.2]).1]). Determine the story drifts.2]).FEMA 451.4 [5.4.2]). 5.2.4. 5. (Sec. 5.4.4]).4.2 [5. 5.3]) inherent (Sec.22]).1 [5.2. W (Sec.5 [5.4. A reanalysis based upon a period larger than the upper limit is permitted for calculating deformations (Sec.2.4.2 [5.3]). Carefully note the upper limit placed on periods calculated from analytical models of the structure (Table 5.4. C s. To determine the internal forces.4.1 [5. Distribute the base shear to the stories of the building (Sec. Check the first order deformation for stability and amplify the forces if necessary (Sec. Include appropriately amplified (Sec. 5.5]).4. 5.4.2.1]) and accidental torsions (Sec. 5. Determine fundamental period of vibration for the building (Sec. Determine the seismic response coefficient.
8. Use Eq. 5. effective height. Calculate effective period using Eq. This SSI procedure applies only to the fundamental mode of vibration (Sec. 5.63].8. per Sec.2. Calculate effective damping using Eq.3.3 [5.2]). 5.8.6.6.1. 5.6.1 [5.2 [5. etc.7 SoilStructure Interaction (SSI) Modal Analysis: Follow SSI procedure for ELF analysis (Sec.2.61]. Revise deflections to include foundation rotation (Sec. 5.1].21 [5.24 [5. which cannot be less than 0.8.6.6. W (as a fraction of W ). 5.1.8. 29 . Yes Use Eq. Calculate reduced base shear. Point bearing piles? or Uniform soft soils over a stiff deposit? No Use Eq. 5. Calculate effective gravity load.2 [5.8.6.610] to modify foundation damping factor.2.2.32] to calculate W 1.3 [5. Use standard modal combination techniques (Sec. and effective stiffness.2. Calculate the foundation stiffnesses K y and K θ (Commentary) at the expected strain level (Table 5.3.3. 5. 5. Read foundation damping factor from Figure 5.69].61]). 5.8.2]). V 1.8. Calculate reduced base shear for the first mode. V 1 for V . Return to Chart 2. which cannot be less than 0.Chapter 2.2. Effective damping need not be less than 5 percent of critical.3.3.1. T 1 for T .3. Therefore.3.8.3]). per Sec. V .61].1 [5.12 [5.1]). Return to Chart 2.2.8.2 [5. 5.2]) with these modifications (Sec.7V.6. ELF Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec.8. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.1 [5. substitute W 1 for W .7V 1.8.613] to calculate h.1.42 [5.3]). 5.11 [5.2. k .8.8. of the fixed base structure.2 [5. 5.6.1 [5.1.5.8. h (as a fraction of h).
8]). To determine the internal forces. identify the appropriate degrees of freedom. Determine story forces. effective gravity load.5]).3 [5.7 to calculate reduced base shear. displacements.5.4 [5. Check the first order deformations for stability and amplify the forces if necessary (Sec.3. 5.3.3.2] with T ≤ CuT a.5. 5. Include inherent and accidental torsions (Sec.5. 5.3]). 5. and model elements as directed (Sec.5.2]).4 [5.3. possibly including diaphragm flexibility. 5. Use linear elastic analysis to determine periods and mode shapes (Sec. perform a linear elastic analysis. 5. May reduce the overturning moments at the foundationsoil interface by only 10 percent (Sec.3. Amplify all quantities if necessary to increase the base shear (Sec. C sm.8 Modal Analysis Determine whether a threedimensional model is required.3 [5. Amplify torsions (Sec. Combine modal quantities by either the SRSS or CQC technique*.7]).3.4.5. W m. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. 5.3.9]).4]). use of the CQC technique is required where closely spaced periods in the translational and torsional modes will result in crosscorrelation of the modes. Go to Chart 2. and drifts in each mode (Sec.5.5 [5. V m.3]) that are not in the dynamic model (Sec.8 [5.9 [5. Consider soilstructureinteraction? (Optional) No Yes Go to Chart 2.5.2.1]).11. *As indicated in the text.3.2. 5.3. 5.5.2 [5.FEMA 451.4. 210 .10 [5.4.1 [5.4. 5.3.6]). 5. Determine the number of modes to consider (Sec. 5. Use statics to determine story shear and overturning moments in each mode (Sec.10]). for each mode (Sec.4]).6 [5. Determine seismic response coefficient.5. 5.5.4 [5. Compare base shear to lower limit based upon 85 percent of that computed using Sec. and base shear.7 [5.
Scale analysis results so that the maximum base shear is consistent with that from the ELF procedure (Sec.1]).11.7.2 [5.5.7.3 [5. 5. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. 5.5.7.5. the average of the SRSS spectra computed for each pair of ground motions is not less than 1.3]).5.6. As for linear response history analysis. 5. 5.4 [5.7. and story drift limits are increased (Sec. Select and scale ground motions based on spectral values in the period range of interest (Sec. The design must be subjected to independent review (Sec.2]).4]). Analysis results need not be scaled.3 [5.1 [5. use average or maximum values depending on number of ground motions analyzed (Sec.6 [5. 5. 5.5. Subsequent steps of the design process change. must use the maximum value (Sec.3]).3.7.7.1]).1 [5.3 [5.4. as follows. 5.3]).5]). Go to Chart 2.4]). An appendix to Chapter 5 contains requirements for the application of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis to the design of new structures.3. For instance.3. 5.3 times the design spectrum.2]).5. 5.3. For 3D analysis.5. Nonlinear analyses must directly include dead loads and not less than 25 percent of required live loads.9 Response History Analysis Linear Response History Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec.1]). For 2D analysis.4.3.3 [5. 5. typical load combinations and the overstrength factor do not apply (Sec.Chapter 2. Model structure as for modal analysis (Sec. 211 .2]).3.3.3]).1 [5. 5.2 [5.4.5. 5.7 [5.2 [5. the average is not less than the design spectrum.6. Nonlinear Response History Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec. member deformations must be considered explicitly (Sec.6. Global modeling requirements are similar to those for modal analysis. If at least seven ground motions are analyzed. If fewer than seven are analyzed. 5. Determine response parameters for use in design as follows. Modeling of hysteretic behavior of elements must be consistent with laboratory test results and expected material properties (Sec.7. may use the average value. Select and scale ground motion as for linear response history analysis (Sec.
8) and satisfy the appropriate provisions of Sec. 13.] 212 . 13. Go to Chart 2.2.5]). Perform modal analysis (see Chart 2.9 [13.2. Satisfy requirements for elements of structures and nonstructural components (Sec.4. [In the 2003 Provisions .4.2 [13.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.3. C.1]? Yes No Site Class A.2.2. 13.1]. Satisfy detailed requirements for isolation system (Sec.6. item 7? Yes No Yes Opt to perform dynamic analysis? No Yes Opt to perform timehistory analysis? No Perform timehistory analysis as described in Sec. or D? and isolation system meets the criteria of Sec.8 [13. 13.4.10 Seismically Isolated Structures Do the structure and isolation system satisfy the criteria of Section 13.6) and satisfy the provisions of Sec.6. Satisfy testing requirements (Sec. 13.6]). 13.6]). 13.5.3 [13.5.2.2 [13.2 [13. requirements for structures with damping systems appear in Chapter 15 (rather than in an appendix to Chapter 13). Perform design review (Sec. Perform ELF analysis (see Chart 2. B.2.11.5 [13.FEMA 451. 13.2. 13.5]) and structural system (Sec.7]).
2. Vertical seismic forces must be considered for some horizontal components (Sec.2 [4. 5.1 [4.5]).5. Go to Chart 2.2. 5.1. Special requirements for strength of moment frames in dual systems (Sec.8 [4.6.2 [4.2.1 [4. 5.2] apply to collector elements (Sec. 5.6.6.5.5.1.6. 5.3 [6.5. 5. 5. 5.1.2 [4.1]) and anchorage of concrete or masonry walls (Sec.2.2]). where the seismic load.1. 5.2.1.6.4 [4.2. Increased forces for plan or vertical irregularities (Sec.6.4.2.2.2.2.3.2]).3.6.2.10]).3]). 5.2]).Chapter 2.13. 5.6.1]) and combinations of framing systems (Sec.2 [4.6.6.6]).2.2.6.2.2.6. 5. 5.10 [4. 5.6.4.2]).6. 5.7.11 Strength Requirements Combine gravity loads and seismic forces as indicated in ASCE 7.2.2] apply to columns supporting discontinuous walls or frames (Sec.2.1]). 5.2.6. bearing walls (Sec.1.6. Minimum force effects for diaphragms (Sec. Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Orthogonal effects must be considered (Sec.6.1 [4. 5.1. 5.6 [4. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. 213 .9 [4.2.2.2 [4.2]).2. Minimum force effects for connections (Sec. 5.7.1 [5. E . Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Must consider orthogonal effects for some plan irregular structures (Sec.2]).2.3 [4.3.2.6. Minimum forces for diaphragms (Sec.2.4.6.2]).1.2.1.3.2.1.1.4]).6.2.3.2.7 [4.7 [4.6.1 [4.12.2. inverted pendulum structures (Sec.3.2 [4.2.2.2].6.2.2. 5. Go to Chart 2. [All requirements for the structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A now appear in Sec. 5.] Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Consideration must be given to Pdelta effects (Sec. 6.2.2.1 [4.7]). Minimum forces for anchorage of concrete or masonry walls to flexible diaphragms (Sec.2.4.6.3 [4.6.2.3 [4.2.2. Special load combinations of Sec. 5.6.4.2.2.1]) and diaphragms that are not flexible (Sec.4. and anchorage of nonstructural systems (Sec. Special load combinations of Sec. 1. Must consider critical loading direction for each component (Sec.1.1.6. Limits on vertical discontinuities (Sec.3]).2.3.9]).2]).6.6.2. is defined in Provisions Sec.2.
FEMA 451. E. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.1]).8 [4. given in Table 5. [In the 2003 Provisions the allowable drift is reduced by the redundancy factor for systems with moment frames in Seismic Design Category D. These drifts must include the deflection amplification factor.31] (Sec.2. Go to Chart 2. Compare with the limits established in Table 5. 214 .5.12 Deformation Requirements Enter with story drifts from the analysis of seismic force effects.8 [4.13.] Separations between adjacent buildings (including at seismic joints) must be sufficient to avoid damaging contact.51]. 5.2.2. or F. Cd .2 [4.
6.6.3]).2 [4.2.6 [4. 5. go to Chart 2.1 [4. 5. Special detailing for wood diaphragms.3.2.6. 5.1]).2.20. Seismic Design Yes Category D? No Certain plan and vertical irregularities not permitted (Sec. 5.6.2.13 Design and Detailing Requirements Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Openings in shear walls and diaphragms must be detailed (Sec.6. and connections (Sec.2. struts.1.2.3]). go to these charts: Chart 2. For nonbuilding structures. 5. 5.6.2 [4.2.5.1]). Limit on subdiaphragm aspect ratio.6. Requirements for diaphragm ties.2.1.2.1.4]).19 215 .18 Wood Chart 2.2. Consider effect of diaphragm displacement on attached elements (Sec. For various materials.6.4.1]).Chapter 2. Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Continuous diaphragm crossties required. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.16 Precast Chart 2. 5.5.7 [4.6 [4.1.2.14 Steel Chart 2.2]). 5.5.2.5. System redundancy must be considered (Sec.5]) and interconnection of wall elements (Sec.3.6.2. Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Satisfy requirement for deformational compatibility (Sec.3 [4.2.17 Composite Masonry Chart 2.6. and embedded straps (Sec.6.15 Concrete Chart 2.2.4 [4.2. metal deck diaphragms.
Any of the reference documents in Sec.7).14 Steel Structures Yes Seismic Design Category A.21. or C? No No Using a "structural steel system not specifically designed for seismic resistance?" Yes Select an R value from Table 5.1.] Go to Chart 2. R = 3. 8.4.31] for the appropriate steel system. [In the 2003 Provisions requirements are added for bucklingrestrained braced frames (Sec.1 [8.7 [8. The system must be designed and detailed in accordance with the AISC Seismic as modified in Sec.4 [8. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.4.8 [8.6) and special steel plate shear walls (Sec. 8.2] may be used for design.4.5 [8.5] applies to steel cables. 216 .FEMA 451.6 [8. 8.2. From Table 5. Sec.4] applies to steel deck diaphragms. Sec.2.31]. 8. 8. 8. B.3] or Sec. Sec.2 [4.2] for lightframed. coldformed steel wall systems.2 [4.1] modifies the reference standards for design of coldformed steel members. 8. 8.
4]).2.7 [9.] Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Moment frames to be "special".15 Concrete Structures Modifications to ACI 318 for load combinations and resistance factors. permitted reinforcement. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.] Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Limits on moment frame and shear wall systems. 9.5. [All of these requirements now appear in ACI 31802 or in the basic requirements of the 2003 Provisions .5. diaphragm connectors.1]).] Go to Chart 2.4 [1. Classification of shear walls (Sec. discontinuous members.3. Requirements for anchor bolts in the tops of columns (Sec.1]). 9. 9. [Many of the requirements in this chapter of the 2003 Provisions are different due to changes made in ACI 31802 and the introduction of new systems.3 [9. 9.Chapter 2.6 [9.] Design of anchors (Sec. axial strength of columns. 217 .2]). [Some of these requirements are removed in the 2003 Provisions as they are now in ACI 31802. and plain concrete. 9. Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Limit on use of ordinary moment frames (Sec. structural walls.2.1.1 [9.1 [9." Detailing for deflection compatibility (Sec. 9. 1.2) [ACI 31802 Appendix D]. Design in accordance with ACI 318 (Sec.5]). and coupling beams (Sec. 9. [All requirements for the structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A now appear in Sec. shear walls to be "special reinforced.5]).21.
11.16 Precast Concrete Structures General modifications to ACI 318 to include additional notation and definitions (Sec. 9.1. Requirements for gravity beamtocolumn connections: design force and connection characteristics (Sec.12) as indicated in ACI ITG/T1.] Precast seismicforceresisting system? Yes No Emulates monolithic reinforced concrete construction? No Yes Ductile connections? Yes No Must demonstrate suitability of system by analysis and substantiating experimental evidence based on cyclic. design forces.1.1.1. Go to Chart 2.1.1. and number of moment resisting frame bays.21.FEMA 451.1 and 9. 9.12) and connections (either wet or dry) must satisfy the requirements of ACI 318 new Sec.6 (Sec.1.1. 21.4.5). 21.1. columntocolumn and columnface connections (ACI 318 new Sec.1.1. 9.1.2) and new sections.11.1. Diaphragm composed of precast elements? Yes No Topping slabs must satisfy ACI 318. System must comply with all applicable requirements of monolithic concrete construction for resisting seismic forces (Sec. [All of the requirements on this chart now appear in ACI 31802. 218 .1 and the additional items in ACI 318 new Sec. No Precast gravity load carrying system? Yes Requirements for layout of seismicforceresisting system: diaphragm strength. The 2003 Provisions add some requirements for intermediate and special precast walls (Sec.2. Connections must satisfy ACI 318 new Sec.3. An appendix is provided for untopped precast diaphragms. inelastic testing (Sec. 21.12): location.11. 9. 9. aspect ratios. 21. 9.1. 9.2.5). Requirements for strong connections (Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.2.1.11.4).2. anchorage and splices.12).4 and 9.
2.2 [10. B. [The 2003 Provisions make extensive modifications to Part II of AISC Seismic.17 Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Select an R value from Table 5.2 [4. or C? No Yes Must provide "substantiating evidence" based on cyclic testing (Sec. The system must be designed and detailed in accordance with the AISC Seismic Parts I and II.] Seismic Design Category A.21. 219 . 10.31] for the appropriate composite system. Go to Chart 2.Chapter 2.4]). Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.
section properties (Sec.18 Masonry Structures Must construct in accordance with ACI 530 and use materials in conformance with ACI 530.8). 11.9). Strength and deformation requirements (Sec. does not result in significant technical changes. hollow units. 11.3.12). [A significant portion of 2003 Provisions Chapter 11 has been replaced by a reference to ACI 53002. 11.3.3. Reinforcement detailing (Sec. Special requirements for beams (Sec.7). and shear walls (Sec. 11.21.12).10). Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Limits on materials and rules for wall reinforcement and concrete/masonry interface.3. 11.10). Special moment frames of masonry (Sec. 11. 11. limits on certain materials. Go to Chart 2.9).5). and stack bond (Sec.11). column reinforcement.] Empirical design (per Chapter 9 of ACI 530) may be used. flexure and axial loads (Sec.11). Ordinary plain masonry and ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls not permitted(Sec.1 Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Special requirements for screen walls and cavity walls. Material properties (Sec.8). 11.6). as ACI 53002 is in substantial agreement with the strength design methodology contained in the 2000 Provisions. and rules for wall reinforcement and connection to masonry columns. columns (Sec. and column minimum dimensions.FEMA 451. 11. 11.3. 11. Detailed plain masonry and intermediate reinforced masonry shear walls not permitted (Sec. and anchor bolts (Sec. 11. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.4). 220 .7). Minimum wall thickness. and shear (Sec. The updated chapter. 11. Seismic Design Yes Category D? No Requirements for grout. however. 11. Glass unit masonry and masonry veneer (Sec.3. 11.
5.2.8 [12. Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic . The updated chapter. Conform to requirements for engineered wood construction (Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.Chapter 2. ASD/LRFD Supplement. [A significant portion of 2003 Provisions Chapter 12.2. 12.19 Wood Structures Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Satisfy an exception of Yes Sec. 12. however. C.1 [1. including the diaphragm and shear wall tables.1.2. as the Supplement is in substantial agreement with the 2000 Provisions .3) and diaphragms and shear walls (Sec.4). 12. 1.2. 1.2.] Go to Chart 2.1]? No Design and construct using any applicable materials and procedures in the reference documents.2]).1 [1.5. Yes Seismic Design Category B. does not result in significant technical changes.6. or D? No Satisfy an exception of Yes Sec.2.21 221 .1 [1. If satisfy Sec. Shear wall resistance reduced for structures with concrete or masonry walls(Sec. has been replaced by a reference to the AF&PA.1.1]? No Seismic Use Yes Group I? No Satisfy the Section 12.5 requirements for conventional lightframe construction? No Yes Unblocked diaphragms not permitted. deemed to comply with Sec. Sheathing applied directly to framing.5]. 12.
2.) [In the 2003 Provisions the requirements for electrical structures and telecommunication towers have been removed since the corresponding national standards have been updated appropriately.2 [14. 14.4].5 [14.5.6]) and fundamental period (Sec. tanks and vessels. or Use approved standards.FEMA 451. Determine Importance Factor and Seismic Use Group (Sec. structural towers for tanks and vessels. Yes Dynamic response similar to that of building structures? No Structures Similar to Buildings Specific provisions for: pipe racks.4 [14. 14. (Appendix contains provisions for: electrical transmission. Classify system.5]. 14.6 [14. amusement structures. and buried structures. substation.2.] Go to Chart 2. 14.5 [14.4]). Reduced seismic forces for use with allowable stress standards are defined. determine importance factor. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. 14.5. 14. 14.5. and calculate design forces per Sec. telecommunication towers.1.20 Nonbuilding Structures Use applicable strength and other design criteria from other sections of the Provisions. Nonbuilding structure supported by another structure? No Yes Select R value and calculate design forces per Sec.2.3]).2. and distribution structures.21. Calculate seismic weight (Sec.2. electrical power generating facilities.1.11]). 14.7 [14.9]). and secondary containment systems (Sec.5.1]). and piers and wharves (Sec. 222 . May be exempted from drift limits on the basis of rational analysis (Sec. stacks and chimneys.4 [14. Structures Not Similar to Buildings Specific provisions for: earth retaining structures. special hydraulic structures.3 [14. steel storage racks.
7. ties between spread footings. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. 223 .Chapter 2. and reinforcement of piles.] Seismic Design Category A or B? No Yes Requirements for: report of seismic soil investigation.5).21 Foundations Strength and detailing of foundation components must satisfy material chapter requirements (Sec. Go to Chart 2.2. 7.22. pole type structures. (Sec.2. Design of piles must consider curvatures due to both freefield soil strains and structure response. [In the 2003 Provisions Chapter 7 includes a strength design method for foundations and guidance for the explicit modeling of foundation loaddeformation characteristics.4). Seismic Design Category C? No Yes Requirements for: report concerning potential site hazards.1). and reinforcement of piles (Sec. Requirement for soil capacity (Sec. 7.2). 7. ties between piles or piers.
storage tanks.9]). 6.6 [6.4]).23.1 and 6. outofplane bending. partitions.5 [6.3]). Must consider both flexibility and strength for components and support structures [Sec.1.FEMA 451.2.7 [6. 6. and supports.) Note additional requirements for component anchorage (Sec.2 [6.2. 6. 224 . 6.7]) and accommodate such displacements (Sec. suspended ceilings.1.2. Go to Chart 2. Calculate design seismic forces per Sec. mechanical and electrical equipment. alternative seismic qualification methods.1. Satisfy requirements for construction documents (Sec. 5.2. Compute seismic relative displacements (Sec.3 [6. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. 6. Select a p and R p values from Tables 6.2.2. and steel storage racks (Sec. 6.2.1 [6.1]). access floors. and elevator design (Sec. Avoid collateral failures by considering functional and physical interrelationship of components (Sec. 6.7 [6.6]. Mechanical.4]).2.1.2. and Electrical Components Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Note component exemptions in Sec.2 [6. 6. attachments.4]. Components require positive attachment to the structure without reliance on gravityinduced friction (Sec.2.6].3]).31 and 6. piping systems.2.1 [6. 6. 6.2 [6. Calculate vertical load effects per Sec.1. (Don't forget to consider nonseismic horizontal loads.3 and 6.3 [6. 6.3 [6. Determine the periods of mechanical and electrical components (Sec. HVAC ductwork. Mechanical and Electrical Components Specific provisions for: component certification.2.5 [6.1]. Architectural Components Specific provisions for: exterior nonstructural wall elements and connections.2 and 6. 6.5]).3.1.3.3.8]).41] and component importance factors (Sec.4. 6.4.1.2]).22 Architectural. boilers and pressure vessels. utility and service lines.4 [6.3.
3 [2. 3.1 [2.2.2 [2. No Reporting and compliance procedures are given (Sec. 3. D. 13. E. isolator units. 3.Chapter 2. Done.6 [2.23 Quality Assurance Seismicforceresisting system assigned to Seismic Design Category C. reinforcing steel.9 [13. selected architectural components. concrete.3]). 3.4]). 225 . mechanical and electrical components and mounting systems (Sec. wood connections. coldformed steel connections. 3.2 [2. Seismic Design Category C? No Yes Special testing is required for some aspects of the following: reinforcing and prestressing steel. 3. Satisfy testing and inspection requirements in the reference standards (Ch. Special inspection is required for some aspects of the following: deep foundations. No Registered design professional must prepare QA plan (Sec.2.2. selected mechanical and electrical components. E. masonry. or F? Yes No Satisfy exceptions in Sec.6]). or F? or Designated seismic system in structure assigned to Seismic Design Category D.1]) and affected contractors must submit statements of responsibility (Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. and energy dissipation devices (Sec.6]). steel connections. and seismic isolation systems (Sec. welded steel.2. 8 through 14).4 [2.2]? Yes QA plan not required.2]). Seismic Use Group II or III? or Height > 75 ft? or Seismic Design Category E or F and more than two stories? Yes Registered design professional must perform structural observations.
4.5 1.10 12.2.1.2 6.1 14.8 NEHRP 2000 NEHRP 2003 Section Section Topic SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA General Definitions Notation Seismic Ground Motion Values Importance Factor and Occupancy Category Seismic Design Category Design Requirements for Seismic Design Category A Geologic hazards and Geotechnical Investigation 1.2 6.5 Chapter 12 5 12.11 12.4.2 13.1 4.1.4 1.2 5.3 14. Configuration Irregularities and Redundancy Seismic Load Effects and Combinations Direction of Loading Analysis Procedure Selection Modeling Criteria Equivalent Lateral Force Procedures Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Diaphragms. 7.6.4 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 .1 4.2. 1. 1. 7.5 11.2 6.3.2.1.5 7 4 Alt.2 4.6.12 12.2 5.2.4 11.3 1.5 12.3 6.2. 1.1.3.5 5.4 6.4 5. 5. 5.2. Chords and Collectors Structural Walls and Their Anchorage Drift and Deformation Foundation Design Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria for Simple Bearing Wall of Building Frame System SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS General General Design Requirements Seismic Demands on Nonstructural Components Nonstructural Component Anchorage Architectural Components Mechanical and Electrical Components MATERIAL SPECIFIC SEISMIC DESIGN AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS Scope Steel Concrete Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Masonry Wood Chapter 13 13.1 5.3 13. SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES Structural Design Basis Structural System Selection Diaphragm Flexibility.6 5.2 4.6 5.8 7 5.7 12.3.2.2.2 14.2.6 5.6 12.13 12.1 6.6 4.2.2.5 5.2 4.3 12.2 11.4 4.6 Chapter 14 14 14.2.3 1.4.2 6.9 12.3 11.1 6.3 6. 5.2.1 4.4 14.1 6.1.1 13.2.6 11.2 5. 7.2.2.7 11.2 12.2 2.1 1.4 12. 5 4.4.3 4.5 5.2.4 13.1 12.3. 5.6 4.1 11.1 2.6.3.5 6.5 3.1. 6.5 1.14 5. 7.1 1.Table 21 Navigating Among the 2000 and 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions and ASCE 7 ASCE 7 Section Chapter 11 11.4.6 5.4 4.2 5.5 13.2 4.4 1.8 12.2 5.2 6.2.7.
6.6 13A.3 15.3 13.1 5.3 17.4 13.2 15. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chapter 15 14 15.3 Chapter 20 20.3 15.5 17.2 5.2 5.4 17.5 18.2.5 13.1 14.1 17.8 Chapter 17 13 17.2 5.5 14.4 13A.3 13A.3 13.1 5. 13.9 Chapter 19 19.6 15 15.8 13A.2 20.7 18.2.7 14.5 13 13.5 13.9 5.5 15.8 18.7 17.3 20.8 15.3 13A.1 4.4 13.5 14.1 15.Chapter 2.7.1 20.6 17.4.5 15. 13A.2.1.5 227 .5 3.7 13A.4 5.8 13.2 18.1 13A.8.7 14.1 13.1 13.5 3.4 15.7 16.2 13.9 13A.8.3 3.4.1 5.6 18.7 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR NONBUILDING STRUCTURES General Reference Documents Nonbuilding Structures Supported by Other Structures Structural Design Requirements Nonbuilding Structures Similar to Buildings General Requirements for Nonbuilding Structures Not Similar to Buildings Tanks and Vessels SEISMIC RESPONSE HISTORY PROCEDURES Linear Response History Analysis Nonlinear Response History Procedure SEISMIC DESDIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES General General design Requirements Ground Motion for Isolated Systems Analysis Procedure Selection Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure Dynamic Analysis Procedures Design Review Testing SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS General General Design Requirements Nonlinear Procedures Response Spectrum Procedure Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure Damped Response Modification Seismic Load Conditions and Acceptance Design Review Testing SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION FOR SEISMIC DESIGN General Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure Modal Analysis Procedure SITE CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Site Classification Site Response Analysis for Site Class F Soil Site Class Definitions Definitions of Site Class Parameters Chapter 16 16.6 15.3 13.2 15.2 14.5 3.4 13.4 14.4 15.6 13.3 14.1 14.1 18.8.1 15.6 15.6.4 18.1 19.6 14.8 13.3 18.1 5.3 14 14.2 19.5.2.5 13A.1 4.9 Chapter 18 13A 18.1.4 4.10 5.14.2 17.2 14.2.4 13.1 4.3 14.6.7 15.4 14.
1 4.2.1.3 3.1.2.2. 2.FEMA 451.6 2 2.3 SITESPECIFIC GROUND MOTION PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Site Response Analysis Ground Motion Hazard Analysis Design Response Spectrum Design Acceleration Parameters SEISMIC GROUND MOTION AND LONG PERIOD TRANSITION MAPS SEISMIC DESIGN REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Consensus Standards and Other Reference Documents 3 3.2 1.1. 3.1.3 11B.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chapter 21 21.1 Chapter 23 23.2.3 1.1 21.5 2.3 11A.1.5 3.5 1.2.4 3.2.1 3.4 1.4 11B 11B. 2.4 4.1 1.1 11A 11A.4 11B.1 11A. 3.2.3 2.2 11A.1 4.2.2 1.4 3.3 228 .2.4 3.2 11B.2 1.4 3.1.3 21.2.2 1.1 11B.2 21.2.1.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS Quality Assurance Testing Structural Observations Reporting and Compliance Procedures EXISTING BUILDING PROVISIONS Scope Structurally Independent Additions Structurally Dependent Additions Alterations Change of Use Chapter 22 4.2.1 4.4 3.1 1.4 2.4 1.
as originally designed. the following documents are referenced: 31 .. revision of the redundancy factor. The results from each of the analyses are compared. a second set of timehistory analyses is presented for the structure augmented with added viscous fluid damping devices. P. While the general concepts of the changes are described. the structure is modeled in three dimensions. the analyses are performed for only two dimensions. the Provisions). Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. Charney. A sixstory steel frame building in Seattle. California – The highly irregular structure is analyzed using three techniques: equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis. modalresponsespectrum analysis. Annotations within brackets. However. In the nonlinear analysis. the devices have the desired effect of reducing the deformation demands in the critical regions of the structure. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. These include elimination of the minimum base shear equation in areas without nearsource effects. the basic earthquake hazard maps were updated and an approach to defining longperiod ordinates for the design response spectrum was developed. A 12story steel frame building in Stockton. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. This chapter presents two examples that focus on the dynamic analysis of steel frame structures: 1.E. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. As shown. and modal timehistory analysis. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. In each case. The relative merits of pushover analysis versus timehistory analysis are discussed. special attention is paid to the modeling of the beamcolumn joint regions of the structure. A number of noteworthy changes were made to the analysis requirements of the 2003 Provisions. 2. and only linear elastic response is considered. and refinement of the pushover analysis procedure. Washington. Although the Seattle building.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Finley A. Due to limitations of available software.D. In addition to changes in analysis requirements. responds reasonably well under the design ground motions. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (herein. two approaches are used: static pushover analysis in association with the capacitydemand spectrum method and direct timehistory analysis. [ ]. and the accuracy and relative merits of the different analytical approaches are discussed. This regular structure is analyzed using both linear and nonlinear techniques. For the nonlinear analysis. a change in the treatment of Pdelta effects. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. Ph. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions.
FEMA 451..” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31. A. University of California. Chopra. 1997 [2002]. PEER2001/03. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. 2001.. College on Engineering. Goel.” Engineering Journal. K. Berkeley. R. University of California. Third Quarter. College on Engineering. 1996. and R. 2002. Berkeley. Berkeley. K. Helmut. Berkeley. Bertero. “Performance Based Seismic Engineering: The Need for a Reliable Comprehensive Approach. 1999. Chopra. K. 1978. “Shear in BeamColumn Joints in Seismic Design of Frames.. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Bertero. Applied Technology Council. California: Pacific Engineering Research Center.V. 2000. A Modal Pushover Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluation. CapacityDemandDiagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDF Systems. and V. D. California: Pacific Engineering Research Center. American Society of Civil Engineers. Goel. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Seismic American Institute of Steel Construction. PEER1999/02. ATC40 Bertero Chopra 1999 Chopra 2001 FEMA 356 Krawinkler 32 . Krawinkler. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. K. A. 3 (March). and R.
Equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5. Berkeley. modal timehistory analysis using a suite of three different recorded ground motions based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5. at all levels except Levels G.1. The low roofs at Levels 5 and 9 are used as outdoor patios. The slabs on Levels 5 and 9 have an average thickness of 6. and to support heavy floor loads. Both the plan and elevation of the structure are irregular with setbacks occurring at Levels 5 and 9. Threedimensional. The building is laid out on a rectangular grid with a maximum of seven 30ftwide bays in the X direction. Interior columns are supported by concrete caps over piles. modalresponsespectrum analysis based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5. 5. The total height of the building above grade is 155. see Chapter 5 of this volume of design examples. and 9. Structural Analysis 3. member stress checks..5 ft. the columns are embedded into pilasters cast into the basement walls. Gravity forces due to live and dead load are not computed. for more effective shear transfer through the diaphragm. All stories have a height of 12. Reinforced 1ftthick concrete walls form the perimeter of the basement.0 in. At the perimeter of the base of the building. All analyses were performed using the finite element analysis program SAP2000 (developed by Computers and Structures. Gravity loads are resisted by composite beams and girders that support a normal weight concrete slab on metal deck. Threedimensional. 33 . For this reason. The slab has an average thickness of 4.5 ft except for the first story which is 18 ft high.2 Description of Structure The structure is a 12story special moment frame of structural steel. and support heavier live loads than do the upper roofs or typical floors.1 Introduction This example presents the analysis of a 12story steel frame building under seismic effects acting alone. The structure has a full onestory basement that extends 18. Inc. For detailed examples of the seismicresistant design of structural steel buildings. shown in Figures 3. member design.11 through 3.Chapter 3. is performed using three methods: 1. The analysis of the structure. with the walls supported on reinforced concrete tie beams over piles. 2. STOCKTON.0 ft below grade. special attention is given to applying the Provisions rules for orthogonal loading and accidental torsion. 3. and 3. The slab at Level G is 6.0 in. and seven 25ft bays in the Y direction. In each case.1. thick to minimize pedestrianinduced vibrations.1 IRREGULAR 12STORY STEEL FRAME BUILDING. and detailing are not discussed. California). All tie beams and pile caps are connected by a grid of reinforced concrete grade beams.0 in.13. CALIFORNIA 3.
11 Various floor plans of 12story Stockton building (1. 34 .FEMA 451.0 ft = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4 5 '0 " Y X 62'6" (a) L ev e l 1 0 Y X (b ) L e v el 6 B A A Y X O rig in fo r c e n te r o f m ass 7 a t 3 0 '0 " B (c) L ev el 2 Figure 3.3048 m).
Chapter 3.12 Sections through Stockton building (1. = 0.0 ft. Structural Analysis R 12 11 10 11 at 12'6" 7 at 30'0" 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 All moment connections G B Section AA R 12 11 10 11 at 12'6" 7 at 25'0" Pinned connections Moment connections 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 G B Section BB Figure 3.3048 m). 2 at 18'0" 2 2 at 18'0" 2 35 .
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Z Y X Figure 3. For the frames on Grids C and F. Due to the fact that the momentresisting girders terminate in Frames C and F. is in San Joaquin County approximately 60 miles east of Oakland. and floor members and interior columns that are sized strictly for gravity forces are 50 ksi. The lateralloadresisting system consists of special moment frames at the perimeter of the building and along Grids C and F.25 S1 = 0.1.13 Threedimensional wireframe model of Stockton building. the columns extend down to the foundation.3 Provisions Analysis Parameters Stockton.FEMA 451. but the lateralloadresisting girders terminate at Level 5 for Grid C and Level 9 for Grid F.40 [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps. According to Provisions Maps 7 and 8. Columns in the momentresisting frame range in size from W24x146 at the roof to W24x229 at Level G. Members of the moment resisting frames have a yield strength of 36 ksi. much of the Ydirection seismic shears below Level 9 are transferred through the diaphragms to the frames on Grids A and H. the shortperiod and 1second mapped spectral acceleration parameters are: Ss = 1. Girders below these levels are simply connected.] 36 . Overturning moments developed in the upper levels of these frames are transferred down to the foundation by outriggering action provided by the columns. and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3 (instead of being issued in a separate map package). California. Girders in the moment frames vary from W30x108 at the roof to W30x132 at Level G. 3.
periods of vibration and their associated mode shapes. 4.1. only the translational mass is required.3. 4.Chapter 3. the importance factor (I) is 1.1.32 and 4. such as window walls and exterior cladding.2. Structural Analysis Assuming Site Class C.32]: S MS = Fa S S = 1.2.25) = 1. may be modeled as point masses.45 seconds.5 seconds where TS = SD1/SDS = 0.56) = 0.1.25) = 0.56 where the coefficients Fa = 1.1.4(0.25 S M1 = Fv S1 = 1.31].4 [1. a complete ELF analysis is carried out and described herein.3 [4. This may be done two different ways: 1.2.2. it is necessary to determine the dynamic properties of the structure.4 Dynamic Properties Before any analysis can be carried out.41 and 1. For this reason. According to Provisions Eq. The lateralloadresisting system of the building is a special momentresisting frame of structural steel.41 and Eq. the adjusted maximum considered 5percentdamped spectral accelerations are obtained from Provisions Eq.3. Note that there is no height limit placed on special moment frames.1 Mass For twodimensional analysis.2. certain aspects of an ELF analysis are needed in the modalresponsespectrum analysis.1.2.2. the minimum level of analysis required for this structure is modalresponsespectrum analysis.2.1.5. the Seismic Design Category (SDC) for this building is D.833 3 3 2 2 S M1 = (0. according to Provisions Table 1. According to Provisions Table 5.2.5.34].4) = 0.0 and Fv = 1. the design level spectral acceleration parameters are 2/3 of the above values: S DS = S D1 = 2 2 S MS = (1. it is necessary to compute the mass moment of inertia for floor plates rotating about the vertical axis and to find the location of the center of mass of each level of the structure. Provisions Table 5.1 [4.2.373 3 3 As the primary occupancy of the building is business offices.31 and 3.4(b) [3.33 and 3. and for comparison purposes. For this type of system. 3.31] gives a response modification coefficient (R) of 8 and a deflection amplification coefficient (Cd) of 5.1.2.52 [3. 4.33]. This requirement is based on apparent plan and vertical irregularities as described in Provisions Tables 5. 3.1(a) and 4.42 [3. The ELF procedure would not be allowed for a final design but.4.2 [4.0(1. The mass moments of inertia may be computed “automatically” by SAP2000 by modeling the floor diaphragms as shell elements and entering the proper mass density of the elements.1.42]. and damping. The floor diaphragms 37 . as explained later.32].2.4 come from Provisions Tables 4. Line masses.2 and 5.31 and 3.41] if the building has certain types of irregularities or if the computed building period exceeds 3. These properties include mass. To perform a threedimensional modal or timehistory analysis.4(a) and 4. According to Provisions Tables 4.51 and 4.1(b) [1. respectively. the Seismic Use Group (SUG) is I and.
Displacement constraints are used to represent the inplane rigidity of the diaphragm. but the frequencies and mode shapes obtained from Approach 1 were verified with a separate model using Approach 2. Final analysis used Approach 1. (Note that this is the approach traditionally used in programs such as ETABS which. rectangular. when multiplied by angular acceleration (radians/sec2). must yield units of torsional moment (in.) In the analysis performed herein. floor masses are computed by hand (or an auxiliary program) and entered at the “master node” location of each floor diaphragm.14 for mass location. and locations of center of mass are shown in Table 3.11 and 3. this mass is not included in equivalent lateral force computations. mass moment of inertia. Note that the dimensional units of mass moment of inertia (in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples may be modeled as rigid inplane by imposing displacement constraints or as flexible inplane by allowing the shell elements to deform in their own plane. This mass is associated with an extremely stiff story (the basement level) and is not dynamically excited by the earthquake.FEMA 451. and concentrated mass. 2. and definitions of auxiliary masses such as line. Figure 3. For this reason. The basic input for the program consists of the shape of the floor plate. The reference point for center of mass location is the intersection of Grids A and 8. In this case. a special purpose computer program was used.kips).5 or 18. A 50 20 15 10 0 0 95 B 75 20 15 10 0 0 120 C 50 20 15 0 15 0 100 D 75 20 15 0 15 60 185 E 75 50 15 10 0 25 175 38 .0 psf.11 Area Masses on Floor Diaphragms Area Mass Designation Mass Type Slab and Deck (psf) Structure (psf) Ceiling and Mechanical (psf) Partition (psf) Roofing (psf) Special (psf) TOTAL (psf) See Figure 3.kipsec2/radian). both approaches are illustrated.0 ft. story heights of 12.0 ft high bordering each roof region.13 includes a mass computed for Level G of the building. and parapets 4. The location of the master node should coincide with the center of mass of the floor plate.13. Table 3. its mass density. The floor is assumed to be rigid inplane but is modeled without explicit diaphragm elements.0 psf = 47. Due to the various sizes and shapes of the floor plates and to the different dead weights associated with areas within the same floor plate. The line masses are based on a cladding weight of 15. assumed rigid inplane diaphragms and modeled the diaphragms using constraints. The computation of the floor masses using Approach 2 is described below. The uniform area and line masses associated with the various floor plates are given in Tables 3.12. As shown later. The total computed floor mass. Table 3.14 shows where each mass type occurs. 1. Modeling the diaphragms as flexible is not necessary in most cases and may have the disadvantage of increasing solution time because of the additional number of degrees of freedom required to model the diaphragm.9 N/m2. the computation of mass properties is not easily carried out by hand. by default.
0 plf = 14.8 5 135. 39 .8 93.0 93.0 1350.8 2 93.0 228.8 0. Structural Analysis Table 3.Chapter 3.8 153. 1.8 135.8 187.6 3 93.14 for mass location.0 93.14 Key diagram for computation of floor mass.6 N/m.12 Line Masses on Floor Diaphragms Line Mass Designation Mass Type From Story Above (plf) From Story Below (plf) TOTAL (plf) See Figure 3.8 4 93. 1 60.0 1 2 2 1 D 1 C 1 2 A 2 2 B 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 Roof 2 1 Levels 1012 2 Level 9 2 A 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 D 3 B 2 2 5 2 2 A 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 Levels 68 4 Level 5 5 Levels 34 A Area mass A 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 B 5 B 5 2 Line mass Level 2 Level G Figure 3.0 1485.
In no case.M. Mass Moment of Inertia.4. Provisions Sec.7 [5. 1 This requirements seems odd to the writer since the Commentary to the Provisions states that timehistory analysis is superior to responsespectrum analysis.3 36918.kipsec2//radian) 2.4. (in. the timehistory analysis performed later will be scaled as required by the Provisions.8 3066.890 Mass Moment of Inertia (in. The use of the Rayleigh method and the eigenvalue method of determining accurate periods of vibration are illustrated in a later part of this example.8 2330.2.503x107 X Distance to C.703x106 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.0 in.5)0.4.59 seconds be used.1 [5.26] is used to estimate the building period: x Ta = Cr hn where Cr = 0.935 7.) 1260 1260 1260 1260 1637 1551 1551 1551 1159 1260 1260 1260 1260 Y Distance to C.8 4323.807 6. For the structure under consideration.356x106 6.935 8.8 for a steel moment frame from Provisions Table 5.FEMA 451.1 Approximate Period of Vibration The formula in Provisions Eq.6.59) = 2. Ta = 0.45 kN. CuTa = 1.1. Using hn = the total building height (above grade) = 155. 3.190 7.2 Period of Vibration 3.85 factor).5 1595.8 3403. and Center of Mass Locations Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 G Σ Weight (kips) 1656.0 kip = 4. (in.287 4.21] using SD1 = 0. and member design forces be scaled to a value consistent with 85 percent of the equivalent lateral force base shear computed using the period CuTa = 2.M.23 sec.703x106 9.015 16. = 25. Provisions Sec.7] requires that the displacements.0 2330.2.11 [5. 5.3] requires that timehistory analysis results be scaled up to an ELF shear consistent with T = CuTa (without the 0.8 2330.0 6526.22].23 seconds.373g).437x106 1.017x106 2.59 sec.130 4.4(1. Nevertheless.4.2.356x106 6. must a period less than Ta = 1.072x106 2.8 = 1.) 1050 1050 1050 1050 1175 1145 1145 1145 1212 1194 1194 1193 1187 1.4 (from Provisions Table 5.1 Note that when the accurately computed period (such as from a Rayleigh analysis) is less than the approximate value shown above.8 1595.3 [5.1.13 Floor Mass.130 8.028(155.1 3097. the computed period should be used.8 1595.1 3066.6 Mass (kipsec2/in.091x106 6.017x106 2.) 4.5.4.028 and x = 0.4.032 6.2 [5. 5.032 11.4 mm.032 6. 5. 1. however.3. drift. When a modalresponse spectrum is used. When the period is computed from a properly substantiated analysis.703x106 3. the Provisions requires that the computed period not exceed CuTa where Cu = 1.130 4. 310 .5 ft.017x106 5.309x106 3.
particularly when a virtual force analysis is used for determining member displacement participation factors.4.3 Damping When a modalresponsespectrum analysis is performed. 3. A damping ratio of 0. Structural Analysis 3. For timehistory analysis.3.4. 5. Charney.11 [5.7 [5.2 The virtual force techniques cannot be used for modalresponsespectrum analysis because signs are lost in the CQC combinations. Florida.05 (5 percent of critical) is appropriate for steel structures. SAP2000 allows an explicit damping ratio to be used in each mode. Hence.4. it is often necessary to perform an equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis of the structure. the analyst must correctly specify a damping factor. When recombining the individual modal responses. it is assumed that the structure is “fixed” at grade level. For the ELF analysis. Proceedings of the 1993 AISC Steel Construction Conference.833 = = 0. Indeed.3 kips. a damping of 5 percent of critical was specified in each mode.1 [5.104 ( R / I ) (8 /1) 2 For an explanation of the use of the virtual force technique.22]. This factor must match that used in developing the response spectrum.13) is the total weight minus the grade level weight. the maximum (constant acceleration region) spectral acceleration is: CSmax = S DS 0. When using CQC. Orlando.7] requires that the CQC approach be used when the modes are closely spaced. 5. It should be noted that if zero damping is used in CQC. the total effective weight of the structure (see Table 3. In anticipation of the “true” computed period of the building being greater than 2.21].23 seconds. 3. This is consistent with the level of damping assumed in the development of the mapped spectral acceleration values.3 = 30392. 5. ELF analysis is also useful for investigating the behavior of driftcontrolled structures.1 Base Shear and Vertical Distribution of Force Using Provisions Eq.6 . 311 . the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) technique has generally been replaced in practice by the complete quadratic combination (CQC) approach. 1993. the structure’s damping is included in the response spectrum. the ELF analysis is based on a period of vibration equal to CuTa = 2.5. see “Economy of Steel Framed Structures Through Identification of Structural Behavior” by F. Provisions Sec. or 36918.1.6526. For this structure. This analysis typically is used for preliminary design and for assessing the threedimensional response characteristics of the structure. the results are the same as those for SRSS.5.5 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis Prior to performing modal or timehistory analysis.1.1.Chapter 3.1.23 seconds. the total seismic shear is: V = CS W where W is the total weight of the structure. From Provisions Eq.
124 kips.010 in the 2003 Provisions]: CSmin = 0.13 [replaced by 0. reducing the design base shear significantly. the acceleration must not be less than that given by Provisions Eq.00 3.13 0.23 sec 0.06 0. the result of Eq. Using W = 30.23(8 /1) However.10 Equation 5.0 0.4.044(1)(0. 312 .1.044 IS DS = 0.1. 0.4.373 = = 0.5 0.15.12 Equation 5. 5.5 Period.08 Spectral acceleration.1.4. g T = 2.4.1.392 kips.12 0.15 Computed ELF total acceleration response spectrum.12 [5.0 1.833) = 0.4. sec 2.0 2.04 0.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] controls for this building. This change would also result in removal of the horizontal line in Figure 3.5 1.037 [With the change of this base shear equation. 5.021 T ( R / I ) 2. V = 0. 5.392) = 1. 5.23 would control.16.0 Figure 3.037(30.] The value from Eq.02 0.FEMA 451.5 4.1.15 and the corresponding segment of Figure 3. The acceleration response spectrum given by the above equations is plotted in Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Provisions Eq.23] controls in the constant velocity region: CS = S D1 0.0 3.
4.13 is distributed along the height of the building using Provisions Eq.5 4.4.1. 5.1. For this combination of SD1 and R.0 3.4.4. Structural Analysis 7 Equation 5.4 mm).1.4.23].Chapter 3.4.4.210 and 5. Provisions Sec. [The minimum base shear is 1% of the weight in the 2003 Provisions (CS = 0.4. all ELF analysis is performed using the forces obtained from Eq.4. should be used for determining member forces. 5.568).1.4.1.66 second. 4 T = 2.16.5 1.13.211]: Fx = CvxV and Cvx = wx h k i =1 ∑ wi hi n k 313 . when it controls. will predict significantly larger displacements than Eq.12 [5.0 Period.1. 5. 5.4. forces computed according to Eq. where it can be seen that the fine line.6) has been retained.23]should be used. = 25.4.0 Figure 3.4. 5. 5.12 [5. in.037 = 0. While it is certainly reasonable to enforce a minimum base shear.4. 5. 5. 5.13.23 sec 0.0 3. The effect of using Eq. the story deflections computed using the forces from Eq.0 in. Therefore. but should not be used for computing drift. but for the purposes of computing drift.5 2.0 1.13 for drift is shown in Figure 3.] In this example. 5.021/0.13 are not reasonable.1. representing Eq.3. it is very important to note that Provisions Eq.13 are multiplied by the ratio (0.4.12 5 Displacement. 5. the new minimum controls for periods larger than 4.2 [5.01).13 6 Equation 5. The base shear computed according to Provisions Eq. sec 2.13. For drift calculations.1 has correctly recognized that displacements predicted using Eq.3. The minimum base shear equation for nearsource sites (now triggered in the Provisions by S1 greater than or equal to 0.5 3 2 1 0 0.1 and 5.6.1.4.1.16 Computed ELF relative displacement response spectrum (1.
5 7744119 0.0500 56. If the ratio of displacements is greater than 1.0 kip = 4. According to Provisions Table 5.0 3411968 0.6 578.14 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in X and Y Directions hx Vx Mx Fx wx wxhxk Cvx (kips) (ft) (kips) (kips) (ftkips) 1656.2.0685 77.8 64356 4323.4.0 105. and story overturning moments are summarized in Table 3.14.3 [4.4.0 10932657 0. and δavg is the average displacement of the diaphragm.75 + 0. these accidental eccentricities (and inherent torsion) must be amplified if the structure is classified as torsionally irregular. for example) simultaneous with the application of 30 percent of the force acting in the orthogonal direction (the Y axis).1155 129.8 118.9 470.0 30392.2 δ avg where.3 121923430 1. 1. the torsional irregularity is referred to as “extreme.2 103372 18. uneven yielding of vertical systems.FEMA 451.2 77733 3066.8 12482 1595.1.3048 m.5 120694 3097. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples where k = 0. as shown in Figure 3. 3.17.5.2].4 1070.8 80. two effects must be added to the direct lateral forces shown in Table 3. the structure must be loaded with the basic equivalent lateral forces applied at a 5 percent eccentricity.86.1 43. 314 .8 68.4 19712 3403. and the possibility of torsional components of ground motion.0635 71. the Provisions allows the analyst to load the structure with 100 percent of the seismic force in one direction (along the X axis.4. The first of these effects accounts for the fact that the earthquake can produce inertial forces that act in any direction.23) = 1. can be satisfied for torsionally regular buildings by applying the equivalent lateral force at an eccentricity.0 679242 0.2.7 91505 3066.0 6097272 0.5 20194253 0. The story forces.” In computing the displacements.7 29271 2330.1 30. D.45 kN.00 1124.3. where the eccentricity is equal to 5 percent of the overall dimension of the structure in the direction perpendicular to the line of the application of force.0897 100. 5.0056 6.0280 31.5 40090 2330.5 8352458 0.9 6597 1595.5 155. a torsional irregularity exists if: δ max ≥ 1.8 55.2 Accidental Torsion and Orthogonal Loading Effects When using the ELF method as the basis for structural design. δmax is the maximum displacement at the edge of the floor diaphragm.1662 186. Table 3. This requirement.8 130.0 ft = 0. 5.75 + 0. Provisions Sec.5T = 0.2.5.0 11669128 0.0957 107.2.8 143.2 [5. E.1656 186.1370 154. or F. For SDC D. given in Provisions Sec.” Since this direction is not easily defined. The other requirement is that the structure be modeled with additional forces to account for uncertainties in the location of center of mass and center of rigidity.5 51871 2330.14.0147 16.6 1118.8 93. For structures in SDC C. story shears.5 1101.4.2.5 14079657 0.4.3 1124.5(2.8 865. and F buildings. E.3] requires that the structure be investigated for forces that act in the direction that causes the “critical load effect.3 764.9 2336 1595.0 340.0 942.9 186.5 20266027 0.2.5 Level x R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ 1.2 998.5 1798066 0.0 16698604 0.
The analysis of the structure for accidental torsion was performed on SAP2000. This is a reasonable assumption in light of the fact that most of the girders are on the perimeter of the building and are under reverse curvature. 315 . Shell elements were used to represent the diaphragm mass. The same model was used for ELF. Flexural. and torsional deformations were included in the beams. the largest ratio of maximum to average floor displacements is 1. Structural Analysis δ average δ minimum δ maximum θ B Figure 3. and torsional deformations were included in all columns.16. The results of the accidental torsion analysis are shown in Tables 3. Flexural. As may be observed. 5.15 and 3. shear.17 Amplification of accidental torsion. modalresponsespectrum.16 at Level 5 of the building under Y direction loading. 2. Except for those lateralloadresisting columns that terminate at Levels 5 and 9. Due to the rigid diaphragm assumption. this structure is not torsionally irregular and the story torsions do not need to be amplified. This approximately accounts for deformations in the panel zone. Additional point masses were used to represent cladding and other concentrated masses. Hence. shear. The floor diaphragm was modeled as infinitely rigid inplane and infinitely flexible outofplane. Section properties for the girders were based on bare steel. 3. axial deformation in beams was neglected. and modaltimehistory analysis. axial.Chapter 3. Beamcolumn joints were modeled using centerline dimensions. 4. all columns were assumed to be fixed at their base. ignoring composite action. The following approach was used for the mathematical model of the structure: 1.
65 0.62 0.92 3.43 1.07 none 5 1.19 3.52 2. The tabulated drift values are somewhat different from those shown in Table 3.) δ2 (in.74 1.15 because the analysis for drift did not include accidental torsion.23 2.18.61 1.73 5.60 3. the values in the first numbered column are the average story displacements computed by the SAP2000 program using the lateral forces of Table 3.00 none 10 4.88 3.96 1.91 1.71 5.23 1.0 in.01 none 7 3. Average story drifts are used here instead of maximum story drifts because this structure does not have a “significant torsional response.67 4.57 3.38 1.56 1.61 5.04 7.92 4.11 none 4 1.15 none Tabulated displacements are not amplified by Cd. story drifts are computed and compared to the allowable drifts specified by the Provisions.10 none 2 0.71 1.14.3 Drift and PDelta Effects Using the basic structural configuration shown in Figure 3.11 none 9 4.83 1.88 1.01 5. = 25.91 1.26 5.72 2.52 1.39 1.34 4.42 6.34 1.91 2.40 3.0 in.16 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in Y Direction Irregularity Level δ1 (in.73 1. 1.83 1.54 2.30 1.5.17 3.59 0.18.90 4. The true inelastic story drift.01 none 8 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3. = 25.86 3.15 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in X Direction Irregularity Level δ2 (in.30 3.17 and 3.15 none 2 0.11 none 5 2.14.01 none 9 4.34 4.96 1.83 2. These drift values.92 5.19 1.97 6.10 1.59 1.17 and 3.) δavg (in.80 5. whereas the analysis for torsional irregularity did. the total story deflections were computed as shown in the previous section. The values in column 2 of Tables 3. In Tables 3.) δavg (in.27 1. which by assumption is equal to Cd = 5.71 0.93 1.71 0.10 none 12 5.17 and 3.11 none 10 4.96 5.11 and the equivalent lateral forces shown in Table 3.10 1. however.11 none 6 2.52 0.FEMA 451.5 316 . 1.4 mm.10 6. Table 3.11 none 7 3.) δmax (in.16 none 4 1.74 4.91 1.83 3.67 1.68 5.39 4.87 4.74 7.35 1.43 6.09 none Tabulated displacements are not amplified by Cd.4 mm.27 1.” If the torsional effect were significant.00 none 11 5.34 1.10 none 3 1.30 1.28 2.82 6.35 5. the maximum drifts at the extreme edge of the diaphragm would need to be checked.04 2.21 4.1.73 2.35 5.34 5. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3.33 6.07 1. Analysis includes accidental torsion. 3.) R 6.11 none 8 3.29 4.43 7.75 7.01 none 12 5.05 2.) δmax/δavg δ1 (in.88 5. In this section.15 none 3 0.03 none 6 2.40 1.) δmax (in) δmax/δavg R 5.11 none 11 5.71 1.92 1. Analysis includes accidental torsion. are much less than those that will actually occur because the structure will respond inelastically to the earthquake.18 are the story drifts as reported by SAP2000.96 3.01 1.
77 0.41 5. is shown in Column 3.75 5.00 3.02 5 Allowable Drift (in.4 mm. Instead.55 0. would be lower by a factor of 0.] The allowable story drift of 2.00 3.) (in.982 6.13 (for strength). [Such a modification is not necessary when using the 2003 Provisions because the minimum base shear is different.568.17 ELF Drift for Building Responding in X Direction 1 2 3 4 Total Drift Story Drift from Inelastic Story Inelastic Drift from SAP2000 SAP2000 Drift Times 0. the values in column 4 are multiplied by 0. (Recall that this building is assigned to Seismic Use Group I.65 0.0 percent of the story height per Provisions Table 5.00 4.4.1.55 2.00 3. = 25.1.59 3. Table 3. As discussed above in Sec. 5. 3.) It is clear from Tables 3.32 1.73 0.40 0.4.19 0.03 2.73 0.65 3.18 that the allowable drift is not exceeded at any level. 317 .568 (in.13 since that limit does not apply to drift checks.00 3.39 5.1.17 and 3.71 0.54 2.) 6.00 3.28 is shown in column 5.) (in.) 3.64 3.18 0.08 1.94 1.32 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Column 4 adjusts for Provisions Eq.4.5.Chapter 3.70 1.00 1.1.92 4. [Recall that the minimum base shear is different in the 2003 Provisions.00 3.00 3.00 3.67 0. 5.55 3.0 in.56 3.] 1.) (in.48 1.83 4.44 1.00 1.39 3.95 2.55 3.70 1.22 1.568 to scale the results to the base shear calculated ignoring Provisions Eq.45 2.00 3.1. Structural Analysis times the SAP2000 drift.52 2. which produce the drifts in Columns 1 and 2. the design forces applied to the model.12 (for drift) vs 5.27 0.95 0.90 0.38 1.65 3.63 3.58 2.00 3.00 3.
43 0.00 3.26 0.00 3.1.53 1.) (in.00 3.3.53 0.19 1.08 4.48 1. A Rayleigh analysis will be used to estimate the periods.61 3. This procedure.83 0. the design forces applied to the model. = 25.13 (for strength).5.11 1.98 0.00 3. Making the substitution of δ for φ. 5. M is the (diagonal) mass matrix.18 ELF Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction 1 2 3 4 Total Drift Story Drift from Inelastic Story Inelastic Drift from SAP2000 SAP2000 Drift Times 0. After rearranging terms.81 2.12 (for drift) vs 5.77 3.49 2.00 4.1.53 3. noting that F = Kδ.43 1.22 1.61 0. is derived as follows: The exact frequency of vibration ω (a scalar).4. in units of radians/second. Instead.FEMA 451.568.58 3.57 3.70 1.00 3.45 2.4.01 0. where δ is the deflected shape under the equivalent lateral forces F.67 3. and M = (1/g)W.98 2.49 2.36 1.70 1.10 0.) 3. would be lower by a factor of 0.91 5 Allowable Drift (in.687 5.12 5.00 3. is a vector containing the components of the mode shape associated with ω. this gives: δ T F = ω 2δ T M δ = ω2 ω= g 318 δTF δ TW δ .00 3. 3. is found from the following eigenvalue equation: Kφ = ω 2 M φ where K is the structure stiffness matrix.00 3.41 4.59 0.98 1. and φ. [Such a modification is not necessary when using the 2003 Provisions because the minimum base shear is different.21 0.) 6. the following is obtained: δ TW δ g where W is a vector containing the story weights and g is the acceleration due to gravity (a scalar). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.05 0. If an approximate mode shape δ is used instead of φ.1 Using ELF Forces and Drift to Compute Accurate Period Before continuing with the example.32 0.68 0.0 in.49 2.4 mm.1.52 1.32 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Column 4 adjusts for Provisions Eq. which produce the drifts in Columns 1 and 2. This will serve as a check on the “exact” periods computed by eigenvalue extraction in SAP2000. premultiplying both sides of the above equation by δT (the transpose of the displacement vector).00 3.67 1. it is helpful to use the computed drifts to more accurately estimate the fundamental periods of vibration of the building.36 1.568 (in.46 2.79 0.66 2.] 1. which is usually very accurate.) (in.00 3.64 3. the frequency ω can be closely approximated.49 1.) (in.
T = 2π ω .19 894.4 mm.40 5.9 154.Chapter 3. respectively.73 1.88 76.75 4. Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ Table 3.0 56.19 3. 319 .45 kN.8 77.4 31. = 25.02 11.77 4. δ (in. 1.19 Rayleigh Analysis for XDirection Period of Vibration Force.10 5607.64 δ2W/g (in.5 16.2 71. the Xdirection period of 2.69 170.90 2. W (kips) δF (in.6 6.19 rad/sec.kips) Drift.39 1169. Using F from Table 3.42 ω = (5607/1169)0. Structural Analysis Using the relationship between period and frequency.99 147.59 seconds and also exceed the upper limit on period of CuTa = 2. F (kips) Weight.95 5.24 3.18.89 164.9 107.5 = 2.18 0.17 and 3. T = 2π/ω = 2.55 2.27 1.19 and 3.39 4.16 24.50 583.49 202.71 990.3 1656 1598 1598 1598 3403 2330 2330 2330 4323 3066 3066 3097 1259.91 106.40 121.22 775.kipssec2) 194.3 100.0 kip = 4.81 19.0 129.14 and δ from Column 1 of Tables 3.24 424.79 54.6 186.65 186.73 seconds are much greater than the approximate period of Ta = 1. the periods of vibration are computed as shown in Tables 3.110 for the structure loaded in the X and Y directions.0 in.85 51.87 seconds and the Ydirection period of 2.37 274.) 6. As may be seen from the tables.41 58.10 162. 1.87 sec.71 6.23 seconds.
5 = 2.2 PDelta Effects Pdelta effects are computed for the Xdirection response in Table 3.091. θmax = 0.98 957.59 31. Hence.6.3 3097 3.06 3.36 4.17 because these are consistent with the ELF story shears of Table 3. the 0.05 71. the Provisions require that where θ > 0.43 129.45 64.02 2.4 4323 146. 5.01 186. then 0.216]: θ= Px ∆ Vx hsx Cd [In the 2003 Provisions.9 1656 1123.6 3066 18. 1.61 6.84 5067.98 107.26 0.3.] Provisions Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.) δF 6.32 186.5.8 2330 386. [In the 2003 Provisions.45 kN.10 16.22 places an upper limit on θ: θ max = 0.85 4.62 2. As previously formulated.1. the equation for the story stability ratio was changed by introducing the importance factor (I) to the numerator.21 [5.5 3066 50.83 100.0 and using Cd = 5.56 164. as shown in Table 3.] The ∆ terms in Table 3. Conservatively taking β = 1.79 154.2. The last column of the table shows the story stability ratio computed according to Provisions Eq. 3.0.94 102. = 25.) 320 . F (kips) Weight.82 3.14 and thereby represent the true lateral stiffness of the system. W (kips) Drift. δ (in.80 138.09 1.111.0 in. This example constitutes a borderline case as the maximum stability ratio (at Level 3.64 121.568 times the story shears also would need to be used.6 1598 535.4. (If 0.103.37 1. Instead.21 δ2W/g 154.3 3403 804.81 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ ω = (5067/9589)0. T = 2π/ω = 2.30 rad/sec.06 9.60 2.110 Rayleigh Analysis for YDirection Period of Vibration Force.9 1598 705.26 77.4 mm.5.568 factor would cancel out as it would appear in both the numerator and denominator.27 5.0 kip = 4.4.73 sec.2 2330 150.36 88. 1.568 times the story drifts were used.3.111) is 0.0 2330 251.FEMA 451. 5.10 a special analysis be performed in accordance with Sec. larger axial loads (Px) would be permitted where the design shears (Vx) included an importance factor greater than 1.0 1598 891.5 β Cd where β is the ratio of shear demand to shear capacity for the story.31 47.6.68 56.111 below are taken from Column 3 of Table 3. this upper limit equation has been eliminated.08 43. that effect was unintended.02 20. A5.66 5.
73 1656. 3.8 315.1 Orthogonal Loading Effects and Accidental Torsion For a nonsymmetric structure such as the one being analyzed.103 0. 4.0. the proper load cases and combinations of load must be identified such that all critical seismic effects are captured in the analysis. Although this figure shows 16 different load combinations.22 3403.0 2795.1 470.7 150 3.00 3066. we will proceed assuming that Pdelta effects are not a problem for this structure. X.091 at Levels 2 through 4. = 25.0 465.2 150 3.8 465. Y) must be considered and.3 340. the number of load combinations increases to 16 because.0 35972.0 3681.8 150 3.8 7703. +Y.4 150 3.8 14367.5 315. 10. Orthogonal loads are applied without accidental eccentricity. for each direction of force.0 1910. 1.1 28579.5 150 3.079 0.9 578.0 11571. but are not included herein.0 2795.8 315.52 2330.3 998.8 615.38 1595.5 1971. and 14 – are negatives of one of Combinations 1.4. 9. 5.5. Because a more refined analysis would most likely show a lower value of β. and 12.0 615. for each direct application of load. Figure 3.0 1910. respectively. 16. When the 30 percent orthogonal loading rule is applied.8 5793.8 150 3.046 0.58 2330.094 0.7 865.5 186.1.8 17163.45 kN. 321 . 3.2 216 3. 6. there are two possible directions for which the accidental eccentricity can apply (causing positive or negative torsion).0 in.Chapter 3. it may be observed that eight of these combinations – 7.9 150 3. 2. four directions of seismic force (+X.0 1910.1 32260.083 0.055 0. 3. 11.8 315.3 1124. The gravity force terms include a 20 psf uniform live load over 100 percent of the floor and roof area.2 1101. The stability ratio just exceeds 0.0 3712.8 19959.085 0.8 24898.1.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips) 150 1.5 942.1 1070.8 465.4 Computation of Member Forces Before member forces may be computed.9 764.1 615.5.0 3868.0 1971.034 0. However.071 0.0 2795.8 3882.3 1118.) ∆ (in.111 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in.7 150 2.48 1595.44 2330. Structural Analysis Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3.1 615. This requires a total of eight possible combinations of direct force plus accidental torsion. 8.0 3681.5 θX 0.8 465. Calculations for the Y direction produced similar results. 13.9 150 2.94 3066. β was very conservatively taken as 1.096 1.0 kip = 4.0 4938.18 illustrates the basic possibilities of application of load.059 0. a positive or negative orthogonal loading can exist.00 4323.022 0.8 150 3. 15.55 3097.08 1595.4 mm.
2L + E + 0.0.7 [4.2SDSQD 322 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1 5 9 13 2 6 10 14 3 7 11 15 4 8 12 16 Figure 3. 5.5.2SDSQD and E = ρQE .2.2.2.1].18 Basic load cases used in ELF analysis.FEMA 451.1.71 and Eq. The basic ASCE 7 load conditions that include earthquake are: 1.22]: E = ρQE + 0. 5.2.2. 5. 3.72 [4.4D + 1.4.2 Load Combinations The basic load combinations for this structure come from ASCE 7 with the earthquake loadings modified according to Provisions Sec.2S and 0.21 and 4.9D + E From Provisions Eq.
ρx may be taken a 1. ρx need not be taken greater than 1. Otherwise.750 ft2. the redundancy factor is 1. the basic load combinations become: 1.111 and ρ x = 2 − 20 0. Checks for upper levels will produce an even lower value of ρx. or the system is configured so as to satisfy prescriptive requirements in the exception.0 or 1. Hence. 5.] For this structure.2 would require that an analysis determine the most severe effect on story strength and torsional response of loss of moment resistance at the beamtocolumn connections at both ends of any single beam.3. ρ is either 1.2. as specified by the Provisions. Instead of performing the calculations that follow.3. the final load conditions to be used for design are: 1. in most cases an experienced analyst would be able to identify a few critical elements that would be likely to produce the maximum effects and then explicitly consider only those conditions.963 . and Ax is the area of the floor diaphragm immediately above the story under consideration. the check is illustrated for the lower level only where the area of the diaphragm is 30. ρ = 1.0.3. Although consideration of all possible single beam failures would require substantial effort. California.0. Where the calculated effects fall within permitted limits.5. [In the 2003 Provisions.73D + ρE [The redundancy requirements have been changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions.0 for this structure. Using SDS = 0.11 30750 = 0.] Based on Provisions Eq.5L + ρE and 0. 2003 Provisions Sec. 4. the redundancy factor (ρ) is the largest value of ρx computed for each story: ρx = 2 − 20 rmaxx Ax In this equation. QD is the dead load effect. but it may not be less than 1.37D + 0.833 and assuming the snow load is negligible in Stockton.37D + 0. therefore.73D + E 323 .2. Structural Analysis where ρ is a redundancy factor (explained later).4. is made for any two adjacent columns: rmaxx = 2 /18 = 0. rmaxx is a ratio of element shear to story shear. and SDS is the short period spectral design acceleration. Figure 3. QE is the earthquake load effect.5L +E and 0.11 shows that the structure has 18 columns resisting load in the X direction and 18 columns resisting load in the Y direction.3. If it is assumed that each of these columns equally resists base shear and the check.Chapter 3.
It should be noted that 32 different load combinations are required only if one wants to maintain the signs in the member force output. Due to the relatively short spans in the moment frames. The second load condition will produce the maximum positive moments (or minimum negative moment) at the face of the supports of the girders and maximum tension (or minimum compression) in the columns.1.3 Setting up the Load Combinations in SAP2000 The load combinations required for the analysis are shown in Table 3. 324 .5. thereby providing complete design envelopes for all members. it is not expected that the nonseismic load combinations will control.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The first load condition will produce the maximum negative moments (tension on the top) at the face of the supports in the girders and maximum compressive forces in columns.112. it is possible to capture the effects of dead load plus live load plusorminus earthquake load in a single SAP2000 run containing only four load combinations. the gravityonly load combinations as specified in ASCE 7 also must be checked. as a result. however. these signs are lost in responsespectrum analysis and. In addition to the above load condition.FEMA 451. 3. As mentioned later.
0 5 [9] 1. 37 0.73 0.5 6 [9] 0.73 0. 37 0.0 1 [3] 1.5 6 [11] 0.5 2 [11] 0.73 0. The Xdirection forces are applied with a 5 percent accidental eccentricity to produces a clockwise rotation of the floor plates. The Ydirection forces are applied without eccentricity. A negative sign [#] indicates that all lateral load effects act in the direction opposite that shown in the figure. 3.5 2 [3] 0.0 3 [1] 1.0 3 [10] 1.37 0. the girder shears are compared to those obtained from modalresponsespectrum and modaltimehistory analyses.73 0.0 1 [11] 1.5 4 [4] 0.73 0.5 8 [4] 0.0 5 [2] 1.0 5 [3] 1.73 0.5 8 [2] 0.5.0 7 [12] 1. 37 0. 37 0. 37 0.73 0. The results of the member force analysis are shown in Figure 3. 37 0. Structural Analysis Run One Two Three Four Table 3.5 4 [1] 0.73 0.112 Seismic and Gravity Load Combinations as Run on SAP 2000 Lateral* Gravity Combination A B 1 (Dead) 2 (Live) 1 [1] 1.0 7 [4] 1.73 0. 37 0.0 1 [9] 1.73 0. 325 . 37 0.18.73 0.73 0.5 4 [12] 0. 37 0.37 0.0 7 [10] 1.Chapter 3. 37 0.5 2 [1] 0. In a later part of this example.19.5 6 [2] 0.5 8 [10] 0.73 0. 37 0.37 0.0 * Numbers in brackets [#] represent load conditions shown in Figure 3.5 8 [12] 0.0 5 [11] 1.1. the earthquake shears in the girders along Gridline 1 are computed.73 0. This analysis considers only 100 percent of the Xdirection forces applied in combination with 30 percent of the (positive or negative) Ydirection forces.5 6 [3] 0.37 0.5 4 [10] 0.0 7 [2] 1.4 Member Forces For this portion of the analysis. 37 0.4.73 0.0 3 [4] 1.5 2 [9] 0.73 0.0 3 [12] 1.
5 39.6 ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis The first step in the modalresponsespectrum analysis is the computation of the structural mode shapes and associated periods of vibration.867 seconds.113 is 0. which also shows values called the modal direction factor for each mode.6 32.0 33.6 26.9 30.9 Figure 3.4 12.7 34.7 29.4 32.9 32.1 25. Note that the longest period.4 20. the first mode is predominantly X translation.1 22. Analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion.113 shows.2 32.8 31.54 17.1 22.4 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 13.5 37.0 39.113. the second mode is primarily Y translation. (1.1 31.9 36.FEMA 451.2 32.2 24. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 8.2 33. Using the Table 3. and the third mode is largely 3 It should be emphasized that.2 39.5 30.1 30.4 21. The modal direction factors shown in Table 3.113 are indices that quantify the direction of the mode.0 20.9 31.1 30. displacements.8 22. Therefore.45 kn) 3.7 34.1 31.19 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using ELF analysis. 2.4 34. Y or θZ axes) of the structure.3 31.427 seconds.31 9.0 33.9 30.0 16.0 in any particular direction would indicate that this mode responds entirely along one of the orthogonal (X.4 31.1 38. is significantly greater than CuTa = 2. and member forces as computed from the true modal properties may have to be scaled up to a value consistent with 85 percent of the ELF base shear using T = CuTa.6 34.14 structural masses and the same mathematical model as used for the ELF and the Rayleigh analyses.0 31. the mode shapes and frequencies are automatically computed by SAP2000.3 36.3 31.23 seconds. drift. 326 .7 31.1 26. the principal direction of structural response will not coincide with one of the axes used to describe the structure in threedimensional space. in general.0 kip = 4.6 33.07 17.1 40.8 9.1 28.5 22.2 20.0 32.3 As Table 3.1. The smallest period shown in Table 3.4 24. A direction factor of 100.1 38. The computed periods of vibration for the first 10 modes are summarized in Table 3.
Had the first and second modes not acted along the orthogonal axes.114 violates this rule. In the case of the building modeled as a 13story building with a very stiff first story. the accumulated effective mass value is approximately 80 percent of the total mass for the translational modes and 72 percent of the total mass for the torsional mode.3.110. For good measure. Modes 4 and 5 also are nearly unidirectional. but Modes 6 through 10 have significant lateraltorsional coupling.2 [5. The values shown in parentheses in Table 3. the effective mass in Modes 1 through 10 is given as a percentage of total mass.Chapter 3. the Provisions requirements are clearly met when using only the first 10 modes in the response spectrum or timehistory analysis. the accumulated 80 percent of effective translational mass in Mode 10 actually represents almost 100 percent of the dynamically excitable mass. 327 .5. as this level is extremely stiff. 5. It is interesting to note that the Xdirection Rayleigh period (2. Provisions Sec.2] requires that a sufficient number of modes be represented to capture at least 90 percent of the total mass of the structure. Similarly. In Table 3.87 seconds) is virtually identical to the first mode predominately Xdirection period (2. In this sense. Structural Analysis torsional.114. and 39 are considered.744 seconds) from the eigenvalue analysis. By Mode 10. 38. it would seem that the use of 10 modes as shown in Table 3. 14 modes were used in the actual analysis. the Ydirection Rayleigh period (2. However. approximately 18 percent of the total mass for this structure is located at grade level and.867 seconds) computed from the eigenvalue analysis. The closeness of the Rayleigh and eigenvalue periods of this building arises from the fact that the first and seconds modes of vibration act primarily along the orthogonal axes. Plots showing the first eight mode shapes are given in Figure 3. this mass does not show up as an effective mass until Modes 37. On first glance.73 seconds) is very close to second mode predominantly Ydirection period (2. the Rayleigh periods (based on loads and displacements in the X and Y directions) would have been somewhat less accurate.114 are the accumulated effective masses and should total 100 percent of the total mass when all modes are considered.
70 sec Mode 8 T = 0.74 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 3 T = 1.63 sec Figure 3.15 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 5 T = 1.72 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 7 T = 0.FEMA 451.07 sec Mode 6 T = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Y Z X Y Z X Mode 1 T = 2. 328 .110 Mode shapes as computed using SAP2000.87 sec Mode 2 T = 2.57 sec Mode 4 T = 1.
113 Computed Periods and Direction Factors Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period (seconds) 2.631 0.37 (80.4) 0.745 1.4.6) 0.1.3.62 [3.0 Z Torsion 0.2.43 (79.867 2.9 91.02 (0.9) 10.7 Table 3.3) 1.1 Response Spectrum Coordinates and Computation of Modal Forces The coordinates of the response spectrum are based on Provisions Eq.6 0.3 27.6.06 (51.08 (77.7) 0.94 (78.38 (79.7 2.5 47.0 7.35 and 3.9) 2.074 0.] For periods less than T0: S a = 0.03 (59.01 (78. 3.Chapter 3.114 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period (seconds) 2.1.7 64.04 (64.0) 0.427 Modal Direction Factor X Translation 99.96 (59.3 Y Translation 0.36].434 0.3) 1.434 0.427 Effective Mass Factor X Translation 64.1) 1.9) 0.3) 3.34 (64.0 5.01 (79.7 1.12 49.8) 3.1 0.7) 0.04 (75.4 S DS T0 and for periods greater than TS: 329 .1) 51.9) 8.0 9.0 70.51 (64.6) 1.631 0.149 1.149 1.00 (79.565 1.5) 64.8 1.7 0.64 (76.0) 0.9) 2.1) 0.8 92.25 (64.15 (77.8) 0.23 50.93 (65.23 (75.4 5.3 30.7 99. [In the 2003 Provisions.6) 0.4 7.0) 0.2 0.744 1. the value of which is based on the magnitude of the source earthquake that dominates the probabilistic ground motion at the site.7 98. Structural Analysis Table 3.7) 10.724 0.0) Z Torsion 0.6) 5.78 (75. 4.697 0.32 (71. the design response spectrum has reduced ordinates at very long periods as indicated in Sec.30 (56.93 (68.1.6 S DS T + 0.9) 0.867 2.0) 0.15 (72.7 3.2.46 (51.46 (0. The new portion of the spectrum reflects a constant ground displacement at periods greater than TL.697 0.074 0.7) 0.2 88.04 (0.2 0.61 and 4.6) Y Translation 0.07 (65.565 1.1 44.724 0.
0235 2.833 0.2 0.8 I=1.500 0.000 0. which controlled the ELF base shear for this structure and which ultimately will control the scaling of the results from the responsespectrum analysis.111.000 0.7 0.124 0.5 Period. sec 2.044ISDS). shown with and without the I/R =1/8 modification.9 I=1.5 3.000 0. 330 .0 Figure 3.149 0.373.0 1.4 0.333 0. T0 = 0.0311 2.089 (T0) 0. R=1 0.0416 0.7.0 2.089 seconds and TS = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Sa = S D1 T where T0 = 0. min = 0.6 0.115 Response Spectrum Coordinates Csm Csm(I/R) Tm (seconds) 0. is plotted in Figure 3.833 and SD1 = 0.0 0.) Table 3.104 0. 0.0186 3.111 Total acceleration response spectrum used in analysis.2S DS / S D1 and TS = S D1 / S DS .000 0.FEMA 451.448 seconds. The spectrum does not include the high period limit on Cs (Cs.0446 1.1 0 0. The computed responsespectrum coordinates for several period values are shown in Table 3.5 1.104 1.448 (TS) 0. R=8 0. (Recall that if the computed base shear falls below 85 percent of the ELF base shear.5 Acceleration.249 0.0155 I = 1.115 and the response spectrum.0 3.186 0. the computed response must be scaled up such that the computed base shear equals 85 percent of the ELF base shear. g 0.500 0. Using SDS = 0.373 0.833 0.5 4. R = 8.3 0.
the responsespectrum analysis was carried out using SAP2000. As mentioned above.] According to Provisions Sec.1.111 does not include the minimum base shear limit imposed by Provisions Eq.6 = 2.5. 331 . 5.85 factor). The modalresponsespectrum shears are less than the ELF shears because the fundamental period of the structure used in the responsespectrum analysis is 2. If the response spectrum shears are lower than the ELF shear.111 and Table 3.116. Combinations of these two loadings plus accidental torsion are discussed later. the first 14 modes of response were computed and superimposed using complete quadratic combination (CQC).” SAP2000 automatically computes and prints the CQC story shears. 5.23) and because the response spectrum of Figure 3. and the second directed the motion along the Y axis. However. the required scale factors are: Xdirection scale factor = 0. [Recall that the equation for minimum base shear coefficient does not appear in the 2003 Provisions.1. The response spectrum used in the analysis did include I/R.6.85(1124)/454.1 Dynamic Base Shear After specifying member “groups.1.115. Structural Analysis Using the response spectrum coordinates of Table 3. the base shears from the modalresponsespectrum analysis must not be less than 85 percent of that computed from the ELF analysis. 3.3. The base shears were printed as follows: Xdirection base shear = 437.14.13.4. The first directed the seismic motion along the X axis of the structure. it is clear that the vertical distribution of forces is somewhat similar when computed by ELF and modalresponse spectrum.10 The computed and scaled story shears are as shown in Table 3.85(1124)/437. A modal damping ratio of 5 percent of critical was used in the CQC calculations. Hence.7 kips Ydirection base shear = 454. Recall that the ELF base shear was controlled by Provisions Eq.7 = 2.4.7]. direct comparisons cannot be made between Table 3. Since the base shears for the ELF and the modal analysis are different (due to the 0.18 Ydirection scale factor = 0.Chapter 3.7 [5.87 seconds (vs 2.13. Groups were defined such that total shears would be printed for each story of the structure.1. Two analyses were carried out.6 kips These values are much lower that the ELF base shear of 1124 kips. 5. then the computed shears and displacements must be scaled up such that the response spectrum base shear is 85 percent of that computed from the ELF analysis.
118.9 409.111) must also be scaled by the base shear factors (SF) of 2.8 400.5 426. the story displacement from the responsespectrum analysis.116 are used in association with the scaled story drifts (including Cd) from Table 3.FEMA 451.6 163.18 and 2.45 kN.5 315.1 239.5.18) Story R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 1.3. As the β factor was conservatively set at 1.2 Drift and PDelta Effects According to Provisions Sec.7 191. it is likely that a refined analysis for β would indicate that Pdelta effects are not of particular concern for this structure.6 Scaled Shear (kips) 167 268 344 410 521 583 635 686 782 843 897 956 Unscaled Shear (kips) 82.1 326. 332 .10 for the structure loaded in the X and Y directions. respectively.6 383.4 437.116 Story Shears from ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis X Direction (SF = 2.2 358.5).2 454. The story stability factors are above the limit (θmax = 0.7 Scaled Shear (kips) 180 286 358 417 523 586 638 688 783 838 894 956 3.2 302.7 [5.4 292.117.6 277. the scaled story displacement. Note that the scaled story shears from Table 3.091) only at the bottom two levels of the structure and are only marginally above the limit.117 and 3. Pdelta effects are computed for the Xdirection response as shown in Table 3.5 195. In Tables 3.6.7].10) Unscaled Shear (kips) 79. 5. and the allowable story drift are listed. the allowable drift is not exceeded at any level.1. the computed displacements and drift (as based on the response spectrum of Figure 3.0 in computing the limit.0 247. the scaled story drift.0 163.5 131.6 268. the amplified story drift (as multiplied by Cd = 5. As may be observed from the tables.0 371. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.0 kip = 4.119.2 127. Y Direction (SF = 2.
) 3.88 1.69 1.79 1.00 3.615 0.43 1.29 0.118 Spectrum Response Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction 1 Total Drift from R.S.96 1.117 Response Spectrum Drift for Building Responding in X Direction 4 5 1 2 3 Total Drift Scaled Total from R.76 2.86 5 Allowable Story Drift (in.66 1.34 0.39 0.36 0.39 0.439 0.938 0.20 2.91 3.84 3.54 3.00 3.76 1.58 1.04 1.93 2.31 2.) (in.87 1.33 0.65 1.31 2.10 3.4 mm.968 0.00 4.) (in.18] Drift × Cd Story Drift Scaled Drift (in.32 1.35 0.00 4.11 1.32 0.518 3 4 Scaled Story Drift × Cd (in.605 0.4 mm.) 0.432 0.33 0.34 0.26 1.60 1.00 3.32 2.15 0.00 3.38 0. = 25.84 1.00 3.00 3.00 3. = 25.S.534 0.47 1.98 2.26 0.908 0.14 2. Table 3.0 in.00 3.0 in.18] (in.10 0.958 0.757 0.53 1.) (in.) 3.789 0.09 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.Chapter 3.97 1.32 Level Scaled Drift (in.40 0.62 1. 333 .09 1.38 0.00 2.00 3.) (in.32 1.247 2 Scaled Total Drift [Col1 × 2.87 2.99 0.00 0.75 3. Structural Analysis Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3.) 0.09 2.) 3.) 1.00 3.42 0. Drift Scaled Story Allowable Analysis [Col1 × 2.18 4.21 2.87 3. Analysis (in.82 1.10 1.65 2.14 2.36 0.00 3.32 1.20 0.94 2.51 2.24 0.00 3.59 1.38 0.00 3.82 1.37 0.55 3.28 1.30 0.12 0.52 R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.245 4.72 1.40 1.00 3.27 0.00 3.00 3.
092 1. it is necessary to add the effects of accidental torsion and orthogonal loading into the analysis. As there are four possible mass locations.0 3681.0 4938.0 3712.14 2330.9 523 150 1.013 0.075 0.3 956 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2X 0.8 24898.8 615.072 0. As with the displaced mass method.8 315.09 4323.024 0.0 35972.5 315.0 kip = 4.31 3066. the first approach may be preferred because the dynamic analysis will automatically amplify the torsional effects.086 0. Compute the effects of accidental torsion by creating a load condition with the story torques applied as static forces. there are generally two approaches that can be taken: 1.6.91 3097.7 586 150 2.041 0.0 in. 334 .3 286 150 1. the static torsional forces should be based on 85 percent of the ELF forces.8 17163.0 3681.0 3868.8 5793. For structures that are torsionally regular and will not require amplification of torsion. the second approach has been used because the structure has essentially rigid diaphragms and high torsional rigidity and amplification of accidental torsion is not required.0 1910.43 1595.0 11571.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX (kips) 150 0. and Load Combinations To determine member design forces.1 32260.1 358 150 1.059 0.081 0.8 315.8 7703. For torsionally flexible structures.8 3882. When including accidental torsion in modalresponsespectrum analysis. In the analysis that follows.0 1971.3 Torsion.0 615.FEMA 451.8 465.87 3403.8 465.0 1910. the absolute value of the member forces resulting from accidental torsion should be used. there are four possible ways to apply the accidental torsion: plus and minus torsion for primary loads in the X or Y directions.5 180 150 1.0 2795. Member forces created by the accidental torsion are then added directly to the results of the responsespectrum analysis.1.3 894 216 2. Since the sign of member forces in the responsespectrum analysis is lost as a result of SRSS or CQC combinations. 1. the second approach is preferred.20 2330. Displace the center of mass of the floor plate plus or minus 5 percent of the plate dimension perpendicular to the direction of the applied response spectrum.0 2795. 2.09 3066.5 1971.032 0.65 1595.8 19959.99 1656.8 14367. Each of the above approaches has advantages and disadvantages.9 417 150 1.1 615.1 28579. this will require four separate modal analyses for torsion with each analysis using a different set of mode shapes and frequencies.2 838 150 2.) ∆ (in.050 0.0 1910.1 615. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.119 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in.45 kN.0 465.101 0.8 315.5 638 150 2. = 25.8 465. 3.82 1595.0 2795.3 688 150 2.4 mm. Orthogonal Loading. Because of the required scaling.98 2330. The primary disadvantage of the first approach is a practical one: most computer programs do not allow for the extraction of member force maxima from more than one run when the different runs incorporate a different set of mode shapes and frequencies.1 783 150 2.
6.2. As stated in the paper. Perform a similar analysis for the larger seismic forces acting in the Y direction. These forces include 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection spectrum added to the 30 percent of the scaled Ydirection spectrum. 4 335 . combine 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection results with 100 percent of the scaled Ydirection results.2. one in the X direction and one in the Ydirection. 2. Suharwardy. 5. The paper also suggests the use of a single scale factor. These are shown in Figure 3.2. Accidental torsion is then added to the combined spectral loading. 3. Run two separate responsespectrum analyses. Use CQC for combining modal maxima. Run the responsespectrum analysis with 100 percent of the scaled X spectrum acting in one direction.1] are included. written in 1989 by Wilson.3RS Y RS Y Figure 3. with CQC being used for modal combinations in each analysis. including the effect of accidental torsion. Using a direct sum. where the scale factor is based on the total base shear developed along the principal axes of the structure.112 Load combinations from responsespectrum analysis. the total number of load combinations will double to four.1.3RS X T RS X T 0. with CQC being used for modal combinations in each analysis.112. Perform a similar analysis for the larger loads acting in the Y direction.113) was computed as follows: This method has been forwarded in the unpublished paper A Seismic Analysis Method Which Satisfies the 1988 UBC Lateral Force Requirements.4 Member Design Forces Earthquake shear forces in the beams of Frame 1 are given in Figure 3. In addition. and Habibullah. Run two separate responsespectrum analyses. 0. 3. Structural Analysis There are three possible methods for applying the orthogonal loading rule: 1. one in the X direction and one in the Y direction. the major advantage of the method is that one set of dynamic design forces. is produced in one computer run. combine 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection results with 30 percent of the scaled Ydirection results.Chapter 3.4 All seismic effects can be considered in only two load cases by using Approach 2 for accidental torsion and Approach 2 for orthogonal loading. When the load combinations required by Provisions Sec. The design force for the Level 12 beam in Bay 3 (shown in bold type in Figure 3. concurrent with the application of 30 percent of the scaled Y spectrum acting in the orthogonal direction. the resulting structural design has equal resistance to seismic motions in all possible directions.7 [4. Using SRSS.113 for the X direction of response.
Analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1.0 kips 9.18.7 17.4 20.9 27. linearly superimposed.2 30.0 30. 3.0 19.0 30.0 24. and then used to compute structural displacements and member forces.9 27.1 Figure 3.8 29.1.8 26.7 27.10 × 0.0 25.6 20.1 10.1 27.1 20.6 28. Force from 100 percent Ydirection spectrum = 1.4 27. Requirements for timehistory analysis are provided in Provisions Sec.8 25.4 22. 5.FEMA 451.85 × 1.6 18.4 30.1 29. the modal responses are transformed to the structural coordinate system.6 27.1 18.0 25.2 20.2 18.7 28. Scale factor for Ydirection response = 2. Force from accidental torsion = 1.1 26.6 [5. The displacement and member forces for each time step in the analysis or minimum and maximum quantities (response envelopes) may be printed.10.7 ModalTimeHistory Analysis In modaltimehistory analysis.0 20.7 26.45 kN).25 kips.26) + (0.0 kip = 4.0 31.2 26. Earthquake shear force = (2.94) + (2.94 kips (as based on CQC combination for structure loaded with X spectrum only).5 26.26 kips (as based on CQC combination for structure loaded with Y spectrum only).9 32.7 28.113 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using responsespectrum analysis.18 × 6.4 9.4].3 26. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Force from 100 percent Xdirection spectrum = 6.25) = 17.7 31.1 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 11. the response in each mode is computed using stepbystep integration of the equations of motion.4 28.5 31.5 17.0 29.7 24. The same mathematical model of the structure used for the ELF and responsespectrum analysis is used for the timehistory analysis.9 17.8 30.0 28.30 × 1.8 29.8 27.6 9. 336 .8 30.0 28.5 28. Scale factor for Xdirection response = 2.8 24.9 28.1 19.
2 is also used for the present example. SB.7.240 through 3. and C): a Assume an initial scale factor (SA. The scale factors for record sets A.5 T1 is not less than 1.407 USC Lick (Loma Prieta) USC Lick (Loma Prieta) Dayhook (Tabas.2. distance.Chapter 3. Scale the SRSS using the factor from (a) above. the structure will be analyzed using three different pairs of ground motion timehistories. 337 . Compute the 5percentdamped elastic response spectrum for each component in the pair. However. and SC) such that the average of the three scaled SRSS spectra over the period range 0. B. T1 is the fundamental mode period of vibration of 5 See Sec.4. For this reason.3 times the 5percentdamped spectrum determined in accordance with Provisions Sec. SC). the emphasis is on the implementation of the timehistory approach rather than on selection of realistic ground motions. they must be scaled using the procedure described in Provisions Sec. the motion suite developed for Example 3. Washington.2 of this volume of design examples for a detailed discussion of the selected ground motions. response spectrum. The scaling process proceeds as follows: 1. 5. and timehistory approaches. Iran) Dayhook (Tabas. 3.435 0. One scale factor will be determined for each pair of ground motions. Structural Analysis As allowed by Provisions Sec. For each pair of motions (A. b.2.5 The structure for Example 3. Refer to Figures 3. and source mechanism consistent with those that control the maximum considered earthquake.443 Lucern (Landers) EW 8192 @ 0.2. Table 3. c.6 [3.2 [5. and SC. Iran) Record Name Record A00 Record A90 Record B00 Record B90 Record C00 Record C90 Before the ground motions may be used in the timehistory analysis.2T1 to 1. B.2.005 seconds 1024 @ 0.242 for additional information.120 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters (Unscaled) Number of Points and Peak Ground Orientation Source Motion Time Increment Acceleration (g) NS 8192 @ 0. however. 2.005 seconds 4096 @ 0.120 below. including plots of the ground motion time histories and 5percentdamped response spectra for each motion. respectively. SB.1 The Seattle Ground Motion Suite It is beneficial to provide some basic information on the Seattle motion suites in Table 3.6.005 seconds 0. and C will be called SA. not strictly consistent with the requirements of the Provisions. 4. SB.4].6.460 0.460 0.2 [5. 5. and uses three pairs of motions developed specifically for the site. For the purposes of this example. a realistic comparison may still be made between the ELF. The motions should be characteristic of the site and should be from real (or simulated) ground motions that have a magnitude.1. Compute the SRSS of the spectra for the two components.454 Lucern (Landers) NS EW NS EW 4096 @ 0.4.6.02 seconds 0. of course. Adjust scale factors (SA. and d.2].1. The use of the Seattle motions for a Stockton building analysis is.3.02 seconds 1024 @ 0.005 seconds 0.2]. The development of a proper suite of ground motions is one of the most critical and difficult aspects of timehistory approaches. 3.2 is situated in Seattle.
This equality in scale factors would not necessarily be appropriate for other suites of motions./sec2). at the structure’s fundamental mode. For example.3 more than compensates for the fact that taking the SRSS of the two components of a ground motion effectively increases their magnitude by a factor of 1. the effect of using the 0.57 sec 100 0 0 1 2 Period.2T 1 = 0. (The factor of 1.30.573 seconds to 4. = 25. at the second translational X mode. The spectra themselves were computed using the program NONLIN. and it is up to the engineer to make sure that the selected scale factors are reasonable. not 1./sec2) and SD1 = 0. the minimum ratio of 1. 7 NONLIN. the effect is even more pronounced. where a scale factor SA = SB = SC = 0. the ratio of the scaled average SRSS to the Provisions spectrum is 1. in.4 mm). sec 3 4 5 Figure 3. To find the latest version. hence. An infinite number of different scale factors will satisfy the above requirements.115 shows the ratio of the average SRSS spectrum to the Provisions spectrum over the period range 0. developed by Finley Charney.114 shows the average of the SRSS of the unscaled spectra together with the Provisions response spectrum using SDS = 0./sec 2 1.149 6 The “degree of freedom” in selecting the scaling factors may be used to reduce the effect of a particularly demanding motion. T = 1. 600 Average of SRSS 500 NEHRP Spectrum 400 Acceleration.414. As can be seen. with T = 2.) Note that the scale factors so determined are not unique.7 The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples the structure.FEMA 451.3 over the target period range is to have a relatively higher scale factor at all other periods if those periods significantly contribute to the response.38. this process is best carried out using an Excel spreadsheet. do a search for NONLIN.6 Because the original ground motions are similar in terms of peak ground acceleration. Given the 5percentdamped spectra of the ground motions.115. Figure 3.8 seconds.114 Unscaled SRSS of spectra of ground motion pairs together with Provisions spectrum (1.373g (144 in.922 scale factor to provide a minimum ratio of 1. At all other periods. At the higher modes.833g (322 in. may be downloaded at no cost at www.30 seconds.30 sec 300 200 0.5 T 1 = 4.867 sec. Figure 3. 338 T1 = 2.0 in.3 occurs at a period of approximately 3.fema. the same scale factor will be used for each motion.114 and 3.gov/emi. For example.87 sec .922 has been applied to each original spectrum. SA = SB = SC.
2 1. The Provisions is not particularly clear regarding the scaling of displacements in timehistory analysis. When performing lineartimehistory analysis. 339 . 5.044ISDS). [In the 2003 Provisions base shear scaling is still required. I = 1 and R = 8.3 [5.7. This is stated in Provisions Sec.8 1.1.13.115 Ratio of average scaled SRSS spectrum to Provisions spectrum.62. 5. See Sec.3] states that if fewer than seven ground motion pairs are used in the analysis. 5. mainly to be consistent with the response spectrum procedure which.6 1. but recall that the minimum base shear has been revised. This.3 [5. of course. The second paragraph states that member forces and displacements should be scaled. 3. sec 3 4 5 Figure 3.1.Chapter 3.4 Ratio of average SRSS to NEHRP 0.115.3]. In this case. 5. Recall that the base shear controlled by Eq.4. but displacements are not mentioned. The first paragraph of Sec.8 0.1. If the maximum base shear from any of the analyses is less than that computed from Provisions Eq. the design of the structure should be based on the maximum scaled quantity among all analyses.2 1.4.5.4.6.922(1/8) = 0. 5.6.] The second paragraph of Provisions Sec. is an inherent difficulty of using a single scale factor to scale ground motion spectra to a target code spectrum.8 of this volume of design examples for more discussion of this apparent inconsistency in the Provisions. so the actual scale factor applied to each ground motion will be 0. the ground motions also should be scaled by the factor I/R.0 0 1 2 Period. 5.4 1. In this example. 5. the displacements will be scaled.4. in Provisions Sec.0 Ratio 0.6.4. explicitly states that forces and displacements should be scaled. Structural Analysis seconds and the computed ratio is 1.6 0.13 is 1124 kips in each direction.3 Target 0. all forces and displacements8 computed from the timehistory analysis must again be scaled such that peak base shear from the timehistory analysis is equal to the minimum shear computed from Eq. 1.3 states that member forces should be scaled.1.13 (Cs = 0.
29 1. 5.122 Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis (Scaled) Maximum Base Required Additional Adjusted Adjusted Max Shear Scale Factor for Maximum Roof Roof Disp.90 393. 14 modes were used in the analysis.86 6.122. This is expected because the ELF base shear was controlled by Provisions Eq.F.115) Displacement (kips) (sec) (in. 1.5 12.36 15.12 1. The required scale factors are shown in Table 3.4 mm.6 13.2 2.5.02 381.11 14.2 11.51 35.) 394.30 Table 3.38 1.2 475.97 27.91 19.85 19.79 5.77 16.67 20.5 2.15 4.5 2.02 519. each of the analyses will need to be scaled up. = 25.9 403.95 5. The integration timestep used in all analyses was 0.13 12.1 2.5 19.70 7.8 523.86 7.45 kN.5 19. = 25.115) V = 1124 kips Displacement (kips) (in.96 1.91 10.31 1. = 0. Also shown in that table are the scaled maximum deflections with and without Cd = 5.2 2.16 3.1 14.121 and 3.37 4.0 kip = 4.43 399.73 2.8 523.11 11.95 32.13.81 4.19 28.7 398.0 kip = 4.42 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Twelve individual timehistory analyses were carried out using SAP2000: one for each NS ground motion acting in the X direction. Hence.27 454.68 12.80 403.77 473.75 31.) (SF = 0. 1.9 2. one for each NS motion acting in the Y direction. As may be observed from Table 3.05 27. Five percent of critical damping was used in each mode. one for each EW motion acting in the X direction.8 2. 340 .5 2.115) Shear (S.89 5.9 15.121 Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis (Unscaled) Maximum Base Maximum Roof Time of Shear Time of Maximum Displacement Maximum (S.17 22.) (sec) 394.48 4.28 11.0 in.35 29.03 33.45 kN.84 2. and one for each EW motion acting in the Y direction.85 6.122.5 519.96 1.5 2.82 5.1.7 473.53 24.17 475.4 454.0 in.6 393.38 388.005 seconds.1 6.35 2.F.83 1.11 22.2 12.4 mm.2 6. As with the responsespectrum analysis.6 388.4 Analysis A00X A00Y A90X A90Y B00X B00Y B90X B90Y C00X C00Y C90X C90Y 1. = 0.FEMA 451.39 398. 1.121. Table 3. the maximum scaled base shears computed from the timehistory analysis are significantly less than the ELF minimum of 1124 kips. × Cd (in.2 381. Analysis A00X A00Y A90X A90Y B00X B00Y B90X B90Y C00X C00Y C90X C90Y Scaled base shear = 1124 kips for all cases.40 1.9 399.2 2.4.37 5.5 15.95 19.6 2.1 2. The results from the analyses are summarized Tables 3.
it is necessary to determine the story shears that exist at the time of maximum displacement.3 of this example).0 in.00 3.122. To be sure that the maximum drift has been determined. As may be observed from Table 3. Before computing Pdelta effects.1.88 3.58 0.47 0. compared to the limit of 3.) 3.123 TimeHistory Drift for Building Responding in X Direction to Motion A00X Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Elastic Total Drift (in.00 3. are shown in the first two columns of Table 3. For comparison purposes. 1. These shears.00 4. it would be necessary to compute the scaled drifts histories from each analysis and then find the maximum drift among all analyses.) 2.00 3.00 3. = 25. Structural Analysis 3.Chapter 3.39 4.9 kips.00 3.66 2. the allowable drift has been exceeded at several levels.39 2 Elastic Story Drift (in.34 3.00 3.12 0.00 3. significantly less that the peak base shear of 1124 kips.4 mm.95 2. Table 3. drift and Pdelta effects are checked only for the structure subjected to Motion A00 acting in the X direction of the building.57 3.12 3.39 0.66 0. As can be seen from Table 3.74 0. As mentioned earlier. at Level 11.14 4. As may be seen from Table 3.27 2.124. the Pdelta effects are marginally exceeded at the lower three levels of the structure.61 0.20 2.62 0.54 1.75 0.) 6. the computed drift is 4.42 0.63 4. 341 .123. The maximum base shear at the time of maximum displacement is only 668.89 2.51 6.08 1.5.00 3.00 3.00 inches.32 Computations are at time of maximum roof displacement from analysis A00X. For example. this analysis produced the largest roof displacement.2 Drift and PDelta Effects In this section.7.34 0.14 in. but not necessarily the maximum story drift.39 3 Inelastic Story Drift (in.0. as the maximum allowable stability ratio for the structure is 0.) 0.13 4 Allowable Drift (in. 3.00 3.125.124 also shows the story shears and inertial forces that occur at the time of peak base shear. the fact that the limit has been exceeded is probably of no concern because the factor β was conservatively taken as 1.05 5.54 0.63 3. Table 3.091 (see Sec.32 2.40 3.75 0. together with the inertial story forces.1.12 1.
0 615.7 778. Orthogonal Loading.0 kip = 4.73 sec) Story Shear (kips) 40. 1.85 is not used. and Load Combinations As with ELF or responsespectrum analysis.9 2X 0. 3.1 615.125 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in.13 3097.3 11.1 828.FEMA 451.3 135.096 Computations are at time of maximum roof displacement from analysis A00X.8 315.8 14367.5 150 3.0 kip = 4.3 668.3 529.8 186.7 95.6 26.34 2330.3 45.7 150 2.63 1595. 1.1 668.8 615.5 843.32 4323.124 Scaled Inertial Force and Story Shear Envelopes from Analysis A00X Level At Time of Maximum Roof Displacement (T = 11.083 0.8 5793.6 47.053 0.1 37.2 4.3 Inertial Force (kips) 307.8 855.5 307.12 3066.5 662.4 222.14 1595.0 35972.95 2330.8 3882.5 315.0 in.5 150 3.061 0.0 465.3 50.40 3403.0 1910.3 716. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.8 17163.044 0.3 855.7 150 4.7 785. it is necessary to add the effects of accidental torsion and orthogonal loading into the analysis.1.1 664.079 0. Orthogonal loading is automatically accounted for by concurrently running one ground motion in one principal direction with 342 .0 1971.9 150 3.20 2330.9 787.7 664.4 529.5 787.4 49.2 307.2 778.9 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3. Accidental torsion is applied in exactly the same manner as done for the response spectrum approach.0 3681.4 29.8 465.7 150 1.0 4938.084 0.0 3712.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips) 150 2.45 kN.2 44. = 25.0 3681.0 828.4 mm.5 843.9 150 4.7.12 1595.0 1910.7 817.3 66.57 1656.2 122.8 7703.1 28579.8 24898.6 319.0 62.2 148.89 3066.0 468.8 19959. At Time of Maximum Base Shear (T = 12.0 2795.8 315.9 730.8 465.020 0.9 223.8 315.7 1124.0 Inertial Force (kips) 40. except that the factor 0.9 730.8 150 2.1 91.1 559.5 1971.071 0.3 Torsion.1 1.9 817.0 2795.1 32260.8 465.2 596.0 150 2.45 kN.4 149.39 sec) Story Shear (kips) R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.0 2795.0 11571.6 57.2 65.7 716.103 0.1 216 2.094 0.) ∆ (in.0 1910.1 615.032 0.0 3868.4 150 3.2 26.5 971.
The envelope values from only the first two combinations are shown in Figure 3.117. Structural Analysis 30 percent of the companion motion being applied in the orthogonal direction.3 45. Note that some of the other combinations (Combinations 3 through 8) control the member shears at the lower levels of the building.6 32.9 44.6 36.4 37.1 40. 16.0 35. Because the signs of the ground motions are arbitrary.4 32.4 Member Design Forces Using the method outlined above. These forces are compared to the forces obtained using ELF and modalresponsespectrum analysis in the following discussion.3 B90Y + Torsion B90X + 0.9 39.3 C00Y + Torsion 3.4 45.3 28.3 42.9 27.9 42.4 33.8 24. Envelope values from all combinations are shown in Figure 3.6 35.0 22.116 For Combinations 1 and 2.6 42.8 40.1 30.4 35.7 34.8 44.4 28. the individual beam shear maxima developed in Fame 1 were computed for each load combination.9 33.7 23.6 35.9 43.0 43.1.6 35. it is appropriate to add the absolute values of the responses from the two directions.116.1 32.9 34.Chapter 3.6 52.2 30.3 47.0 23.2 33.0 34.3 B00Y + Torsion C00X + 0.3 31.3 44.2 17.2 23. 343 .3 A90Y + Torsion A90X + 0.2 34. analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1.0 44.4 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 13.3 35.1 Figure 3.3 C90Y + Torsion C90X + 0. beam shears (kips) as computed using timehistory analysis.3 A00Y + Torsion B00X + 0.5 50.9 23.7.8 16.4 41.5 32. Six dynamic load combinations result: Combination 1: Combination 2: Combination 3: Combination 4: Combination 5: Combination 6: A00X + 0.7 23.6 49.4 43.4 45.5 32.2 32.45 kN).3 17.0 kip = 4.
4 35.9 Figure 3.6 32. the shears computed at the time of maximum displacement and time of maximum base shear (from analysis A00X only) are provided.1 38.8 41.6 41. analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1.2 34.9 37.8 Comparison of Results from Various Methods of Analysis A summary of the results from all of the analyses is provided in Tables 3.9 25. the shears from ELF and responsespectrum analysis seem to differ primarily on the basis of the factor 0.3 43.3 24. ELF does.3 45.2 37.1 36.8 36.85 used in scaling the response spectrum results.4 42.7 35.6 49.126.6 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 14. however.6 34.8.6 36.3 17.3 36. The difference between ELF shears and timehistory envelope shears is much more pronounced.4 45.5 45.3 29.7 41.7 44.5 32.6 29. 344 .5 35.1 Comparison of Base Shear and Story Shear The maximum story shears are shown In Table 3.45 kN).2 25.4 33.0 kip = 4.9 24.8 35.8 17. One reason for the difference is that the scaling of the ground motions has greatly increased the contribution of the higher modes of response. particularly at the upper levels where timehistory analysis gives larger forces. 3.5 45.1.3 44. 3.128. For the timehistory analysis.0 44.1. beam shears (kips) as computed using timehistory analysis.5 24. produce relatively larger forces at Levels 6 through 10.6 52.3 38.6 32. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 16. Also shown from the timehistory analysis is the envelope of story shears computed among all analyses.2 30. As may be observed.2 17.126 through 3.5 50.4 37.6 36.FEMA 451.6 28.5 43.3 24.3 47.7 43. particularly for the upper levels.117 For all combinations.2 24.8 46.9 36.0 37.6 45.1 37.9 46. The timehistory analysis also gives shears larger than those computed using the response spectrum procedure.
3.7 95. Structural Analysis 3. 187 341 471 578 765 866 943 999 1070 1102 1118 1124 180 286 358 417 523 586 638 688 783 838 894 956 325 551 683 743 930 975 964 957 1083 1091 1045 1124 345 . envelope values would be somewhat greater. The timehistory drifts are from a single analysis. The shears from the timehistory (TH) analysis are envelope values among all analyses.2 Comparison of Drift Table 3. it is also possible that the effect of scaling has been to artificially enhance the higher mode response.127 summarizes the drifts computed from each of the analyses. A00X.8. The effect of higher modes on the response is again the likely explanation for the noted differences.0 kip = 4. but the drifts from timehistory analysis are significantly greater.3 Comparison Member Forces The shears developed in Bay DE of Frame 1 are compared in Table 3. Aside from the fact that the 0.3 45. The timehistory approach produced larger beam shears than the ELF and response spectrum (RS) approaches.Chapter 3. it is not clear why the timehistory drifts are as high as they are.126 Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Story Shear Story Shear (kips) Level ELF RS TH at Time of Maximum Displacement 307 530 664 731 788 818 844 856 829 779 718 669 TH at Time of Maximum Base Shear 40.1. One possible explanation is that the drifts are dominated by one particular pulse in one particular ground motion.45 kN. at Envelope R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.85 factor is not applied to timehistory response. including torsion and orthogonal load effects. the ELF and modalresponsespectrum approaches appear to produce similar results. particularly in the upper levels of the building.1. As with shear. Table 3.8.6 319 468 559 596 663 786 972 1124 TH.2 44.128. As mentioned above.
0 28.3 31.98 2.0 in.7 26.75 1.92 1.12 1. however.91 TH 2. Beam Shear Force in Bay DE of Frame 1 (kips) ELF 9.23] (Cs = SD1/T(R/I) when Eq.044ISDS) controls for strength.03 1.70 17.3 31. modalresponsespectrum.14 4.4 mm.54 17. the computed 346 .95 1.89 2.1.82 1.87 1. In ELF analysis.41 1.7 31.7 28.5 26.4 A Commentary on the Provisions Requirements for Analysis From the writer’s perspective.0 kip = 4.45 kN.3 45.5 45.5 43.7 27.1 37.34 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.8 RS 9.4 35. For both modalresponsespectrum analysis and modal timehistory analysis.8 30.9 36.32 2.13 Table 3.4 27. XDirection Drift (in.4 34. the Provisions allows displacements to be computed using base shears consistent with Eq.3 44.70 1.20 2.982 1.70 1.3 3.9 27.4 42.6 TH 17.1 38.95 2.83 2.0 32.99 1.09 2. = 25. there are two principal inconsistencies between the requirements for ELF.5 32. and modaltimehistory analyses: 1.1.42 [5.31 2.1 38.65 1.20 2.127 Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Story Drift Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.7 34.09 2.67 2.6 49. 5.8.40 3.128 Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Beam Shear Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.1.6 26.4.4.63 4.57 3.0 31.02 RS 0.7 24. 5.12 3.3 36.8 30.) ELF 0.FEMA 451.00 2.14 2.43 1.43 (CS = 0.
and modaltimehistory analyses. an analysis of an irregular steel moment frame was performed using three different techniques: equivalentlateralforce. modalresponsespectrum. the Provisions safeguards against this by requiring threedimensional dynamic analysis for highly irregular structures. This penalty for timehistory analysis is in addition to the penalty imposed by selecting a scale factor that is controlled by the response at one particular period (and thus exceeding the target at other periods). scale the results. when computer programs (e. The purpose of analysis.1. this does not negate the need or importance of ELF analysis because such an analysis is useful for preliminary design and components of the ELF analysis are necessary for application of accidental torsion.128 and should be addressed prior to finalizing the 2003 edition of the Provisions. This might change in the future when “standard” suites of ground motions are developed and are made available to the earthquake engineering community.85 is allowed when scaling modalresponsespectrum analysis.” If. In short. The amount of additional effort required to select and scale the ground motions. The factor of 0. however.13. and determine envelope values for use in design is simply not warranted when compared to the effort required for modalresponsespectrum analysis. Each analysis was performed using a linear elastic model of the structure even though it is recognized that the structure will repeatedly yield during the earthquake. The minimum base shear has been revised. perform the timehistory analysis.] The effect of these inconsistencies is evident in the results shown in Tables 3.Chapter 3. on the basis of any of the above analyses. [Because the minimum base shear has been revised in the 2003 Provisions. the structure will likely survive an earthquake consistent with the maximum considered ground motion. 3. is not to predict response but rather to provide information that an engineer can use to proportion members and to estimate whether or not the structure has sufficient stiffness to limit deformations and avoid overall instability. significant improvement is 347 . the analysis only has to be “good enough for design. Structural Analysis shears and displacements must be scaled if the computed base shear falls below the ELF shear computed using Eq. [In the 2003 Provisions these inconsistencies are partially resolved.1. The use of timehistory analysis is limited when applied to a linear elastic model of the structure. SAP2000 and ETABS) that can perform modalresponsespectrum analysis with only marginally increased effort over that required for ELF are available. 5. the modal analysis should always be used for final design in lieu of ELF (even if ELF is allowed by the Provisions).5 Which Method Is Best? In this example. Fortunately..1.g. Hence. the elements are properly designed for strength.” However. this inconsistency would not affect this example.] 2. the irregularities were probably not so extreme such that the ELF procedure would produce a “bad design. but timehistory analysis results are still scaled to a higher base shear than are modal response spectrum analysis results. As mentioned in the example. but not when scaling timehistory results. Also.8. the stiffness requirements are met and the elements and connections of the structure are detailed for inelastic response according to the requirements of the Provisions. For the structure analyzed in this example.126 through 3. each analysis has significant shortcomings with respect to providing a reliable prediction of the actual response of the structure during an earthquake. The exception would be if a highly irregular structure were analyzed using the ELF procedure.
but only for very knowledgeable users. The fact that there is a degree of freedom in the Provisions scaling requirements compensates for this effect.FEMA 451. distance. Nearsource earthquakes may display single damaging pulses.2. Scaling these two earthquakes to the Provisions spectrum seems to eliminate some of the most important characteristics of the ground motions. then why scale at all? Distant earthquakes may have a lower peak acceleration but contain a frequency content that is more significant. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples needed in the software available for the preprocessing and particularly. and source mechanism of a maximum considered earthquake expected at the site. The main benefit of timehistory analysis is in the nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures or in the analysis of nonproportionally damped linear systems. This type of analysis is the subject of Example 3. 348 . for the postprocessing of the huge amounts of information that arise from the analysis. The Provisions requires that the selected motions be consistent with the magnitude. Scaling ground motions used for timehistory analysis is also an issue. If the ground motions satisfy this criteria.
The analysis will show that the structure falls short of several performance expectations. more detail is provided on the last three analytical techniques. which has a height of 15 ft.Chapter 3. The primary purpose of this example is to highlight some of the more advanced analytical techniques. SEATTLE.21 and 3. At the exterior bays.4 [1. For the frames in the EW direction (Frames 1 and 6). Washington.1 Description of Structure The structure analyzed for this example is a 6story office building in Seattle. and Nonlinear dynamic analysis. the behavior of a simple. The typical story height is 12 ft6 in. 1. Only the demand side of the required behavior of these connections is addressed in this example.31]. it is assumed that the columns of the momentresisting frames are embedded into pilasters formed into the basement wall. with the exception of the first story. The lateralloadresisting system consists of steel momentresisting frames on the perimeter of the building. and it is this preliminary design that is investigated.22. From Provisions Table 1. Structural Analysis 3. WASHINGTON In this example. respectively. 4. A plan and elevation of the building are shown in Figures 3. 2. Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. Analysis associated with the added dampers is performed in a very preliminary manner.2]. The following analytical techniques are employed: 1. It is assumed that these and all other fully welded connections are constructed and inspected according to postNorthridge protocol. In an attempt to improve performance. nonlinear dynamic analysis is covered in Sec. and analysis of structures with added damping is prescribed in the Appendix to Chapter 13 [new Chapter 15]. 3. Nonlinear static analysis is covered in the Appendix to Chapter 5. 5. all of the columns bend about their strong axes. 3. According to the descriptions in Provisions Sec. momentresisting connections are used only at the interior columns.5]. The structure was initially proportioned using a preliminary analysis. There are a 5fttall perimeter parapet at the roof and one basement level that extends 15 ft below grade. The Provisions provides some guidance and requirements for the advanced analysis techniques.3 [1. and the girders are attached with fully welded momentresisting connections. hence. Linear dynamic analysis. There are five bays at 28 ft on center in the NS direction and six bays at 30 ft on center in the EW direction. For the momentresisting frames in the NS direction (Frames A and G).0. A few of these 349 .2 SIXSTORY STEEL FRAME BUILDING. Linear static analysis.2.7 [5. the EW girders are connected to the weak axis of the exterior (corner) columns using nonmomentresisting connections. Plastic strength analysis (using virtual work). the occupancy importance factor (I) is 1. For this example. All interior columns are gravity columns and are not intended to resist lateral loads. the building is assigned to Seismic Use Group I. sixstory structural steel momentresisting frame is investigated using a variety of analytical techniques. viscous fluid dampers are considered for use in the structural system. 5.
Analysis for lateral loads acting in the EW direction would be performed in a similar manner. all of the analyses in this example will be for lateral loads acting in the NS direction. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples columns. however. With minor exceptions. 1'6" (typical) 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" Moment connection (typical) N S Figure 3.FEMA 451. would be engaged as part of the added damping system described in the last part of this example.21 Plan of structural system. 350 28'0" W E 28'0" 28'0" 28'0" 28'0" .
1 Table 3.21 summarizes the members selected for the preliminary design.21 Member Sizes Used in NS Moment Frames Member Supporting Column Girder Doubler Plate Thickness Level (in. including miscellaneous plates.22 Elevation of structural system.00 6 W21x122 W24x84 1. All members. Prior to analyzing the structure. a preliminary design was performed in accordance with the AISC Seismic. and Level 1 is at grade. Level R. Story 1 is the lowest story (between Levels 2 and 1) and Story 6 is the uppermost story between Levels R and 6. A Story represents the distance between adjacent levels. Hence. Table 3.00 3 W21x201 W27x94 0. The story designation is the same as the designation of the level at the bottom of the story. The top level.00 5 W21x147 W27x94 1.875 The term Level is used in this example to designate a horizontal plane at the same elevation as the centerline of a girder. 1 351 . is at the roof elevation. Detailed calculations for the design are beyond the scope of this example.Chapter 3.875 2 W21x201 W27x94 0. Level 2 is the first level above grade.) R W21x122 W24x84 1.00 4 W21x147 W27x94 1. were designed using steel with a nominal yield stress of 50 ksi. Structural Analysis 5 at 12'6" = 62'6" 5'0" 15'0" 15'0" Basement wall 5 at 28'0" = 140'0" Figure 3.
thick are used at each of the interior columns at Levels 2 and 3. 3.1 Gravity Loads It is assumed that the floor system of the building consists of a normal weight composite concrete slab on formed metal deck.870 2.549 2.292 3. conforms to the drift requirements of the Provisions. These forces are used in a preliminary static analysis to determine whether the structure.110 321 642 2.561 7. as designed.882 14.870 2. the total dead load at each level is 95 psf.232 321 1. Based on these loads. A basic live load of 50 psf is used over the full floor. These are based on a total dead load of 95 psf.561 12.00 in.5 psf. and 10 psf for roofing at Level R.23. respectively.2.516 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The sections shown in Table 3.671 321 963 2.549 321 321 2. and a live load of 0.634 2.284 2. or 12.882 11. The slab is supported by floor beams that span in the NS direction. 6.2. live load.FEMA 451. 10 psf for partitions at Levels 2 through 6. Washington. thick plates are used at the interior columns at Levels 4. is assumed to act concurrent with seismic forces.2. The dead weight of the structural floor system is estimated at 70 psf. 5.398 2.882 8. Twentyfive percent of this load.926 Level R 6 5 4 3 2 Total Load (kips) Story Accumulated 2.561 10.22.792 321 1. the total dead load.561 5.25(50) = 12. The slight difference in loads at Levels R and 2 is due to the parapet and the tall first story. a cladding weight of 15 psf.2 Loads 3.894 17.21 meet the widthtothickness requirements for special moment frames. Tributary areas for columns and girders as well as individual element gravity loads used in the analysis are illustrated in Figure 3. Doubler plates were not used in the exterior columns. Table 3.875 in. The short period and the 1second mapped spectral 352 . equivalent static forces are computed in accordance with the Provisions.22 Gravity Loads on Seattle Building Dead Load (kips) Reduced Live Load (kips) Story Accumulated Story Accumulated 2. Adding 15 psf for ceiling and mechanical.752 2.882 5. The structure is situated in Seattle.366 321 1.2. A similar reduced live load is used for the roof.5 psf. and dead plus live load applied to each level are given in Table 3.605 2.573 15.2. These floor beams have a span of 28 ft and are spaced 10 ft on center. and R. and 1. The cladding system is assumed to weigh 15 psf. and the size of the column relative to the girders should ensure that plastic hinges will form in the girders.2 Earthquake Loads Although the main analysis in this example is nonlinear. Doubler plates 0.
1.34].42 [3.57 The structure is situated on Site Class C materials. Structural Analysis acceleration parameters for the site are: SS = 1.32].09 SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)0.741 = 0.42]. the maximum considered spectral acceleration parameters are: SMS = FaSS = 1.2.30(0. 4. and Ω0 = 3.2. it is assumed that the structure complies with the requirements for a special moment frame.31 and 3.494 Based on the above coefficients and on Provisions Tables 4.63 = 1.Chapter 3. which.41 and 1.1.2.2. 4.63 S1 = 0.1.31 and 3.1. the structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category D.63 SM1 = FvS1 = 1.2.33 and 3.51 and Eq. the design acceleration parameters are: SDS = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)1.741 And from Provisions Eq. From Provisions Tables 4.32]: Fa = 1.1.63) = 1.4(a) and 4.1b [1. 4. according to Provisions Table 5.31].2 [4. For the purpose of analysis.5.4(b) [Tables 3.1.00 Fv = 1.57) = 0.2.1a and 4. 353 . Cd = 5.52 [3.2.30 From Provisions Eq.2. has R = 8.00(1.41 and 4.2.0.
2R C R 6 5 (c) Element and nodal loads Figure 3.2R C PB .FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1'6" 1'6" 28'0" 28'0" 15'0" A B 30'0" (a) Tributary area for columns 1'6" 28'0" 28'0" 5'0" C C (b) Tributary area for girders P A .23 Element loads used in analysis. 354 .RC PB .
4. from Provisions Table 5.0485 T ( R / I ) 1. The results of this example problem would not be affected by the change. Cr = 0. 3. however.8 for a steel moment frame.2.11 [5. From Provisions Eq.4.494).4.27 sec.494 = = 0.21]. from Provisions Table 5.136 ( R / I ) (8 /1) Provisions Eq.12 [5.1 [5. the maximum (constant acceleration region) seismic response coefficient is: CSmax = S DS 1. Ta = 0.4(0.028 and x = 0.12 [5.1.5 ft.22].4.044(1)(1.52].8 = 0.0485(15.23] controls for this building. For the structure under consideration. 5.1.4. 5.13 [revised for the 2003 Provisions]: CSmin = 0.2. the Provisions requires that the period used for computing base shear not exceed CuTa where.2. this equation for minimum base shear coefficient has been revised.4. the total seismic shear is: V = CS W where W is the total weight of the structure.] Thus.2 [5.1.4. Using hn (the total building height above grade) = 77.Chapter 3.21] (using SD1 = 0. 5. V = 0.028(77.09) = 0.1 Approximate Period of Vibration Provisions Eq. 5.23] controls in the constant velocity region: CS = S D1 0.91 sec.2. 5.044 IS DS = 0.2. Using W = 15.2 Computation of Base Shear Using Provisions Eq.26] is used to estimate the building period: x Ta = Cr hn where.2. When the period is determined from a properly substantiated analysis.1 [5.11 [5. the value from Eq.2. CuTa = 1.1. 5.366) = 745 kips.4.91) = 1. must not be less than that given by Eq.09 = = 0.5)0. Cu = 1.366 kips.4.2.0480 . Structural Analysis 3. [In the 2003 Provisions.27(8 /1) The seismic response coefficient. 355 .
27) = 1.060.1 The Computer Program DRAIN2Dx The computer program DRAIN2Dx (henceforth called DRAIN) was used for all of the analyses described in this example.725 3 2.408 0.3 427.1 567.2. 3.2.129 96.385.561 27. the anticipated nonlinearities are introduced. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3.5T = 0.549 77.009 0.3.561 15.5 253.077 0.253 188.133 1. This is the approach employed in this example.5 621.919 2 2. Once the linear behavior is understood (and extrapolated to expected nonlinear behavior).2.2. DRAIN allows linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of twodimensional (planar) structures only.334 5 2. 5.990 R 6 2. For analysis of a single frame.0 109.210 and 5.6 15. onehalf of the tabulated values are used.0 426.5 1.5 8.8 745.077 57.3.3.2 2.12 [5.3 Vertical Distribution of Forces The Provisions Eq. 356 .735 15.0 835. 5.23 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Seattle Building Responding in NS Direction Fx hx Vx Mx wx Level x wxhxk Cvx (kips) (ft) (kips) (kips) (ftkips) 2. If more than one type of nonlinear behavior is expected to be of significance.366 3. it is advisable to perform a preliminary analysis with each nonlinearity considered separately and then to perform the final analysis with all nonlinearities considered.75 + 0.3 Preliminaries to Main Structural Analysis Performing a nonlinear analysis of a structure is an incremental process.6 43.1.8 32.2.75 + 0. These are the forces acting on the whole building.094 0.1 663.663 0.1 and 5.4.561 65.429 4 2.2 239.4.882 0.4.5(1.23.6 Σ 3. The lateral forces acting at each level and the story shears and story overturning moments acting at the bottom of the story below the indicated level are summarized in Table 3. Table 3.23] base shear is distributed along the height of the building using Provisions Eq.321 239.306. The analyst should first perform a linear analysis to obtain some basic information on expected behavior and to serve later as a form of verification for the more advanced analysis.561 52.561 40.000 745.7 23.FEMA 451.211]: Fx = CvxV and Cvx = wx h k i =1 ∑ wi hi n k where k = 0.188 140.033 24.2 [5.1 720.
Columns were fixed at their base. only three element types were used: Type 1. All analyses carried out using this model were linear. deformations to occur in the beamcolumn joint region. 3. axial deformation was not included. The column hinges form through the mechanism provided in DRAIN's Type 2 element. because of diaphragm slaving. The lateral degree of freedom at each level of the Pdelta column was slaved to the floor diaphragm at 357 . 3. Girder yielding was forced to occur in the Type 4 elements (in lieu of the main span represented by the Type 2 elements) to provide more control in hinge location and modeling. Each beam or column element was modeled using a Type 2 element. 4.Chapter 3. consisted only of Type 2 elements for the main structure and Type 1 elements for modeling Pdelta effects. Plastic hinges were allowed to form in all columns. Plastic behavior in girders and in the panel zone region of the structure was considered through the use of Type 4 connection elements. 2.3. For the girders. For the columns. and shear deformations were included. and the dampers in the damped system.24. Only a single frame was modeled. Structural Analysis As with any finite element analysis program. A complete description of the implementation of these elements is provided later.22 and 3. axial. Important characteristics of the model are as follows: 1. Pdelta effects were modeled using the leaner column shown in Figure 3. flexural.23 were applied. This allows. flexural and shear deformations were included but.2 Description of Preliminary Model and Summary of Preliminary Results The preliminary DRAIN model is shown in Figure 3.2. Composite action in the floor slab was ignored for all analysis. Pdelta effects were activated for this column only (Pdelta effects were turned off for the columns of the main frame). It was assumed that these elements would remain linear elastic throughout the response. While a variety of element types is available. Type 1 elements were used for modeling Pdelta effects. beamcolumn element Type 4. DRAIN models the structure as an assembly of nodes and elements. Members were modeled using centerline dimensions without rigid end offsets. connection element Two models of the structure were prepared for DRAIN. inelastic bar (truss) element Type 2. The first model. used for preliminary analysis and for verification of the second (more advanced) model. the braces in the damped system. in an approximate but reasonably accurate manner.24 at the right of the main frame. Note that this model does not provide any increase in beamcolumn joint stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates. 5. Type 2 elements were used to model the beams and columns as well as the rigid links associated with the panel zones. This column was modeled with an axially rigid Type 1 (truss) element. Hence onehalf of the loads shown in Tables 3. For the second more detailed model.
5.0839. in Story 2.25 times the limit provided by Provisions Table 5.3] which allows such an increase in drift when a nonlinear analysis is performed.6. Provisions Sec.25 for the computations excluding and including Pdelta effects.24 Simple wire frame model used for preliminary analysis. When Pdelta effects are not included.2]. As a preliminary estimate of the importance of Pdelta effects.8. Pdelta effects were modeled in this manner to avoid the inconsistency of needing true column axial forces for assessing strength and requiring total story forces for assessing stability. a special initial load case was created and executed. In each table.2] allows Pdelta effects to be ignored when the stability coefficient is less than 0.24 and 3. however.6. This is in accordance with Provisions Sec. If the 1. is 3.2.7. story stability coefficients (θ) were computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.2 [5. 5. and the computed story drift at Levels 3 and 4 would exceed the limit.00 in.2.45 in.3..4. respectively. At Story 2. the computed story drift is less than the allowable story drift at each level of the structure. the allowable story drift would reduce to 3.10.FEMA 451.1 Results of Preliminary Analysis: Drift and Period of Vibration The results of the preliminary analysis for drift are shown in Tables 3. [In the 2003 Provisions. and the acceptable story drift (story drift limit) is taken as 1.2. For this example. 5.6. analyses are performed with and without Pdelta effects. the stability coefficient is 0. including Cd = 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples the matching elevation. the deflection amplification factor (Cd) equals 5. The largest magnified story drift.5. Frame A or G R 6 5 4 3 2 Y X P∆ column Figure 3. 5.4. the stability coefficient equation has been revised to include the importance factor in the numerator and the calculated result is used simply to determine whether a special 358 . This special load case consisted of a vertical force equal to onehalf of the total story weight (dead load plus fully reduced live load) applied to the appropriate node of the Pdelta column.2 [5.3.3. When Pdelta effects were included in the analysis.2.2.25 multiplier were not used.6.3 [5. 3.5. This increased limit is used here for consistency with the results from the following nonlinear timehistory analysis.
but it remains obvious that the structure is quite flexible. and the upper limit on computed period CuTa is 1.75 2 1.63 3.11 [5.75 3 1.97 3.31 0.2) Recall that this analysis ignored the stiffening effect of doubler plates.57 0.74 3.45 3.48 0.50 0.61 3.24 Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding Pdelta Effects Total Drift Story Drift Magnified Drift Limit Story Stability (in. where θ is the stability coefficient for the story.) (in.91 seconds.53 0. 2 The story drifts including Pdelta effects can be estimated as the drifts without Pdelta times the quantity 1/(1θ) . the drifts at the lower stories increase by about 10 percent as expected from the previously computed stability ratios.91 0. Recall from previous calculations that this period (Ta) is 0.) (in.) Story Drift (in. the period will decrease slightly. More significant is the fact that the first mode period is considerably longer than that predicted from Provisions Eq.75 0.53 2.53 2. (Hence. A5.16 0.75 0.4.66 3.) (in.26. As expected.87 3. 5.26].75 5 3. Table 3.14 4. Structural Analysis analysis (in accordance with Sec.34 1.3) is required.91) = 1.) 6 3. the stability ratios provide a useful check.0264 2.0548 1.75 0. 359 .25 0.63 3. When doubler plate effects are included in the analysis.27 seconds.54 2.75 0.4(0.0706 1.) Story Drift (in.15 3.0448 2.36 3.82 3.75 4 2.75 3.35 0.2.77 0.75 0.81 0.) (in.91 3.25 Results of Preliminary Analysis Including Pdelta Effects Total Drift Story Drift Magnified Drift Limit Story (in.91 4.] When Pdelta effects are included.57 3.57 3.50 2.14 0.01 0.0839 0.33 1.2.68 3.0683 Story 6 5 4 3 2 1 Table 3.75 1 0.Chapter 3.50 The computed periods for the first three natural modes of vibration are shown in Table 3.) Ratio 3. the period including Pdelta effects is slightly larger than that produced by the analysis without such effects.
470 0.Pu/Acol) where Pu is the total axial force in the column.492 Figure 3.182 0.340 0.308 0. not at the face of the column or girder.333 0.2 Results of Preliminary Analysis: DemandtoCapacity Ratios To determine the likelihood of and possible order of yielding.361 0. For girders. The ratios were computed at the end of the member.344 0.2.394 0.170 0. Level R 0.277 0.434 0.255 0. For this analysis. because the columns have a smaller ratio of clear span to total span than do the girders.333 0.435 0.664 0.164 0.492 0. demandtocapacity ratios were computed for each element. particularly for the columns.055 2 0.165 Level 3 0.314 0.394 0.354 0.274 0.175 0.394 0.367 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.211 0.985 2.169 0.255 0.407 0. Pdelta effects were included.474 0.333 0.189 0. 360 .177 0.269 0.280 0.430 0. The results are shown in Figure 3. This results in slightly conservative ratios.451 0.257 0.269 0. the demandtocapacity ratio is simply the maximum moment in the member divided by the member’s plastic moment capacity where the plastic capacity is ZgirderFy.679 3 0.282 0.309 0. the structure was subjected to full dead load plus 25 percent of live load followed by the equivalent lateral forces of Table 3.282 0.2.253 0.25.344 0.3.133 Level 4 0.223 0.FEMA 451. the ratio is similar except that the plastic flexural capacity is estimated to be Zcol(Fy .26 Periods of Vibration From Preliminary Analysis (sec) Mode Pdelta Excluded Pdelta Included 1 1.425 0.485 0.172 0.420 0.424 0.25 Demandtocapacity ratios for elements from analysis with Pdelta effects included.177 0.162 Level 2 0.435 0.485 0.148 Level 5 0.23.333 0.333 0.269 0.308 0.066 Level 6 0.281 0.176 0. For columns.413 0.177 0.135 0.487 0.452 0.
2. With this modification.0.25 are based on the inelastic seismic forces (using R = 8).3 Results of Preliminary Analysis: Overall System Strength The last step in the preliminary analysis was to estimate the total lateral strength (collapse load) of the frame using virtual work. upper triangular.3 Several observations are made regarding the likely inelastic behavior of the frame: 1. The structure has considerable overstrength. a ratio of 1. and the plastic moment capacity is assumed to be Zcol(Fy . and this frame is no exception. As expected. With the possible exception of the first level. 2.26 for nomenclature): Internal Work = External Work Internal Work = 2[20σθMPA + 40σθMPB + θ(MPC + 4MPD + MPE)] nLevels ⎤ External Work = V θ ⎡ ∑ Fi H i ⎥ where ∑ Fi = 1. from the face of the column. and Provisions where the Provisions pattern is consistent with the vertical force distribution of Table 3.0 means that the element is just at yield. The closeness of the Provisions and triangular load strengths is due to the fact that the verticalloaddistributing parameter (k) was 1. all the hinges in the girders in a level will form almost simultaneously. Structural Analysis It is very important to note that the ratios shown in Figure 3. it should be noted that the demandtocapacity ratios for the lower story columns were controlled by the moment at the base of the column. the ratios are an approximation of the ductility demand for the individual elements. It is usually very difficult to prevent yielding of the base of the first story columns in moment frames. multiply all the values listed in Table 3. Hence. The strength (V) for the total structure is computed from the following relationships (see Figure 3.26.0 means the element is still elastic.3. While not shown in the table. which is close to 1.385.2.0 indicates yielding. The inset to the figure shows how the angle modification term σ was computed.26 by R = 8.23 in this volume of design examples. Columns hinge only at the base. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. 361 . 3. a value less than 1. and a ratio greater than 1.Pu/Acol). In the analysis. The column on the leeward (right) side of the building will yield first because of the additional axial compressive force arising from the seismic effects. The fully plastic mechanism for the system is illustrated in Figure 3. the strength under uniform load is significantly greater than under triangular or Provisions load. The sequence of yielding will progress from the lower level girders to the upper level girders.27.0 in. the girders should yield before the columns.Chapter 3. Girders hinge at a value ZgirderFy and the hinges form 5. The difference between the uniform and the triangular or Provisions patterns is an 3 To determine the demandtocapacity ratio on the basis of an elastic analysis.0 ⎢ ⎣ i =1 ⎦ i =1 nLevels Three lateral force patterns were used: uniform. it is assumed that plastic hinges are perfectly plastic. Because of the uniform demandtocapacity ratios in the girders of each level. particularly at the upper levels. 3.
25.26.4 Description of Model Used for Detailed Structural Analysis Nonlinearstatic and dynamic analyses require a much more detailed model than was used in the linear analysis.28.523 Provisions 2. and panel zone region of the beamcolumn joints. which is an additional source of overstrength. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples indicator that the results of a capacityspectrum analysis of the system will be quite sensitive to the lateral force pattern applied to the structure when performing the pushover analysis. is 0.23). the “error” in total strength is less than 1 percent. The DRAIN model used for the nonlinear analysis is shown in Figure 3.925 Upper Triangular 3. The rigidplastic analysis did not include strain hardening. 746 kips (see Table 3.FEMA 451. Slightly more than 10 percent of the system strength comes from plastic hinges that form in the columns.2.886 1.046 1. columns. The detail illustrates the two main features of the model: an explicit representation of the panel zone region and the use of concentrated (Type 4 element) plastic hinges in the girders. Before proceeding. 362 . Yielding in this area can have a significant effect on system strength. This is reasonably consistent with the demand to capacity ratios shown in Figure 3. A detail of a girder and its connection to two interior columns is shown in Figure 3. when divided by the Provisions pattern capacity. Table 3. 2. The equivalentlateralforce (ELF) base shear. three important points should be made: 1. 2886 kips. If the strength of the column is taken simply as Mp (without the influence of axial force). The rigidplastic analysis did not consider the true behavior of the panel zone region of the beamcolumn joint.27 Lateral Strength on Basis of RigidPlastic Mechanism Lateral Strength (kips) Lateral Strength (kips) Lateral Load Pattern Entire Structure Single Frame Uniform 3.443 3. The primary reason for the difference is the need to explicitly represent yielding in the girders.27. 3.850 1.
3.5 (d c )+ 5" e db θ dc (b) (c) σθ σθ eθ e θ' L2e (d) θ 2e θ e Figure 3.3.2. 363 . In Figure 3. See Sec.27. Structural Analysis M PA M PA M PB M PB M PB M PB Y M PC X (a) M PD M PD M PD M PD M PE (c) e = 0. the column shown to the right of the structure is used to represent Pdelta effects.26 Plastic mechanism for computing lateral strength.Chapter 3.2 of this example for details.
much use is made of compound nodes. 3.27 Detailed analytical model of 6story frame. deformations in the panel zone region of beamcolumn joints.FEMA 451. Panel zone panel spring (Typical) Girder plastic hinge Panel zone flange spring (Typical) Figure 3.4.28 28'0" Typical Figure 3. the following theoretical development is provided before proceeding with the example. These nodes are used to model plastic hinges in girders and.1 Plastic Hinge Modeling and Compound Nodes In the analysis described below.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples See Figure 3. 364 15'0" 5 at 12'6" . For this reason.28 Model of girder and panel zone region. through a simple transformation process. The development of the numerical properties used for panel zone and girder hinge modeling is not straightforward.
In most cases. one or more rotational spring connection elements (DRAIN element Type 4) are placed between the two single nodes of the compound node. inelastic momentrotation behavior for the spring. the compound node acts as a momentfree hinge. Master θ Master Slave Rotational spring Rotational spring θ Slave Master node Slave node (a) dθ = θ Master . The X and Y degrees of freedom of the first node of the pair (the slave node) are constrained to be equal to the X and Y degrees of freedom of the second node of the pair (the master node). Hence. If no spring elements are placed between the two single nodes.Chapter 3. the compound node has four degrees of freedom: an X displacement.θSlave (b) My 1 Κ 1 dθ αΚ My (c) Figure 3. a Y displacement.29.29 A compound node and attached spring. and two independent rotations. The figure also shows the assumed bilinear. and these springs develop bending moment in resistance to the relative rotation between the two single nodes. Structural Analysis A compound node typically consists of a pair of single nodes with each node sharing the same point in space. 365 . respectively. A typical compound node with a single rotational spring is shown in Figure 3.
yet robust. panel zones are modeled using an approach developed by Krawinkler (1978). However. In this example. The scissors model has the advantage of using fewer degrees of freedom. due to its simplicity. The Krawinkler model assumes that the panel zone area has two resistance mechanisms acting in parallel: 1.2 Modeling of BeamColumn Joint Regions A very significant portion of the total story drift of a momentresisting frame may be due to deformations that occur in the panel zone region of the beamcolumn joint.FEMA 451.2. illustrated in Figure 3. (91). These two resistance mechanisms are apparent in AISC Seismic Eq.210. The disadvantage of the approach is that the number of degrees of freedom required to model a structure is significantly increased. the scissors model is not used here. including doubler plates and 2. Shear resistance of the web of the column. 4 366 . often referred to as the scissors model.4 For this reason. Preliminary results indicate that the kinematics error is not significant and that very good results may be obtained by a properly formulated scissors model. Flexural resistance of the flanges of the column. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 3. A simpler model. also has been developed to represent panel zone behavior. has the advantage of being conceptually simple.210 Krawinkler beamcolumn joint model. 3. it is generally considered to inadequately represent the kinematics of the problem. This model. which is used for determining panel zone shear strength: The author of this example is completing research at Virginia Tech to determine whether the scissors model is adequate to model steel moment frames.4.
thickness of column flange. and total depth of girder. 367 .8 2 Fy bcf tcf db ≡ VPanel + 1. width of column flange.6 Fy d c t p + 1.6 Fy d c t p ⎢1 + ⎥.Chapter 3. thickness of panel zone region = column web thickness plus doubler plate thickness. total depth of column. Additional terms used in the subsequent discussion are: tbf = girder flange thickness and G = shear modulus of steel. The terms in the equations are defined as follows: Fy dc tp bcf tcf db = = = = = = yield strength of the column and the doubler plate. ⎢ ⎣ db d c t p ⎥ ⎦ The equation can be rewritten as: Rv = 0.8VFlanges where the first term is the panel shear resistance and the second term is the plastic flexural resistance of the column flange. Structural Analysis 2 ⎡ 3bcf tcf ⎤ Rv = 0.
) The second term.211b) that the equivalent shear strength of the column flanges is: 368 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Yielding of column flange (a) VFlanges 4M pθ = VFlanges d b θ db θ Mp V (b) VFlanges = 4M p db Figure 3. 1. (The 0.6 factor is a simplification of the Von Mises yield criterion that gives the yield stress in shear as 1/ 3 = 0. The panel zone shear resistance (VPanel) is simply the effective shear area of the panel dctp multiplied by the yield stress in shear.211(a).211 Column flange component of panel zone resistance. it follows from virtual work (see Figure 3.8VFlanges. Testing of simple beamcolumn subassemblies show that a “kink” forms in the column flanges as shown in Figure 3.577 times the strength in tension. If it can be assumed that the kink is represented by a plastic hinge with a plastic moment capacity of Mp = FyZ = Fybcftcf2/4. is based on experimental observation. assumed as 0.FEMA 451.6Fy.
γ = δ VPanel Thickness = t p db γ=θ dc Figure 3.212: K Panel .8 multiplier that appears in the AISC equation. Gt p d c V Panel ⎛ V Panel d b ⎞ 1 ⎜ ⎜ Gt d ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ p c ⎠ db = Gt p d c K Panel . Structural Analysis VFlanges = 4M p db and by simple substitution for Mp: VFlanges = 2 Fy bcf tcf db This value does not include the 1.212 Column web component of panel zone resistance.Chapter 3. γ = V Panel γ = V Panel δ db noting that the displacement δ can be written as: δ= V Panel d b . The shear stiffness of the panel is derived as shown in Figure 3. This multiplier is based on experimental results. It should be noted that the flange component of strength is small compared to the panel component unless the column has very thick flanges. 369 .
These springs are used to represent the panel resistance mechanisms described earlier. The upper right and lower left corners (points B and C) do not have rotational springs and thereby act as real hinges. It is left to the reader to verify that the total number of degrees of freedom in the model is 28 (if the only constraints are associated with the corner compound nodes).6 Fy d c t p 0. Shear Total resistance Panel V Panel Shear Κ 1 V Flanges Flanges γ.25 Vflanges. and two nodes (compound node pairs) at Points A through D. The rotational spring properties are related to the panel shear resistance mechanisms by a simple transformation. connected at the corners by compound nodes. These are momentresisting connections.210. The finite element model of the joint requires 12 individual nodes: one node each at Points I through L. as shown in Figure 3. Using this transformation.213 Forcedeformation behavior of panel zone region. flanges γy Shear strain. column below only). the strength is VPanel + VFlanges.γ Gd c t p G At this deformation. This model consists of four rigid links. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Krawinkler assumes that the column flange component yields at four times the yield deformation of the panel component. roof joints (girders on both sides. γ 4γy Figure 3. The columns and girders frame into the links at right angles at Points I through L. column below only). The actual Krawinkler model is shown in Figure 3.6 Fy VPanel = = .FEMA 451. From the figure it may be seen that the moment in the rotational spring is equal to the applied shear times the beam depth.214. and corner joints (girder on one side only. Rotational springs are used at the upper left (point A) and lower right (point D) compound nodes. The inelastic forcedeformation behavior of the panel is illustrated in Figure 3. the properties of the rotational spring representing the panel shear component of resistance are: 370 .213. where the panel yield deformation is: γy = 0. the panel zone strength is VPanel + 0. This figure is applicable also to exterior joints (girder on one side only). at four times this deformation. panel γ Κ γ. K Panel .
γ db = Gd c db t p δ Shear = V δ V db γ θ Moment = Vd b (a) Note θ = γ (b) Panel spring Web spring (c) Figure 3.8VFlanges d b = 1.6 Fy d c db t p K Panel . Structural Analysis M Panel = VPanel db = 0.θ = K Panel .6Fy times the volume of the panel.214 Transforming shear deformation to rotational deformation in the Krawinkler model.8Fy bcf tcf 371 .Chapter 3. and the shear stiffness in terms of the rotational spring is equal to G times the panel volume. The flange component of strength in terms of the rotational spring is determined in a similar manner: 2 M Flanges = 1. It is interesting to note that the shear strength in terms of the rotation spring is simply 0.
75Gbcf tcf . strainhardening may be added to the system. it is assumed that this spring yields at four times the yield deformation of the panel spring. the distance between the center of the flanges was used as the effective depth.θ G To determine the initial stiffness of the flange spring. Instead of using the nominal total beam and girder depths in the calculations. in terms of rotational spring properties. is shown in Figure 3. Hence. The complete resistance mechanism. the strain.03( K Panel . Krawinkler suggests using a strainhardening stiffness equal to 3 percent of the initial stiffness of the joint. one minor adjustment is made to the above derivations.θ ) .nom − tcf where the nom part of the subscript indicates the property listed as the total depth in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. A summary of the properties used for all connections is shown in Table 3. K Flanges .213.6 Fy = . If desired.θ = 0. Hence: d c ≡ d c .hardening component was simply added to both the panel and the flange components: K SH . 372 . The Krawinkler properties are now computed for a typical interior subassembly of the 6story frame. K Panel . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Because of the equivalence of rotation and shear deformation. In this analysis.28.θ + K Flanges .θ = M Flanges 4θ y 2 = 0.FEMA 451. Before continuing. the yield rotation of the panel is the same as the yield strain in shear: θy = γ y = M Panel 0. This trilinear behavior is represented by two elasticperfectly plastic springs at the opposing corners of the joint assemblage.
28.9 kips 26.489 148.Chapter 3.θ Connection Girder Column (in. 12.00 = 1.292 6.k/rad) (in.q Doubler Plate Mpanel.00 23.152 ) = 56.875 29.k/rad) (in.701 3.θ Mflanges.51)(1.28 Properties for the Krawinkler BeamColumn Joint Model Kpanel.06 in.489 148.000 3.00 28.298.72) = 1.729. 22.000 1. Structural Analysis Table 3.900 11.800 C W27x94 W21x147 – 11.822 4. 26.18 373 .998.006 300. Material Properties: Fy = 50. VPanel = 0.000 ksi Girder: W27x94 db.028 102.000 1.51 in.6 Fy d c t p = 0.117.000 1.900 E W27x94 W21x201 – 15.800 B W24x84 W21x122 1.6(50)(20.248 11.) A W24x84 W21x122 – 8.k/rad) (in.281.000 3.72 + 1. 1.150 in.θ Kflanges.nom tf db Column: W21x147 dc. The sample calculations below are for Connection D in Table 3.0 ksi (girder.72 in.00 in.480.18 in.600 Example calculations shown for row in bold type. 20.600 F W27x94 W21x201 0.900 D W27x94 W21x147 1.8 50(12.nom tw tcf dc bcf 26.72 in.000 1.92 in.203 9. Doubler plate: 1. 0.91)(1.006 300.028 102.079 kips VFlanges = 1.91 in. and doubler plate) G = 12.745 in.8 2 Fy bcf tcf db = 1. 0. column. Total panel zone thickness = tp = 0.k) (in.
is complicated by the fact that the plastic hinge grows in length during increasing story drift. and The location of the hinge with respect to the face of the column.28.72)(20.γ db = 431.5 The compound nodes are used to represent inelastic behavior in the hinging region.kips K Flanges . together with the panel zones at the ends. The program represents each element as a straight line.6(50. it is anticipated that the girders will yield in flexure.γ = Gt p d c = 12.4.000 in. This figure shows an interior girder. Although DRAIN provides special yielding beam elements (Type 2 elements). The portion of the girder between the panel zones is modeled as four segments with one simple node at mid span and one compound node near each end.kips/radian 4(0. Determination of the above properties.582 kips/unit shear strain γ y =θy = 0.900 in.6 Fy G = 0. The midspan node is used to enhance the deflected shape of the structure. 248 in. there is no effective way to represent a changing hinge length in DRAIN. A graphic postprocessor was used to display the deflected shape of the structure. more control over behavior is obtained through the use of the Type 4 connection element. so one must make do with a fixed hinge length and location. Fortunately. The modeling of a typical girder is shown in Figure 3.000) = 0. 3.kips/radian M Flanges = VFlanges db = 56.0025 12.000 M Panel = VPanel db = 1. Although the computational results are unaffected. 2.18) = 11.0025) 3.kips K Panel . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples K Panel .9(26.91) = 431. the behavior of the structure is relatively insensitive to the location of the hinges.18) = 1. Unfortunately. 5 374 .θ = K Panel .2. a better graphical representation is obtained by subdividing the member.3 Modeling Girders Because this structure is designed in accordance with the strongcolumn/weakbeam principle. The secondary stiffness.079(26.FEMA 451. particularly the location of the hinge. The following information is required to model each plastic hinge: 1.θ = M Flanges 4γ y = 1. The initial stiffness (moment per unit rotation). The effective yield moment.582(26.18) = 28. 489 = 148.000(1. 4. 489 in. 298.
it is necessary to perform a momentcurvature analysis of the cross section. In this example. The girder cross section was then subjected to gradually increasing rotation.215 Assumed stressstrain curve for modeling girders.006 Figure 3. To compute the momentcurvature relationship. and 5 percent of the initial stiffness. a relatively simple stressstrain curve is used to represent the 50 ksi steel in the girders. and it was assumed that local buckling of the flanges or the web would not occur. Fiber stress was obtained from the stressstrain law and stresses were multiplied by fiber area to determine fiber force. Residual stresses due to section rolling were ignored. This curve does not display a yield plateau. and this. Analysis was performed using a Microsoft Excel worksheet. in turn. Curves were computed for an assumed strain hardening ratio of 1. is a function of the stressstrain curve of the material. the momentcurvature relationships are essentially bilinear. with the Baushinger effect erasing any trace of the yield plateau. The forces were then multiplied by the distance to the neutral axis to determine that fiber’s contribution to the section’s resisting moment. strain compatibility (plane sections remain plane) was used to determine fiber strain.216.004 Strain 0. ksi 30 20 10 0 0 0. which is consistent with the assumption that the section has yielded in previous cycles.Chapter 3.215. For each value of rotation. The fiber contributions were summed to determine the total resisting moment. The resulting momentcurvature relationship is shown for the W27x94 girder in Figure 3. The idealized stressstrain curve is shown in Figure 3. the girder cross section was divided into 50 horizontal slices. 3.002 1 Eo 1 ESH 0. 50 40 Stress. 375 . Structural Analysis To determine the hinge properties. Because of the assumed bilinear stressstrain curve. with 10 slices in each flange and 30 slices in the web.
000 5 percent strain hardening 5.FEMA 451.217(c).217(a).0005 0. If the momentcurvature relationship is idealized as bilinear. ksi 10. To determine the parameters for the plastic hinge in the DRAIN model. The moment diagram for the member is shown in Figure 3. The purpose of the special analysis was to determine a momentdeflection relationship for the cantilever loaded at the tip with a vertical force V.000 15. A similar momentdeflection relationship was determined for the structure shown in Figure 3. The girder is loaded to some moment M.0015 0. The resulting behavior is illustrated in Figure 3.218. Two Type4 DRAIN elements were used at each compound node. The first of these is rigidperfectly plastic and the second is bilinear.002 0. which consists of a cantilever with a compound node used to represent the inelastic rotation in the plastic hinge. Figure 3. radians/in.217(b). it is a straightforward matter to compute the deflections of the structure of Figure 3. The method is developed in Figure 3. a separate analysis was performed on the structure shown in Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 25.001 0. At some distance x the moment is equal to the yield moment: x= M yL M 376 .000 Stress.0025 C urvature.000 20. Figure 3.218(b).000 3 percent strain hardening 1 percent strain hardening 0 0 0. which is greater than the yield moment.217(a). This structure represents half of the clear span of the girder supported as a cantilever.216 Moment curvature diagram for W27x94 girder.218(a) is a bilinear momentcurvature diagram.
the curvature ( φM) is the curvature corresponding to the Point M on the momentcurvature diagram.d c )/2 Combined End moment (c) Component 1 Component 2 Tip deflection Figure 3. The deflection is computed using the momentarea method.218(c). Structural Analysis dc V (a) L/2 V Component 1 (b) Component 2 e L' = (L .217 Developing momentdeflection diagrams for a typical girder. the curvature is the yield curvature (φy). At the distance x. and consists of three parts: ∆1 = φ y x 2x 2 ⋅ 3 = φ y x2 3 ∆ 2 = φ y ( L′ − x ) L′ + x φ y ( L′ − x)( L′ + x) = 2 2 377 . The curvature along the length of the member is shown in Figure 3. and at the support.Chapter 3.
FEMA 451.000 in. where the total deflection (∆1+∆2+∆3) is indicated.217(b) is analyzed. from the face of the support. Part (a) of the figure is the idealized bilinear momentcurvature relationship for 3 percent strain hardening. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples ∆3 = = (φ M − φ y )( L ′ − x) ⋅ ⎡ x + 2( L ′ − x) ⎤ (φ M ⎢ 3 ⎢ ⎣ − φ y ( L ′ − x )(2 L ′ + x ) 2 ) ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ 6 The first two parts of the deflection are for elastic response and the third is for inelastic response. (The analysis is relatively insensitive to the assumed hinge location. The development of the momentdeflection relationship for the W27x94 girder is illustrated in Figure 3.219(c). The inelastic part of the deflection (∆3 only) is shown separately in Figure 3. The elastic part of the deflection is handled by the Type2 elements in Figure 3.kips. where the moment axis has been truncated below 12.) 378 . The compound node has arbitrarily been placed a distance e = 5 in. The resulting momentdeflection diagram is shown in Figure 3. The inelastic part is represented by the two Type4 elements at the compound node of the structure.217(b).219. Finally. the simple DRAIN cantilever model of Figure 3. Displacements were computed for 11 points on the structure.219(b).
218 Development of equations for deflection of momentdeflection curves. Structural Analysis (a) φ y φ M Curvature M My (b) x L' φM 3 φy (c) 2 1 x L' Figure 3. 379 .Moment M My Chapter 3.
greater than the yield moment. At the location of the plastic hinge.220(b). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The moment diagram is shown in Figure 3.FEMA 451.220(c) consists of two parts: ∆E = M Support L′2 3EI 380 .220(a) for the model subjected to a load producing a support moment. The corresponding curvature diagram is shown in Figure 3. the moment is: MH = MS ( L′ − e ) L′ and all inelastic curvature is concentrated into a plastic hinge with rotation θH. The tip deflection of the structure of Figure 3. MS.
0 0 0 1 8 .kips 1 5 .0 0 0 5 0 .0 0 0 (b ) 1 0 .kips 1 5 .0 0 0 5 .0 0 0 2 0 .0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 1 5 .kips 1 7 .219 Momentdeflection curve for W27x94 girder with 3 percent strain hardening.0 0 0 1 9 .0 0 0 12 000 F ro m ca n tilev er a n a ly sis Id e aliz ed fo r d rain (c) Figure 3.0 0 2 0 0 .0 0 0 Moment.0 0 0 1 6 . in .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 4 . ra d ian s/in .0 0 0 End moment. 2 0 .0 0 0 (a) 1 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 End moment. Structural Analysis 2 5 .0 0 2 5 C u rv a tu re.0 0 0 5 .0 0 1 0 0 . in. 381 .0 0 0 2 0 .Chapter 3.0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T o tal tip d eflec tio n .0 0 0 1 3 . 2 5 . in. in.
with the second component being bilinear. and that this moment is roughly equal to the fully plastic moment of the section.219. The properties for the W24x84 girder are also shown in the table. For the small values of strain hardening assumed in this analysis. 382 . The resulting “fit” for the W27x94 girder is shown in Figure 3. the development of the hinge properties is greatly facilitated by the fact that one component of the hinge must be rigidplastic. This is a trialanderror procedure. however. Note that the first yield of the model will be the yield moment from Component 1. However. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples ∆ I = θ H ( L′ − e ) . Note that ∆E and (∆1 + ∆2) are not quite equal because the shapes of the curvature diagram used to generate the deflections are not the same. As ∆E is simply the elastic displacement of a simple cantilever beam. it is possible to model the main portion of the girder using its nominal moment of inertia. The challenge is to determine the properties of the two Type4 elements such that the deflections predicted using ∆I are close to those produced using ∆3.29. which is difficult to reproduce in this example. there is little error in assuming that the two deflections are equal.FEMA 451. The resulting properties for the model are shown in Table 3. The first part is the elastic deflection and the second part is the inelastic deflection.
to input a strain hardening value of 1020 to prevent this from happening.284 Comparative Property Yield Moment = SxFy 9.kip/radian) 326.001) if a zero value is entered in the appropriate data field.0 1.538 10E10 0.kip) 11.2) 11. Ratio 0. Ratio 0.370 Shear Area (in. 383 . ) 2.494 450. It is recommended.800 11.kip) 1.192 0.900 In some versions of DRAIN the strain hardening stiffness of the Type4 springs is set to some small value (e.200 Plastic Moment = ZxFy W27x94 3.3 Inelastic Component 1 Yield Moment (in.g.196 Initial Stiffness (in. This may cause very large artificial strain hardening moments to develop in the hinge after it yields.2 13.29 Girder Properties as Modeled in DRAIN Section Property W24x84 4 Elastic Properties Moment of Inertia (in.150 13. Structural Analysis Table 3.295 12.0 Inelastic Component 2 Yield Moment (in.H. therefore.kip/radian) 10E10 S.025 (see note below) Initial Stiffness (in.270 13. 0.000 S.Chapter 3.H.
FEMA 451.220 Development of plastic hinge properties for the W27x97 girder. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples M My (a) L' Plastic part φH = θ H 1" Elastic part (b) e L' Moment Elastic Inelastic (c) Deflection Figure 3. 384 .
000 Moment. some liberties are taken in this example.4. column yielding had to be activated in all of the Type2 column elements. Inclusion of these requirements in an appendix rather than the main body indicates that pushover analysis is in the developmental stage and may not be “ready for prime time. in. 30. The columns were modeled using the builtin yielding functionality of the DRAIN program.4 Modeling Columns All columns in the analysis were modeled as Type2 elements.000 2.000 W21x147 W21x122 10.000 0 1.5 Static Pushover Analysis Nonlinear static analysis is covered for the first time in the Appendix to Chapter 5 of the 2000 Provisions. Preliminary analysis indicated that columns should not yield. the example follows the appendix.2. For this reason.2. Structural Analysis 3. [In the 2003 385 .Chapter 3. but leave much to be desired when dynamic analysis is performed. The greatest difficulty in the dynamic analysis is adequate treatment of the column when unloading and reloading.000 1.221.000 W21x201 20.kips Figure 3. The rules employed by DRAIN to model column yielding are adequate for eventtoevent nonlinear static pushover analysis. however.000 Axial force.221 Yield surface used for modeling columns.000 2. The yield surface used by DRAIN is shown in Figure 3. wherein the yield moment is a function of the axial force in the column.000 3.000 20.000 3.000 4. kips 0 10. 3. An assessment of the effect of these potential problems is beyond the scope of this example.” For this reason.000 4. except at the base of the first story. Subsequent analysis showed that the columns will yield in the upper portion of the structure as well. for the most part.000 30.
possibly reflecting the newness of the approach. 1996). DRAIN analyses were run with Pdelta effects included and. These inelastic deformations may then be compared to the deformations that have been deemed acceptable under the ground motion parameters that have been selected. 5A. it is felt that the model of the structure described earlier in this example is consistent with the spirit of the Provisions. This method is described in some detail in ATC 40 (Applied Technology Council.” In this analysis the influence was taken as inclusion of the storylevel Pdelta effect. 1999). Provisions Sec. 386 .210.1] discusses modeling requirements for the pushover analysis in relatively vague terms. which is the basis of the outrigger column shown in Figure 3.3 [Appendix to Chapter 5] provides a simple methodology for estimating the inelastic deformations but does not provide specific acceptance criteria.2. 5A1. The capacity spectrum method is somewhat controversial and.FEMA 451. provides the location and sequence of expected yielding in a structure. Because of the similarity between the TL and ML distributions. In the analysis reported herein.] Nonlinear static pushover analysis.23) Relative values of these load patterns are summarized in Table 3. for comparison purposes.1 [A5. If such fracture is likely. the structure was first subjected to the full dead load plus reduced live load followed by the lateral loads. in itself. the mathematical model must be adjusted accordingly. the results from the TL distribution are not presented. Consistent 6 The mathematical model does not represent strength loss due to premature fracture of welded connections. four different load patterns were initially considered: UL TL ML BL = uniform load (equal force at each level) = triangular (loads proportional to height) = modal load (lateral loads proportional to first mode shape) = Provisions load distribution (using the forces indicated in Table 3. This effect may be easily represented through linearized geometric stiffness. with such effects excluded. Evaluation and Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures). In this example. However.24. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Provisions. it will be utilized here. The Provisions states that the lateral load pattern should follow the shape of the first mode. However. Another wellknown method for determining maximum inelastic displacement is based on the capacity spectrum approach. and the results obtained will be compared to those computed using the simple approach. largely as a result of work performed by the Applied Technology Council in Project 55. The loads have been normalized to a value of 15 kips at Level 2. a number of substantive technical changes have been made to the appendix.1.6 The pushover curve obtained from a nonlinear static analysis is a function of the way the structure is both modeled and loaded. as the method is still very popular and is incorporated in several commercial computer programs. The Provisions requires “the influence of axial loads” to be considered when the axial load in the column exceeds 15 percent of the buckling load but presents no guidance on exactly how the buckling load is to be determined nor on what is meant by “influence. in some cases may produce unreliable results (Chopra and Goel. Provisions Sec. Additional analysis is required to estimate the amount of inelastic deformation that may occur during an earthquake.
7 At any displacement step in the analysis. This is true for displacement controlled static analysis. Table 3.0 Modal Load ML (kips) 88. the ML analysis was repeated for a structure with thinner doubler plates and without doubler plates. If. one particular point of the structure (the control point) is forced to undergo a monotonically increasing lateral displacement and the lateral forces are constrained to follow the desired pattern.0 15.0 15.210 Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Level R 6 5 4 3 2 Uniform Load UL (kips) 15. When performing a displacement controlled pushover analysis in DRAIN with PDelta effects included.0 118.0 15.4 67.0 As described later. the computed response of the structure after strength loss is completely fictitious in the context of a static loading environment. Consequently. the only comparison made here will be between the structures with and without doubler plates.0 52. Of course. loss of strength due to Pdelta effects cannot be tracked. one must be careful to recover the baseshear forces properly. the analysis is terminated. Because the behavior of the structure with thin doubler plates was not significantly different from the behavior with the thicker plates. Panel zone hinging did not occur.0 88. which may be used to represent the influence of axial forces on the flexural flexibility of individual columns. the structure is subjected to gradually increasing lateral loads.Chapter 3.0 15. Using displacement control. the true base shear in the system consists of two parts: 7 If Pdelta effects have been included. The analyses were carried out using the DRAIN2Dx computer program. In this type of analysis.” Under load control. may not be used directly in DRAIN.3 32. Such effects may be approximated in DRAIN by subdividing columns into several segments and activating the linearized geometric stiffness on a columnbycolumn basis.5 15.0 15. Structural Analysis geometric stiffness. an analysis may be performed under “load control” or under “displacement control. That approach was not used here.0 Triangular Load TL (kips) 77.5 65. and dynamic timehistory analysis.0 15. Under a dynamic loading. respectively. It is for this reason that the poststrengthloss realm of the pushover response is of interest.8 50.5 40.0 BSSC Load BL (kips) 150. force controlled static analysis. the pushover analysis indicated all yielding in the structure occurred in the clear span of the girders and columns. 387 .4 80. however. at any load step. the tangent stiffness matrix of the structure has a negative on the diagonal. this procedure needs to be used when recovering base shear from column shear forces. Using DRAIN. For this reason.0 27.0 60. These structures are referred to as the strong panel (SP) and weak panel (WP) structures.0 15.0 36. the structure can display loss of strength because the displacement control algorithm adds artificial stiffness along the diagonal to overcome the stability problem. structures can display strength loss and be incrementally stable.
0 in.222 plots two base shear components of the pushover response for the SP structure subjected to the ML loading. the Appendix to Chapter 5 of the Provisions requires only that the pushover analysis be run to a maximum displacement of 1.224 shows the response curves if Pdelta effects are included. the response of the structure under ML loading with and without 388 .3. the maximum displacement at the roof is 42.8 [4.5. Figure 3. for an inelastic system. the pushover analysis of this structure would only be run to a total displacement of about 13. For all of the pushover analyses reported for this example.5 in. which. in. In each case.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples V = ∑VC . Figure 3. A5.223 shows the pushover response of the SP structure to all three lateral load patterns when Pdelta effects are excluded.] As discussed below in Sec.51] and the 1. 5A.5 times the total drift limit for the structure where the total drift limit is taken as 1. Sec. gravity loads were applied first and then the lateral loads were applied using the displacement control algorithm. kips 1000 Total Base Shear Column Shear Forces PDelta Forces 0 500 500 1000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.1. Also shown is the total response.2. 2000 1500 Shear.1 Pushover Response of Strong Panel Structure Figure 3. Figure 3.3. If this limit were used.225.2.25 times 2 percent of the total height. The drift limit is taken from Provisions Table 5.i − i =1 n P 1∆1 h1 where the first term represents the sum of all the column shears in the first story and the second term represents the destabilizing Pdelta shear in the first story.222 Two base shear components of pushover response.5. In Figure 3.6 requires multiplication by 0.2. 3. The Pdelta effects for this structure were included through the use of the outrigger column shown at the right of Figure 3. The kink in the line representing Pdelta forces results because these forces are based on firststory displacement.5 times the expected inelastic displacement.25 factor is taken from Provisions Sec. will not generally be proportional to the roof displacement.FEMA 451. [In the 2003 Provisions.25.85R/Cd rather than by 1. 3.24. This value is slightly greater than 1.4.
Structural Analysis Pdelta effects is illustrated.22 and is based on the very conservative assumption that β = 1.] 2.Chapter 3. this clearly should not be done in the pushover analysis (or in timehistory analysis).0839 (see Table 3. [In the 2003 Provisions.10 (see Provisions Sec.6.200 1. A5. 30 40 50 BL Loading Figure 3. which ignore Pdelta effects in elastic analysis if the maximum stability ratio is less than 0.3.2.6. Sec.4.2 [5.2. For this structure.2.000 800 600 UL Loading 400 ML Loading 200 0 0 10 20 Roof displacement. the maximum computed stability ratio was 0.10 and is also less than the upper limit of 0. which is less than 0. in.1 requires that Pdelta effects be considered for all pushover analyses. This is particularly interesting in the light of the Provisions. A5.800 1. Pdelta effects are an extremely important aspect of the response of this structure.2]). Clearly. 389 .0.000 1. While the Provisions allow the analyst to exclude Pdelta effects in an elastic analysis. the upper limit for the stability ratio is eliminated.400 Base shear. Where the calculated θ is greater than 0. kips 1.6.600 1. 5. 5. The upper limit is computed according to Provisions Eq.223 Response of strong panel model to three load pattern.0901.24).10 a special analysis must be performed in accordance with Sec. and the influence grows in significance after yielding. excluding Pdelta effects.4.
200 1. kips 1. 390 .200 800 400 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. Figure 3.FEMA 451.400 1. Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. kips 800 600 UL Loading 400 ML Loading BL Loading 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.000 Excluding PDelta Including PDelta 1. in. with and wthout Pdelta effects.000 Base shear.225 Response of strong panel model to ML loads. 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1. in.600 1.600 Base shear.224 Response of strong panel model to three load patterns.
the final stiffness shown in Figure 3. As Figure 3. which represents the slope of the pushover curve at each displacement value. For the case with Pdelta effects excluded. This is somewhat greater than the 0. the final stiffness is 1. Hence. For example. 3.075 times the initial stiffness.03 (3.2.0 percent) strain hardening ratio used in the development of the model because the entire structure does not yield simultaneously.226.. The pushover curve only shows selected events because an illustration showing all events would be difficult to read. and that most of the structure’s original stiffness is exhausted by the time the roof drift reaches 10 in. and with Pdelta effects excluded or included. Structural Analysis In Figure 3. a plot of the tangent stiffness versus roof displacement is shown for the SP structure with ML loading.1. is more effective than the pushover plot in determining when yielding occurs.1 Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging The sequence of yielding in the structure with ML loading and with Pdelta effects included is shown in Figure 3. These events correspond to numbers shown in part (a) of the figure. kips/in. the first significant yield occurs at a roof displacement of approximately 6.226 illustrates.6 kips per in. When Pdelta effects are included. The structure attains this negative residual stiffness at a displacement of approximately 23 in.227. 391 . Part (b) of the figure shows a pushover curve with several hinge formation events indicated. This plot. Part (a) of the figure shows an elevation of the structure with numbers that indicate the sequence of plastic hinge formation. 80 Excluding PDelta 60 40 20 0 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. the numeral “1” indicates that this was the first hinge to form. 140 120 100 "Tangent stiffness". the strainhardening stiffness of the structure is 0.226 is approximately 10 kips/in.226 Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads. in.Chapter 3. Including PDelta Figure 3. with and without Pdelta effects.5 in.5. compared to an original value of 133 kips/in.
3.). not to prevent individual column hinging. and Both ends of all the girders at Levels 2 through 5 yielded. This is done below in Sec. 3. is intended to prevent the formation of complete story mechanisms. 4.FEMA 451. All columns on Story 3 and all the interior columns on Story 4 formed plastic hinges.5. 2. 5. however. While hinges did form at the bottom of each column in the third story. It appears the structure is somewhat weak in the middle two stories and is too strong at the upper stories.3.227: 1. Hinges formed at the base of all the firststory columns. There was no hinging in any of the panel zones. There was no hinging in Levels 6 and R. the performance of the structure in the context of various acceptance criteria cannot be assessed until the expected inelastic displacement can be determined. 392 . Even though the pattern of hinging is interesting and useful as an evaluation tool. The doubler plates added to the interior columns prevented panel zone yielding (even at the extreme roof displacement of 42 in. and a complete story mechanism was avoided.2. The presence of column hinging at Levels 3 and 4 is a bit troublesome because the structure was designed as a strongcolumn/weakbeam system. hinges did not form at the top of these columns. This design philosophy. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Several important observations are made from Figure 3.
including Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 20 19 22 18 24 16 10 11 21 7 2 3 22 18 24 16 11 21 7 3 22 18 24 16 11 21 7 3 22 17 24 15 9 21 7 1 25 12 26 4 6 4 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 3 14 12 12 (a) 12 12 13 1. (b) 25 30 35 40 45 Figure 3. in.Chapter 3.000 8 Total shear.200 16 1. kips 800 4 1 10 17 19 20 23 24 26 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 Drift.227 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: SP model under ML load. 393 .
the strength from virtual work is significantly greater than that from pushover analysis. Curves for the analyses run with and without Pdelta effects are included. From Figures 3. Figures 3. These values are summarized in Table 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3.231 it may be seen that the doubler plates.230 are more informative because they compare the response of the structures with and without panel zone reinforcement.5. which represent approximately 2.5. 394 . the structure should be reanalyzed without panel zone reinforcing and the behavior compared with that determined from the analysis described above.1.2 Comparison with Strength from Plastic Analysis It is interesting to compare the strength of the structure from pushover analysis with that obtained from the rigidcollapse analysis performed using virtual work.0 percent of the volume of the structure.228. compared to that assumed in the rigidplastic analysis. The pushover curves for the structure under modal loading and with weak panels are shown in Figure 3.223 and is taken as the strength at the principal bend in the curve (the estimated yield from a bilinear representation of the pushover curve).2 Pushover Response of Weak Panel Structure Before continuing.211. Table 3. For this exercise. increase the strength by approximately 12 percent and increase the initial stiffness by about 10 percent.FEMA 451. The strength from the case with Pdelta excluded was estimated from the curves shown in Figure 3. In both cases Pdelta effects have been included. The reason for the difference in predicted strengths is related to the pattern of yielding that actually formed in the structure. Figure 3.229 and 3.2. only the modal load pattern d is considered but the analysis is performed with and without Pdelta effects.231 shows the tangent stiffness history comparison for the structures with and without doubler plates.211 Strength Comparisons: Pushover vs Rigid Plastic Lateral Strength (kips) Pattern Pdelta Excluded Uniform Modal (Triangular) BSSC 1220 1137 1108 Pdelta Included 1223 1101 1069 RigidPlastic 1925 1523 1443 3.228 through 3.2. Consistent with the upper bound theorem of plastic analysis.
800 1.400 1.200 Base shear. in. in. Weak Panels Figure 3.600 1. Structural Analysis 2. 1. 395 . kips 1.Chapter 3.800 1.000 800 600 400 Strong Panels 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.229 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model. excluding Pdelta effects.400 1. kips 1.228 Weak panel zone model under ML load. Excluding PDelta Including PDelta Figure 3.600 1.200 Base shear.000 1.
000 Base shear. 120 110 100 "Tangent stiffness". in. 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. strong versus weak panels.231 Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads.230 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model. kips 800 600 400 Strong Panels Weak Panels 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1. in.200 1. Strong Panels Weak Panels Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. 396 .FEMA 451. Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. kips/in.
in. 397 . kips 800 1 600 22 31 36 61 65 69 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 Drift.200 37 39 44 47 49 56 59 1. including Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 65 41 62 44 64 31 9 49 66 17 3 37 6 1 10 8 6 11 32 50 60 23 22 30 29 33 4 47 2 12 7 15 17 39 54 10 36 51 57 29 21 31 27 34 7 14 18 43 56 10 67 4 46 2 35 51 58 28 21 31 28 34 2 52 1 13 6 18 41 69 18 42 55 9 41 69 16 39 54 33 48 51 52 24 19 30 26 33 5 1 68 23 61 12 40 63 38 60 59 26 21 21 (a) 21 20 25 1. (b) 25 30 35 40 45 Figure 3.000 11 Total shear.Chapter 3.232 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: weak panel zone model under ML load.
(Panel zone yielding is indicated by a numeric sequence label in the corner of the panel zone. Of course. the displacement is computed using responsespectrum analysis with only the first mode included. 5.) In fact. 398 . It should be noted that under very large displacements.1. the first yielding in the structure is due to yielding of a panel zone at the second level of the structure. Aside from the relatively marginal loss in stiffness and strength due to removal of the doubler plates.5 [5.5.5.3. 3. actual performance cannot be evaluated without predicting the maximum inelastic panel shear strain and assessing the stability of the panel zones under these strains.2]. but the column hinging appears relatively late in the response. 5A.2 [A5. In the Provisions.0. it appears that the structure without panel zone reinforcement is behaving adequately.FEMA 451. The sequence of hinging is illustrated in Figure 3. the roof level first mode displacement is 1. The expected roof displacement will be equal to the displacement computed from the 5percentdamped response spectrum multiplied by the modal participation factor which is multiplied by the first mode displacement at the roof level of the structure. Part (a) of this figure indicates that panel zone yielding occurs early. the flange component of the panel zone yields. Details of the calculations are not provided herein.3]. and separate analyses are performed including and excluding Pdelta effects.2. This is consistent with the requirements of Provisions Sec. 3.212.3 Predictions of Total Displacement and Story Drift from Pushover Analysis In the following discussion.2. It is also significant that the upper two levels of the structure display yielding in several of the panel zones. The relevant modal quantities and the expected inelastic displacements are provided in Table 3. The structure with both strong and weak panel zones is analyzed.232. Girder and column hinging also occurs. the only loading pattern considered is the modal load pattern discussed earlier. In the present analysis.1 Expected Inelastic Displacements Computed According to the Provisions The expected inelastic displacement was computed using the procedures of Provisions Sec.2. Note that only those values associated with the ML lateral load pattern were used. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The difference between the behavior of the structures with and without doubler plates is attributed to the yielding of the panel zones in the structure without panel zone reinforcement.
provides a simplified methodology for computing the target displacement that is similar to but somewhat more detailed than the approach illustrated above. This displacement is often called the target displacement.) Base Shear Demand (kips) 6th Story Drift (in.56 2.09 Weak Panel with PDelta 2. It should be noted that FEMA 356.) 4th Story Drift (in.28 2.31 1168 1. See Sec.09 1.2 of FEMA 356 for details. 3.3.) 1st Story Drift (in. and the line passing from the origin through this point represents the secant stiffness of the simplified system.3.3 in. 3.44 2. some yielding has occurred but the displacements are not of such a magnitude that the slope of the pushover curve is negative when Pdelta effects are included.02 1. 399 . The information provided in Figures 3.11 1. an equivalent viscous damping value (ξE) can be computed for the simple structure deformed to Point E.23 Weak Panel w/o PDelta 2.028 1.90 2. (in. This value is the same as the square of the circular frequency of the simplified system.73 2. for example.34 2. The maximum inelastic displacements are in the range of 12.6 12..2 Inelastic Displacements Computed According to the Capacity Spectrum Method In the capacity spectrum method.78 1099 1.0 in.70 1051 1.232 indicates that at a target displacement of.102 1.311 82.) 2nd Story Drift (in.) Strong Panel w/o PDelta 1.233 shows a bilinear capacity curve. When multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g).71 2.84 2.5.2 to 13. The horizontal axis of the capacity curve measures the first mode displacement of the simplified system.) 5th Story Drift (in. Point E on the horizontal axis is the value of interest.315 82. Structural Analysis Table 3.74 2.3. Thus.305 82. The vertical axis is a measure of simplified system strength to system weight.015 1.308 82.74 2.53 2.77 2. As will be shown later. the slope of the line passing through the small circle is equal to the acceleration divided by the displacement. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Figure 3.1 12.2 13.12 1.33 987 1. If the values on the vertical axis are multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.18 As the table indicates.3. the sloped line is also a measure of the secant period of the simplified structure.88 2.223 through 3.73 2.212 Modal Properties and Expected Inelastic Displacements for the Strong and Weak Panel Models Subjected to the Modal Load Pattern Computed Quantity Period (seconds) Modal Participation Factor Effective Modal Mass (%) Expected Inelastic Disp.10 2.950 1. the pushover curve is transformed to a capacity curve that represents the first mode inelastic response of the full structure.54 2.Chapter 3. 13. The point on the capacity curve directly above Point E is marked with a small circle.18 Strong Panel with PDelta 2. the modal quantities are only slightly influenced by Pdelta effects and the inclusion or exclusion of doubler plates. the vertical axis represents the acceleration of the mass of the simple system.) 3rd Story Drift (in. the expected inelastic displacement of the simplified system.2.8 12.
is somewhat different from the traditional spectrum that uses period of vibration as the horizontal axis. If the system’s damping is equal to ξE. two different methods will be demonstrated: an iterative approach and a semigraphical approach.233 A simple capacity spectrum. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 3. the displacement computed from the demand spectrum will be the same as the expected inelastic displacement shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. The capacity spectrum and demand spectrum are shown together in Figure 3. The demand spectrum is drawn for a damping value exactly equal to ξE. There are several ways to determine ξE.233. the displacement of a SDOF system may be determined if its period of vibration is known and the system’s damping matches the damping used in the development of the demand spectrum. in.234 shows a response spectrum with the vertical axis representing spectral acceleration as a ratio of the acceleration due to gravity and the horizontal axis representing displacement. and its stiffness is the same as that represented by the sloped line in Figure 3.FEMA 451. g ξ E 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement. Using the demand spectrum.233. 3100 . The demand spectrum is drawn for a particular damping value (ξ). called a demand spectrum. This spectrum. Spectral pseudoacceleration. In this example.235. but ξE is not known a priori and must be determined by the analyst.
in.235 Capacity and demand spectra plotted together. Figure 3. Structural Analysis Demand spectrum for damping ξ E Spectral pseudoacceleration. g Capacity spectrum for damping ξ E ξ E 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement. Demand Spectrum for damping ξ E Spectral pseudoacceleration. Figure 3. 3101 . in. g 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement.234 A simple demand spectrum.Chapter 3.
α1 will be in the range of 0.85. and then multiply by the quantity: 1 α1 where α1 is the ratio of the effective mass in the first mode to the total mass in the structure. and the intercept on the vertical axis is aI.4 if the mode shapes are normalized for a maximum value of 1. After performing the transformation. but the results are typically insensitive to different values that could be assumed for the yield point.236 shows a typical capacity spectrum in which the yield point is represented by points aY and dY.8 to 0. the first mode participation factor will be in the range of 1. divide each force value in the pushover curve by the total weight of the structure. This step is somewhat subjective in terms of defining the effective yield point. The modal participation factor and the modal displacement must be computed using a consistent normalization of the mode shapes. multiply each displacement value in the original pushover curve by the quantity: 1 PF1φ Roof . For frame structures. To obtain spectral displacement. Note that α1 is not a function of mode shape normalization. 3102 . Figure 3. 8 Expressions in this section are taken from ATC40 but have been modified to conform to the nomenclature used herein. The displacement and acceleration at the expected inelastic displacement are dE and aE.0 and the modal participation factors are based on a normalization that produces a unit generalized mass matrix. convert the smooth capacity curve into a simple bilinear capacity curve. To obtain spectral pseudoacceleration.0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The first step in either approach is to convert the pushover curve into a capacity spectrum curve.1 is the value of the first mode shape at the top level of the structure. respectively. For most frametype structures.FEMA 451. One must be particularly careful when using DRAIN because the printed mode shapes and the printed modal participation factors use inconsistent normalizations – the mode shapes are normalized to a maximum value of 1.3 to 1.1 where PF1 is the modal participation factor for the fundamental mode and φRoof. This is done using the following two transformations:8 1. 2. The two slopes of the demand spectrum are K1 and K2.
followed by the direct method. At this point the iterative method and the direct method diverge somewhat. This damping value. 63. ξE = 5 + I3. Guess the expected inelastic displacement dE. in.236 Capacity spectrum showing control points.7(aY d E − dY aE ) aE d E Compute the secant period of vibration: TE = 2π g × aE dE where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Structural Analysis a E Spectral pseudoacceleration. 3103 . Given the capacity spectrum. may be estimated as: I2. The iterative method will be presented first. dE Figure 3. the iterative approach is as follows: I1.Chapter 3. in terms of percent critical. g a a Y I 1 K2 K 1 1 dY Spectral displacement. The displacement computed from the simplified procedure of the Provisions is a good starting point. Compute the equivalent viscous damping value at the above displacement.
213 below.3. Table 3.588 40 0. An estimated displacement must now be determined from the demand spectrum.213 Damping Modification Factors Effective Damping (% critical) Damping Modification Factor 5 1.31]. the modification factors are shown as multiplying factors instead of dividing factors as is done in the Provisions. A damping value of ξE will be assumed in the development of the spectrum.237.667 30 0.3.213 in graphic form as shown in Figure 3. They are also to be used only in the longer period constant velocity region of the response spectrum.2.213 are intended for use only for ductile systems without significant strength loss. it must be modified for the higher equivalent damping represented by ξE. For the example presented here. The demand spectrum at this damping value is adapted from the response spectrum given by Provisions Sec. which is reproduced in a somewhat different form as Table 3.0 seconds.1 [13.3. the modification factors for systems with higher damping values are obtained from Provisions Table 13. This will be adequate for our needs because the initial period of vibration of our structure is in the neighborhood of 2.1.213.500 3104 . This spectrum is based on 5 percent of critical damping. 4.833. During iteration it may be more convenient to use the information from Table 3.833 20 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples I4. The use of the table can be explained by a simple example: the spectral ordinate for a system with 10 percent of critical damping is obtained by multiplying the 5percentdamped value by 0.526 50 or greater 0. The values in Table 3. See ATC 40 for conditions where the structure does have strength loss or where the period of vibration is such that the constant acceleration region of the spectrum controls. therefore.4]. In Table 3.FEMA 451.000 10 0.6 [3.
the modal participation factor and effective modal mass factor for the first mode are: 3105 . Using the period of vibration computed in Step 3 and the damping computed in Step 4. and perform another cycle. the iteration is complete.Chapter 3.0 0 10 20 30 Damping. I5. The procedure will now be demonstrated for the strong panel structure subjected to the ML load pattern. I6. Pdelta effects are excluded.4 0.2 0. For this structure. If not. set the displacement in Step 1 to d E of accuracy is achieved.2 1. Continue iterating until the desired level Convert the displacement for the simple system to the expected inelastic displacement for the complete structure by multiplying by the product of the modal participation factor and the first mode roof displacement.6 0. Structural Analysis 1. % critical 40 50 60 Figure 3. compute the updated estimate of spectral acceleration aE expression: new dE = new g × aE new and convert to displacement using the following [ 2π / TE ]2 new If this displacement is the same as that estimated in Step 1.8 0.0 Spectral modification factor 0.237 Damping modification factors.
00311 g/in.1750 g aI = 0.238 Capacity spectrum used in iterative solution. The control values for the bilinear curve are: dY = 6.05 6. in. The initial period of the structure (from DRAIN) is 1.FEMA 451.59 Actual Simplified 0.20 0.10 0.238 as is a bilinear representation of the capacity curve. Figure 3.308 and α1 = 0.30 0. The same period may be recovered from the demand curve as follows: 3106 .00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Spectral displacement.1544 g K1 = 0.223.25 Spectral pseudoacceleration. The capacity spectrum version of the curve is shown in Figure 3.95 sec. aY = 0. 0. g 0.175 0.0265 g/in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples φ1 = 1. K2 = 0.592 in.15 0.826 The original pushover curve is shown in Figure 3.
00311(8.2. This is the value computed earlier (see Table 3. the spectral acceleration as a function of period T is a = 0.1. From Table 3.Chapter 3.308) = 10.19]2 = 7.71(0.1808 8. the acceleration will be multiplied by the appropriate value from Table 3.175 6.175 × 8.1808 g .0 seconds.52 in.19 sec.308. to obtain the actual roof displacement. For higher damping values. Assume an initial displacement dE of 8. where the final displacement from the iteration is 7.2).2% critical .214. The complete iteration is summarized in Table 3.95 sec.5 in. Using a value of SD1 of 0. At this acceleration and displacement. 0. the updated displacement for the next iteration is: new dE = new g × aE [ 2π / TE ] 2 = 386.212) from the simplified procedure in the Provisions. Structural Analysis T= 2π g × aY dY = 2π 386. the updated acceleration is: new aE = 0.315].1808 × 8. This value is 7.2.494) / 2.4 × 0. Since the initial period is nearly 2. the equivalent damping is: 63.5 = 2. 3107 .160 g . the acceleration aE is: aE = aI + K 2 d E = 0. At this displacement.1544 + 0. This must be multiplied by the modal participation factor.2.71.5 aE d E The updated secant period of vibration is: ξE = 5 + T= 2π g × aE dE = 2π 386.160 [ 2π / 2.592 × 0.82(1. and is somewhat greater than the value of 8.237).659 ≅ 1. the damping modification factor for ξE = 17.5) = 0.4 × 0. At this point the iteration may commence.7(0.213 of this example.1 × 0.213 (or Figure 3. predicted from the simplified method of the Provisions.1808) =5+ = 17. The 5percentdamped demand spectrum for this example is based on Provisions Figure 4.5 in.494 (see Sec. Using this acceleration.5 − 6. 3.2 in.19 = 0.7( aY d E − dY aE ) 63. Therefore.2 percent is 0. the only pertinent part of the spectrum is the part that is inversely proportional to period.82 in.494/T where a is in terms of the acceleration due to gravity. 1.6 [3.
82 7.82 aE (g) 0.179 0. D4.179 0. Draw a curve connecting the points found in Step 6.70 7.08 2.01 7. 15. D2.11 2. Draw the demand spectra on the same plot as the capacity spectrum. one for each damping value listed above. there may be some influence of the choice of aY and dY on the computed displacement.178 0. Table 3.214 Results of Iteration for Maximum Expected Displacement Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a* (g) 0.6 13.11 Note: a* is from demand spectrum at period TE.) 8.179 dE (in.11 2. D5.76 0. Draw a series of secant stiffness lines.179 0. and 30 percent of critical.179 0. a family of demand spectra are plotted together with the capacity spectrum and the desired displacement is found graphically. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This example converged even though some of the accelerations from the demand spectrum were less than the yield value in the development of the capacity spectrum (e.179 0.178 0.8 14.6 13.7 13.50 7.179 0. Convert the target displacement to structural space.173 0.80 7. D3. D6. but it is still in SDOF spectrum space.71 0. 20.12 2.12 2.80 0.183 0.179 0.179 0.88 7.12 2. D8.76 0.11 2.0 13.) 2. Factor 0. and 30 percent damping.19 2.9 14. In the direct approach.77 0.180 0.161 0.FEMA 451.179 0.52 8. This is the target displacement.189 0.78 0. The steps in the procedure are as follows: D1.176 0. 0. 10. D7. 20.84 7. 3108 .2 11.181 0.76 TE (sec.161 in iteration 1 is less than 0. Find the points on the capacity spectrum that represent 5. Develop a bilinear capacity spectrum for the structure. Find the points where the secant stiffness lines (from Step 3) for each damping value cross the demand spectrum line for the same damping value. 10.10 2.75 0.77 7.7 12.g.179 Damping (%) 17. 15. Develop demand spectra for damping values of 5. consequently.77 0.14 2.81 7. Find the point where the curve from Step 7 intersects the capacity spectrum.4 13.178 0.6 Damping Mod.175).76 0. D9. This particular example predicts displacements very close to the yield displacement dY..5 13. 25. 25.76 0.
Note that the secant stiffness through this point is mathematically equivalent to the circular frequency squared of the structure.195 3109 . 10. Pdelta effects are excluded. The points on the capacity curve representing βeff values of 5. and 30 percent critical damping are shown in Table 3.7 0.19 rad/sec and the period is 1. Structural Analysis This procedure is now illustrated for the strong panel structure subjected to the modal load pattern.175 10 7.223.96 seconds. therefore. For this example.07 0.175g. For this example. The secant lines through the points are also shown. 15.183 25 10.15 0. The effective mass in the first mode is 0.) 23.308.) (g) 5 6. The original pushover curve for this structure is shown in Figure 3. is the same as that obtained from DRAIN.215 Points on Capacity Spectrum Corresponding to Chosen Damping Values Effective Damping Displacement dpi Spectral Acceleration api (% critical) (in. The first mode displacement at the roof of the building is 1. The resulting capacity curve and its bilinear equivalent are shown in Figure 3. The points are also shown as small diamonds on the capacity spectrum of Figure 3. Half of the dead weight of the structure was used in the conversion because the pushover curve represents the response of one of the two frames. (The main purpose of computing the period from the initial stiffness of the capacity spectrum is to perform an intermediate check on the analysis.0263g/in.Chapter 3.25 0.59 0.0. 20. and the first mode participation factor is 1. This period.177 15 8.238.188 30 13.1 0.2 (rad/sec)2. the yield displacement (dy) is taken as 6. or 10.59 in.239. Table 3. the frequency is 3.215. as required. 1.180 20 9. and the corresponding yield strength (ay) is 0. The secant stiffness through the yield point is 0. 25.826 times the total mass.
g 25% 0.30 0.60 5% 0.20 0. in.40 Spectral pseudoacceleration. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 Spectral displacement. 3110 .FEMA 451. Figure 3.10 0.239 Capacity spectrum with equivalent viscous damping points and secant stiffnesses.50 10% 15% 20% 0.
The demand spectra are shown on the same plot as the capacity spectrum in Figure 3. in.40 0.20 0.5 in. g 20% 25% 0. 9.8 in.241. This is the same as that found from the iterative solution. 15 20 25 Figure 3.2.8) or 10.20 5% 1.00 0 5 10 Spectral displacement.237.494. 68. These values are SDS = 1.2e. Structural Analysis 1. The final steps of the analysis are facilitated by Figure 3. obtained from the first mode elastic responsespectrum analysis.242. 3111 . which is a closeup of the relevant portion of Figure 3. is approximately 7. 45.2.213.09 and SD1 = 0. still in spectral space. The expected inelastic roof displacement for the actual structure is 1. Plots for these spectra are shown individually in Figure 3.2 in.240 Demand spectra for several equivalent viscous damping values. The damping modification factors used to obtain the curves were taken directly or by interpolation from Table 3.00 10% 15% 0. 3.241.Chapter 3.60 0. The demand spectra are based on the short period and 1second period accelerations obtained in Sec.308(7. The expected inelastic roof displacement. This is 20 percent greater than the value of 8.80 Spectral pseudoacceleration.
00 0 5 10 Spectral displacement. in. 3112 . 15 20 25 Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1.80 Spectral pseudoacceleration.FEMA 451. g 20% 25% 0.00 10% 15% 0.20 5% 1.40 0.241 Capacity and demand spectra on single plot.60 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.20 0.
0. g 25% 20% 25% 0.10 0. 3113 .0 9.05 0.00 5.30 5% 10% 0.20 Spectral pseudoacceleration.0 Spectral displacement.15 0. in.0 7. Figure 3.242 Closeup view of portion of capacity and demand spectra.0 6.0 10. Structural Analysis 15% 20% 0.0 8.25 15% Chapter 5% 10% 3.
the differences between response with and without Pdelta effects would have been much more significant.4 953 0.00511 0.2 1125 0. The simplified approach from the Provisions predicts maximum expected displacements about 8 to 10 percent lower than the much more complicated capacity spectrum method. however.) 2nd Story Drift (in. 3.83 0.00522 0.0 0. Pdelta effects had a small but significant effect on the response of the system.84 1. base shears for the structure with Pdelta effects included were about 8 percent lower than for the structure without Pdelta effects.2.87 1. 4.4 Summary and Observations from Pushover Analysis 1. as only one structure has been analyzed.2.) 3rd Story Drift (in. 2. (rad) Max column plastic hinge rot.00421 Weak Panel with PDelta 10.216. (in.55 1.) 5th Story Drift (in.21 2. The small inelastic deformations are attributed to the considerable overstrength provided when preliminary member sizes were adjusted to satisfy story drift limits.45 2.6 TimeHistory Analysis Because of the many assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the capacity spectrum method. does eliminate two of the main problems with static pushover analysis: selection of the appropriate lateral load pattern and use of equivalent linear 3114 .29 2.78 1.14 1.68 0.31 1.) Max beam plastic hinge rot.23 2.00437 3.90 0. A timehistory analysis.FEMA 451.0 Weak Panel w/o PDelta 10. The structure without panel zone reinforcement appears to perform as well as the structure with such reinforcement. (rad) Max panel zone hinge rot.35 1.81 1.06 1. (rad) Strong Panel w/o PDelta 10.0 Strong Panel with PDelta 10. Table 3.3 1031 0.27 1. This is again attributed to the overstrength provided. 3.00524 0.00564 0. it is reasonable to consider the use of timehistory analysis for the computation of global and local deformation demands.81 2.64 0.5. In particular.0 0. All drifts and rotations are consistent with the expected inelastic roof displacement shown at the top of the table.82 2.) 4th Story Drift (in.0 0.00 2. The inelastic deformation demands in the hinging regions of the beams and in the panel zones of the beamcolumn joints were small and are certainly within acceptable limits.20 1. Conclusions cannot be drawn from this comparison.) 1st Story Drift (in. If the maximum expected displacement was larger.0 0.216 Summary of Results from Pushover Analysis Computed Quantity Expected Inelastic Disp.2 1033 0.19 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Results for all the strong and weak panel structures under modal load are summarized in Table 3.96 2.) Base Shear Demand (kips) 6th Story Drift (in. while by no means perfect.
Clough and Joseph Penzien. The structural model was identical to that used in the static pushover analysis. 2nd Edition.21 and 3. the damping matrix (D) is a linear combination of the mass matrix M and the initial stiffness matrix K: D =αM + β K where α and β are mass and stiffness proportionality factors. The timehistory analysis of Example 2 is used to estimate the deformation demands for the structure shown in Figures 3. choice of hysteretic model. Dynamics of Structures. Fortunately. to compensate for the fact that bilinear hysteretic models tend to overestimate energy dissipation in plastic hinges. In Rayleigh proportional damping. are known.2.) At inelastic rotations greater than 0.02 radians it is possible for local inelastic buckling to reduce the apparent strength and stiffness. Second order effects were included through the use of the outrigger element shown to the right of the actual frame in Figure 3. say 2. However. 3115 . 3. This model exhibits neither a loss of stiffness nor a loss of strength and. the proportionality factors may be computed from the following expression:9 ⎧α ⎫ 2ξ ⎧ω1ω 3 ⎫ ⎨ ⎬= ⎨ ⎬ ⎩ β ⎭ ω1 + ω 3 ⎩ 1 ⎭ 9 See Ray W. ω1 and ω3. Structural Analysis viscous damping in the demand spectrum to represent inelastic hysteretic energy dissipation. respectively. The mass and stiffness proportional damping factors were set to produce 5 percent damping in the first and third modes. most particularly selection and scaling of ground motions. Some analysts would use a lower damping. Inelastic hysteretic behavior was represented through the use of a bilinear model.6.Chapter 3. This was done primarily for consistency with the pushover analysis. is carried out for a suite of three ground motions specifically prepared for the site.02 radians.22.5 percent. The analysis. it will generally have the effect of overestimating the hysteretic energy dissipation in the yielding elements. and inclusion of inherent (viscous) damping. Analyses included and excluded Pdelta effects. the error produced by such a model will not be of great concern for this structure because the hysteretic behavior of panel zones and flexural plastic hinges should be very robust for this structure when inelastic rotations are less than about 0. for this reason.1 Modeling and Analysis Procedure The DRAIN2Dx program was used for each of the timehistory analyses. which use a baseline damping of 5 percent of critical. timehistory analysis does introduce its own problems. Rayleigh proportional damping was used to represent viscous energy dissipation in the structure. conducted only for the structure with panel zone reinforcement. (Previous analysis has indicated a low likelihood of rotations significantly greater than 0. If the first and third mode frequencies.24.02 radians.
00451 It is very important to note that the stiffness proportional damping factor must not be included in the Type4 elements used to represent rotational plastic hinges in the structure.120 and is repeated as Table 3.2 Development of Ground Motion Records The ground motion time histories used in the analysis were developed specifically for the site.00459 0.001 seconds. After yielding.0.2. the viscous moment may even exceed the intended plastic capacity of the hinge. The incremental differential equations of motion were solved in a stepbystep manner using the Newmark constant average acceleration approach. In fact. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Note that α and β are directly proportional to ξ.223 ω3 (Hz. particularly those in the girders. The minium time step used for analysis was 0. Table 3.) 3. The structural frequencies and damping proportionality factors are shown in Table 3. followed by ground acceleration.218. the initial rotational stiffness of the hinge. Later analyses used time steps as large as 0.217 for the models analyzed by the timehistory method.275 β 0. hence. These viscous moments occur in phase with the plastic rotation. (Damping Factors that Produce 5 Percent Damping in Modes 1 and 3) Model/Damping Parameters Strong Panel with PDelta Strong Panel without PDelta ω1 (Hz.118 3. Time steps and other integration parameters were carefully controlled to minimize errors.65 18. 3116 . The use of stiffness proportional damping in discrete plastic hinges can produce a totally inaccurate analysis result.267 0. Before the hinge yields there is virtually no rotational velocity in the hinge.FEMA 451. the rotational velocity is significant. effecting the sequence of hinging in the rest of the structure. have a very high initial stiffness.92 α 0. These hinges.217 Structural Frequencies and Damping Factors Used in TimeHistory Analysis. Basic information for the records was shown previously in Table 3. These large moments transfer to the rest of the structure. and produce artificially high base shears. If a stiffness proportional damping factor is used for the hinge. and the stiffness proportional damping factor – can be quite large. The structure was subjected to dead load and full reduced live load. 3.) 18. To increase ξ from 5 percent to 10 percent of critical requires only that α and β be increased by a factor of 2. a viscous moment will develop in the hinge.6. the plastic moment and the viscous moments are additive.00025 seconds. This artificial viscous moment – the product of the rotational velocity.
Iran) Dayhook (Tabas.218 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters (Unscaled) Number of Points and Peak Ground Source Motion Orientation Time Increment Acceleration (g) NS 8192 @ 0.460 0.443 Lucern (Landers) EW 8192 @ 0. Iran) Time histories and 5percentdamped response spectra for each of the motions are shown in Figures 3.005 seconds 0.245.005 seconds 1024 @ 0.435 0.454 Lucern (Landers) Record Name Record A00 Record A90 Record B00 Record B90 Record C00 Record C90 NS EW NS EW 4096 @ 0.005 seconds 0.02 seconds 1024 @ 0.005 seconds 4096 @ 0.243 through 3.407 USC Lick (Loma Prieta) USC Lick (Loma Prieta) Dayhook (Tabas.460 0.Chapter 3.02 seconds 0. Structural Analysis Table 3. 3117 .
00 Figure 3.60 0. g 1.40 0.FEMA 451.40 Acceleration. 3118 . sec Record A00 1.20 0.10 Period.00 1.20 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.60 1.01 0.01 Record A90 0.00 0.60 1.243 Time histories and response spectra for Record A.80 0.20 1. sec Record A90 0.40 Acceleration.00 0.80 0.20 Pseudoacceleration. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Record A00 0.20 0. g 0.40 1. sec 1.20 0.40 0. g 0.60 0.10 Period. sec 1.00 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Time. g Pseudoacceleration.60 0.00 10.40 0.40 1.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Time.20 0.00 0.40 0.20 0.
Structural Analysis 3119 .Chapter 3.
60 0. sec 1.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.40 Acceleration.10 Period.20 0. sec 1.80 0.20 0.01 Record B90 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.00 0.00 10.60 1.60 1.00 10.00 1.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Record B00 0.20 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record B00 1.244 Time histories and response spectra for Record B.40 0. 3120 .20 0.60 0.20 Pseudoacceleration.01 0.10 Period.40 0.20 0.40 Acceleration.40 1.20 1.40 0. g 1.60 0.40 1.40 0.00 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.20 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record B90 0. g 0. g 0.60 0.00 Figure 3.
00 0. Structural Analysis Record C00 0. sec 1. 3121 .20 0.00 Figure 3.80 0.20 0.60 1.00 1.40 Acceleration.60 1.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0. g 0.60 0.01 0.01 Record C90 0.40 0.20 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.60 0.245 Time histories and response spectra for Record C. g Pseudoacceleration.10 Period.20 0.40 1.40 Acceleration.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.Chapter 3.20 Pseudoacceleration. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record C90 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record C00 1. sec 1.60 0. g 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.20 1. g 1.00 10.20 0.40 0.00 10.10 Period.
5 T1 is not less than the 5percentdamped spectrum determined in accordance with Provisions Sec.25T instead of the (somewhat arbitrary) value of 0. See Table 3.6.3 Results of TimeHistory Analysis Timehistory analyses were performed for the structure subjected to the first 20 seconds of the three different ground motions described earlier.6.2. it will be assumed that the scale factors for the three earthquakes are to be the same. If a scale factor of 1. For the analyses reported herein.2. 5.5.6.40 sec to 1.2T.1 Response of Structure with 5 Percent of Critical Damping 10 2.0 seconds. only the NS (00) records of each ground motion were utilized. Analysis was run with 2.212. and 20 percent damping (Ground Motion A00.51 is used.1 [5. Assume an initial scale factor for each motion pair (for example. 5.00 seconds is approximately the average of the period of the strong panel model with and without Pdelta effects.1.2T1 to 1.3.5(2. A complete analysis would require consideration of both sets of ground motions. 4. These analyses were performed to assess the potential benefit of added viscous fluid damping devices.1] gives the following instructions for scaling: 1. As with the threedimensional timehistory analysis for the first example in this chapter. 10. only a single component of ground motion is applied at one time. When analyzing structures in two dimensions.00) = 0.2(2. 3122 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Because only a twodimensional analysis of the structure is performed using DRAIN.2.47 seconds. 3. 3.10 The scale factor of 1.3.FEMA 451. 2.2. Analysis was run with and without Pdelta effects for all three ground motions. and SC such that the average of the scaled response spectra over the period range 0.51 is probably conservative because it is controlled by the period at 0. The 20second cutoff was based on a series of preliminary analyses that used the full duration. b. including Pdelta effects). T1 is the fundamental mode period of vibration of the structure.26. The following parameters were varied to determine the sensitivity of the response to the particular variation: 1. which will clearly be in the higher modes of response of the structure. Provisions Sec. 2. If the Provisions had called for a cutoff of 0.246 indicates that the criteria specified by the Provisions have been met for all periods in the range 0.00) = 3. the required scale factor would be reduced to 1.4. SB. Adjust scale factors SA. Compute the 5percentdamped elastic response spectrum for each component in the pair. For each pair of motions: a. SA for ground motion A00). Figure 3.
/sec 2 600 Average of scaled EQ Windows 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0 2.=1.219 through 3. all run with 5 percent of critical damping.2 1. scaled average/NEHRP 1.219 and 3.0 1.8 1.0 0.=1.F.4 0.6 1.6 1. sec 2. For a system with no damping.8 Ratio.4 2.4 1.2 1. The tables of story shear also provide two values for each ground motion. which is not necessarily concurrent with the column shears. Selected timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3.8 Period.2 2. The second value represents the maximum total inertial force for the structure. 700 Pseudoacceleration. Structural Analysis The results from the first series of analyses. the story shears obtained from the two methods should be identical.6 2.4 2.8 0.247 through 3. was obtained as sum of the products of the total horizontal accelerations and nodal mass of each joint.8 1.0 2.51) Figure 3.4 1. Energy time histories are included for each analysis.8 3.4 0. The first value is the maximum total elastic column story shear.222.0 (b) Ratio of Average of Scaled Spectra to NEHRP Spectrum (S.0 NEHRP Spectrum (a) Comparison of Average of Scaled Spectra and NEHRP Spectrum (S.4 0.6 0. the base shear obtained from column forces generally will be less than the shear from inertial forces because the 3123 .264.6 0.6 0. For a system with damping.6 1.2 1. including Pdelta effects if applicable.0 0. sec 2. The inertial base shear.2 2.2 0.4 1.6 2.8 Period.221 are for the single frame analyzed and should be doubled to obtain the total shear in the structure.8 3.246 Ground motion scaling parameters. The tabulated shears in Tables 3.Chapter 3.F. are summarized in Tables 3.51) 1.0 1. in.
75 4.33 2.247 through 3.63 2.219 and 3.221 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed with 5 Percent Damping. Timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3. the force absorbed by the mass proportional component of damping will be lost (as this is not directly recoverable in DRAIN). and panel zone regions for each of the ground motions.41 3.75 3.7 1.75 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples viscous component of column shear is not included.255.220 and 3. Tables 3.52 2. Excluding PDelta Effects Level Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G Motion A00 16.98 4.50 Table 3.13 Limit NA 3. Excluding PDelta Effects Level Column Forces Inertial Forces Motion A00 1559 1307 Motion B00 1567 1370 Motion C00 1636 1464 Table 3. columns.FEMA 451. Local quantification of such effects is provided later for the structure responding to Ground Motion A00.65 2. Table 3.) from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 percent Damping. Additionally.78 3.04 Motion C00 11.67 2.15 3.88 3.37 3. Including PDelta Effects Level Column Forces Inertial Forces Motion A00 1426 1282 Motion B00 1449 1354 Motion C00 1474 1441 3124 .220 Maximum Story Drifts (in. Strong Panels.4 1. The total roof drift and the peak story drifts listed in Tables 3.75 2.75 3.60 2. Strong Panels.82 2.81 Motion B00 13.222 are peak (envelope) values at each story and are not necessarily concurrent.220 summarize the global response of the structure with excluding Pdelta effects.219 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed with 5 Percent Damping.51 3. Strong Panels. Significant yielding occurred in the girders.0 1.75 3.
A reduction in base shear is to be expected for yielding structures when Pdelta effects are included.31 2. Recall that the allowable drift includes a factor of 1. however. For Ground Motion A00. the maximum story drift was 4.249.253 do not have a significant residual displacement.48 3.) from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 Percent Damping.61 2.4 in.5 in. exceeds the allowable drift of 4.245).08 4.50 in.2 1.221 and 3.98 in.48 2.81 in. which are history traces of roof displacement and base shear.265 and 3.75 3. a pronounced difference in the recorded peak displacements. occurs during Ground Motion C00.250 and 3. This is illustrated in Figures 3. taken from the sum of column forces. Table 3. Timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3.59 2. Pdelta effects have a significant influence on the response of the structure to each of the ground motions.7 in.81 in.222 Maximum Story Drifts (in.89 3. for Levels 2 through 6.256 through 3. Including PDelta Effects Level Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G Motion A00 17.4 1.90 3.247.25 that is permitted when nonlinear analysis is performed. occurring during ground motion A00. 1441 kips.221 summarizes the base shear response and indicates that the maximum base shear from the column forces.84 in. The Pdelta effect is most evident after the structure has yielded. Table 3.264.9 1. Structural Analysis Table 3.5 seconds into the earthquake.50 The peak base shears (for a single frame).222 shows that inclusion of Pdelta effects led to a general increase in displacements with the peak roof displacement of 17.222. are very similar for each of the ground motions and range from 1307 kips to 1464 kips.78 2. As shown in Figure 3.75 4. There is. Strong Panels. for Level 1 and 3. Responses for analysis with and without Pdelta effects are shown in the same figure.Chapter 3. This may be seen clearly in the timehistory trace of roof and firststory displacement shown in Figure 3.75 3.75 3. The larger drifts recorded during Ground Motion A00 are again associated with residual inelastic deformations. Similar differences occurred for the firststory displacement. The firststory drift of 4.08 3.4 in..11 Motion C00 10. respectively.75 3.31 3. This shear is somewhat less than the shear of 1464 kips which occurs under the same ground motion when Pdelta effects are excluded. Responses for the other two ground motions shown in Figures 3. The story drift at the lower level of the structure is 4. the larger displacements observed in Ground Motion A00 are due to a permanent inelastic displacement offset that occurs at about 10. The reason for the differences in response to the three ground motions is not evident from their ground acceleration timehistory traces (see Figures 3.66 2.78 3. The sharp increase in energy at this time is evident in Figure 3.75 Limit NA 3. For Ground Motion A00 the roof displacement reached a maximum value of 16. while the peak roof displacement from Ground Motion C00 was only 11. The response of the structure including Pdelta effects is summarized in Tables 3.84 Motion B00 14. when Pdelta effects are included and this exceeds the limit of 4. 3125 .47 2. in response to Ground Motion A00.243 through 3.60 4.266.256.
Ground Motion A00.248 Time history of total base shear.FEMA 451. excluding Pdelta effects.247 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. kips 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim e. Ground Motion A00. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20 15 Displacement. in. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. 3126 . 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. excluding Pdelta effects.
249 Energy time history.Chapter 3. 20 15 Displacement. Ground Motion B00. excluding Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 45000 S train + Hysteretic 40000 35000 30000 Energy. 3127 .250 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. in. Se conds 12 16 20 S train + Hysteretic + Viscous Total Figure 3. Ground MotionA00. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. InchKips 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 4 8 Tim e. excluding Pdelta effects.
Ground Motion B00. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 2000 1500 Base shear. excluding Pdelta effects.000 35.000 25. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3.000 20.000 40. excluding Pdelta effects. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 45.000 15.kips 30.000 Energy. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.000 5.252 Energy time history. Ground Motion B00. in.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.251 Time history of total base shear. 3128 .FEMA 451.000 10.
sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. 3129 . 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. excluding Pdelta effects.254 Time history of total base shear. Structural Analysis 20 15 Displacement. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. excluding Pdelta effects. Ground Motion C00.253 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. 2000 1500 Base shear.Chapter 3. in. Ground Motion C00.
Ground Motion C00. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. excluding Pdelta effects.255 Energy time history.FEMA 451. in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 45000 S train + Hysteretic 40000 35000 30000 Energy. 20 15 Displacement. including Pdelta effects.256 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. Ground Motion A00. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. InchKips 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 4 8 Tim e. Se conds 12 16 20 S train + Hysteretic + Viscous Total Figure 3. 3130 .
kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.258 Energy time history. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3. 45.kips 30.257 Time history of total base shear.Chapter 3. including Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 2000 1500 Base shear. 3131 . Ground Motion A00.000 5. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. Ground Motion A00.000 15.000 10.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.000 Energy.000 25.000 35.000 20.000 40. including Pdelta effects. in.
including Pdelta effects. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. Ground Motion B00. including Pdelta effects. 3132 .259 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.260 Time history of total base shear. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. Ground Motion B00.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20 15 Displacement. in. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 2000 1500 Base shear.
3133 .000 5. Ground Motion B00. including Pdelta effects.000 Energy. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.000 35. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3.000 15.000 40. in.000 25.262 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. including Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 45. in.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 20 15 Displacement. Ground Motion C00.000 20.000 10.kips 30.Chapter 3.261 Energy time history.
000 35.0 Displacem ent. in.FEMA 451.0 15. including Pdelta effects.0 5.000 15.000 Energy.0 0.000 10.0 20.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.263 Time history of total base shear.0 15.000 5.0 5. Seconds 12 14 16 18 20 Roof Level 1 Figure 3. Ground Motion C00.000 25.000 20. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3. Inches 10.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.kips 30. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20. Ground Motion C00.000 40.0 10. including Pdelta effects.264 Energy time history. 45. 3134 .
with and without Pdelta effects.265 Timehistory of roof displacement. 3135 . sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. in.266 Time history of base shear. Ground Motion A00. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. Structural Analysis 20 Including PDelta 15 10 Displacement. Ground Motion A00. kips 500 0 500 Including PDelta Excluding PDelta 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. with and without Pdelta effect. 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.Chapter 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Excluding PDelta Figure 3.
and 6.6. yielding does not necessarily occur at all locations simultaneously. max = 0. Due to the highly empirical nature of the ELF approach. The maximum plastic hinge rotations are shown at the locations they occur for the columns.267 shows the pattern of yielding in the structure subjected to Gound Motion A00 including Pdelta effects. 3. but the predicted displacements and story drifts are similar. and panel zones.223.00121 rad Column. 3. Circles at the lower right corner of the panel zone represent yielding of the flange component. The circles on the figure represent yielding at any time during the response. Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Panel zone. including Pdelta effects.3.0102 rad Girder. max = 0. consequently. 5.FEMA 451. Circles shown at the upper left corner of the beamcolumn joint region indicate yielding in the rotational spring that represents the web component of panel zone behavior. The panels zones at the exterior joints of Levels 2 and 6 also yielded.0246 rad Figure 3. The maximum plastic shear strain in the web of the panel zone is identical to the computed hinge rotation in the panel zone spring. girders. Tabulated values are shown in Table 3.223 compares the results obtained from the timehistory analysis with those obtained from the ELF and the nonlinear static pushover analyses. max = 0.267 Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to Ground Motion A00. Yielding patterns for the other ground motions and for analyses run with and without Pdelta effects were similar but are not shown here. Figure 3. The ELF method also has no mechanism to include the overstrength that will occur in the structure although it is represented explicitly in the static and dynamic nonlinear analyses.2 Comparison with Results from Other Analyses Table 3. It is also very interesting to note that 3136 . and in the columns at Stories 1 and 5. The nonlinear static pushover analysis predicts base shears and story displacements that are significantly less than those obtained from timehistory analysis. it is difficult to explain these differences. The base shear from nonlinear dynamic analysis is more than four times the value computed from the ELF analysis. The differences shown in the results are quite striking: 1.267 shows that yielding occurred at both ends of each of the girders at Levels 2. 2.2. 4. Recall that the model analyzed incorporated panel zone reinforcement at the interior beamcolumn joints. Recall that the base shears in the table represent half of the total shear in the building.
for example. (in.224.) Drift 32 (in. (rad) Panel Plastic Shear Strain Note: Shears are for half of total structure.23 0.48 3.77 2.81 2.00624 0.02 1.0065 0.23 2. Figure 3.00131 No Yielding No Yielding Nonlinear Dynamic 1474 17. While part of the difference in the pushover and timehistory response is due to the scale factor of 1.90 0.51 that was required for the timehistory analysis.) Table 3.84 0.34 2.7 1.91 3.) Drift 54 (in.87 2. Figure 3.14 NA NA NA NA Static Pushover Provisions Method 1051 12.31 3.15 3.90 3.00732 0. even at an applied roof displacement of 42 in. Structural Analysis the pushover analysis indicates no yielding in the panel zones.78 1. (rad) Panel Hinge Rot.223 Summary of All Analyses for Strong Panel Structure.268 are the likely cause of the different hinging patterns and are certainly the reason for the very high base shear developed in the timehistory analysis.73 2. See. The higher mode effects shown in the Figure 3.) Drift R6 (in.4 1.08 4. 3137 . (If the inertial forces were constrained to follow the first mode response.74 3.0192 0. The differences are quite remarkable.4 1. (rad) Column Hinge Rot.) Girder Hinge Rot.00624 Base Shear (kips) Roof Disp.) Drift 21 (in.) Drift 65 (in.63 3. the maximum base shear that could be developed in the system would be in the range of 1100 kips.3 0.27 1.268 illustrates this by plotting the inertial forces that occur in the structure at the time of peak base shear and comparing this pattern to the force system applied for nonlinear static analysis.0140 0.Chapter 3. the most significant reason for the difference is the use of the firstmode lateral loading pattern in the nonlinear static pushover response.73 2.) Drift 43 (in.00130 No Yielding No Yielding Static Pushover CapacitySpectrum 1031 10.60 4. Including PDelta Effects Analysis Method Response Quantity Equivalent Lateral Forces 373 18.31 1.
In each case. and Pdelta effects were included. preliminary analysis was performed by simply increasing the damping ratio from 5 percent to 20 percent of critical in 5percent increments.FEMA 451. Including PDelta Effects Damping Ratio Item 2.5 percent damping. Table 3. To determine the effect of added damping on the behavior of the structure. an increase in damping from 5 to 10 percent of critical eliminates the drift problem.224 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed Ground Motion A00. The most cost effective measure to enhance the performance of the structure would probably be to provide additional strength and/or stiffness at this story. A summary of the results is shown in Tables 3.2. Even greater improvement is obtained by increasing damping to 20 percent of critical. the structure was subjected to Ground Motion A00.224 and 3. However. 3.6. which is the true shear in the system.5% Column Forces Inertial Forces 1354 1440 5% 1284 1426 10% 1250 1520 20% 1150 1421 28% 1132 1872 3138 . Strong Panels. In is interesting to note.225. For comparison purposes. that an increase in damping had little effect on the inertial base shear.3.268 Comparison of inertial force patterns.3 Effect of Increased Damping on Response The timehistory analysis of the structure with panel zone reinforcement indicates that excessive drift may occur in the first story. the panel zones were reinforced. added damping is also a viable approach. an additional analysis was performed for a system with only 2. As may be seen. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 19k 209k 75k 640k 590k 288k Time History Analysis First Mode Pattern Figure 3. however.
21 1.18 If added damping were a viable option.60 4. Thus: β device = Cdevice = 1000 Cdevice 0. additional analysis that treats the individual dampers explicitly would be required.87 3.90 28% 11.9 1. the damping constant for the element is: Cdevice = β device kdevice The damper elastic stiffness should be negligible so set kD = 0.Chapter 3.4 1.08 2. In practice.001 kips/in. If a linear viscous fluid damping device (Figure 3.74 2.5% Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G 18.37 2.1 1.33 3. and modulus of elasticity Edevice. added damping systems usually employ devices with a “softening” nonlinear relationship between the deformational velocity in the device and the force in the device. it could be modeled through the use of a Type1 (truss bar) element.08 4.77 2.4 1. This is easily accomplished in DRAIN by use of the stiffness proportional component of Rayleigh damping.90 3. Including PDelta Effects Damping Ratio Level 2. it would be obtained as follows: Let the length of the Type1 damper element be Ldevice. the author typically sets Edevice = 0.269) were to be used in a particular story.) from TimeHistory Analysis Ground Motion A00.79 2.84 10% 15. The elastic stiffness of the damper element is simply: kdevice = Adevice Edevice Ldevice As stiffness proportional damping is used.42 2.00 3. Strong Panels.13 2.21 20% 12.71 3.81 3.001 When modeling added dampers in this manner.72 3. the cross sectional area Adevice.69 4.43 2. Structural Analysis Table 3.40 2.11 4.001 and Adevice = the damper length Ldevice.93 5% 17.8 1. If a damping constant Cdevice were required. only linear damping is possible in DRAIN. 3139 . however.48 3.225 Maximum Story Drifts (in.70 4.86 2.31 3.
55 percent of critical damping was obtained in the second mode. and with equivalent Rayleigh damping. Devices with a damping constant (C) of 80 kipsec/in. between Bays 3 and 4 (see Figure 3. were added in Stories 1 and 2. Using the modal strain energy approach. there is a dramatic 3140 . and dampers with C = 60 kipsec/in. the trend of decreased displacements and increased inertial shears with higher damping is continued. and has Pdelta effects included. particularly when there is excessive flexibility in the mechanism that connects the damper to the structure. were added in Stories 3 and 4.FEMA 451. The analysis was repeated using Rayleigh damping wherein the above stated modal damping ratios were approximately obtained.224 and 3. As may be observed.21).. Modeling the dynamic response using Type1 elements is exact within the typical limitations of finite element analysis. a different (global) value of β will be required to model the stiffness proportional component of damping in the remaining nondamper elements. the structure is subjected to Ground Motion A00. has strong panels. Using these devices. Also. with true viscous dampers.270 shows the time history of roof displacements for the structure without added damping. In order to compare the response of the structure with fictitiously high Rayleigh damping to the response with actual discrete dampers. The chevron braces used to connect the devices to the main structure had sufficient stiffness to eliminate any loss of efficiency of the devices. devices with C = 70 kipsec/in. As before. Different dampers may require different values. and in excess of 70 percent of critical damping was obtained in modes three through six. an equivalent viscous damping of approximately 28 percent of critical was obtained in the first mode.269 Modeling a simple damper. These modal damping values are approximate and may be poor estimates of actual modal damping. Figure 3.225. were added at Stories 5 and 6. As may be seen. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This value of βdevice is for the added damper element only. The peak shears and displacements obtained from the analysis with Rayleigh damping are shown at the extreme right of Tables 3. DRAIN will report a damping value in each mode. dampers were added in a chevron configuration along column lines C and D. L j i D am per Brace Brace Figure 3.
Structural Analysis decrease in roof displacement.45 kN). It is also clear that the discrete dampers and the equivalent Rayleigh damping produce very similar results. These base shears were obtained from the summation of column forces.Chapter 3.0 kip = 4. kips 500 0 500 No added damping With discrete added damping With Rayleigh added damping 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 20 15 Roof displacement. with discrete dampers.0 in.271 Base shear time histories obtained from column forces (1. The peak base shear for the system with equivalent viscous damping is less than the shear in the system without added damping. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. in. and with equivalent viscous damping. = 25.4 mm). 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. Figure 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 No added damping With discrete added damping With Rayleigh added damping Figure 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 1Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. the base shears include the horizontal component of the forces in the chevron braces. For the discrete damper case.271 shows the time history of base shears for the structure without added damping. 3141 . The base shears for the discretely damped system are greater than the shears for the system without added damping.270 Response of structure with discrete dampers and with equivalent viscous damping (1.
As may be observed. 3142 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. the use of added discrete damping reduces the hysteretic energy demand on the structure. The inertial base shears in the system with discrete damping and with equivalent viscous damping are shown in Figure 3.0 kip = 4. the responses are almost identical. As might be expected.272 Base shear time histories as obtained from inertial forces (1. This effect is shown in Figure 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Discrete damping Rayleigh damping Figure 3.273.258. This figure should be compared to Figure 3.FEMA 451.272. The inertial forces represent the true base shear in the structure. and should always be used in lieu of the sum of column forces. kips 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.45 kN). The reduction in hysteretic energy demand for the system with added damping will reduce the damage in the structure. which is the energy history for the structure without added damping. which is an energy time history for the structure with added discrete damping (which yields equivalent viscous damping of 28 percent of critical).
000 30. 3143 .000 10. a number of substantive technical changes have been made to the appendix.2.000 Energy. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.113 kNm). 3.000 40.273 Energy timehistory for structure with discrete added damping (1. pushover analysis. Linear static analysis (the equivalent lateral force method) Plastic strength analysis (using virtual work) Nonlinear static pushover analysis Linear dynamic analysis Nonlinear dynamic timehistory analysis Approaches 1. 2.7 Summary and Conclusions In this example. when used alone.kips 25. The results obtained from the three different analytical approaches were quite dissimilar.0 in. Structural Analysis 45. particular attention was paid to representing possible inelastic behavior in the panelzone regions of the beamcolumn joints.Chapter 3. and 5 were carried to a point that allowed comparison of results.000 5. 3. five different analytical approaches were used to estimate the deformation demands in a simple unbraced steel frame structure: 1. 3.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 5. Chopra and Goel 2001).000 15. in.kip = 0. In modeling the structure.000 20. 11 Improved methods are becoming available for pushover analysis (see. is inadequate. Because of the influence of the higher mode effects on the response. for example.11 [In the 2003 Provisions. 4.000 35.
However. Through future research and the efforts of code writing bodies. They have been presented by many academics and practicing engineers. Bertero and Bertero (2002) have presented valuable discussions in these regards. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples largely as a result of work performed in the development of ATC 55. Methods based on explicit quantification of damage should be seriously considered. This leaves timehistory analysis as the most viable approach. All ground motions must adequately reflect site conditions and. where applicable. The ideas presented above are certainly not original. significant shortcomings. the ELF approach should not be used in explicit performance evaluation as it has no mechanism for determining location and extent of yielding in the structure. Given the speed and memory capacity of personal computers. the author believes that deterministic methods should not be abandoned entirely. Among the most pressing problems is the need for a suitable suite of ground motions.FEMA 451. it is expected that timehistory analysis will eventually play a more dominant role in the seismic analysis of buildings. While probabilistic methods for dealing with such uncertainties seem like a natural extension of the analytical approach. the suite must include nearfield effects.] Except for preliminary design. limitations. What is still lacking is a comprehensive approach for seismicresistant design based on these principles. That report outlines numerous other technical modifications that could be considered in application of nonlinear static analysis methods. Systematic methods need to be developed for identifying uncertainties in the modeling of the structure and for quantifying the effect of such uncertainties on the response. and uncertainties in timehistory analysis still exist. it may be possible to develop standard suites of ground motions that could be published together with tools and scaling methodologies to make the motions represent the site. improved methods for assessing the effect of inelastic response and acceptance criteria based on such measures need to be developed. The scaling techniques that are currently recommended in the Provisions are a start but need improving. 3144 . In the context of performancebased design.
The most significant change to the foundation chapter in the 2003 Provisions is the addition of a strength design method for foundations. Another change was made to introduce guidance for the explicit modeling of foundation loaddeformation characteristics. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Example 4. Example 4. [ ]. analysis should not be the primary focus of foundation design. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. The forcedisplacement response of soil to loading is highly nonlinear and strongly time dependent. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. As compared to design of concrete elements that form the superstructure of a building.2 illustrates the analysis and design of deep foundations for a building similar to the one highlighted in Chapter 6 of this volume of design examples. Control of settlement is generally the most important aspect of soil response to gravity loads.2. such as those occurring during an earthquake. In both cases. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. and careful attention to practical considerations of construction. Although this chapter is based on the 2000 Provisions.4 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Michael Valley. While the general concepts of the changes are described. This chapter illustrates application of the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions to the design of foundation elements. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. Although the application of advanced analysis techniques to foundation design is becoming increasingly common (and is illustrated in this chapter). the ability to proportion concrete elements correctly. and even the possibility of unintentional mixing with soil. only those portions of the designs necessary to illustrate specific points are included. Good foundation design for seismic resistance requires familiarity with basic soil behavior and common geotechnical parameters. Foundation elements are most commonly constructed of reinforced concrete. However. the strength of the soil may control foundation design where large amplitude transient loads. 41 . are anticipated. P. an understanding of how such elements should be detailed to produce ductile response. less precise construction tolerances. Annotations within brackets.E.1 completes the analysis and design of shallow foundations for two of the alternate framing arrangements considered for the building featured in Example 5. However. additional consideration must be given to concrete foundation elements due to permanent exposure to potentially deleterious materials.
FEMA 451. 1998 [2002]. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions and Commentary (referred to herein as Provisions and Commentary). 1996. M. A. Reinforced Concrete Design . I..” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1 (March).. C. Reese. L. Wang. No. (November). 1988. W. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.0 for Windows. 1987. Foundation Analysis and Design. No. 1997. Reese. Reese. Bowles. J. 1993. ASCE. Technical Manual for LPILE Plus 3. C.” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. 11 (November). and S. PoLam. and S. 113. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. O’Neill. Vol 114. L. Chaudhuri. Modeling of Pile Footings and Drilled Shafts for Seismic Design. L. Wang. Brown. and M. McGrawHill. ASCE. C. D. HarperCollins. E. G. and D. 1988. J. ASCE. 1996. Ensoft. Pender.” Proceedings: Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 1995. 1992. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. Brown. American Society of Civil Engineers. R. M. C. L. FEMA 356. 1998. Morrison. the following documents are either referenced directly or provide useful information for the analysis and design of foundations for seismic resistance: ACI 318 American Concrete Institute. T. S. Wang. Kapuskar. Prentice Hall..” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. C. Vol. Ensoft.K. T. 26. 2000. No. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. 1996. ASCE 7 Bowles Brown 1987 Brown 1988 CRSI FEMA 356 GROUP Kramer LPILE Martin Pender PoLam Wang & Salmon 42 .. and L.. Martin. D. Kramer..0 for Windows. “Seismic Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and Geotechnical Issues. Manual for GROUP 4. CRSI Design Handbook. C. 11. and I. PoLam.. MCEER980018. “Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis. “Cyclic Lateral Loading of a LargeScale Pile Group. Vol. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. and C. G. “Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Group in Sand. A. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Reese. 1999 [2002]. Salmon.
L.. T. and et al.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (October). and PCACOL. I. Foundation Analysis and Design Youd Youd. Several commercially available programs were used to perform the calculations described in this chapter. LPILE. RISA: 3D is used to determine the shears and moments in a concrete mat foundation. 43 . “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. M. Idriss.. to determine concrete pile section capacities. in the analysis of laterally loaded single piles. ASCE.Chapter 4. 2001.
5. 4.1. Table 4.11 Typical framing plan. 177'4" 1'2" 1'2" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 1'2" 127'4" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" N 1'2" Figure 4.1 Description The framing plan in Figure 4. because Chapter 4 was completed after Chapter 5.11 shows the gravityloadresisting system for a representative level of the building. The values identified as bearing capacity are related to gross failure of the soil mass in the vicinity of loading.11 shows the design parameters provided by a geotechnical consultant. Where loads are applied over smaller areas.1. If the longterm. The site soils. 44 . Refer to that example for more detailed building information and for the design of the superstructure. so the bearing pressure limits are a function of the size of the loaded area. Note the distinction made between bearing pressure and bearing capacity. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA This example features the analysis and design of shallow foundations for two of the three framing arrangements for the sevenstory steel office building described in Sec. consisting of medium dense sands.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. are suitable for shallow foundations. servicelevel loads applied to foundations do not exceed the noted bearing pressure. punching into the soil is more likely. Settlements are more pronounced where large areas are loaded.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR A SEVENSTORY OFFICE BUILDING. some values may differ slightly between the two chapters.2 of this volume of design examples.1 Basic Information 4. differential and total settlements are expected to be within acceptable limits.1.
The following parameters. the φ factor for cohesionless soil is explicitly defined.2.0 45 .1 of this volume of design examples. φ = 0.7 for vertical.7 for vertical.2. Resistance factor. foundations with significantly nonsquare loaded areas (tending toward strip footings) and those with significant differences between average pressure and maximum pressure (as for eccentrically loaded footings) have higher calculated bearing capacities. K0 = 0.1.] Net bearing pressure (to control settlement due to sustained loads) Bearing capacity (for plastic equilibrium strength checks with factored loads) Lateral properties The structural material properties assumed for this example are: f'c = 4.] Table 4. and rocking resistance. the value is set at 0. Foundation Analysis and Design Because bearing capacities are generally expressed as a function of the minimum dimension of the loaded area and are applied as limits on the maximum pressure.6 [In the 2003 Provisions. 5. lateral.11 Geotechnical Parameters Parameter Basic soil properties Value Medium dense sand (SPT) N = 20 γ = 125 pcf angle of internal friction = 33 deg # 4000 psf for B # 20 ft # 2000 psf for B $ 40 ft (may interpolate for intermediate dimensions) 2000 B psf for concentrically loaded square footings 3000 B' psf for eccentrically loaded footings where B and B' are in feet.2. are duplicated here. and rocking resistance. φ = 0. 7.3 Atrest. lateral. the φ factor for cohesionless soil is explicitly defined.3 “Ultimate” friction coefficient at base of footing = 0.2 Provisions Parameters The complete set of parameters used in applying the Provisions to design of the superstructure is described in Sec. which are used during foundation design.] Earth pressure coefficients Active. Site Class = D SDS = 1. [The 2003 Provisions discuss the settlement and strength limit states in Sec.2 using slightly different nomenclature.Chapter 4. The recommended values are consistent with these expectations.46 Passive.000 psi fy = 60.2.000 psi 4. KA = 0. the value is set at 0.65 Resistance factor. B is the footing width and B' is an average width for the compressed area.1. KP = 3.8 [In the 2003 Provisions.
The thickness of footings is selected for ease of construction and to provide adequate shear capacity for the concrete section.5 of ACI 318 prescribes the minimum reinforcement for flexural members where tensile reinforcement is required by analysis..1.3 Design Approach 4. Stability calculations are sensitive to the characterization of soil behavior. Sec.1. uplift over a portion of the footing is acceptable to most designers. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Seismic Design Category = D 4.3. where large transient loads are anticipated. Section capacities are calculated in accordance with Chapters 10 (for flexure) and 11 (for shear).4 also imposes limits on the maximum spacing of bars. Chapter 21 provides the minimum requirements for concrete foundations in Seismic Design Categories D. 15. 10.1.5. settlement control should be the first issue addressed. foundation plan dimensions should be selected to limit bearing pressures to those that are expected to provide adequate settlement performance. However. For elements that are very thick with respect to the plan dimensions (as at the pile caps). For sustained eccentric loads a linear distribution of elastic soil stresses is generally assumed and uplift is usually avoided. Maintaining a reasonably consistent level of service load bearing pressures for all of the individual footings is encouraged as it will tend to reduce differential settlements. 7. which are usually of more concern than are total settlements. ACI 318 Sec. Provision of the minimum reinforcement assures that the strength of the cracked section is not less than that of the corresponding unreinforced concrete section. Where foundations will be subjected to shortterm loads and inelastic 46 .FEMA 451. 10. For shallow foundations. strutandtie modeling) should be employed. Chapter 15 provides direction for the calculation of demands and includes detailing requirements.” Sec. 10. brittle failures. these critical section definitions become less meaningful and other approaches (e. Design requirements for concrete footings are found in Chapters 15 and 21 of ACI 318. consideration of bearing capacity may become important.4 relaxes the minimum reinforcement requirement for footings of uniform thickness.2 Additional Considerations for Eccentric Loads The design of eccentrically loaded footings follows the approach outlined above with one significant addition – consideration of overturning stability. and F. which are similar to those provided in prior editions of the Provisions. When a preliminary footing size that satisfies serviceability criteria has been selected.1. 4. It would be rare for bearing capacity to govern the size of footings subjected to sustained loads.4 defines how flexural reinforcement is to be distributed for footings of various shapes.1 Selecting Footing Size and Reinforcement Most foundation failures are related to excessive movement rather than loss of loadcarrying capacity. Such elements need only satisfy the shrinkage reinforcement requirements of Sec. Figure 4. thus preventing sudden. Once service loads have been calculated. Sec. If the structure is expected to remain elastic when subjected to shortterm eccentric loads (as for wind loading). which is uncommon in shallow foundations.12. E.3. In recognition of this fact.1.5. reinforcement is designed to satisfy flexural demands.g. Less reinforcement may be used as long as “the area of tensile reinforcement provided is at least onethird greater than that required by analysis. Settlement control should be addressed first. The common design approach is to increase footing thickness as necessary to avoid the need for shear reinforcement. bearing capacity can be checked.12 illustrates the critical sections (dashed lines) and areas (hatched) over which loads are tributary to the critical sections.1.
that approach simplifies the calculations at the expense of increased conservatism. finite element models of those conditions are easy to develop. at uplift (b) Critical section for oneway shear (d) Elastic. plastic soil stresses may be considered. and other advanced considerations.2 Design for Gravity Loads 47 .13 illustrates the distribution of soil stresses for the various assumptions. after uplift d (e) Some plastification (c) Critical section for twoway shear (f) Plastic limit d/2 (all sides) Figure 4. c. It is most common to consider stability effects on the basis of statically applied loads even where the loading is actually dynamic. no uplift extent of footing (typical) (c) Elastic. For the interested reader. Practical consideration of the case shown in part e would require modeling with inelastic elements. Foundation Analysis and Design response is acceptable (as for earthquake loading).) Outside face of concrete column or line midway between face of steel column and edge of steel base plate (typical) P M (a) Loading (a) Critical section for flexure (b) Elastic.13 Soil pressure distributions. (All of the discussion in this section focuses on the common case in which foundation elements may be assumed to be rigid with respect to the supporting soil. rocking. Chapter 4 of FEMA 356 provides a useful discussion of foundation compliance.Chapter 4.12 Critical sections for isolated footings.1. Most textbooks on foundation design provide simple equations to describe the conditions shown in parts b. and d of the figure. but offers no advantage over direct consideration of the plastic limit. Figure 4. Figure 4. Simple hand calculations can be performed for the case shown in part f. 4.
[The 2003 Provisions refer to ACI 31802. as follows: Interior: D = 387 kips L = 98 kips Perimeter: D = 206 kips L = 45 kips Corner: D = 104 kips L = 23 kips The service load combination for consideration of settlement is D + L.2.5.1 Demands Dead and live load reactions are determined as part of the threedimensional analysis described in Sec.3.2 of this volume of design examples. Therefore. The results for all three footing types are summarized in Sec.6L.2 Footing Size The preliminary size of the footing is determined considering settlement. the allowable bearing pressure (see Table 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Although most of the examples in the volume do not provide detailed design for gravity loads. 4. Check a footing that is 11'0" by 11'0": Pallow = 11 ft(11 ft)(4000 psf) = 484. 4. perimeter. the required footing area is 487.1. the controlling gravity load combination is 1.5 below meaningful. The strength demand is: Pu = 1.1. 5.2 of ASCE 7. Since the footing dimensions will be less than 20 ft.] 4.FEMA 451. This change would affect slightly the results of the example calculations in this chapter . Although there are slight variations in the calculated reactions. These new resistance factors (not those found in the ACI 318 Appendix) are used for seismic design. First. the bearing capacity (qc) is 2000 B = 2000 × 11 = 22000 psf = 22 ksf.1. in which the basic resistance factors have been revised to be consistent with the load combinations in ASCE 7.2(387 kips) + 1. a complete gravity design is needed to make the cost comparisons shown in Sec. most of the calculation procedures used in designing shallow foundations for seismic loads are identical to those used for gravity design.000 lb/4000 psf = 121.6(98 kips) = 621 kips.2.000 lb = 484 kips . As indicated in Table 4. 2. OK 48 .11.1. the alternate strength reduction factors found in ACI 318 Appendix C must be used. and corner) for gravity load design and the maximum computed reactions are applied to all members of the group.25 ft2.2. 485 kips (demand). Considering the load combinations for strength design defined in Sec. Detailed calculations are shown for a typical interior footing.2D + 1. the foundations are lumped into three groups (interior. Because ASCE 7 load combinations are employed. 4.11) is 4000 psf. it is provided in this section for two reasons. Second. The service load on a typical interior footing is calculated as: P = D + L = 387 kips + 98 kips = 485 kips.
85 f'c b a for a produces a = 1. d = t .cover .12) that depend on the footing thickness. Check a footing that is 26 in.(3 + 1. The distance from the extreme compression fiber to the center of the top layer of reinforcement. 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 1 φVn = φVc = ( 0.5 Vu = 621 − ( 16 + 5. Noting that C = T and solving the expression C = 0.5 ) ⎤ ⎦ ( 21.5(1)) = 21. 2) 2 ) ( 12 ) 2 OK 49 . thick: For the W14 columns used in this building.13) = 172kips .1.5 in. Oneway shear: ⎛ 11 − 16 21.1. the side dimensions of the loaded area (taken halfway between the face of the column and the edge of the base plate) are about 16 in.4 Footing Reinforcement Footing reinforcement is selected considering both flexural demands and minimum reinforcement requirements. OK Twoway shear: 21.80 ( 474 ) ( 21.2. 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ Try 10 #8 bars each way.5 ) ( 1000 ) = 269 kips > 172 kips.5(1) = 21.75 ) 2 4000 (11 × 12 )( 21.2. d = 26 .5 ) ( 1000 ) = 612 kips > 571 kips.1.1.13) = 571kips .5 − 1.Chapter 4.75 ) 4 4000 ⎡ ⎣ 4 × (16 + 21. The following calculations treat flexure first because it usually controls: ⎛ 11 − 16 ⎞ 1 12 M u = (11) ⎜ ⎟ ( 5. 12 ) ( 2 1 φVn = φVc = ( 0.79)(60) = 474 kips. iteration is required.6(22 ksf)(11 ft)2 = 1597 kips o 621 kips. 1 φ M n = φT ( d − a = 0. Because the demands are calculated at critical sections (see Figure 4.13 ksf. T = As fy = 10(0.3 . OK 4.5 ⎞ 12 Vu = 11⎜ − ⎟ ( 5. the factored bearing pressure qu = 621 kips/(11 ft)2 = 5. 4. the thickness is determined such that the section satisfies the oneway and twoway shear demands without the addition of shear reinforcement. Foundation Analysis and Design The design capacity for the foundation is: φPn = φqcB2 = 0.5 in. For use in subsequent calculations. Accounting for cover and expected bar sizes.13) = 659 ftkips .06 in.3 Footing Thickness OK Once the plan dimensions of the footing are selected.5db = 26 .06 = 663ftkips > 659 ftkips.
00278.12.12 Footing Design for Gravity Loads Location Interior Loads D = 387 kip L = 98 kip P = 485 kip Pu = 621 kip Perimeter D = 206 kip L = 45 kip P = 251 kip Pu = 319 kip Corner D = 104 kip L = 23 kip P = 127 kip Pu = 162 kip Footing Size and Reinforcement.4 are repeated for typical perimeter and corner footings. According to ACI 318 Sec.1. Soil Capacity 11'0" × 11'0" × 2'2" deep 10#8 bars each way Pallow = 484 kip φPn = 1597 kip 8'0" × 8'0" × 1'6" deep 10#6 bars each way Pallow = 256 kip φPn = 614 kip 6'0" × 6'0" × 1'2" deep 7#5 bars each way Pallow = 144 kip φPn = 259 kip Critical Section Demands and Design Strengths Oneway shear: Twoway shear: Flexure: Oneway shear: Twoway shear: Flexure: Oneway shear: Twoway shear: Flexure: OK OK φVn = 269 kip Vu = 571 kip φVn = 612 kip Mu = 659 ftkip φMn = 663 ftkip Vu = 172 kip φVn = 123 kip Vu = 88. Table 4.12.5 Design Results The calculations performed in Sec.2 through 4.9 kip φVn = 184 kip φMn = 80. The footing design for gravity loads is summarized in Table 4. Figure 4.1.3 ftkip Vu = 141 kip Vu = 41.00278.] 410 .1 kip Vu = 289 kip φVn = 302 kip Mu = 222 ftkip φMn = 230 ftkip φVn = 64. 7. 4. > 13. the minimum reinforcement ratio = 0.1.2.79)/[(11)(12)(21.9 in. and the maximum spacing is the lesser of 3 × 26 in.14 depicts the resulting foundation plan.0018 < 0.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The ratio of reinforcement provided ρ = 10(0. or 18 = 18 in. The distance between bars spaced uniformly across the width of the footing s = [(11)(12)2(3+0.5 kip [Use of the new resistance factors in ACI 31802 would change these results.5)] = 0.2. 4.5)]/(101) = 13.2 ftkip Mu = 73.FEMA 451.9 in.
A framing plan for the system is shown in Figure 4.1.3 Design for MomentResisting Frame System Framing Alternate A in Sec. Detailed calculations are provided in this section for a combined footing at the corner and focus on overturning and sliding checks for the eccentrically loaded footing. settlement checks and design of concrete sections would be similar to the calculations shown in Sec.2. 4. 4.Chapter 4. Foundation Analysis and Design Corner: 6'x6'x1'2" thick Perimeter: 8'x8'x1'6" thick Interior: 11'x11'x2'2" thick Figure 4. 411 .4. 4. The results for all footing types are summarized in Sec.1.2 of this volume of design examples includes a perimeter moment resisting frame as the seismicforceresisting system.14 Foundation plan for gravityloadresisting system.15. 5.3.1.
both for a combined foundation for columns at Grids A5 and A6: the downward case (1. in accordance with the requirements for the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure.1 A6 246. Load Ey is for loads applied toward the north.1 21. including appropriately amplified clockwise accidental torsion.8 53.8 Ex 13.4D + 0.3.8 68.6 3.1 3.3 1011. Table 4. 5.9 13.5 D 103.8 L 43.8 47.15 Framing plan for moment resisting frame system. Load Ex is for loads applied toward the east.3.13.6 Ey 0. Considering two senses of accidental torsion for loading in each direction and including orthogonal effects results in a large number of load cases. Foundation reactions at selected grids are reported in Table 4.3 Ex 14.0 Location A5 Myy 243.4 Note: Units are kips and feet.5 of this volume of design examples outlines the design load combinations.1 8. is performed using the RAMFRAME program.7 51.0 891. 4. The detailed calculations presented here are limited to two primary conditions. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7 at 25'0" 5 at 25'0" N Figure 4.5L + 0. Sec.1 Demands A threedimensional analysis of the superstructure.13 Demands from MomentResisting Frame System Load Rx Ry Rz Mxx D 203.5 L 22.32Ex + 1.2.11Ey) and the upward case 412 . which include the redundancy factor as appropriate.FEMA 451.1.5 85.8 4. including appropriately amplified counterclockwise accidental torsion.7 Ey 0.2 281.
the shear wall overturning moment at the base best fits that description.11Ey) In order to perform the overturning checks a footing size must be assumed.32(13.75[0.8) + 1.2) = 167. Vy = 0.3)](12.4(203. Foundation Analysis and Design (0.5) + 0.1. in this example column axial loads (Rz) from load cases Ex and Ey will be multiplied by 0. Preliminary checks (not shown here) confirmed that isolated footings under single columns were untenable.5) + 0.6 + 47.8) = 7.7D + 0. For a perimeter momentresisting frame.11(85.4. 4.] Before loads can be computed.) Combining the loads from columns at Grids A5 and A6 and including the weight of the foundation and overlying soil produces the following loads at the foundationsoil interface: P = applied loads + weight of foundation and soil = 1.11(0.8 . Mf.75(0.11)(281)](12. 5.” Because the overturning moment in question is the global overturning moment for the system.7) + 1.4D + 0. (The resulting eccentricity is small enough to neglect here.6 + 3.5(22. Note that the above load combination does not yield the maximum downward load.2.5 kips. .32(53.5 + 0.5) + [1.2SDSD modifier for vertical accelerations is used for the dead loads applied to the foundation but not for the weight of the foundation and soil. This larger axial load does not control the design because the moment is so much less that the resultant is within the kern and no uplift occurs.8) + 0.32)(3.3 + 281)] .75 and all other load effects will remain unreduced.103.0) + [1.5 .49 kips.3) + 0. That section permits “foundations of structures .4(203.5L + 0. which simplifies the problem considerably.1 68. Furthermore. the factors in these load combinations would change.125)] = 714 kips.5) = 7258 ftkips.4) Myy = 133 ftkips.75(1. this issue makes a significant difference in design.32(243.9) + 1. to be designed for threefourths of the foundation overturning design moment.) Vx = 0.32)(51.11(1011. for footings that resist significant overturning.246. assume that the top of the footing is 2 ft below grade (the overlying soil contributes to the resisting moment).1 . attention must be given to Provisions Sec. Reversing the direction of the seismic load results in P = 1173 kips and Mxx = 3490 ftkips.5].3) +0.8 + 51. most of the global overturning resistance is related to axial loads in columns.2[10(40)(5)(0. Further.11Ey). and it is not common practice to include the vertical acceleration on the weight of the footing and the overburden. Therefore.75(1.3.2 Downward Case (1.1.5(43.11(8.8 . = direct moments + moment due to eccentricity of applied axial loads Mxx = 0.15) + 10(40)(2)(0.32Ex + 1.22.8) + 0.32(4.8) + 0.8) + 0. judgment must be used in determining which design actions may be reduced.1) + 1. The footing and soil overburden are not subject to the same potential for dynamic amplification as the dead load of the superstructure.7) + 1. .Chapter 4. (In these calculations the 0.75(0. This is the author’s interpretation of the Provisions. [Because the redundancy factor is changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions.11)(21.891.32(3. Check overturning for a footing that is 10 ft wide by 40 ft long by 5 ft thick. = 0. 413 .11(21.1 + 13.32Ex + 1.5 [5.14. If the seismicforceresisting system consists of isolated shear walls.5(43.4(103.8 .
Since e is greater than L/6 = 40/6 = 6. The eccentricity is: e = M/P = 7258/714 = 10.3.FEMA 451.32Ex + 1. e is greater than L/6.) The design bearing capacity φqc = 0. so uplift occurs and the maximum bearing pressure is: qmax = 2(346) = 11.5ft . which follows. a solution to the overturning problem exists. ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ The bearing capacity qc = 3000 B' = 3000 × min(B. (L'/2 is used as an adjustment to account for the gradient in the bearing pressure in that dimension. The upward case. the bearing pressures increase without bound.17 ft.0 ⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ and the length of the footing in contact with the soil is: ⎛ 40 ⎞ L′ = 3 ⎜ − 18.0ft . ⎝ 2 ⎠ 414 .5/2) = 30.0 ⎟ = 6.67 ft.5 kips Vy = 167 kips The eccentricity is: e = M/P = 6240/346 = 18.84 ksf.84ksf ⎛L ⎞ ⎛ 40 ⎞ 3B ⎜ − e ⎟ 3(10) ⎜ − 10.7D + 0. OK The foundation satisfies overturning and bearing capacity checks. Where e is less than L/2. L'/2) = 3000 × min(10. will control the sliding check. 29. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The soil calculations that follow use a different sign convention than that in the analysis results noted above. uplift occurs and the maximum bearing pressure is: qmax = 2P 2(714) = = 4.17 ⎟ ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ and the length of the footing in contact with the soil is: ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛ 40 ⎞ L′ = 3 ⎜ − e ⎟ = 3⎜ − 10.11Ey) For the upward case the loads are: P = 346 kips Mxx = 6240 ftkips Myy = 133 ftkips (negligible) Vx = 7. as e approaches L/2.6(30 ksf) = 18 ksf > 4. Again. 4.17 ⎟ = 29.1. compression is positive for the soil calculations.000 psf = 30 ksf.0 ft.3 Upward Case (0.5ksf ⎛ 40 ⎞ 3(10) ⎜ − 18. however.
the total compression force at the bottom of the foundation is 346 kips.39 ft.2 kips . OK If base traction alone had been insufficient. the difference is rounded off. MR = P (L/2L'/2) = 346 (40/2 . 4.2 and 4.1. the bearing pressure over the entire contact area is assumed to be equal to the design bearing capacity.2 kips.170 psf = 13. the most convenient calculation is iterative. Try the plastic distribution. the length of contact area L' = 4.8(0.6(13. For the sliding check.2. 6/2) = 9. the contact area times the design bearing capacity must equal the applied vertical load P. Figure 4.3. 4. NG Using an elastic distribution of soil pressures.3.2.3 are repeated for combined footings at middle and side locations.0 ksf) = 5.) The design bearing capacity φqc = 0.000 psf = 9. Using a plastic distribution of soil stresses defines the upper limit of static loads for which the foundation remains stable. (7. The calculation of demands on concrete sections for strength checks should use the same soil stress distribution as the overturning check. Using this approach.4 Design Results The calculations performed in Sec.5 ksf.1.2 ksf) = 7. It should be noted that the foundation may remain stable for larger loads if they are applied dynamically. so equilibrium is satisfied. Foundation Analysis and Design The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(10. (No adjustment to L' is needed as the pressure is uniform. The sliding demand is: V = Vx2 + Vy2 = (−7. 6240 ftkip. 346 kips.2 below illustrates passive pressure calculations for a pile cap.0 ksf. 4. The design bearing capacity φqc = 0. 415 . As calculated previously. but the extreme concentration of soil bearing tends to drive up shear and flexural demands on the concrete section.49) 2 + (−167) 2 = 167.3.92 ksf. the strength demands on the concrete section will not exceed those computed on the basis of the plastic distribution. The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(10.1.65)(346 kips) = 180 kips > 167.39)(10) = 348 kips .4. The design sliding resistance is: φVc = φ × friction coefficient × P = 0.92)(4. The resisting moment.6(9.16 shows the results. 4.4 ksf < 11. the foundation fails the bearing capacity check (although stability is satisfied). using a plastic distribution of soil pressures. even in that case.2 ksf. Sec. the foundation satisfies overturning and bearing capacity checks.39/2) = 6160 ftkip . resistance due to passive pressure on the leading face could be included. In order to satisfy vertical equilibrium. initially consider base traction only.Chapter 4. By iteration. OK Therefore.39) = 13. Because the bearing capacity used in this example is a function of the contact area and the value of P changes with the size.
4. One last check of interest is to compare the flexural stiffness of the footing with that of the steel column. This is satisfactory for the design assumption. Using an effective moment of inertia of 50 percent of the gross moment of inertia and also using the distance between columns as the effective span. the ratio of EI/L for the smallest of the combined footings is more than five times the EI/h for the steel column. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Corner: 10'x40'x5'0" w/ top of footing 2'0" below grade Middle: 5'x30'x4'0" Side: 8'x32'x4'0" Figure 4. which is needed because the steel frame design was based upon flexural restraint at the base of the columns. Figure 4.1.4 Design for Concentrically Braced Frame System 416 .16 Foundation plan for momentresisting frame system.FEMA 451.17 Framing plan for concentrically braced frame system.
11. NG 417 .1.18 shows the soil pressures that result from application in this controlling case.17.Chapter 4. A framing plan for the system is shown in Figure 4.1 ft and the maximum soil pressure is 16. 5.849 kips Mxx = 148. The elastic solution shown in Part b was computed by modeling the mat in RISA 3D with compression only soil springs (with the stiffness of edge springs doubled as recommended by Bowles).544 ftkips Vx = 765 kips Vy = 2.0 ksf < 16. depending on the soil distribution assumed. The design bearing capacity φqc = 0.7 ksf) = 10. primary overturning effects (Mxx) due to loads applied parallel to the short side of the core.9 ksf.2 of this volume of design examples employs a concentrically braced frame system at a central core to provide resistance to seismic loads. Assume mat dimensions of 45 ft by 95 ft by 7 ft thick with the top of the mat 3'6" below grade. 4. Combining the factored loads applied to the mat by all eight columns and including the weight of the foundation and overlying soil produces the following loads at the foundationsoil interface: P = 7. In both cases the computed uplift is significant.1 Check Mat Size for Overturning Uplift demands at individual columns are so large that the only practical shallow foundation is one that ties together the entire core.1/2) = 16.439 ftkips Myy = 42. and smaller moments about a perpendicular axis (Myy) due to orthogonal effects. The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(95. For the elastic solution the average width of the contact area is 11.7 ksf. Foundation Analysis and Design Framing Alternate B in Sec.9 ksf.4. The controlling load combination for overturning has minimum vertical loads (which help to resist overturning). In Part a of the figure the contact area is shaded.670 kips Figure 4.6(16.650 psf = 16.
The bearing pressure over the entire contact area is assumed to be equal to the design bearing capacity.46 ft at the left side and 9.42) = 42. The length of the contact area is 4.19.78 ft. the contact area shown in Figure 4. The present solution has an additional complication as the offaxis moment is not negligible.78) = 20. 6. In order to satisfy vertical equilibrium.18 is determined. (7. The average contact length.FEMA 451. Given the above constraints.3 above.98 ft The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(95. the contact area times the design bearing capacity must equal the applied vertical load P.10 ft at the right side. for use in determining the bearing capacity.3 ksf) = 12. M R .849 kips. The mat dimensions are shown in Figure 4.42 ft y = 18. xx = P y = 7849(18. 7. 4. confirming equilibrium for offaxis moment.974ftkips >148. Again the calculations are iterative. As was done in Sec.858 kips .2 ksf. (12. the checks of stability and bearing capacity are satisfied. So.78)(95) = 7.2)(6.849)(5.10)/2 = 6.1. The distances from the center of the mat to the centroid of the contact area are x = 5. The design bearing capacity φqc = 0. is (4.340 psf = 20.98) = 148. 418 OK . confirming equilibrium for vertical loads.6(20. The resisting moment.2 ksf ~ (a) Plastic solution 16 12 8 4 0 (b) Elastic solution pressures (ksf) Figure 4.18 Soil pressures for controlling bidirectional case. try the plastic distribution.46 + 9. 42. The shape of the contact area is determined by satisfying equilibrium for the offaxis moment.3 ksf.3.542 ftkips .544 ftkips.439 ftkips. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 12.
4. even though the plastic solution gives 12. 4.1. Foundation Analysis and Design Mat: 45'x95'x7'0" with top of mat 3'6" below grade Figure 4. [Note that Sec. Using a bar spacing of 10 in.4. The amount of 419 . the effort required would be considerable. This is conservative for the demand on the concrete for the same reason that it was unsatisfactory for the soil: the edge soil pressures are high (that is. Rather than provide such calculations here. the computation of strength demands for the concrete section should use the same soil pressure distribution as was used to satisfy stability and bearing capacity. One approach to this dilemma would be to compute an additional factor that must be applied to selected elastic cases to produce section demands that are consistent with the plastic solution. for this 7ftthick mat and assuming one or two layers of bars. the section capacities indicate in Table 4. 10.19 Foundation plan for concentrically braced frame system. This example does not illustrate such calculations. we are designing the concrete for a peak soil pressure of 16. Use of a uniform spacing for the reinforcement provided in a given direction greatly increases the ease of construction. for thick mats it is best to compute and provide the amount of required reinforcement separately for the top and bottom halves of the section.12 of ACI 318 may be provided near one face.5 of ACI 318 were discussed in Sec. 7. Although all of the reinforcement provided to satisfy Sec.2 Design Mat for Strength Demands As was previously discussed.] Concrete mats often have multiple layers of reinforcement in each direction at the top and bottom of their thickness.3 of the 2003 Provisions requires consideration of parametric variation for soil properties where foundations are modeled explicitly. The minimum reinforcement requirements defined in Sec.2 ksf). The same analysis used to determine elastic bearing pressures yields the corresponding section demands directly.3 above. 7. design of the concrete section will proceed using the results of the elastic analysis.2.14 (presented in order of decreasing strength) may be precomputed for use in design.9 ksf. Because dozens of load combinations were considered and “hand calculations” were used for the plastic distribution checks.1.1.Chapter 4.
12.2 per ft) 3.5. and D are less than the basic minimum for flexural members. First. #8 bars at 10 in. o.c.14. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples reinforcement provided for marks B. 10. C. 420 . o.05 2.c. The amount of steel provided for Mark D is the minimum that satisfies ACI 318 Sec.3.1. o.40 1. so the demands should not exceed threequarters of the design strength where those reinforcement patterns are used.90 0. 7. To facilitate rapid design the analysis results are processed in two additional ways.c. o.c. 10.FEMA 451. demands are compared to 3/4 of φMn as permitted in Sec. Table 4. 2 layers of #8 bars at 10 in. Then the enveloped results are presented (see Figure 4. 2 layers of #9 bars at 10 in.110) using contours that correspond to the capacities shown for the reinforcement patterns noted in Table 4. the flexural and shear demands computed for the various load combinations are enveloped. As (in.95 φMn (ftkip/ft) 899 not used not used not used 3/4φMn (ftkip/ft) not used 534 424 215 Note: Where the area of steel provided is less than the minimum reinforcement for flexural members as indicated in ACI 318 Sec.5.14 Mat Foundation Section Capacities Mark A B C D Reinforcement 2 layers of #10 bars at 10 in.
Foundation Analysis and Design C L C L B C D C D B B C D B C C D B C C B + 669 + 881 B (a) M x positive (b) M x negative C L C L D C + 884 B B C C B B D D (c) M y positive D 444 + D D (d) M y negative Figure 4.112 shows a section of the mat along Gridline C. Where the results of finite element analysis are used in the design of reinforced concrete elements. Using the noted contours permits direct selection of reinforcement. The reinforcement provided within a contour for a given mark must be that indicated for the next higher mark. For instance.Chapter 4. all areas within Contour B must have two layers of #10 bars.110 Envelope of mat foundation flexural demands.111. Note that the reinforcement provided will be symmetric about the centerline of the mat in both directions. 421 . Figure 4. averaging of demands over short areas is appropriate. In Figure 4. the selected reinforcement is superimposed on the demand contours.
422 .FEMA 451.111 Mat foundation flexural reinforcement. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples C L B C L 4'2" 7'6" 2'6" C L C D 4'2" 4'2" A B 4'2" A A B (a) EW bottom reinforcement (b) EW top reinforcement 8'4" 10'0" 3'4" C L 5'0" A B A B C D (c) NS bottom reinforcement (d) NS top reinforcement Figure 4.
It is also influenced by the doubled spring stiffnesses used to model the soil condition. the hatched area falls outside the critical section. However. Foundation Analysis and Design 8" 3" clear (typical) 8" Figure 4. bars may be used both to chair the upper decks of reinforcement and provide resistance to shear in which case they may be bent thus: . Note that the high shear stresses are not produced by loads that create high bearing pressures at the edge. In this design.1. The only areas that need more careful attention (to determine whether they require shear reinforcement) are those where the hatched or shaded areas are outside the critical sections. Rather they are produced by loads that created large bending stresses parallel to the edge. 4. The critical sections for twoway shear (as discussed in Sec. At the columns on Gridline D. Because the perimeter of the hatched area is substantially smaller than the perimeter of the critical section for punching shear. The distribution of bending moments and shears is not uniform across the width (or breadth) of the mat. Oneway shears at the edges of the mat exceed the φ 2 f c′ criterion. so closer inspection is needed. primarily due to the torsion in the seismic loads and the orthogonal combination. In the hatched areas the shear stress exceeds φ 4 f c′ and in the shaded areas it exceeds φ 2 f c′ .3 also are shown. Figure 4.1. 423 . If shear reinforcement cannot be avoided. the design requirements of ACI 318 are satisfied. the demands are less than the design strength.112 Section of mat foundation. when the shears are averaged over a width equal to the effective depth (d).Chapter 4. reinforcement for punching or beam shear is not required.113 presents the envelope of shear demands. The contours used correspond to the design strengths computed assuming Vs = 0 for oneway and twoway shear.
It is obvious that design for lateral loads adds cost as compared to a design that neglects such loads. 4. Corresponding preliminary costs are assigned. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (a) V x Critical section (typical) (b) Vy Figure 4.15 provides a summary of the material quantities used for all of the foundations required for the various conditions considered.5 COST COMPARISON Table 4. it is provided here for discussion.FEMA 451.1.113 Critical sections for shear and envelope of mat foundation shear demands. it is also worth noting that braced frame systems usually have substantially more expensive foundation systems than do moment frame systems. This condition occurs for two reasons. First. The gravityonly condition does not represent a realistic case because design for wind loads would require changes to the foundations. However. braced frame systems tend to concentrate spatially the demands on the 424 . braced frame systems are stiffer. Second. which produces shorter periods and higher design forces.
950 $143.14) = $46.19) = $34.16) = $34. In this case the added cost amounts to about $0.150 Gravity only 310 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4.500 Moment frame 233 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4. Foundation Analysis and Design foundations.80/ft2.15 Summary of Material Quantities and Cost Comparison Design Condition Concrete at Gravity Foundations Concrete at Lateral Foundations Total Excavation 310 cy at $15/cy = $4.610 $262.815 425 .000 1895 cy at $15/cy = $28.425 Total Cost $ 51. which is an increase of perhaps 4 or 5 percent to the cost of the structural system.440 800 cy at $15/cy = $12.650 537 cy at $180/cy = $96. Table 4.950 Braced frame 233 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4.Chapter 4.660 1108 cy at $180/cy = $199.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. 4. SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY D This example features the analysis and design of deep foundations for a 12tory reinforced concrete momentresisting frame building similar to that described in Chapter 6 of this volume of design examples.FEMA 451.1 Basic Information 4. Geotechnical parameters for the two sites are given in Table 4.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS FOR A 12STORY BUILDING.21 shows the basic design condition considered in this example. Figure 4. 426 .21.2.2.21 Design condition: column of concrete moment resisting frame supported by pile cap and castinplace piles. A 2×2 pile group is designed for four conditions: for loads delivered by a corner and a side column of a momentresisting frame system for Site Classes C and E.1.1 Description Figure 4.
01 skin friction (ksf) = 0.1. k = 50 pci neglect skin friction neglect end bearing Dense sand (one layer: 3 to 100 ft depth) γ = 110 pcf undrained shear strength = 430 psf soil modulus parameter.2 Provisions Parameters Site Class = C and E (both conditions considered in this example) SDS = 0.6/ft # 150 γ = 130 pcf angle of internal friction = 42 deg soil modulus parameter.9 + 0.8 for the clay layer and 0.Chapter 4. Foundation Analysis and Design Table 4. φ factors for cohesive and cohesionless soils are explicitly defined. k = 25 pci strain at 50 percent of maximum stress. ultimate passive pressure 575 pcf. ultimate passive pressure [In the 2003 Provisions. Safety factor for settlement checks = 2.03/ft # 2 end bearing (ksf)* = 65 + 0. (The values noted assume a minimum pile length of 20 ft. lateral and rocking resistance.75.5/ft # 100 Pile cap resistance 300 pcf.21 Geotechnical Parameters Depth 0 to 3 ft Loose sand/fill Class E Site Loose sand/fill Class C Site γ = 110 pcf angle of internal friction = 28 deg soil modulus parameter.) The structural material properties assumed for this example are as follows: f'c = 3. *Skin friction and end bearing values increase (up to the maximum value noted) for each additional foot of depth below the top of the layer. the values would be 0.000 psi fy = 60.9 Seismic Design Category = D (for both conditions) 427 .3 + 0.7 for the sand layers.] Resistance factor for capacity checks (φ) = 0.025/ft # 2 end bearing (ksf)* = 40 + 0. ε50 = 0.3 neglect end bearing 30 to 100 ft Medium dense sand skin friction (ksf)* = 0. k = 50 pci skin friction (ksf)* = 0. k = 125 pci γ = 120 pcf angle of internal friction = 36 deg soil modulus parameter.2.5.000 psi 4. k = 25 pci neglect skin friction neglect end bearing 3 to 30 ft Soft clay γ = 110 pcf angle of internal friction = 30 deg soil modulus parameter. for vertical.
Using ASCE 7 Load Combinations 5 and 7. Although the behavior of foundation and superstructure are closely related. or both.5 567.6 12.0Vx ± 0. 1. but often both effects are significant. [Although the redundancy factor is changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions.6 6.3 Demands The unfactored demands from the moment frame system are shown in Table 4.0Vx ± 0.2.2] (with 0.9 8. E as defined in Provisions Sec.0 72.0. so these load combinations would not change. Earthquake loads are applied to a model of the superstructure.1.0 36. Figure 4.38D + 0.7 Rx Ry Rz 351.2 3.8 276.2 3.8 0.0Vy ± max(0.0).8 1.2SDSD = 0. Then the support reactions are seen as demands on the foundation system.2. it is expected that this system would still satisfy the conditions needed for ρ = 1. skin friction.4 0.1 0.0 163.3 8.7 22.0 Mxx Myy Note: Units are kips and feet.0ATx.0ATy) 4.3 3.0 27. ATy is the corresponding accidental torsion case.] 1.4 70.3Vy ± max(1. Table 4.3ATx.5 1. Resistance to vertical loads is assumed to be provided by the piles alone regardless of whether their axial capacity is primarily due to end bearing.0 142.0ATx.2 439.18D and taking ρ = 1. This section describes that typical approach. the following 32 load conditions must be considered.1 0.3ATy) 0.4 Design Approach For typical deep foundation systems resistance to lateral loads is provided by both piles and pile cap.3 3.0 7.7 [4. which is assumed to have fixed supports.9 33.3Vx ± 1.5L ± 0.1 0.72D ± 1.9 702.22 Gravity and Seismic Demands Location Corner Load D L Vx Vy ATx ATy Side D L Vx Vy ATx ATy 29. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. 5.0 12. The relative contributions of these piles and pile cap depend on the particular design conditions.7 0. A similar substructure technique is usually applied to the foundation system itself.2.2. considering orthogonal effects as required for Seismic Design Category D.4 40.3Vy ± max(1. they typically are modeled independently.6 6.4 4.72D ± 0. whereby the behavior of pile cap and piles are considered separately.5L ± 1.22.FEMA 451.6 46. Load Vx is for loads applied toward the east.38D + 0. 0.3ATx.6 80.0ATy) 0.1.0Vy ± max(0.4 18.5 305.9 2.22 shows a simple idealization of this condition.4 31.5 59. 428 . ATx is the corresponding accidental torsion case. Load Vy is for loads applied toward the north. 1.3Vx ± 1.8 489.0 31. 0.3ATy) 1. and including accidental torsion.
Chapter 4.1 Pile Group Mechanics With reference to the free body diagram (of a 2×2 pile group) shown in Figure 4.23 Pile cap free body diagram. demands on individual piles as a result of loads applied to the group may be determined as follows: and M = V × R. 429 . Foundation Analysis and Design Pile cap Passive resistance (see Figure 4. where s is the pile spacing. h is the height of the pile cap.24) Figure 4. .23. 2s and hp is the height of Vpassive above Point O. V= Vgroup − V passive Pot = Vgroup h + M group + 4 M − h pV passive Pp = Pgroup 4 and P = Pot + Pp Pgroup M group Vgroup M group Vgroup Pgroup = Pp Pp + V M Pot Vpassive O M Pot Figure 4.2. where R is a characteristic length determined from analysis of a 4 laterally loaded single pile.1.25) Pile py springs (see Figure 4. 4.22 Schematic model of deep foundation system.4.
3 0.8 0. Representative py curves (computed for a 22 in.25 shows how the passive pressure resistance (expressed as a fraction of the ultimate passive pressure) is related to the imposed displacement (expressed as a fraction of the minimum dimension of the face being pushed into the soil mass).2.5 0.2 0. 430 . y (in. The py response is sensitive to pile size (an effect not apparent is the figure which is based on a single pile size). which increases with depth. 100.4. Figure 4.1 0.9 1.000 Soil resistance. p (lb/in. Pile response to lateral loads. diameter pile) are shown in Figure 4.3 Contribution of Pile Cap Pile caps contribute to the lateral resistance of a pile group in two important ways: directly as a result of passive pressure on the face of the cap that is being pushed into the soil mass and indirectly by producing a fixed head condition for the piles.4.) 1. soil type and properties. and. Based on extensive testing of fullscale specimens and smallscale models for a wide variety of soil conditions. like the py curves on which the calculations are based.24. The stiffness of the soil changes by an order of magnitude for the expected range of displacements (the vertical axis uses a logarithmic scale).1.1.2.4 Pile deflection. the passive pressure resistance of the cap is nonlinear.2 Contribution of Piles The response of individual piles to lateral loads is highly nonlinear. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. depth = 30 ft Site Class E. In recent years it has become increasingly common to consider that nonlinearity directly.6 0. is usually computed using computer programs like LPILE.000 10. 4. researchers have developed empirical relationships for the nonlinear py response of piles that are suitable for use in design. depth = 10 ft 1 0. vertical stress.24 Representative py curves (note that a logarithmic scale is used on the vertical axis). depth = 10 ft Site Class E.7 0.0 Figure 4. which can significantly reduce displacements for a given applied lateral load. in the case of sands.000 100 10 Site Class C.FEMA 451. Like the py response of piles.0 0. depth = 30 ft Site Class C.) 0.
7 0.0 0 0. but are beyond the scope of the present discussion. from which the following observations are taken: The pile group effect has been a popular research topic within the geotechnical community for almost 50 years.04 0.01 0. and 0. Fullsize and model tests by a number of authors show that in general. (2) The observed group effects appeared to be associated with shadowing effects and the various researchers found relatively consistent pile group behavior in that the leading piles would be loaded more heavily than the trailing piles when all piles are loaded to the same deflection. yielded information that largely corroborated each other on the following aspects: (1) Most of these experiments first used the single pile data to verify the validity of the widely used Reese’s and Matlock’s benchmark py criteria and all concluded that the Reese and Matlock py criteria provide reasonable solutions.1. All referenced researchers recommended to modify the single pile py curves by adjusting the resistance value on the single pile py curves (i. At present.4. 431 .) A useful discussion of this “group effect” may be found in PoLam Sec. .7 for the front..3 0.03 δ/H 0. . the lateral capacity of a pile in a pile group versus that of a single pile (termed “efficiency”) is reduced as the pile spacing is reduced. 0. .4 Group Effect Factors The response of a group of piles to lateral loading will differ from that of a single pile due to pilesoilpile interaction.05 0.Chapter 4.4. and other publications] .2. 2.9 0. .25 Passive pressure mobilization curve (after FEMA 356). The experiments reported by McVay also included data for pile centertocenter spacing of 5D which showed pmultipliers of 1. .5 0. Brown 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design 1.6.06 Figure 4..e. . .0. . (Group effect factors for axial loading of very closely spaced piles may also be developed.2 0.6 P/Pult 0. 4. For such multipliers.02 0. the group stiffness efficiency would be about 95% and group effects would be practically negligible. middle and back row piles.4 0.1 0. respectively.85. .8 0. pmultiplier).0 0. [The experimental research reported in Brown 1987. there is no common consensus on the approach for group effects.
28 . the average preduction factor is: fm = 1 n n ∑∏ β ji . a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency (βb) may be calculated as follows: ⎛s⎞ Leading piles: β bL = 0. D is the pile diameter and s is the centertocenter spacing between the piles in question. D ⎛s⎞ = 0.5659 for 1 ≤ s < 3.0. a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency (βs) may be calculated as: 2 2 βs = βa cos 2 θ + β b sin 2 θ where βa and βb are calculated as defined above using s equal to the centertocenter distance along the skew and setting θ equal to the angle between the direction of loading and a line connecting the two piles. βa.FEMA 451.37 . may be calculated as: ⎛s⎞ β a = 0. a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency. For piles that are side by side with respect to the applied load. In the equation for each efficiency factor. 432 . D For piles that are inline with respect to the applied load. If the effect of pile j on pile i is called βji and it is noted that βji = 1.0 when j = i (as this is a single pile condition).5791⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ 0. the effect of each pile on each other pile must be considered. the group effect factor is calculated as: β11 = 1. D For piles that are skewed (neither in line nor side by side) with respect to the applied load. In these expressions.7309 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ Trailing piles: β bT 0. j =1 n Because the direction of loading varies during an earthquake and the overall efficiency of the group is the primary point of interest. where s/D equals or exceeds the noted upper limit.3251 for 1 ≤ s < 5. the average efficiency factor is commonly used for all members of a group in the analysis of any given member. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The basis of the calculation procedure for group effect factors that is shown below is described in Chapter 6 of GROUP.0. If a group contains more than two piles.37 . the corresponding value of β is 1. the preduction factor for any given pile i is f mi = ∏ β ji .5292 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ 0. n i =1 j =1 3 1 For a 2×2 pile group thus 4 2 with s = 3D.2579 for 1 ≤ s < 3. In that case.
4 Figure 4. fm3 = 0.2579 ⎛3⎞ β 31 = β a β b = 1.970)(1. castinplace piles arranged in 2×2 pile groups with piles spaced at 66 inches centertocenter.5 D 0.2.96.0 × 0.79 + 0. 0.96 + 0.0 1 2 3 Group size (piles per side) 4 5 Figure 4. The computer program LPILE Plus 3. 0. 4. f m = 0.2. and Detailing 4. fm1 = β11 × β21 × β31 × β41 = (1.8 Group effect factor 0.21 assuming a 433 . and β41 = βa βb = (1.79.5292 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝1⎠ 0.0)(1. 22in.diameter.24).7309 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝1⎠ = 0.00) = 0.2 Pile Analysis.970 . Thus.5659 × 1.0 = 0. and fm4 = 0. Foundation Analysis and Design ⎛ 3⎞ β 21 = β a β b = 0.4 s = 1.2 0.985)(0.Chapter 4.985 .79.1 Pile Analysis For this design example it is assumed that all piles will be fixedhead.96 + 0.2.96.79 = 0.0 is used to analyze single piles for both soil conditions shown in Table 4. fm2 = 0.87 .00)(0.955 . Design. By similar calculations.26 shows the group effect factors that are calculated for square pile groups of various sizes with piles at several different spacings. And finally. 1.26 Calculated group effect factors.0) = 1.0 s=4D s=3D 0.6 s=2D 0.0 (because s/D = 4.
4) is used in all cases.28 Results of pile analysis – moment versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips).28. It is apparent that the extension of piles to depths beyond 30 ft for the Class E site (or about 25 ft for the Class C site) does not provide additional resistance to lateral loading. 0 0 5 5 10 Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 10 15 15 20 20 25 Site Class C Site Class E 30 5 0 5 Shear. the plots in this section are for zero axial load.27 Results of pile analysis – shear versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips). 4. Pile flexural stiffness is modeled using onehalf of the gross moment of inertia because of expected flexural cracking. and displacement with depth (within the top 30 ft) for an applied lateral load of 15 kips on a single pile with the group reduction factor. A pmultiplier of 0. The shear and displacement are maxima at the pile head. and shears were not strongly affected. 4. Figure 4. but in this case the lateral displacements. The full range of expected axial loads was considered in developing this example. The response to lateral loads is affected to some degree by the coincident axial load.87 for group effects (as computed at the end of Sec. moment. moments are also largest at the top of the pile. piles shorter than those lengths would have reduced lateral resistance. V (kip) 10 15 25 Site Class C Site Class E 30 1000 500 0 500 Moment.27. moments. and 4. 434 . Because a fixedhead condition is assumed. The trends in the figures are those that should be expected. M (in. Moments and displacements are larger for the soft soil condition than for the firm soil condition.29 show the variation of shear.1.FEMA 451.kips) Figure 4. Figures 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples length of 50 ft.2.
2 0. It may be seen from Figure 4. Based on the results shown. the slope of the line may be taken as a characteristic length that relates head moment to applied load.1 Displacement (in. Foundation Analysis and Design 0 5 10 Depth (ft) 15 20 25 Site Class C Site Class E 30 0.27 through 4.0 0.29 are repeated for different levels of applied lateral load. for the Class C site R = 70 in.3 Figure 4. for the Class E site 435 .210 and 4.29 Results of pile analysis – displacement versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips) The analyses performed to develop Figures 4. this is a key observation.1 0. Doing so produces the following: R = 46 in.210 that the head moment is related to the applied lateral load in a nearly linear manner.211 show how the moment and displacement at the head of the pile are related to the applied lateral load. Figures 4.Chapter 4.) 0.
4.211 Results of pile analysis – head displacement versus applied lateral load. The response of the pile in Site Class E soil is somewhat nonlinear. y = 0. but for most of the range of response a linear approximation is reasonable (and useful).4 0. of the ultimate passive pressure: ⎛ 18 48 ⎞ ⎛ 48 ⎞⎛ 110 ⎞ 1 V passive.211 leads to another meaningful insight. M (inkip) 1200 Applied lateral load.3.2. V (kip) Site Class C Site Class E 25 20 800 15 10 Site Class C Site Class E 400 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Applied lateral load. Check the Maximum Compression Case under a Side Column in Site Class C Using the sign convention shown in Figure 4. the demands on the group are: P = 1097 kip Myy = 93 ftkips Vx = 10 kips Myy = 659 ftkips Vy = 69 kips From preliminary checks.23. Figure 4. assume that the displacements in the x and y directions are sufficient to mobilize 15 percent and 30 percent.2 0.2. the effective stiffness of each individual pile is: k = 175 kip/in.15(575) ⎜ + ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ( 1000 ) = 11. respectively.1.4 for each of the 32 load combinations discussed in Sec. ∆ (inch) 0. for the Class E site 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 30 1600 Head moment.FEMA 451.0 kips ⎝ 12 2(12) ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠⎝ 12 ⎠ and ⎛ 18 48 ⎞ ⎛ 48 ⎞⎛ 110 ⎞ 1 V passive. x = 0.30(575) ⎜ + ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ( 1000 ) = 22.1. A similar examination of Figure 4. for the Class C site k = 40 kip/in.0 0.2 Pile Group Analysis The combined response of the piles and pile cap and the resulting strength demands for piles are computed using the procedure outlined in Sec.6 Head displacement.210 Results of pile analysis – applied lateral load versus head moment. Thus. 4.1kips ⎝ 12 2(12) ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠⎝ 12 ⎠ 436 . V (kip) 0 0.8 Figure 4. The loaddisplacement response of the pile in Site Class C soil is essentially linear. Assume that each 2×2 pile group has a 9'2" × 9'2" × 4'0" thick pile cap that is placed 1'6" below grade.2.2.
so the assumption that 30 percent of Pult would be mobilized was reasonable.7/175 = 0.5(46) = 69 in.x to 4 kips and assign a shear of 1.24. passive resistance alone is sufficient for this case in the x direction.3 Design of Pile Section The calculations shown in Sec.7 kips 2(66) and for ydirection loading (determined similarly) Pot = 98. reduce Vpassive.x > Vx. 4.7 kips .5 kips to each pile in the x direction. The required reinforcement is summarized in Table 4. P/Pult . 0. which is 0. The appropriate reinforcement pattern for each design condition may be selected by noting the innermost capacity curve that envelops the corresponding demand points.34. In the y direction the shear in each pile is: V= 69 − 22. Also plotted are the φPφM design strengths for the 22in.2 are repeated for each of the 32 load combinations under each of the four design conditions. The maximum axial load due to overturning for xdirection loading is: Pot = 10(48) + 93(12) + 4(69) − 16(4) = 13.7(46) = 538 in.7 + 98. 437 . Since Vpassive. 4 The corresponding pile moments are: M = 1. following calculation of the required pile length.2. The expected displacement in the y direction is computed as: δ = V/k = 11.25 with δ/H = 0.2. in order to illustrate the full complexity of the calculations.. circles indicate demands on piles under side columns and squares indicate demands on piles under corner columns.212 and 4. In these figures.kips for ydirection loading.diameter pile sections with various amounts of reinforcement (as noted in the legends).kips . The results are shown in Figures 4.1 = 11.213.Chapter 4.6 + 274 = 386 kips M u = (69) 2 + (538) 2 = 542in.6 kips. Therefore the maximum load effects on the most heavily loaded pile are: Pu = 13.kips for xdirection loading and M = 11.0014.067 in. 4. Reading Figure 4.2. The axial load due to direct loading is Pp = 1097/4 = 274 kips.2.14% of the pile cap height (h). Foundation Analysis and Design and conservatively take hp = h/3 = 16 in. However.
M (inkip) Figure 4. P (kip) 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Moment. P (kip) 2500 Moment.FEMA 451.212 PM interaction diagram for Site Class C. M (inkip) 8#6 6#6 6#5 Side Corner Figure 4. 438 . 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 8#7 8#6 6#6 6#5 Side Corner Axial Load. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 800 8#7 700 600 500 400 Axial load.213 PM interaction diagram for Site Class E.
Because the soil capacity increases with depth and the resulting pile lengths are applied below the bottom of the pile cap.9 + 13[0. Pskin = 0. the maximum compression demand for this condition is Pu = 340 kips.2. assuming L = 47 ft: P = (702 + 72)/4 = 194 kips. assuming L = 43 ft: P = (351 + 36)/4 = 97 kips.4.5[0. 390 kips. Pskin = average friction capacity × pile perimeter × pile length for friction = 0.3) must be considered.3 + 44(0. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E.F. assuming L = 64 ft: As seen in Figure 4.2.) 4.4.2.025])]π(22/12) = 126 kips. recall that skin friction and end bearing are neglected for the top three feet in this example.3 + 47(0.5 = 194 kips = 194 kips (demand).6)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 246 kips.9 + 0.4 Pile Length for Axial Loads For the calculations that follow.5[0.75(272 + 246) = 389 kips . = (243 + 241)/2.1 Length for Settlement Service loads per pile are calculated as P = (PD + PL)/4. OK OK φPn = φ(Pskin + Pend) = 0.3 + 0.1.112.03)]π(22/12)(44) = 243 kips. Pskin = [friction capacity in first layer + average friction capacity in second layer] × pile perimeter = [27(0. 4.03)]π(22/12)(47) = 272 kips.5)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 123 kips.213.3) + (13/2)(0. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C.5 = 100 kips > 97 kips. Pallow = (126 + 123)/2.2. assuming L = 50 ft: As seen in Figure 4. the maximum compression demand for this condition is Pu = 390 kips.2 Length for Compression Capacity All of the strengthlevel load combinations (discussed in Sec. (In these calculations.2. Pallow = (Pskin + Pend)/S. Pend = end bearing capacity at depth × end bearing area = [65 + 44(0. the pile cap depth is ignored – effectively assuming that piles begin at the ground surface. 4.2. Foundation Analysis and Design 4.6)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 241 kips. the results are slightly conservative. Pend = [40 + 13(0.2. Pend = [65 + 47(0.Chapter 4. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E.3 + 0. OK 439 .
It would be possible to generate mathematical expressions of pile capacity as a function of pile length and then solve such expressions for the demand conditions. all of the strengthlevel load combinations (discussed in Sec.75(306 + 150) = 342 kips > 340 kips.5[0. the maximum tension demand for this condition is Pu = 1. 4. the adequacy of the soilpile interface to resist applied loads is checked once a pile length is assumed.3) + (22/2)(0. Pskin = 0.75(3.8) = 2.1.3 Length for Uplift Capacity Again. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C. φPn = φ(Pskin + Pend) = 0.5)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 150 kips.025])]π(22/12) = 306 kips.9 + 34[0.9 + 22[0. assuming L = 5 ft: As seen in Figure 4.9 kips.9 + 0.75(196) = 147 kips > 144 kips.2. the maximum tension demand for this condition is Pu = 144 kips.3 + 2(0.2. OK φPn = φ(Pskin) = 0.9 + 0.3) must be considered.4.2.214 and 4.3 + 0.FEMA 451. a more practical design approach is to precalculate the capacity for piles for the full range of practical lengths and then select the length needed to satisfy the demands.8 kips.03)]π(22/12)(2) = 3. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E.3) + (34/2)(0.2. 4. Pskin = [27(0. However.2. OK φPn = φ(Pskin) = 0.9 kips. 4. assuming L = 52 ft.212.9 kips > 1. This method lends itself to graphical expression as shown in Figures 4.4 Graphical Method of Selecting Pile Length OK In the calculations shown above. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Pskin = [27(0.025])]π(22/12) = 196 kips. Pend = [40 + 34(0. As seen in Figure 4.213.215. 440 .4.
214 Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class C.5 Results of Pile Length Calculations 441 .215 Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class E.2.Chapter 4.2. 4.4. Foundation Analysis and Design 0 Compression 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Tension Pile depth (ft) Design resistance (kip) Figure 4. 0 Compression 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Tension Pile depth (ft) Design resistance (kip) Figure 4.
Length. The amount of longitudinal reinforcement indicated in the table is that required at the pilepile cap interface and may be reduced at depth as discussed in the following section. diameter by 71 ft long 6#6 bars 4.23 summarizes the lengths required to satisfy strength and serviceability requirements for all four design conditions.2 [21. longitudinal and transverse reinforcement must satisfy specific requirements related to minimum amount and maximum spacing.10. diameter by 50 ft long 6#5 bars 22 in.4.9 kip 194 kip 400 kip 14. and Longitudinal Reinforcement Piles Under Corner Column Site Class C Site Class E 22 in.24 Summary of Pile Size.4. 3.2]). contain special pile requirements for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C or higher and D or higher. the detailing of the piles designed in this example focuses on consideration of the following fundamental items: 1.4.6 Pile Detailing Provisions Sec. In areas of the pile where yielding might be expected or demands are large. diameter by 64 ft long 8#7 bars Piles Under Side Column 22 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Detailed calculations for the required pile lengths are provided above for two of the design conditions.24. Although the specifics are affected by the soil properties and assigned site class.5. those general requirements and the specific requirements for uncased concrete piles that apply to this example are discussed. 21.2.2.4.5 Design Results The design results for all four pile conditions are shown in Table 4. 7. 2. Continuous longitudinal reinforcement must be provided over the entire length resisting design tension forces (ACI 318 Sec.7 kip 194 kip Min Length 50 ft 5 ft 47 ft 71 ft 14 ft 67 ft 4. 442 . All pile reinforcement must be developed in the pile cap (Provisions Sec. Table 4.8. 7.4.23 Pile Lengths Required for Axial Loads Piles Under Corner Column Condition Compression Site Class C Uplift Settlement Compression Site Class E Uplift Settlement Load 331 kip 133 kip 97 kip 340 kip 144 kip 97 kip Min Length 43 ft 40 ft 19 ft 64 ft 52 ft 43 ft Piles Under Side Column Condition Compression Uplift Settlement Compression Uplift Settlement Load 390 kip 1. In this section.2. respectively. Table 4. Table 4.FEMA 451.2.4 and 7. diameter by 43 ft long 8#6 bars 22 in.4).
For both site classes considered in this example.Chapter 4.6.2.217. pile reinforcement must be fully developed in tension unless the section satisfies the overstrength load condition or demands are limited by the uplift capacity of the soilpile interface (Provisions Sec.1 Development at the Pile Cap Where neither uplift nor flexural restraint are required. Note that embedment of the entire pile in the pile cap facilitates direct transfer of shear from pile cap to pile.4). 443 . while it may require a thicker pile cap. permits easier placement of the pile cap’s bottom reinforcement followed by the addition of the spiral reinforcement within the pile cap. Foundation Analysis and Design The discussion that follows refers to the detailing shown in Figures 4. more desirable inelastic performance would be expected.2.4). By avoiding lap splices to fieldplaced dowels where yielding is expected near the pile head (although such would be permitted by Provisions Sec.216 and 4.5. 7.4. 7. this approach offers two advantages. 4. Where the design relies on head fixity or where resistance to uplift forces is required (both of which are true in this example).4. the pile longitudinal reinforcement is extended straight into the pile cap a distance that is sufficient to fully develop the tensile capacity of the bars.4). but is not a requirement of the Provisions. 7. In addition to satisfying the requirements of the Provisions. the development length is the full development length for compression (Provisions Sec. Straight development.
216 Pile detailing for Site Class C (under side column). 444 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4" pile embedment (6) #5 #4 spiral at 4.FEMA 451.5 inch pitch 6'4" Section A A (6) #5 23'0" #4 spiral at 9 inch pitch Section B B (4) #5 #4 spiral at 9 inch pitch 21'0" Section C C Figure 4.
217 Pile detailing for Site Class E (under corner column).5 inch pitch 12'4" Section A A (6) #7 #5 spiral at 3. 445 . Foundation Analysis and Design 4" pile embedment (8) #7 #5 spiral at 3.Chapter 4.5 inch pitch 20'0" Section B B (4) #7 #4 spiral at 9 inch pitch 32'0" Section C C Figure 4.
5 in. 446 . In order to provide a reinforcement ratio of 0.216 and 4..2. or 6db = 5.4. In order to provide a reinforcement ratio of 0.217 the spacing of the transverse reinforcement in the top half of the pile length may not exceed the least of: 12db (7. the Provisions does not indicate the extent of such detailing into the firmer material.1 must be provided. 22/2 = 11 in. Spiral reinforcement in that region must not be less than onehalf of that required in ASCE 318 Sec.2 is 22/4 = 5.3) exceeds the calculated flexural demand at that point..4 times the concrete section cracking moment (see ACI 318 Sec. The maximum spacing permitted by Sec.75 in. so a #4 spiral at 3. in diameter. longitudinal reinforcement must resist tension for at least the top 52 ft (being developed at that point).5 in.2.4. 21. [A change made in Sec. 7.).5 in.4. the interface” as applying in the direction into the softer material.4.216 being unreinforced would satisfy the Provisions requirements. a #5 spiral must have a pitch of no more than 3.6.7 in. a design with Section C of Figure 4.6. 21.5 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4.3 must be satisfied. In this case. Because the piles designed in this example are larger than 20 in.) Transverse reinforcement must be provided over the same length for which minimum longitudinal reinforcement requirements apply. The flexural length is taken as the length of pile from the cap to the lowest point where 0. 21.1 of the 2003 Provisions makes it clear that the longitudinal reinforcement must be developed beyond this point.4). or liquefiable) and the requirements of Sec. . pitch is used.4. Bar development and cutoff are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of this volume of design examples. but the maximum spacing permitted by Sec. 21.FEMA 451.. a #4 spiral must have a pitch of no more than 4. .216).5 in. For the Class E site. but the author has decided to extend very light longitudinal and nominal transverse reinforcement for the full length of the pile. the full amount of reinforcement indicated in ACI 318 Sec. Therefore. the transverse reinforcement may not be smaller than 0.3 Continuous Longitudinal Reinforcement for Tension Table 4.75 in.4.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement Where Demands Are Large Requirements for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement apply over the entire length of pile where demands are large. so a #5 spiral at 3.4.5 in. 21. diameter.2. 21. Using that interpretation.4.25 in. which is consistent with the expected location of yielding.217).8 in. for #7 longitudinal bars).4. even more stringent detailing is required.2.4. For the Class C site.5. Extending four longitudinal bars for the full length and providing widely spaced spirals at such bars reflect the designer’s judgment (not specific requirements of the Provisions). Where yielding may be expected. Note that Sec.5. The author interprets “within seven diameters of .2. or 6db = 3.1(a) refers to Eq. the top 10 ft below the ground. For the piles shown in Figures 4. the more stringent detailing must be provided “within seven diameters of the pile cap and of the interfaces between strata that are hard or stiff and strata that are liquefiable or are composed of soft to mediumstiff clay” (Provisions Sec. (106) [105]. For the Site Class C condition under a side column (Figure 4.21 and the pile cap depth and thickness. 4.. 7.23 shows the pile lengths required for resistance to uplift demands. the minimum volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is onehalf that determined using ACI 318 Eq. design tension due to uplift extends only about 5 ft below the bottom of the pile cap. yielding can be expected within three diameters of the bottom of the pile cap (3D = 3 × 22 = 66 in.] For the piles used in this example.4.4. For the Site Class E condition under a corner column (Figure 4.4. Because the site is Class E. (Note that “providing” a given reinforcement ratio means that the reinforcement in question must be developed at that point.1(a) of ACI 318 (since the site is not Class E. onehalf of the pile length governs. pitch is used.005) must be provided over the largest region defined as follows: the top onehalf of the pile length.2 is 22/4 = 5.4. which often will govern.217 is provided within 7D of the bottom of pile cap and top of firm soil and is extended a little more than 3D into the firm soil.02 for this pile section. (106) [105]. or 12 in. Taking into account the soil layering shown in Table 4.2 and 21. for #5 longitudinal bars and 10.01 for this pile section. the tightly spaced transverse reinforcement shown in Figure 4. F.4. 9. or the flexural length of the pile.4. For uncased concrete piles in Seismic Design Category D at least four longitudinal bars (with a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.
1 and 7. ACI 318 Sec.1 and 7. E and F. (3) #6 bottom bars 3" clear at top and bottom Figure 4. The design strength for five # 6 bars is φAs fy = 0.44)] = 366 kips > 101 kips.2 Liquefaction For Seismic Design Categories C.90)/10 = 101 kips. 7.218 Foundation tie section.2.2 [21. the design strength of the tie beam concentrically loaded in compression is: φPn = 0.5. 7.8(0.3. or C) provide equivalent restraint.44)(60) = 106 kips > 101 kips. 7.2 also requires that the geotechnical report describe lateral loads on foundations.2] further require that the geotechnical report describe the likelihood and potential consequences of liquefaction and soil strength loss (including estimates of differential settlement.3. OK 2" clear at sides (2) #6 top bars #4 ties at 7" o.3 requires that individual pile caps be connected by ties.1 Foundation Tie Design and Detailing Provisions Sec.8.2]. wide and 16 in.3.85(3)(16)(14) + 60(5)(0.2. Use a tie beam that is 14 in.10. Provisions Sec.Chapter 4.1 requires that the geotechnical report address potential hazards due to liquefaction. E and F.5.c.2] further indicates that closed ties must be provided at a spacing of not more than onehalf the minimum dimension = 14/2 = 7 in. Assuming that the surrounding soil provides restraint against buckling.8. D. but the Provisions would permit use of a slab (thickened or not) or calculations that demonstrate that the site soils (assigned to Site Class A.3.5.4. The resulting section is shown in Figure 4.8φ[0. Provisions Sec. 4.8(5)(0. increases in lateral pressures on retaining walls.2 [21. a tie beam between the pile caps under a corner column and a side column will be designed. the tie is designed as follows. deep. For pile caps with an assumed centertocenter spacing of 32 ft in each direction.3.9'2")/20 = 13.4. As indicated in Provisions Sec. Such ties are often grade beams.5.85f'c(Ag .218.3 [7.5. the smallest crosssectional dimension of the tie beam must not be less than the clear spacing between pile caps divided by 20 = (32'0" .3.7 in. and flotation of embedded 447 . and given Pgroup = 1121 kips under a side column and Pgroup = 812 kips under a corner column.3. Sec. 21.2. 7. 7. and reduction in foundation soilbearing capacity) and discuss mitigation measures. lateral movement. [In the 2003 Provisions. For Seismic Design Categories D.3 Other Considerations 4. For this example. OK According to ACI 318 Sec. B.10.Ast) + fyAst] = 0. the minimum tie force in tension or compression equals the product of the larger column load times SDS divided by 10 = 1121(0.4. Foundation Analysis and Design 4.65)[0. 21.
E. which defines a specific instance in which this second method is to be employed to define areas requiring additional transverse reinforcement. A more practical. 2.5.] During the design of the structure. Consideration of kinematic interaction by the structural engineer is usually focused on assessing the strength and ductility demands imposed directly on piles by movement of the soil. but less rigorous. The third sentence of Provisions Sec. The structural engineer designs piles for the sum of the demands imposed by the vibrating superstructure and the demands imposed by soil movement. The geotechnical consultant performs appropriate kinematic interaction analyses considering freefield ground motions and the stiffness of the piles to be used in design. [Sec. which generally are greatest at the interface between stiff and soft strata. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples structures. The resulting pile demands.FEMA 451.1 contains a calculation procedure that can be used to evaluate the liquefaction hazard. 7. selection of appropriate foundation type and depths. are reported to the structural engineer. approach would be to provide appropriate detailing in regions of the pile where curvature demands imposed directly by earthquake ground motions are expected to be significant.” Wang & Salmon indicates that “pile caps frequently must be designed for shear considering the member as a deep beam. helps to make an argument for general application of this practical approach. when piles are located inside the critical sections d (for oneway action) 448 . one must decide whether to provide only additional transverse reinforcement in areas of concern to improve ductility or whether additional longitudinal reinforcement should also be provided to increase strength. 7.3. Although it is rarely done in practice.2. 7. In other words.3 Kinematic Interaction Piles are subjected to curvature demands as a result of two different types of behavior: inertial interaction and kinematic interaction. such measures (which can include ground stabilization.1 of the 2003 Commentary has been updated to reflect Youd and other recent references. The term inertial interaction is used to describe the coupled response of the soilfoundationstructure system that arises as a consequence of the mass properties of those components of the overall system.4. Commentary Section 7. Kramer discusses kinematic and inertial interaction and the methods of analysis employed in consideration of those effects.2. The term kinematic interaction is used to describe the manner in which the stiffness of the foundation system impedes development of freefield ground motion.5.4. or F. 3. the first two sentences of Provisions Sec. The structural engineer’s consideration of inertial interaction is usually focused on how the structure loads the foundation and how such loads are transmitted to the soil (as shown in the pile design calculations that are the subject of most of this example) but also includes assessment of the resulting foundation movement. CRSI notes that “most pile caps are designed in practice by various shortcut ruleofthumb procedures using what are hoped to be conservative allowable stresses. Where such a judgmentbased approach is used.3.4 require consideration of kinematic interaction for foundations of structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D.4.] 4. and demonstrates “that the solution to the entire soilstructure interaction problem is equal to the sum of the solutions of the kinematic and inertial interaction analyses. but readers should refer to Youd for an update of the methods described in the Commentary.4 Design of Pile Cap Design of pile caps for large pile loads is a very specialized topic for which detailed treatment is beyond the scope of this volume of design examples. 4.” One approach that would satisfy the requirements of the Provisions would be as follows: 1. and selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements [and forces in the 2003 Provisions]) must be considered.
Nothing in the Provisions prohibits that common practice. Although foundation flexibility can affect structural performance significantly.Chapter 4.5. but their application to elements with important threedimensional characteristics (such as pile caps for groups larger than 2×1) is so involved as to preclude hand calculations. The engineering framework established in FEMA 356 is more conducive to explicit use of performance measures.3. accelerations remain the same or decrease with increasing period. For most buildings. the fact that all consideration of performance in the context of the Provisions is approximate and judgmentbased has made it difficult to define how such changes in performance should be characterized. Explicit consideration of performance measures also tends to increase engineering effort substantially.1 and 4.g.8 [4.5 Foundation Flexibility and Its Impact on Performance 4. However. In point of fact. Site resonance can result in significant amplification of ground motion in the period range of interest.1 Discussion Most engineers routinely use fixedbase models. Therefore. Earthquakeinduced instability of buildings has been exceedingly rare. but the procedure is developed for pile caps subjected to concentric vertical loads only (without applied overturning moments or pile head moments). calculations based on linear.8 [5. but engineers have long assumed that the errors are usually conservative. The analysis and acceptance criteria in the Provisions are not adequate to the task of predicting real stability problems. the result is spectral accelerations that increase as the structural period approaches the site period.6]) is “permitted” but not required. Clearly. control of structural ductility demands).1]indicates that structural stability was considered in arriving at the “consensus judgment” reflected in the drift limits.2.3. increased system period (as a result of foundation flexibility) always leads to lower design forces where the general design spectrum is used.3.” They go on to note that “there is no agreement about the proper procedure to use. Strutandtie models (as described in Appendix A of the 2002 edition of ACI 318) may be employed.2. 4.. 4. the use of fixedbased structural models is prohibited for “buildings being rehabilitated for the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level that are 449 . 5. static behavior cannot be used to predict instability of an inelastic system subjected to dynamic loading. perhaps in some cases. CRSI provides a detailed outline of a design procedure and tabulated solutions. Sitespecific spectra may reflect longperiod siteresonance effects.” Direct application of the special provisions for deep flexural members as found in ACI 318 is not possible as the design conditions are somewhat different. There are two obvious exceptions to that assumption: soft soil siteresonance conditions (e. the shape of the general design spectrum used in the Provisions does not capture that effect. for periods larger than T0.4.4. the consideration of soilstructure interaction effects (Provisions Sec. While Commentary Sec. 5.3.1). Larger design forces and more stringent drift limits are applied to structures assigned to Seismic Use Group II or III in the hope that those measures will improve performance without requiring explicit consideration of such performance. Foundation Analysis and Design or d/2 (for twoway action) from the face of column. but the use of such spectra is required only for Class F sites. For sites with a fairly long predominant period. not damage control or postearthquake occupancy. Such fixedbase models can lead to erroneous results. does change the performance of a structure and its contents – raising concerns regarding both stability and damage. In that document (Sec. caused by foundation flexibility.5.2.3. so mandatory performance checks are often resisted by the user community. such considerations were qualitative. an increase in displacements. the shear cannot be neglected. as in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake) and excessive damage or even instability due to increased displacement response. the values selected for the drift limits were selected considering damage to nonstructural systems (and. application of the Provisions is intended to satisfy performance objectives related to life safety and collapse prevention.2.
accelerations (and thus forces) are a function of 1/T and relative displacements are a function of T. The effects of foundation flexibility become more pronounced as foundation period and structural period approach the same value..3.FEMA 451. those differences are not significant.1 = 2. The total stiffness for the system (springs in series) is: K combined = 1 1 K structure + 1 K fdn = 1 1 1 + 478 5760 = 441 kip/in. Table 62 shows that the total weight of the structure is 36.2. 450 . the effective stiffness of the structure is: K= 2 4π 2 M 4π ( (0.2 percent of the mass participates in that mode. As seen in Figure 61 there are 36 moment frame columns. As shown in Sec.g. Because the foundation stiffness is more than 10 times the structural stiffness.802)(36.502 Foundation Stiffness.1) = = 478 kip/in. 4. For this portion of the example.50 seconds. and Table 64 indicates that 80. one may compare the dynamic characteristics of a fixedbase model to those of a model in which foundation effects are included. 4. the combined system would have forces that are 10 percent smaller and displacements that are 11 percent larger.802)36.” In this case the focus is on damage control rather than structural stability.462 kips. Assume that the weight of the foundation system is 4000 kips and that 100 percent of the corresponding mass participates in the new fundamental mode of vibration. Using the equation for the undamped period of vibration of a singledegreeoffreedom oscillator.2 Example Calculations To assess the significance of foundation flexibility.1. 462 386.78 sec which is an 11percent increase over that predicted by the fixedbase model. Table 65 shows that the calculated period of the fixedbase structure is 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples sensitive to base rotations or other types of foundation movement. Calculations of the effect of foundation flexibility on the dynamic response of a structure should reflect the overall stiffness of the structure (e. the stiffness of each pile is 40 kip/in.2. T2 2. Therefore. Effect of Foundation Flexibility. To confirm this expectation the period of the combined system is computed. period elongation is expected to be minimal. and the stiffness of the entire foundation system is 36 × 160 = 5760 kip/in. the stiffness of each pile group is 4 × 40 = 160 kip/in. with respect to the fixedbased model. Neglecting both the stiffness contribution from passive pressure resistance and the flexibility of the beamslab system that ties the pile caps. For systems responding in the constantvelocity portion of the spectrum. that associated with the fundamental mode of vibration). The period of the combined system is T = 2π M = 2π K [(0.5.2. use the Site Class E pile design results from Sec. rather than the stiffness of any particular story.2. Assume that a 2×2 pile group supports each column.0)(4000)] 441 386. 4.2) as representative for this building.2. 462) + (1. Stiffness of the Structure.1 and consider the northsouth response of the concrete moment frame building located in Berkeley (Sec. In the context of earthquake engineering. 6.
and Eccentrically braced frames.E.04. A dual system consisting of moment frames and concentrically braced frames. California. Rutz. 5.. published by the American Institute of Steel Construction. Carlsbad. and Teymour Manzouri. 51 . In addition. The discussion examines the following types of structural framing for resisting horizontal forces: 1. member proportioning. and detailing. v.. California. the requirements of the 1997 [2002] AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings are followed where applicable. the 1993 [1999] Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Inc.E.E. design of moment resisting frames. is used throughout. All structures are analyzed using threedimensional static or dynamic methods. P. 1999. A multistory office building in Los Angeles.. P. 4. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. 5.11. Special moment frames.6.. California. Frederick R. The three examples include: 1. An industrial warehouse structure in Astoria.D.D.1.5 STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN James R. v. Intermediate moment frames. A lowrise hospital facility in the San Francisco Bay area of California. and 3. P. 1997) is used in Example 5. Concentrically braced frames. 2. and the RAMFRAME Analysis Program (RAM International. 2. The SAP2000 Building Analysis Program (Computers & Structures. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Berkeley. This chapter illustrates how the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (hereafter the Provisions) is applied to the design of steel framed buildings. lateral force analysis. Harris. Ph. the following documents are referenced: AISC LRFD American Institute of Steel Construction. The examples only cover design for seismic forces in combination with gravity.3. and they are presented to illustrate only specific aspects of seismic analysis and design such as. 3. 1997 ) is used in Examples 5.2 and 5. Oregon.. Ph. For determining the strength of steel members and connections. Ph.D.. design of concentric and eccentric bracing. drift calculations.
SAC Joint Venture. Larry D. 1997. 1990. 2. the references to FEMA 350 sections. new Simplified Design Procedure would not be applicable to the examples in this chapter. 1981. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. or are as defined in the text. Inc. Customary U. The design provisions incorporated into AISC Seismic are similar in substance to FEMA 350. AISC Steel Design Guide Series 4. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. Updates to the reference documents. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Some general technical changes in the 2003 Provisions that relate to the calculations and/or design in this chapter include updated seismic hazard maps. in particular AISC Seismic. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel MomentFrame Buildings. Load and Resistance Factor Design. and equations in this chapter have not been annotated. Luttrell. Therefore. 52 . However. American Institute of Steel Construction. Extended EndPlate Moment Connections. Steel Deck Institute. It is worth noting that the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic has incorporated many of the design provisions for steel moment frames contained in FEMA 350.FEMA 451. 2000 International Building Code. The most significant change to the steel chapter in the 2003 Provisions is the addition of two new lateral systems. International Code Council. While the general concepts of the changes are described. 3rd Edition. AISC Seismic IBC FEMA 350 AISC SDGS4 SDI The symbols used in this chapter are from Chapter 2 of the Provisions. The design professional is encouraged to review AISC Seismic for updated moment frame design provisions related to the examples in this chapter. Other changes are generally related to maintaining compatibility between the Provisions and the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic. buckling restrained braced frames and steel plate shear walls. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. units are used.S. Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual. 2000. the above referenced documents. 1990. due to the difficulty in crossreferencing. have some effects on the calculations illustrated herein. tables. it is annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. 2001. 2000. including Supplement No. 2000. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. Although the these design examples are based on the 2000 Provisions. [ ]. Manual of Steel Construction. [2002] Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. changes to Seismic Design Category classification for short period structures and revisions to the redundancy requirements. Annotations within brackets. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Manual American Institute of Steel Construction. but the organization and format are significantly different. neither of which are covered in this set of design examples.
The structure consists of 10 gable frames spanning 90 ft in the transverse (NS) direction. The floor beams are supported on girders continuous over two intermediate columns spaced approximately 30 ft apart and are attached to the gable frames at each end.c. 4. The building is enclosed by nonstructural insulated concrete wall panels and is roofed with steel decking covered with insulation and roofing. 5. Equivalent lateral force analysis. The roof and mezzanine framing plans are shown in Figure 5. these frames are braced in the longitudinal (EW) direction in two bays at the east end. 3. Structural Steel Design 5. It includes a 12fthigh. in that sense. Because the frames resist lateral loading at each frame position. Threedimension (3D) modal analysis. 2.. the steel deck functions as a diaphragm for distribution of the effects of eccentric loading caused by the mezzanine floor when the building is subjected to loads acting in the transverse direction. The framing consists of a steel roof deck supported by joists between transverse gable frames. Longitudinal struts at the eaves and the mezzanine level run the full length of the building and. However. The elevation and transverse sections of the structure are shown in Figure 5. the serviceability limits do affect the seismic design. Drift check. The mezzanine floor at the east end of the building is designed to accommodate a live load of 125 psf. Columns are supported on spread footings. ASTORIA. Seismic design parameters. 40ftwide mezzanine area at the east end of the building. many aspects of seismic design are driven by actual capacities so. and Proportioning of concentric diagonal bracing.11.c. 53 . These serviceability limits are not considered to control any aspect of the seismicresistant design. Moment frame connection design. The following features of seismic design of steel buildings are illustrated: 1. Its structural system is composed of a concrete slab over steel decking supported by floor beams spaced 10 ft o. Spaced at 20 ft o. The member sizes in the main frame are controlled by serviceability considerations. therefore. and lateral sway due to wind was limited to 2 in.1 Building Description This industrial building has plan dimensions of 180 ft by 90 ft and a clear height of approximately 30 ft.Chapter 5.1. OREGON This example features a transverse steel moment frame and a longitudinal steel braced frame. act as collectors for the distribution of forces resisted by the diagonally braced bays and as weakaxis stability bracing for the moment frame columns. 5. (which did not control). 6. 7. Vertical deflections due to snow were limited to 3.1 INDUSTRIAL HIGHCLEARANCE BUILDING. Check of compactness and brace spacing for moment frame.12.5 in.
The design of footings and columns in the braced bays requires consideration of combined seismic loadings.0 in. The foundation plan is shown in Figure 5. (This building arrangement has been intentionally contrived to illustrate what can happen to a taperedmoment frame building if high seismic demands are placed on it. The panels are attached with long pins perpendicular to the concrete surface. Earthquake rather than wind governs the lateral design due to the mass of the insulated concrete panels. This was done to cause the steel frame to resist lateral forces and.3048 m). 1. the connections have been arranged to permit the steel frame to move at the point of attachment in the inplane direction of the concrete panels. (a) 3'9" Concrete slab on grade (b) 30'6" Momentresisting steel frame. The design of foundations is not included here. = 25. These slender. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples West Ridge Braces East Collector Siding: 6" concrete insulated sandwich panels. Mezzanine Ceiling (c) Figure 5. medium dense sands). Grade beams carrying the enclosing panels serve as ties in the longitudinal direction as well as across the end walls. More likely. shearwall action of the panels does not influence the frames.4 mm. and the building would tend to act as a shear wall building.. if this were a real building. flexible pins avoid shear resistance by the panels.11 Framing elevation and sections (1. But for this example.) The building is supported on spread footings based on moderately deep alluvial deposits (i. Transverse ties are placed between the footings of the two columns of each moment frame to provide restraint against horizontal thrust from the moment frames. 54 9'0" 32'0" 34'3" 3'0" 35'0" Eave strut Eave . thus.13. the concrete panels would be connected directly to the steel frame.0 ft = 0.e.FEMA 451.
3048 m).4x W1.4 mm.4 wwf over 6" gravel Typical 3'4"x 3'4"x1'0" footings 30'0" 30'0" Building is symmetrical about center line 11 4" dia.Chapter 5.12 Roof framing and mezzanine framing plan (1.13 Foundation plan (1. tie rod (or equal) at each frame.4 mm.c. 9 bays at 20'0"=180'0" 20'0" (typical) 40'0" Mezzanine 90'0" 6" concrete slab with 6x6W1.0 ft = 0. 1. 90'0" W14x43 N Figure 5. Embed in thickened slab 30'0" Mezzanine 6'6"x6'8"x 1'4" footings Mezzanine 5'6"x5'6"x 1'4" footings N Figure 5.0 ft = 0. 55 . = 25.0 in. Structural Steel Design 182'0" Mezzanine 3" embossed 20 gage deck 11 2" type "B" 22 gage metal deck W12x62 1200 MJ12 Cjoist at 4'0" o.3048 m). 1. = 25.0 in.
2.2 [4.4]) [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps.2 [4.2 [4. but the presence of the mezzanine could be questionable.2.2.1. these frames are permitted only in singlestory structures up to 65 feet in height.1.5 (Provisions Eq.2.5 (Provisions Map 9 [Figure 3.1.2. which states that if the value of R in either direction is less than 5. 5.2. and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3 (instead of the previously used separate map package).31] permits an ordinary momentresisting steel frame for buildings that do not exceed one story and 60 feet tall with a roof dead load not exceeding 15 psf. but the type of connection is not limited.4b [3.31]) Cd Ω0 EW direction: Braced frame system R = ordinary steel concentrically braced frame (Provisions Table 5.31]) Cd Ω0 R must be taken as 4.5 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4.0 (Provisions Eq.1 Provisions Parameters Site Class = D (Provisions Sec. due to Provisions Sec. 1.31])1 = 2 (Provisions Table 5.34]) SD1 = 2/3 SM1 Seismic Use Group = I (Provisions Sec.2.5 in this direction.2.31]) = 4 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4.2.31]) Fa = 1.31]) = 5 (Provisions Table 5.31.31]) = 4.1 [4. 4. but the intermediate steel moment frame with stiffened bolted end plates is chosen to illustrate the connection design issues.FEMA 451. Similarly. This building would fall within that restriction.2.3 [1.1[3.51 [3. [The height and tributary weight limitations for ordinary momentresisting frames have been revised in the 2003 Provisions.6 (Provisions Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.0 (Provisions Table 4.] Note that Provisions Table 5. Refer to 2003 Provisions Table 4.] NS direction: Momentresisting frame system R = intermediate steel moment frame = 4. with fieldbolted end plate moment connections.3.1.2. The building in this example seems to fit these criteria.2.32]) SM1 = FvS1 = 1.2.2.42 [3.2]) Seismic Design Category = D (Provisions Sec.31]) = 3 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4.5 (Provisions Table 4. 1 56 .5]) = 1. 4.1.5.2 [4.2 Design Parameters 5.4a [3. 4. footnote h.1.1.31]) SMS = FaSS = 0.33]) SDS = 2/3 SMS = 0.2. 4.2.2. If the ordinary steel moment frame were chosen for the NS direction.2. and roof dead load not exceeding 20 psf. the limitations on intermediate momentresisting frames in Seismic Design Category D have been revised.2 [4. the smaller value of R must be used in both directions.52 [3. 4.1.41 [3.2.31]) SS = 0.9 (Provisions Eq.1 [1.32]) S1 = 1.32]) Fv = 1. this R factor would change to 3.5 (Provisions Table 5. 4.2.1.6 (Provisions Map 10 [Figure 3. The same singlestory height and weight limits apply. In Seismic Design Category D.2].1.
purlins.3. 5.2.2. and the Provisions exempts roofs from weight irregularities.3. 5. there are (2 adjacent columns)/(2 x 9 bays) so: rmaxx = 0.3.1. mechanical and electrical equipment.1. To checking ρ in an approximate manner. metal roof deck. For determination of the seismic weights. again because of the mezzanine (Provisions Sec.1.2. 5. 5.1. Grade 50 ASTM A36 ASTM A325 5.) Therefore. insulation.00 . Therefore. storage Mezzanine slab and deck dead load Weight of wall panels = 25 psf = 15 psf = 125 psf = 69 psf = 75 psf Roof dead load includes roofing.1. and that portion of the main frames that is tributary to the roof under lateral load. snow Roof dead load (D) Mezzanine live load.11 and ρ =0.200 sq ft.2. Provisions Eq.57 < 1. the weight of the mezzanine will include the dead load plus 25 percent of the storage load (125 psf) in accordance with Provisions Sec.2 [4.Chapter 5.3 [5.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] defines the reliability factor (ρ) as: ρ = 2− 20 rmax x Ax where the roof area (Ax) = 16. Structural Steel Design 5.4.3. 5.3. There also are plan irregularities in this building in the transverse direction.25(125) = 100 psf.1].1 Building Configuration Because there is a mezzanine at one end. 5.3.3 [4. 57 .3]).0 ksi ASTM A615. the mezzanine seismic weight is 69 + 0.2 Loads Roof live load (L).3 Structural Design Criteria 5.5 ksi fc' = 4.00.2. the upper level is a roof. In the NS (transverse) direction.2.2]).2. use ρ = 1. However. the building might be considered vertically irregular (Provisions Sec.5 ksi fc' = 3.3 Materials Concrete for footings Slabsongrade Mezzanine concreteon metal deck Reinforcing bars Structural steel (wide flange sections) Plates Bolts fc' = 2.2. Grade 60 ASTM A992.2 Redundancy For a structure in Seismic Design Category D.
0L is for the storage load on the mezzanine. At the hip (columnroof intersection). The reliability factor applies only to the determination of forces.4. The seismic load is combined with the gravity loads as follows: 1. 5. respectively]) is: E = ρQE ± 0.2. 5. the coefficient on L is 0.72 [4. the allowable story drift (Provisions 5.2.2.2.8 [4. hsx = 30 ft6 in. See Sec.3.025 hsx.21 and 4. respectively]).2.2.1. so there is (1 brace)/(4 braces) so rmax = 0. Recall that SDS = 1.0L + 0.2D = 0.2 [4.1.2SDSD.2.37 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In the EW (longitudinal) direction.2S + E = 1.4D + 1. 5.5.3 for further discussion.5. For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D. hsx = 34 ft3 in. not to deflection calculations.9D + ρQE 0. ρ = 1.3 and 4.0L + 0.2D +1.0 for this example.00 in the transverse direction and 1. 5. At the mezzanine floor. that have been designed to accommodate the story drifts. the reliability multiplier is 1.2D = 1.FEMA 451.3 Orthogonal Load Effects A combination of 100 percent seismic forces in one direction plus 30 percent seismic forces in the orthogonal direction must be applied to the structures in Seismic Design Category D (Provisions Sec. footnote c] permits unlimited drift for singlestory buildings with interior walls. hsx = 12 ft and ∆a = 3.71 and 5.0 as long as it can be shown that failure of beamtocolumn connections at both ends of a single beam (moment frame system) or failure of an individual brace (braced frame system) would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity. Note 1.9D + E = 0. Footnote b in Provisions Table 5.2D + 1.1. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions.2S +ρQE.15 in.28 in.25 and ρ = 1.2.3.2.0L +ρQE + 0. 5.] 5. partitions. x Thus. the braces are equally loaded (ignoring accidental torsion).8 [4. and ∆α = 10.3. At the roof ridge. etc. the redundancy factor would have to be investigated in both directions based on the new criteria in the 2003 Provisions. and ∆a = 9. Therefore.51.60 in.4. The main frame of the building can be considered to be a onestory 58 .4 Structural Component Load Effects The effect of seismic load (Provisions Eq.51]) is: ∆a = 0.22.4.7D + ρQE.3 and 5..1.5 Drift Limits For a building in Seismic Use Group I.37 in the longitudinal direction.2.5 for many common live loads: 0.2.
26]: Ta = Crhnx = (0.3.2 [5.4 Analysis Base shear will be determined using an equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis.54 seconds. The computed seismic weight is based on the assumption that the wall panels offer no shear resistance for the structure but are selfsupporting when the load is parallel to the wall of which the panels are a part.1. The base shear as computed by the ELF analysis will be needed later when evaluating the base shear as computed by the modal analysis (see Provisions Sec. the computed period of the structure must not exceed: Tmax = CuTa = (1.015)(90)(180) = Panels at sides = (2)(0. this mezzanine is less than onethird the footprint of the building.11 [5. 5.5.4.66 sec.Chapter 5.4. 5. because the weight associated with the remainder of the main frames is included in roof dead load above.11 [5.102 kips The weight associated with the main frames accounts for only the main columns.28 sec In accordance with Provisions Sec.250.75) = 0. Structural Steel Design building for this purpose.1.4.47 sec and Tmax = CuTa = (1. 5.028)(34.4)(0.2.28) = 0. 5.) 5.2.4. 5.4)(0.47) = 0.8) = 0.6 Seismic Weight The weights that contribute to seismic forces are: Roof D and L = (0.7]).02)(34. given that there are no interior partitions except below the mezzanine.250. In the transverse direction where stiffness is provided by momentresisting frames (Provisions Eq.075)(35)(90)/2 = Mezzanine slab = (0.2].3. 59 .1 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure In the longitudinal direction where stiffness is provided only by the diagonal bracing.2. a modal analysis then will examine the torsional irregularity of the building. the approximate period is computed using Provisions Eq.100)(90)(40) = Mezzanine framing = Main frames = Seismic weight = EW direction 243 kips 0 kips 224 kips 360 kips 35 kips 27 kips 889 kips NS direction 243 kips 437 kips 0 kips 360 kips 35 kips 27 kips 1. The subsequent 3D modal analysis finds the computed period to be 0.7 [5.26]): Ta = Crhnx = (0. (The definition of a story in building codes generally does not require that a mezzanine be considered a story unless its area exceeds onethird the area of the room or space in which it is placed. 5.1.075)(32)(180)/2 = Panels at ends = (2)(0.39 sec.
23.044)(1)(1.66)(4. 5.1 [5.222 for the longitudinal direction. 5. which is not applicable to this example. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Also note that the dynamic analysis found a computed period of 1.21]) is: V = CsW = (0.12 [5.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]) computed as: Cs = 0.4.044 [This minimum Cs value has been removed in the 2003 Provisions.6 = = 0.22 and 5.4.102 kips) = 223 kips. The seismic force must be increased by the reliability factor as indicated previously.1. The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.4.11 and 5.1.5 1 but need not exceed Cs = SD1 0.1. In the transverse direction (Provisions Eq. In both directions the value of Cs exceeds the minimum value (Provisions Eq. 5.0 = = 0. 5.2. The reliability multiplier ( ρ) will enter the calculation later as the modal analysis is developed.6 Cs = D1 = = 0.222 R I 4.5/1) Therefore.202 T ( R / I ) (0. use Cs = 0.1.1. the seismic base shear in the longitudinal direction would be increased by ρ now: V = ρ (197) V = (1.5/1) Therefore.03 seconds.222)889 kips) = 197 kips.0 = = 0. In the longitudinal direction: Cs = SDS 1.] The seismic base shear in the longitudinal direction (Provisions Eq. Although this is not applicable to the determination of deflections.1].202 for the transverse direction.39)(4.37)(197) = 270 kips 510 .044I SDS = (0. use Cs = 0.342 T (R / I ) (0.1 [5. If the ELF method was used exclusively.202)(1.5 1 but need not exceed S 0.4. it is applicable in the determination of required strengths. respectively]): Cs = SDS 1. The seismic base shear in the transverse direction is: V = CsW = (0.4.0) = 0. In its place is a minimum Cs value for longperiod structures.FEMA 451.222 R I 4.
3] prescribes the vertical distribution of lateral force in a multilevel structure. 5. it would be necessary to compute the stiffness for each of the two types of frames and for the braced frames. The relative stiffness of the roof deck with respect to the gable frames. The collector at the hip level is included as are those at the mezzanine level in the two east bays.1.6/2 = 10.4.Chapter 5.6 of this example and interpolating the exponent k as 1. The mezzanine diaphragm is modeled using planar shell elements with their inplane rigidity being based on actual properties and dimensions of the slab. SDI’s Diaphragm Design Manual is used for guidance in assessing the stiffness of the roof deck.3 [5.2. The significance of the different centers of mass for the roof and the mezzanine. and the diaphragm chord members are explicitly modeled using 3D beamcolumn elements. Using the data in Sec. 4.6 kips End frame at roof = 20. The analytical model includes elements with onetenth the stiffness of a plane plate of 22 gauge steel.83 0.4.5 ft.11 ELF Vertical Distribution for NS Analysis Level Roof Mezzanine Total Weight (wx) 707 kips 395 kips 1102 kips Height (hx) 30.1.] Provisions Sec.08 for the period of 0. The significance of differing stiffness of the gable frames with and without the mezzanine level.17 Fx 185 kips 38 kips 223 kips It is not immediately clear as to whether the roof (a 22gauge steel deck with conventional roofing over it) will behave as a flexible or rigid diaphragm. a 3D model was created in SAP 2000. but their inplane rigidity is based on a reduced thickness that accounts for compression buckling phenomena and for the fact that the edges of the roof diaphragm panels are not connected to the wall panels.11. 3.2 for discussion of the changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions. 2.3.2 ThreeDimension Static and Modal Response Spectrum Analyses The 3D analysis is performed for this example to account for: 1. the tension bracing. If one were to assume that the roof were a flexible diaphragm while the mezzanine were rigid. the distribution of forces for the NS analysis is shown in Table 5.66 sec. the moment frames supporting the mezzanine. The roof diaphragm also is modeled using planar shell elements. The forces at the roof are distributed to each frame line in a fashion that offsets the center of force 5 percent of 180 ft (9 ft) to the west of the center of the roof. 5. 5.1.7 kips If one were to assume the roof were rigid. 12 ft. it is clearly a twolevel structure.3. For this example. the following forces would be applied to the frames: Typical frame at roof (tributary basis) = 185 kips / 9 bays = 20. wxhxk 28340 5780 34120 Cvx 0. Structural Steel Design [See Sec. 5. The forces at the mezzanine are similarly distributed to offset the center of the mezzanine force 5 percent of 40 ft to the west of the 511 . The gabled moment frames. Table 5. Even though the building is considered to be one story for some purposes. The ELF analysis of the 3D model in the transverse direction yields two important results: the roof diaphragm behaves as a rigid diaphragm and the displacements result in the building being classified as torsionally irregular.3 kips Mezzanine frame at mezzanine = 38 kips/3 frames = 12. and The significance of braced frames in controlling torsion due to NS ground motions.
the applied forces and the resulting displacements are shown in Table 5. Using grid locations numbered from west to east. kips Roof Displacement.61 21. Table 5.5 [5. the design response spectrum has been changed for long periods in the 2003 Provisions.60 2. The ratio of maximum to average displacement is 1.57 12.49 in.01 Mezzanine Force.36 184.1.12 ELF Analysis in NS Direction Grid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals Roof Force.FEMA 451.67 10.82 3.3.2.76 7.41] then requires that the seismic force analysis be any one of several types of dynamic analysis.” Provisions Table 5.18 in.67 in.14.08 3.53 3. the behavior is as a rigid diaphragm.3. 4.31. in. 4. The design response spectrum is based on Provisions Sec.45 4. which exceeds the 1. 5.19 25. Clearly then. whereas the average frame displacement is about 20 times that.77 38.2 [4.1 [4.] 512 .2.99 14.21 2.98 22. The MRS is an easy next step once the 3D model has been assembled.24 19. kips 13. [Although it has no affect on this example. A 3D dynamic design response spectrum analysis is performed per Provisions Sec.29 4. the deviation of the diaphragm from a straight line is 0.42 The average of the extreme displacements is 3.2. The displacement at the centroid of the roof is 3.13 15.12.4] and is shown in Figure 5.3] using the SAP 2000 program.6 [3. The simplest of these is the modal response spectrum (MRS) analysis.86 2.50 17.32] and places the structure in the category “torsionally irregular. See the discussion in Chapter 3 of this volume of design examples.87 18.35 23.56 4.2 limit given in Provisions Table 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples center of the mezzanine. Thus.5.
The modal seismic response coefficient (Provisions Eq. T (sec.13 Design Response Spectra T (sec) 0.155 6.862 7.Chapter 5.2 0 0 0.6 1.545 0.500 0.12 S a= S D1 T 0.03 seconds with predominantly transverse participation.0 ft = 0.4 Sa (g) Sam = Sa (g) 0.857 0.190 0.102 0. the first 24 periods of vibration and mode shapes of the structure were computed using the SAP2000 program.600 0.095 Csm (ft/sec2) 2.111 0.155 7.8 1.4 0.3 1.2 1.121 0.5 0.14 Design response spectrum.222 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.1 1.461 0.6 0.766 4. 5. Sa (g) S DS= 1.133 0. The first 24 modes accounted for approximately 98 percent of the total mass of the 513 .132 5.54 seconds with a predominantly longitudinal participation.900 3.2 1.9 1.9 1.43 [5.750 0. Structural Steel Design Spectral response acceleration. The first mode had a period of vibration of 1.2 0.8 SD1= 0.299 3.429 Csm = S am (R / I ) R = 4.33]) is Csm = Sam R I .5.0 Period.0 1.089 0.167 0.148 0.222 0.4 1.6 0.7 0.293 3. The design response spectra expressed in units of g and ft/sec2 are shown in Table 5.0 0.8 0.367 4.578 3.) Figure 5. The third mode period was 0.3048 m. With this model.070 1.13.12 0.4 0. Table 5.8 2.666 0.0 0.0 0.
moments.00)(NS direction spectrum) 514 .3)(1.0)(1.5 kips Transverse Vt = 137. If the design value for modal base shear is less than 85 percent of the ELF base shear calculated using a period of CuTa.2].2 [5.00)(NS direction spectrum) (0. the deflections should be checked as discussed in Sec.05 NS modification factor = 0. which accounts for coupling of closely spaced modes. compare the design values of modal base shear to the base shear determined by the ELF method. In the absence of damping.85(V/Vt) = (0.2a [4.1. 5. a factor to bring the modal base shear up to this comparison ELF value must be applied to the modal story shears.3 below.3]: EW NS (1.2 kips In accordance with Provisions Sec.05)(1.5.0)(1.5. δye = 2.FEMA 451.3. The design value for modal base shear (Vt) is determined by combining the modal values for base shear.37.310]: Modification factor = 0. The SAP 2000 program uses the complete quadratic combination (CQC) of the modal values.7 [5. Base shears thus obtained are: Longitudinal Vt = 159.05)(1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples structure in the transverse direction and approximately 93 percent in the longitudinal direction. 5.0)(1. 5.38)(1. the design response spectra for the 3D modal analysis is again revised by increasing the EW direction response by the reliability factor.3.85)(223 kips/137. design response spectra as increased by the modification factors above) from the second analysis are: EW deflection NS deflection δxe = 0.5.e. Before going further.85 (V/Vt) EW modification factor = 0. ρ = 1.2.85)(197 kips/159.38)(ydirection spectrum) The model is then run again.37)(EW direction spectrum) + (1. the factors on the basic spectrum for the load combinations become: EW NS (1.99 in.7.2.3)(EW direction spectrum) + (1.84 in. at the first frame in from the west end where δxe and δye are deflections determined by the elastic modal analysis.38)(1. 5. the CQC is simply the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of each modal value.0)(NS direction spectrum) Finally.38 The response spectra for the 3D modal analysis is then revised by the above modification factors: EW NS (1.37)(EW direction spectrum) + (0. drifts. The response spectra for the 3D modal analysis are combined to meet the orthogonality requirement of Provisions Sec. 5.4.5.5 kips) = 1. According to Provisions Eq.0)(EW direction spectrum) + (0.4. and floor deflections.3)(1.85(V/Vt) = (0. Note that ρ is equal to unity in the NS direction.05)(xdirection spectrum) (1. Thus.0)(1.3)(NS direction spectrum) (0.1 [5.2 kips) = 1. both of which are is greater than the 90 percent requirement of Provisions Sec..2. Those frames closer to the mezzanine had smaller NS lateral deflections in much the same fashion as was shown for the ELF analysis.7]. The maximum lateral displacements at the ridge due to seismic loads (i.
shears. such as refrigerated warehouses. (Pdelta may be significant for a different structure. unless specifically noted otherwise. but this is for use when design is based upon R = 5.0 in.14 and the axial forces are given in Table 5. live.1. computed previously.4. the lateral deflection was much smaller and obviously is within the limits. and earthquake loads on the gable frames are listed in Tables 5. Some real buildings.1. not seismic loads.4 Pdelta The AISC LRFD Specification requires Pdelta analyses for frames. and exterior wall systems that have been designed to accommodate the story drifts. The size of the members is controlled by gravity loads. From this third analysis.28 in.15.1 [4.85 x 197 kips) = 167. This was investigated by a 3D Pdelta analysis. have heavy wall panels and would be expected to have high seismic drifts.99) = = 12. Pdelta should always be investigated for unbraced frames. The moments are given in Table 5.5.2]. The moment diagram for the combined load condition is shown in Figure 5.Chapter 5. partitions. Recall that the deflection computations do not consider the reliability factor. Special attention to detailing the connections of such features is necessary. 5.0(2.3.5 of this chapter.) In the longitudinal direction.2.) 5. The tabulated value of Cd is 4. say one with higher mass at the roof. The load combination is 1.5. which determined that secondary Pdelta effect on the frame in the transverse direction was less than 1 percent of the primary demand. 1. the final design base shears are obtained.5 Force Summary The maximum moments and axial forces caused by dead.15. Structural Steel Design and the model is run once again to obtain the final result for design forces.13.2. there is no story drift limit for singlestory structures with interior wall.1. This value must be multiplied by a Cd factor to find the transverse drift.4. Pdelta was considered to be insignificant and was not investigated further. As such. 5. and moments. However. The frames are symmetrical about their ridge and the loads are either symmetrical or can be applied on either side on the frame because the forces are given for only half of the frame extending from the ridge to the ground. The design of connections will be controlled by the seismic loads.37) is equivalent to increasing the EW base shear from (0.3 Drift The lateral deflection cited previously must be multiplied by Cd = 4 to find the transverse drift: δx = Cdδ xe 4. The authors suggest adjusting by a ratio of R factors. which is used throughout the remainder of calculations in this section. ceilings. for this example.4D + L + 0. Forces in and design of the braces are discussed in Sec.0 I This exceeds the limit of 10. (The heavy wall panels were selected to make an interesting example problem.4.2S + ρ QE. The Provisions does not give guidance for Cd when the system R factor is overridden by the limitation of Provisions Sec. 5.5 kips to 230 kips. 5. Applying the ρ factor (1. and the high transverse drift is a consequence of this.1. 515 .12 and 5.1.
5 4.2S + ρQE.36 kNm.0 kip = 1.0 kip = 1.Ridge 2.0 ft = 0.15 Axial Forces in Gable Frames Members Location 1.36 kNm.ρ Q E Figure 5. Individual maximums are not necessarily on the same frame. 447 ft .FEMA 451. 1.kips 1.Base D (ftkips) 14 16 39 39 L (ftkips) 3.8 7.kips 447 ft . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.Knee 3.kips 53 ft .6S).5 39 39 S (ftkips) 25 27 23 23 ρQE (ftkips) 0.7D .Mezzanine 4.25 + ρ Q E 0.Mezzanine 4.4D + L + 0.0 ftkip = 1.14 Moments in Gable Frame Members Location 1.2D + 1.3048 m.1. 5. combined load values are maximum for any frame.36 kNm).2S + ρQE (or 1. combined load values are maximum for any frame.3048 m.Base D (ftkips) 61 161 95 0 L (ftkips) 0 0 83 0 S (ftkips) 128 333 92 0 QE (ftkips) 0 162 137 0 Combined* (ftkips) 112 (279) 447 (726) 79 0 * Combined Load = 1. 1.5 Proportioning and Details 516 .Ridge 2.0 26 26 Combined* (ftkips) 39 37 127 127 * Combined Load = 1. 1.kips  40 ft .kips 53 ft .4D + 0. Individual maximums are not necessarily on the same frame. Table 5.15 Moment diagram for seismic load combinations (1. 1.Knee 3.kips 104 ft .4D + L + 0.0 ft = 0.
at base to 36 in.4 and the loads from Tables 5. Section 1. is proportioned using tension forces determined from the 3D modal analysis. also shown in Figure 5.4+ mm). at ridge.3. The diagonal bracing. = 25.4 [8. Tapered roof beam Tapered column 30'6" Mezzanine (2 end bays) Figure 5. “Scope. at knee to 18 in. plate sizes are given in Figure 5.16 Gable frame schematic: Column tapers from 12 in. E. steel structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D.” stipulates that those requirements are to be applied in conjunction with AISC LRFD.11 at the east end of the building.1. Section 10 of AISC Seismic itemizes a few exceptions from AISC LRFD for intermediate moment frames. AISC Seismic Part I.13. 5. Using load combinations presented in Sec. Part I.5.11. was proportioned similarly. Table 5. Terminology for momentresisting frames varies among the several standards.2.1.Chapter 5. at knee.16 is intended to assist the reader in keeping track of the terminology.0 in. and F must be designed and detailed (with a few exceptions) per AISC Seismic. the proportions of the frame are checked at the roof beams and the variabledepth columns (at the knee). 8.2]. For an intermediate moment frame (IMF).18 (1. 12'0" 517 . shown in Figure 5.12 and 5. roof beam tapers from 36 in. The mezzanine framing.16. Structural Steel Design The gable frame is shown schematically in Figure 5.1 Frame Compactness and Brace Spacing According to Provisions Sec. 5. but otherwise the intermediate moment frames are to be designed per the AISC LRFD Specification.
35) = 49. IMF per the Provisions corresponds to IMF per AISC Seismic. the adjustments of AISC LRFD Specification for webtapered members will not affect the results of the 3D SAP 2000 analysis. Table B5. For this example.12 + 0. All PM ratios (combined compression and flexure) were less than 1.1.076 ⎜ ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ M 1 ⎞⎤ ⎛ E ⎞ ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ry ⎝ M 2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ Fy ⎠ Lpd ⎢0.] Because AISC Seismic does not impose more restrictive widththickness ratios for IMF. the widththickness ratios of AISC LRFD.12 + 0. OMF = ordinary moment frame. 2) SMF Not used IMF OMF Provisions SMF Not used IMF OMF *This is called “limited inelastic deformations” in AISC Seismic. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5. and 4. This is based on proper spacing of lateral bracing.kip. The spacing of lateral bracing is illustrated for the high moment area of the tapered beam near the knee. 2 to the 1997 edition as listed in Table 5.1. The maximum moment at the face of the column under factored load combinations is less than the plastic moment. The member is in single curvature here. IMF = intermediate moment frame. At that point the moment gradient will be higher than under the design load combinations (the shear will be higher).01* Minimal AISC Seismic (1997) SMF IMF OMF Not used FEMA 350 SMF Not used OMF Not used AISC Seismic (Supplement No. [The terminology in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic is the same as Supplement No. but under the design seismic ground motion the plastic moment will be reached.9 in. then AISC Seismic would impose more restrictive requirements.03 0. the terminology is unchanged from the 2000 Provisions.FEMA 451.16. SMF = special moment frame. Therefore.000 ⎞ ⎟⎥ ⎜ ⎟ (1.0 ft away the moment is 427 ft.00. All widththickness ratios are less than the limiting λp from AISC LRFD Table B5. ⎝ 659 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 50 ⎠ OK 518 .) The tapered members are approximated as short prismatic segments.076 ⎜ ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ −488 ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 29.02 0. so the sign on the ratio in the design equation is negative (AISC LRFD Eq. will be used for our IMF example.04 0.02 Not defined Plastic Rotation 0. > 48 in.16 Comparison of Standards Total Rotation (story drift angle) 0. Lateral bracing is provided by the roof joists and wall girts.kip. so the moment gradient at design conditions will be used to compute the maximum spacing of bracing. The moment at the face of the column is 659 ft.03 0. (If the frame were an SMF. F117): Lpd = ⎢0. thus.
F14: L p = 300ry / Fyf Lp = (300)(1. OK At the negative moment regions near the knee. = 25.35) / 50 = 57 in.4 mm).17 Arrangement at knee (1. 519 . > 48 in.17).Chapter 5. Structural Steel Design Also.0 in. per AISC LRFD Eq. 118" dia. A325 (typical) L3 x3 Gusset plate Section "A" 2x2 Xbrace MC8 girt Elevation Filler pad L3x3 Section "B" Figure 5. lateral bracing is necessary on the bottom flange of the beams and inside the flanges of the columns (Figure 5.
1 Detail "1" 3 4" Detail "1" 3 4" Figure 5.) Refer to Figure 5.5 Varies 12" to 36" Weld per AWS D1. The vertical plate shown near the upper left corner in Figure 5.25" d 1= 30. (FEMA 350 has design criteria for specific connection details. FEMA 350 is used as a guide for this example because it is the closest design method developed to date for such a connection. The method of FEMA 350 for bolted.18 for configuration.5. AISC SDGS4 is also useful.75" 1 2" Tapered beam Bolts: 1" dia.FEMA 451. The connection for our moment frame. 520 18" to 36" . However.0 in.1. A490 g = 4" t p= 1 2" 8" Typical 2" Varies 1 3 4" 16" 2" 3 4" 2" 2" Tapered column 8" 1 2.3048 m). The beam to column connection requires special consideration.18 Bolted stiffened connection at knee (1.17 is a gusset providing connection for Xbracing in the longitudinal direction. which has a tapered column and a tapered beam is not one of the specific details per FEMA 350. 1.0 ft = 0.17 and 5. stiffened end plate connections is used for a design guide here. Highlights from this method are shown for this portion of the example Refer to FEMA 350 for a discussion of the entire procedure.2 Knee of the Frame The knee detail is shown in Figures 5. = 25.18.4 mm. Plate: 2"x7x1'05 8" t p= 2" bp = 9" Plate: 30° 1 p f = 1 2" 3'0" p b= 3" 1" 1 5 2"x7x1'0 8" t s = 1 2" 2" 1 1" 1 2" L st d b= 36" 7 d 0= 37. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.
407 ftkips. The end plate stiffeners at the top and bottom flanges increase the local moment of inertia of the beam.3 at d/2 from the end plate (the plastic hinge location) Fy = 50 ksi Therefore. The moment at the column flange.5 ft Thus.Chapter 5. but that reduction will be ignored here. the moment at the column centerline is found: 521 . = 1. which will reduce l and usually increase Vp. AISC Seismic Table I61 indicates: Ry = 1. Mpr = (1. x = db /2 = 18 in.15 2Fu (2)(50) . less the column depth and distance to the hinge at each end.1 Ze = 267 in. Where the gravity moments are a large fraction of the section capacity.8 kips ⎟+ 2 l 81ft ⎝ 2 ⎠ l = 81 ft comes from the 90 ft outtoout dimension of the frame.52 klf) ⎜ = 55. is determined from FEMA 350 Figure 34 as: Mf = Mpr + Vpx where Vp = Shear at location of plastic hinge. may be away from the column face. Vp = wg l Mpr1 + Mpr 2 ⎛ 81 ft ⎞ 1407 + 1407 ftk + = (0. = 1.1)(267)(50) = 16. forcing the plastic hinge to occur away from the welds at the end of beam/face of column. assuming the frame has formed two hinges. 31) as follows: Mpr = CprRyZeFy. The location of the plastic hinge is distance x from the face of the column.kips.888 in. Structural Steel Design The FEMA 350 method for bolted stiffened end plate connection requires the determination of the maximum moment that can be developed by the beam. With the taper of the section. That is not the circumstance for this frame. Mf . the depth will be slightly less than 36 inches at the location of the hinge. one near each column. which will be in positive moment. Mf = 1407 + (55. 32: Cpr = Fy + Fu (50+ 65) = = 1.5) = 1491 ftkips In a like manner. the second hinge to form.15)(1. Per FEMA 350 Eq. which drives the connection design. The stiffeners should be long enough to force the plastic hinge to at least d/2 away from the end of the beam.8)(1. The probable maximum moment (Mpr) at the plastic hinge is computed (FEMA 350 Eq. The steps in FEMA 350 for bolted stiffened end plates follow: Step 1.
4 Tub(37.327 (9)0.7 kips > 87.1 Tub = 113 Ab = (113)(0.38 < 113 Ab (for A490 bolts) 0.9ts 0.00002305 p f 0.9 (1)0.583 t p 0.FEMA 451. 332: Tub ≥ 0. Diameter A490 bolts.591 F fu 2.895 d bt1. Find bolt size for end plates.00609)(1. bp = width of end plate = 9 in. (Trial tp) dbt = bolt diameter = 1 in.27 in.327 b p 0.38 < Tub 77. For a connection with two rows of two bolts inside and outside the flange.965 + Tb where: pf = dimension from top of flange to top of first bolt = 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples dc ⎞ = 1407 + 55. Step 4.5)0.44)0.909 (0.7 (0.909 t s 0.thick end plate is acceptable.5 in. Tb = bolt pretension per AISC LRFD Table J3.965 OK Tub = 88.6 F fu 0. FEMA 350 Eq. Determine the minimum end plate thickness necessary to preclude flexural yielding by comparing the thickness determined above against FEMA 350 Eq.4 Tub(do + di) (1491)(12) < 3.685 in. 522 . 334: tp ≥ 0.9 dbt 0. Check the bolt size to preclude shear failure. a 2in.9 (0.5) = 1574 ftkips 2⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Step 2.25 in.583 + 64 (2)0.785) = 88.6 (504)0. This step is skipped here because 16 bolts will obviously carry the shear for our example.00002305)(1.44)0.1b p 0.9 (4)0.75 in. + 30.5 + 1.5 kips Therefore.9 g 0.2 < Ab Use 1 in. Step 3. 331 indicates: Mc = Mpr + Vp ⎜ x + ⎛ Mf < 3.44 in.591 (504) 2.7 kips Tub ≥ (0. ts = thickness of stiffener plate = 0.) 77.8(1.1 (9)0.895 (1)1.7 OK tp ≥ 2 in. tp = end plate thickness = 2 in. Now confirm that Tub satisfies FEMA 350 Eq.00609 p f 0. > 1.5)0.
00413 p f 0.66 in. (0. a continuity plate is needed at the compression flange. Step 7.1 for continuity plate sizing.25 in.44 in.00) = 0.5)](50) twc reqd = 1.Chapter 5. k1 is taken to be the thickness of the column web.5)(3) + (3.5 in. 337: tcf > where α m F fu C3 0. For this column. 340: twc = Mf (1491)(12) = = 1.15 F fu dbt 0.thick end plate.5(tbf + tbf) = 0. the 2in. Because continuity plates are required. 2 2 4 (For purposes of this example. tcf must be at least as thick as the end plate thickness tp.75) + (2)(2) + (0. (db − t fb )(6k + 2t p + t fb )Fyc (36 − 0.3. > 1. Therefore. For onesided connections.75 in.9)(50)[(3.5) ⎞ 3 1 = 1.25 g 0.15b p 0. Determine the minimum column flange thickness required to resist beam flange tension using FEMA 350 Eq. Step 5. > 0.25 (4)0. See FEMA 350 Sec. but this will be revised in Step 7.44 in. = twc OK Therefore. Check column web thickness for adequacy for beam flange compression. Therefore.44) ⎟ (1) 0.75 = 1. use a 2in.5)] 1 1 tcf > Minimum tcf = 0.44)0.25 ⎝ Aw ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ( d bt ) 4 (1.thick flange does not need to be full height but must continue well away from the region of beam flange compression and the high moment 523 .7 ts 0.3.7 (0. fillet weld for a total of 0.15 (9)0.48) ⎛ (2)(8)(0.3 OK tp ≥ 2 in.5 in.95 in.5 pb + c) g 4 1 C3 = − dbt − k1 = − − 0.5)0.00 in.5 in.). Using FEMA 350 Eq. 338: ⎛ A f ⎞ 3 C 3 = (1.5)[(6)(0.19 α m = Ca ⎜ ⎟ 1 ⎜ (35)(0.3 (0. the necessary thickness of the continuity plate is 0. Step 6.95 in. 0.19)(504)(1. 3.15 (504) (1)0. 335: tp ≥ 0. Structural Steel Design and against FEMA 350 Eq.9 Fyc (3.00413)(1. and an assumed 0. This is a check on web crippling using FEMA 350 Eq. tcf = 2 in.
.1. This is an AISC LRFD designed connection.2.5 in. where it is welded to the 0. flange is continued 36 in. Sec.5 ⎞ 366 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ = 0.5.9)(0.71 Zbe ⎛ 267 ⎞ Cpr 1.3.5 + 3 + 1. = tcw 5.5) tcw required = 0. the 2in. < 0.3.75in.FEMA 451.6Fy )Rycdc (db − t fb ) where. Per FEMA 350 Eq. For purposes of this check.19. Lateral seismic force produces no moment at the ridge until yielding takes place at one of the knees. according to FEMA 350 Eq. An unstiffened bolted connection plate is selected. Some judgment is necessary here.6)(50)(1.5 + 1.31 in. use db = 35.9)(0.71)(1574 x 12) ⎜ ⎛ 366 − 41.50 in.5 = 41.3 Frame at the Ridge The ridge joint detail is shown in Figure 5. 37: Cy M c ⎜ ⎛ h − db ⎞ ⎟ ⎝ h ⎠ t≥ (0.15⎜ ⎟ Sb ⎝ 218 ⎠ (0. 34: Cy = 1 1 = = 0. For this case. not a FEMA 350 designed connection because there should not be a plastic hinge forming in this vicinity. Step 8. down from the bottom of the beam. tcw ≥ (0.1)(36)(36 − 0.31 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples portion of the column knee area.thick flange. This weld needs to be carefully detailed.19 End plate connection at ridge. 3. Vertical accelerations on the dead load do produce a 524 . OK 1 12 Tappered roof beam Unstiffened bolted end plate Figure 5. Check the panel zone shear in accordance with FEMA 350.
The steel beams rest on threespan girders connected at each end to the portal frames and supported on two intermediate columns (Figure 5.1. coincidentally close to the design moment for the factored gravity loads. = 25. Structural Steel Design moment at this point.5.Chapter 5.5 Braced Frame Diagonal Bracing 525 . 5. A typical beamcolumn connection at the mezzanine level is provided in Figure 5. the static moment is 406 ftkip and the reduction for the thrust is 128 ftkip.5.7 (b) Figure 5. The concrete filled 3in. The design of the mezzanine framing is largely conventional as seismic loads do not predominate. Under the condition on which the FEMA 350 design is based (a full plastic moment is produced at each knee). the moment at the ridge will simply be the static moment from the gravity loads less the horizontal thrust times the rise from knee to ridge. Those lateral forces that are received by the mezzanine are distributed to the frames and diagonal bracing via the floor diaphragm. further lateral displacement produces some positive moment at the ridge. however.2D + 0. The design of the end plate connection is similar to that at the knee. 5.11).0 in.2S as the load for this scenario.110 Mezzanine framing (1.4 mm). deck W14x43 Split W27x84 W21x62 MC8x18. 20gauge steel deck of the mezzanine floor is supported on steel beams spaced at 10 ft and spanning 20 ft (Figure 5.1. L3x3 strut 3" concrete slab 3" embossed 20 ga. Once lateral seismic loads produce yielding at one knee. The girder spans are approximately 30 ft each. If one uses 1. but simpler because the beam is horizontal and not tapered. leaving a net positive moment of 278 ftkip..12).110. the value is small compared to all other moments and does not appear to be a concern.4 Design of Mezzanine Framing The design of the framing for the mezzanine floor at the east end of the building is controlled by gravity loads.
24. the required strength becomes 132 kips. 14.0 factor is applied to L when the live load is greater than 100 psf (AISC Seismic Sec.2 does not apply because this is not a V or an inverted V 526 . Provisions Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Although the force in the diagonal X braces can be either tension or compression.2. 5. Also be sure to check the eave strut at the roof.5L + 0. part of the braced frame. 1. For the case discussed here.7. For the braced design. Ω0 = 2.FEMA 451. shall be based on AISC Seismic Eq. the “tension only” brace does not carry any live load so the load factor does not matter. 14. Eq.2 requires the design strength of the brace connections to be based on the expected tensile strength: RyFyAg = (1.1). respectively] requires that the design seismic force on components sensitive to overstrength shall be defined by: E = Ω0QE ± 0.] From analysis using this load combination. the AISC Seismic equation will be used but E will be substituted for QE.23 and 4.49) = 4. The strength of the members and connections. 14. 5.2 φ Fy (0. the maximum axial force in the X brace located at the east end of the building is 66 kips computed from the combined orthogonal earthquake loads (longitudinal direction predominates). has to carry compression and that compression is determined using the overstrength factor.2D + 0.98 in. the load combination for design of the brace members reduces to: 1. See AISC Seismic Sec. 4. All braces will have the same design.24 should be used in conjunction with the load combinations in ASCE 7 as is done here. Thus.1.23 and 4.2S + Ω0QE Recall that a 1.7. only the tensile value is considered because it is assumed that the diagonal braces are capable of resisting only tensile forces.07 in.2 > 4. Using A36 steel for angles: Tn = φFyAg Ag = P 132 n = = 4.9)(36) Try (2) L4 ×3 × 3/8: Ag = (2)(2. including the columns in this area but excluding the brace connections.11 and 2 [4. 41. 4.2SDSD Given that the Provisions is being following.” Therefore.2) = 269 kips.2S + Ω0QE [The special load combinations have been removed from the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic to eliminate inconsistencies with other building codes and standards but the design of ordinary braced frames is not really changed because there is a reference to the load combinations including “simplified seismic loads.98 in.07 in.4D + 0. 2003 Provisions Eq.5)(36 ksi)(4.5L + 0.2 OK AISC Seismic Sec.2. With the Ω0 factor. The kl/r requirement of AISC Seismic Sec. However. The eave strut.2 (November 2000 Supplement) for requirements on braces for OCBFs.
4.6 Roof Deck Diaphragm Figure 5.000/2)/180 ft. This is a shear lag effect. Torsion is not significant so a simple approximation is to take half the force to each side and divide by the length of the building. The shear is also high at the longitudinal braced bays because they tend to resist the horizontal torsion. Structural Steel Design configuration. This might be expected given the significant change in stiffness.5. In the EW direction. however. There does not appear to be any particularly good simple approximation to estimate the shear here without a 3D model. the base shear is 230 kips ( Sec. 527 .1. the shear is generally highest in the bay between the mezzanine frame and the first frame without the mezzanine. In the NS direction.111 shows the inplane shear force in the roof deck diaphragm for both seismic loading conditions. 5. There are deviations from simple approximations in both directions. which yields (191.Chapter 5.2) with 83 percent or 191 kips at the roof. The plot shows that the shear in the edge of the diaphragm is significantly higher in the two braced bays. = 530 plf.1. The shear at the braced bays is lower than observed for the EW motion. the eave strut in the 3D model is a HSS 6x6x1/4. 5.
Figure 5. upper diagram is for EW motion and lower is for NS motion (1.111 Shear force in roof deck diaphragm. NorthSouth motion. EastWest motion.FEMA 451. pound per foot. 528 . pound per foot.59 N/M). Roof diaphragm shear. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Roof diaphragm shear. /ft. = 14.0 lb.
and 5 in Figure 5. 3E and 4E. 4 in.Chapter 5. wide in the NS direction (Figure 5.2. H. but are arranged to accommodate elevator door openings.1. 3. The braced frames in an X configuration are designed for both diagonals being effective in tension and compression. CALIFORNIA Three alternative framing arrangements for a sevenstory office building are illustrated. The moment frames are shown in Figure 5. 2. 2. 4 in. 5. 3. Alternative C – Seismic force resistance is provided by a dual system with the special moment frames at the perimeter of the building and a special concentrically braced frames at the core.3 Scope The example covers: 1.1 Building Description 5.2 SEVENSTORY OFFICE BUILDING. lightweight concrete placed on composite metal deck. 5. also illustrated in Figure 5.1 General Description This sevenstory office building of rectangular plan configuration is 177 ft. 3E and 3F.23. Seismic design parameters Analysis of perimeter moment frames Beam and column proportioning Analysis of concentrically braced frames Proportioning of braces Analysis and proportioning of the dual system 529 . except for the first story which is 22 ft.21. 4C and 4D. 5.2.23.21. 2. and 4E and 4F in the EW direction and between columns 3C and 4C. and 3F and 4F in the NS direction (Figure 5. Braced frame elevations are shown in Figure 5. 1.2. LOS ANGELES. The penthouse extends 16 ft above the roof level of the building and covers the area bounded by gridlines C.22). and a dual system with a momentresisting frame at the perimeter and a concentrically braced frame at the core area – as follows: 1. The braced frames are not identical. It is framed in structural steel with 25ft bays in each direction.1. concentrically braced frame. The building is planned for heavy filing systems (350 psf) covering approximately four bays on each floor.2 Alternatives This example features three alternatives – a steel momentresisting frame. Alternative A – Seismic force resistance is provided by special moment frames located on the perimeter of the building (on lines A. and 6 in Figure 5. 5. The building has a penthouse. The elevators and stairs are located in the central three bays. 4 in. F.21).21). 4 in. high. 3D and 4D. 4 in. The story height is 13 ft. above grade. It extends a total of 118 ft. Structural Steel Design 5. Alternative B – Seismic force resistance is provided by four special concentrically braced frames in each direction. They are located in the elevator core walls between columns 3C and 3D. long in the EW direction and 127 ft.2.1. 4. 6. Floors consist of 31/4 in.22 and the braced frames are shown in Figure 5.
= 25.FEMA 451. 530 22'4" .0 in.21 Typical floor framing plan and building section (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 177'4" 1'2" 1'2" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 1'2" 127'4" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" N 1'2" 16'0" PH roof Roof 7 6 6 at 13'4" 5 4 3 2 Figure 5.3048 m). 1.0 ft = 0.4 mm.
23 Concentrically braced frame elevations (1.3048 m).0 ft = 0.0 in. Structural Steel Design 7 at 25'0" 5 at 25'0" N Figure 5.4 mm.0 in.3048 m).0 ft = 0.Chapter 5. 25'0" 16'0" 25'0" 25'0" PH roof Roof 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" PH roof 16'0" PH floor PH floor 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 13'4" 22'4" 102'4" Figure 5. 1. = 25.22 Framing plan for special moment frame (1.4 mm. 22'4" 102'4" 531 . = 25. 1.
3 [1.2.1.2.52 [3.4b [3.2.2]) (Provisions Sec.2 [4.31]) (Provisions Eq.2. 4.4a [3.51 [3. Special Steel Moment Frame (Provisions Table 5.32]) (Provisions Eq.1 [1.2.1. fireproofing.2.5 Alternative B. deck beams.9 SDS = 2/3 SMS = 1.0 Fv = 1.6 Seismic Use Group = I Seismic Design Category = D (Provisions Sec.32]) (Provisions Eq.2.34]) (Provisions Sec.2. lightweight (LW) = 25 psf = 25 psf = 25 psf of wall = 55 psf = 25 psf of wall = 65 psf = 50 psf = 62.31]) R =8 Ω0 = 3 Cd = 5.31]) Ω0 = 2 Cd = 5 R =6 Alternative C. Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (Provisions Table 5.2. 4.33]) (Provisions Map 10 [Figure 3.34]) (Provisions Table 4.2.2.5 SM1 = FvS1 = 0.FEMA 451.2.2. normal weight (NW) fc' = 3 ksi.1 [3.5 S1 =0.2. Dual System of Special Steel Moment Frame Combined with Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (Provisions Table 5.1. M&E) Exterior wall cladding Penthouse floor D Floor L Floor D (deck.2 Basic Requirements 5. 4.3 Materials Concrete for drilled piers Concrete for floors 532 fc' = 5 ksi.5 psf R . 4.5]) (Provisions Map 9 [Figure 3.2.1 Provisions Parameters Site Class = D SS = 1.5 Cd = 6. 4. ceiling.2 Loads Roof live load (L) Penthouse roof dead load (D) Exterior walls of penthouse Roof DL (roofing.31]) =8 Ω0 = 2. insulation.0 SD1 = 2/3 SM1 = 0. fireproofing. girders.2.2 [4.31]) (Provisions Table 4.1.42 [3.6 Fa = 1. 4. M&E. ceiling. girders. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.41 [3. 1.33]) (Provisions Eq.5 SMS = FaSS = 1.1.5 5.2.1.4]) Alternative A.2 [4. partitions) Floor L reductions per the IBC 5. beams.2.1.
4. Alternatively. ρ = 1.3.1 Alternative A (moment frame) 533 .2.2. it will be shown that the first story drift ratio is less than 130 percent of the story above.3 [4.4.3]is taken in which the drift ratio of adjacent stories are compared rather than the stiffness of the stories. NW ASTM A992.2.3.2 Redundancy According to Provisions Sec.3. ρ = 1.2.2. the floor area. plan irregularities would not be expected. Grade B ASTM A36 5. Per 2003 Provisions Sec.579 ft. Ax = 22.0 for Alternative A because it has a perimeter moment frame and is regular. 5. if the structure is regular in plan and there are at least two bays of perimeter framing on each side of the structure in each orthogonal direction. the reliability factor.3 Structural Design Criteria 5. In the 3D analysis. Because the building is symmetrical in plan. 5. Preliminary ρ factors will be determined for use as multipliers on design force effects. (ρ) for a Seismic Design Category D structure is: ρ =2− 20 r max x Ax In a typical story.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].0.4.2.2.2 The ratio of the design story shear resisted by the single element carrying the most shear force in the story to the total story shear is rmax x as defined in Provisions Sec. Grade 50 ASTM A500. The exception of Provisions Sec. There are no reductions in the redundancy factor for dual systems.3.3.1. 5.] 5. it is permitted to use ρ = 1.4. For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D. which is not uncommon for corebraced buildings. The determination of ρ for Alternatives B and C (which are torsionally irregular) requires the evaluation of connection and brace failures per 2003 Provisions Sec. These preliminary ρ factors will be verified by subsequent analyses. special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D must be configured such that the structure satisfies the criteria for ρ = 1.2.3.2. 4.3. Based on the preliminary design.Chapter 5. 5. Structural Steel Design All other concrete Structural steel Wide flange sections HSS Plates fc' = 4 ksi.1 Building Configuration The building is considered vertically regular despite the relatively tall height of the first story. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions.2.3. Analysis reveals that Alternatives B and C are torsionally irregular.3.0 as long as it can be shown that failure of beamtocolumn connections at both ends of a single beam (moment frame system) or failure of an individual brace (braced frame system) would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity.2.0.
FEMA 451. respectively.4. A method for a preliminary estimate is explained in Alternative B. Without dynamic amplification of torsion. the deflection at H is proportional to 0.3 [5.24.2 Alternative B (concentrically braced frame) Again. See Sec. The torsional force applied to either grid line C or F is Vt = MtaKd / ΣKd2.01)(8. In this case.4.3.250Vx + (0.4.0875 Vx. 534 .1625Vx. the direct shear applied to each line of braces is Vx/4 and the torsional shear. Thus.25 for special moment frames.0. 5. is completed.5) = 0. ρ was found to be 1.5)2 + (6)(12. it is a good idea to make a preliminary estimate of ρ. we will know the total shear in each story and the shear being carried by each column at every story. the combined shear at Grid C is 0.0875Vx = 0.5) = 0.046)/2]Vx = 0. 5.0875Vx. The effects of accidental torsion will be estimated as: The torsional moment Mta = (0.250Vx .2. rmax x is taken as the maximum of the sum of the shears in any two adjacent columns divided by the total story shear.0875Vx = 0. and not strength. For the braced frame system. Assuming all frame rigidity factors (K) are equal: Vt = Mta (37. which was done here. although ρ need not be taken larger than 1. there are four bracedbay braces subject to shear at each story.0 in the 2003 Provisions] (There is no limit for other structures. not to displacements.08 in the NS and EW directions. the deflection at A can be seen to be proportional to 0.2.454 + 0.046Vx. which will include the effects of accidental torsion. The average deflection is thus proportional to [(0. drift. will govern the design. At that point.4.5) ⎡(2)(37. Note that ρ is a multiplier that applies only to the force effects (strength of the members and connections).2. [1. 5.05)(175)(Vx) = 8.25Vx .0875Vx)(87.3].25Vx + 0.50 in the design.250Vx. The final calculation of ρ will be deferred until the building frame analysis.75 Vx) = 0.2.1. 5.5)2 ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ = 0.4.75Vx.2.5/37. Provisions Sec.(0. As the torsional deflections will be proportional to the shears and extrapolating to Grids A and H. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For a momentresisting frame. and the combined shear at Grid F is 0.1.3375Vx. Vt = 0.5/37. so the direct shear on each line of braces is equal to Vx/4.)(87.3.2 requires that the configuration be such that ρ shall not exceed 1.11 and 1.454Vx.) Therefore. the following preliminary analysis must be refined by the final calculation. Likewise. These torsional effects are illustrated in Figure 5.01Mta Vt = (0. As will be seen for this momentresisting frame.0875Vx The amplification of torsional shear (Ax) must be considered in accordance with Provisions Sec.
250 + (2. the torsional amplification can be determined per Provisions Eq.29)(0.1 [5.213] as: ⎛ δ Ax = ⎜ max ⎜ 1.225) 22.250) ⎟ ⎠ ⎠ 2 2 The total shear in the NS direction on Gridlines C or F is the direct shear plus the amplified torsional shear equal to: Vx/4 + AxVt = [0.0875)]Vx = 0. From the above estimation of deflections.454 = δmax 0.4.450 = 0. Structural Steel Design 0.338 535 .0 in.Chapter 5.046 0.4 mm).1.450Vx As there are two braces in each braced bay (one in tension and the other in compression): rmax x = 0.2)(0.41 (0.24 Approximate effect of accidental of torsion (1.225 2 and ρ = 2− 20 20 = 2− = 1.250 = δ average 0.579 r max Ax x 0. 5.454 ⎞ = 2.163 0.4.29 ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ ⎝ (1. = 25.2 δ avg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ 0.05 L x Lx Figure 5.3.
we expect the final value to fall below 1.2 [4.2)D E = (1.5 Load Combinations Load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1.3. the preliminary value for ρ is taken as 1.2)D E = (1. 5. The reason for this decision is that. 5.0.0.2.11)QE ± (0. for which we will take ρ = 1.3. As stated above.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] calls for taking only 80 percent of the calculated ρ value when a dual system is used.41 for the NS direction.2 S DS D Recall that SDS = 1.9D + 1.2.3 Orthogonal Load Effects A combination of 100 percent of the seismic forces in one direction with 30 percent seismic forces in orthogonal direction is required for structures in Seismic Design Category D (Provisions Sec.2.6H 536 . ρ values are preliminary estimates to be checked and.4 Structural Component Load Effects The effect of seismic load is be defined by Provisions Eq.71 [4.0E + 1. Finally.00)QE ± (0. This will be verified by analysis later. so torsional amplification will be low.3 Alternative C (dual system) For the dual system. Thus.21] as: E = ρ Q E + 0. 5.3 and 5.2. 5.FEMA 451. use ρ = 1. if necessary. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Therefore.2.2. In a like manner.2.5.2S and 0.2)D E = (1.2.2)D 5. the ρ factor for the EW direction is determined to be ρ = 1. These preliminary values will be verified by the final calculations.2. 5.2.05)QE ± (0. with the dual system.2.0E + 0.2)D E = (1. The combined redundancy of the braced frame combined with the moment frame (despite the fact that the moment frame is more flexible) will reduce ρ from either single system.5L + 0.2]). For Alternative A NS direction EW direction Alternative B NS direction EW direction Alternative.08)QE ± (0.5. Provisions Sec.0.3.2D + 1.41)QE ± (0. the moment frame will substantially reduce the torsion at any story.05.2.00)QE ± (0.3. refined later.4.2)D E = (1. C NS direction EW direction E = (1. 5.0.4.
33 ft)(12 in.4D + QE +0. 5.7D + 1.67) Columns = 14 + (0.1.02hsx.3.7D + 1.7D + 1./ft) = 3.08QE +0. Consider that the maximum story drifts summed to the roof of the sevenstory building.7D + 1.33) . Structural Steel Design To each of these load combinations.41QE 1.41QE +0.4D + 1. The allowable story drift for the first floor is ∆a = (0.20 in.05QE +0.7D + QE 1.51] is ∆a = 0.4D + 1.110)(8)(16) Total Lower roof Roof slab = (0.065)(75)(75) Walls = 60 + (0.11QE +0.4D + 1.055)[(127.5L and 0.5L and 0.5L and 0. The allowable story drift for a typical story is ∆a = (0.4D + QE +0.3.08QE 5.02)(22. substitute E as determined above.11QE 1./ft) = 5. Remember to adjust calculated story drifts by the appropriate Cd factor from Sec.2. 5.05QE 1.(75)2] Penthouse floor = (0.56 in.025)(75)(75) Walls = (0.33)(177.8 [4.2.5L and 0.5L and 0.67)(48) Equipment (allowance for mechanical equipment in penthouse) Total = = = = 932 kips 366 kips 162 kips 68 kips = = = = 141 kips 60 kips 14 kips 215 kips = 217 kips = 1.5L and 0.025)(8)(300) Columns = (0.7D + QE 1.2. showing the maximum additive and minimum negative.745 kips 537 .025)(609)(6.33 ft)(12 in.6 Drift Limits The allowable story drift per Provisions Sec.Chapter 5.2. main roof/penthouse floor) is 24.4D + 1.7 Basic Gravity Loads Penthouse roof Roof slab = (0. (102 ft4 in.36 in.02)(13.2.170)(6. Recall that QE acts both east and west (or north and south): Alternative A NS EW Alternative B NS EW Alternative C NS EW 1. 5.
is conservatively taken as 102. Provisions Eq.044)(1)(1) = 0.2. 5.14 sec where hn.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] is: Cs = 0.11 [5.1.) is determined from Provisions Eq. Use 50 percent of this weight as effective seismic mass.044ISDS = (0.33) Walls = (0. use Cs = 0.) 5.235) = 1.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis The equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure will be used for each alternative building system.12 [5.2.1.4.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0.11 [5.0625)(127.1.1 ELF Analysis for Alternative A.33)(48) Heavy storage = (0.14(8/1) and the minimum value for Cs per Provisions Eq. 538 .4 Analysis 5.745 + 6(2.066 T (R / I ) 1.8 = 1.370 kips Note that this office building has heavy storage in the central bays of 280 psf over five bays. The seismic response coefficient (Cs.33)(177.3 ft.028)(102.22] as: CS = S DS 1 = = 0.285)(13.2.50)(4)(25 x 25)(350) Total Total weight of building = 215 + 1.025)(609)(13.4.044 Therefore.066. The height of the penthouse (the penthouse having a smaller contribution to seismic mass than the main roof or the floors) will be neglected. the height to the main roof.23] indicates that the value for Cs need not exceed: CS = S D1 0. 5.3) 0. The seismic base shear will be determined for each alternative in the following sections.4.125 R / I (8/1) However. 5.1.4.FEMA 451. 5. It is not meant to imply that the authors believe such a step is necessary for ordinary office buildings. (This was done to add seismic mass to this example thereby making it more interesting.4. 5.33) Columns = (0.4.412 kips = 203 kips = 182 kips = 438 kips = 2. Moment Frame First determine the building period (T) per Provisions Eq.2.235 kips = 15. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Typical floor Floor = (0.6 = = 0.
Provisions Eq. 5.Chapter 5. Structural Steel Design Seismic base shear is computed per Provisions Eq.22]): CS = S DS R/ I = 1 = 0.02)(102.370) = 2.4.1 [5. Seismic base shear is computed using Provisions Eq.2.156 T (R / I ) (0.4. 5.167 R / I (6/1) However.64 sec The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is determined from Provisions Eq.6 = = 0.398 kips 5.3 ELF Analysis for Alternative C. the value for Cs need not exceed (Provisions Eq.1.066)(15. Dual System The building period (T) is the same as for the braced frame (Provisions Eq. 5.12 [5.11 [5.2.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0.26]): Ta = C r hnx = (0.044 ISDS = (0.1.044ISDS = (0.1.4. 5.12 [5.75 = 0.1.23] indicates that the value for Cs need not exceed: CS = S D1 0.2.125 (8/1) However.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]): Cs = 0. Braced Frame As above.1 [5. 5.044)(1)(1) = 0.117 T (R / I ) (0. use Cs = 0.02)(102.370) = 1014 kips 5.13 [not applicable in 2003 Provisions] is: Cs = 0.22] as: CS = S DS 1 = = 0.4.117. 5.156.4. 5.75 = 0.4.3) 0.044 Therefore.4.2.1.1. 5.6 = = 0.23]): CS = S D1 0.11 [5.044 Use Cs = 0.044)(1)(1) = 0. 5.11 [5.3)0.4.21] as: V = CSW = (0. 5.11 [5.4.21] as: V = CSW = (0.156)(15. 539 . first find the building period (T) using Provisions Eq.64 sec The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is determined as (Provisions Eq.1.4.64)(8/1) and the minimum value for Cs is (Provisions Eq.1.64)(6/1) and the minimum value for Cs per Provisions Eq.2 ELF Analysis for Alternative B.4.4.
3 [5.2.2.13.32 For Alternatives B and C T = 0.214]: M x = Σ Fi (hi − hx ) i=x n The application of these equations for the three alternative building frames is shown in Tables 5.210] as: Fx = CvxV where (Provisions Eq.4.5 [5. The floor force Fx is calculated using Provisions Eq.07 Using Provisions Eq.1 [5. 5. and 5.117)(15. 5. 5.211]) Cvx = n k wxhx i =1 k ∑ wh i i For Alternative A T = 1.798 kips 5. 5. 5. 5.212].FEMA 451.4.21]): V = CsW = (0.2 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces Provisions Sec.4.4.31 [5. the seismic design shear in any story is computed as: Vx = Σ Fi i=x n The story overturning moment is computed from Provisions Eq.21.4.64 sec.370) = 1. thus k = 1.4.3] provides the procedure for determining the portion of the total seismic load that goes to each floor level.14 secs. 5. 540 .32 [5.22.4 [5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Seismic base shear is computed as (Provisions Eq. thus k = 1.4.
235 2.235 15.235 2.278.281 2. Structural Steel Design Table 5.33 102.870 77.702.089 2.33 89.014 Mx (ftkips) 514 3.11 0.10 0.500 246.33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 35.819 2.00 35.010 41.470 1.23 0.235 2.200 522.0 kip = 4. Braced Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level Level (x) PH Roof Main roof Story 7 Story 6 Story 5 Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 Σ Wx (kips ) 215 1.00 Fx (kips) 67 463 511 430 349 270 192 116 2. 1.830 54.370 hx (ft) 118.33 49.07 0.235 2.21 0.398 Vx (kips) 67 530 1.800 102.05 1.620 65.300 228.520 1.0 ft = 0.08 0.014 Vx (kips) 32 247 476 661 805 909 977 1.130 22. 541 .810 10.00 75.900 272.22 Alternative B.21 0.33 102.67 22.370 hx (ft) 118.33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 117. 1.19 0.900 186.720 124.18 0.235 2.15 0.200 134.000 143.235 2.235 2.04 1.33 49. Moment Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level Level (x) PH Roof Main roof Story 7 Story 6 Story 5 Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 Σ Wx (kips ) 215 1.980 29.800 3.870 93.235 15.745 2.14 0.03 0.500 250.3048 m.500 Cvx 0.45 kN.160 18.33 89.235 2. Table 5.18 0.070 8.700 380.00 75.3048 m.000 1.0 ft = 0.041 1.67 62.400 62.00 Fx (kips) 32 215 229 185 143 104 69 37 1.398 Mx (ftkips) 1.710 41.0 kip = 4.200 785.67 22.235 2.Chapter 5.500 675.45 kN.200 836.000 Cvx 0.03 0.160 177.745 2.21 Alternative A.720 1.235 2.00 35.67 62.
9.370 hx (ft) 118. 3.500 246.235 2.2.2.11 0. 3. 5.270 1.4.2) (Provisions Sec.798 Vx (kips) 50 397 781 1.08 0.3]) 6.711 1.00 Fx (kips) 50 347 383 322 262 202 144 87 1.500 31. and the panelzone shear.) 5.18 0.2 [5.235 2.FEMA 451.3]) (AISC Seismic Sec.6) (AISC Seismic Sec.4.3.567 1. which includes the lower half of the wall above that level and the upper half of the wall below that level.745 2.290 93.19 0.33 102.1. Resisting the overturning moment is the weight of the building above that level combined with the moment resistance of the framing at that level. Alternative A. relative strengths of columns and beams.67 62. 2. Select preliminary member sizes Check deflection and drift Check torsional amplification Check the columnbeam moment ratio rule Check shear requirement at panelzone (Provisions Sec.4.03 0.3 [5.2.33 89.0 ft = 0.2.235 2. Check redundancy 7. Special Moment Frame: 1. (This is illustrated in Figure 9.3.900 272.235 15. The most significant criteria for the design are drift limits.23 Alternative C.000 143.103 1.4.33 49.000 Cvx 0.45 kN.67 22. Check strength Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check.900 186.15 0.365 1. 5.100 16. FEMA 350 Sec.00 35.400 70. Dual System Seismic Forces and Moments by Level Level (x) PH Roof Main roof Story 7 Story 6 Story 5 Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 Σ Wx (kips ) 215 1.3048 m. Be sure to note that the seismic mass at any given level.350 228. 542 .33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 35.000 1.798 Mx (ftkips) 800 6.278.05 1.00 75.24 in the masonry examples. Note that the story overturning moment is applied to the level below the level that receives the story shear. 9.235 2. 5. 5.3. The method for each alternative is summarized below.800 102.235 2. 4.120 133. 1.0 kip = 4.386 62.3 Size Members At this point we are ready to select the sizes of the framing members.21 0.3.4.220 49.8 [5. produces the shear applied at that level and that shear produces the moment which is applied at the top of the next level down.4.1]) (Provisions Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.
25 and in the Y direction (5 bays) in Figure 5.2. 5. 3.4.2. 4. 5.1 Size Members for Alternative A.2.1.] Be careful because certain shapes found in the AISC Manual will not be permitted for Grade 50 steel (but may have been permitted for Grade 36 steel) because of these restrictions. Es. The limiting slenderness ratios in AISC Seismic use the notation λps (“seismically compact”) to differentiate them from λp in AISC LRFD. In addition. 543 .) Beam flange slenderness ratios are limited to 52 / Fy and beam web heighttothickness ratios are limited to 418 / Fy .3]) (Provisions Sec. 3.4b [I81] requires that when the column moment strength to beam moment strength ratio is less than or equal to 2.8 [4. 6. [The terminology for local stability has been revised in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic.3. but Table I81 in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic has also been expanded to include more elements than in the 1997 edition. Select preliminary member sizes Check strength of moment frame for 25 percent of story shear Check strength of braced frames Check drift for total building Check torsional amplification Check redundancy (Provisions Sec.2.2.2 [4.4. 5. Further note that for columns in special steel moment frames such as this example. 3.3.1]) (Provisions Sec. b/t is limited to 7.0.4. (FEMA 350 Sec.1) and beam web stability in accordance with AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81].3.2. 5.26.5. Alternative C.1 [4. the formulas appear different because the elastic modulus.3]) Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check.125. AISC Seismic 9. 2.2. The most significant criteria for this design is torsional amplification. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – The preliminary member sizes are shown for the moment frame in the Xdirection (7 bays) in Figure 5.4. Dual System: 1.4.35. Structural Steel Design Alternative B. 5.3. Special Concentrically Braced Frame: 1.1 [5. Check Local Stability – Check beam flange stability in accordance with AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81] (same as FEMA 350 Sec.3]) Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check. Moment Frame 1. Select preliminary member sizes Check strength Check drift Check torsional amplification Check redundancy (Provisions Sec.2. 5. 5.3]) (Provisions Sec.2 [4. 4.1 [5.1.3. and when Pu/φbPy is less than or equal to 0. 5.2. 2.8 [4. the more stringent λp requirements apply for b/t.Chapter 5. such as in this example. 5.1.4.1]) (Provisions Sec.4.is more restrictive for cases with low Pu /φbPy. Both of these changes are essentially editorial. For Grade 50.4.2. has been added as a variable.3.4.3. the more stringent h/t requirements apply.5.1]) (Provisions Sec. 5.
30 ⎛ 3.6 of this chapter. the first story drift ratio is less than 130 percent of the story above (Provisions Sec.020hsx per Provisions Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples W21x44 W14x145 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W21x44 W 14x145 W14x398 W 14x283 W 14x233 W24x62 W24x62 W24x62 W24x62 W24x62 W24x62 W24x62 W27x94 W14x233 W 14x233 W27x94 W 14x233 W27x94 W 14x233 W27x94 W 14x233 W27x94 W 14x233 W27x94 W 14x233 W 14x257 W14x370 W27x94 W27x102 W27x102 W27x102 W27x102 W27x102 W27x102 W27x102 W30x108 W14x283 W 14x257 W30x108 W 14x257 W30x108 W 14x257 W30x108 W 14x257 W30x108 W 14x257 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W33x141 W14x370 W14x398 W33x141 W14x370 W33x141 W14x370 W33x141 W14x370 W33x141 W14x370 W33x141 W33x141 Figure 5. 544 .14 in. 5.17 in.8 [4.5. ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 160 in.24.2. 2.98 < 1. 5.2. ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 268 in. The building was modeled in 3D using RAMFRAME.8 [4. As indicated below.3. ⎠ Therefore.3 [4. there is no vertical irregularity.1] and Sec.25 SMRF frame in EW direction (penthouse not shown).3. Displacements at the building centroid are used here because the building is not torsionally irregular (see the next paragraph regarding torsional amplification).2.2. ⎠ =⎝ = 0. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.3. 5.2.1].3]): Cd ∆x story 2 Cd ∆x story 3 ⎛ 5. All story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0. 5. Pdelta effects are included.FEMA 451.5. Calculated story drifts and Cd amplification factors are summarized in Table 5.
54 0.14 5. Structural Steel Design W21x44 W14x145 W14x145 W21x44 W14x145 W21x44 W14x145 W21x44 W14x145 W21x44 W14x145 W14x398 W14x283 W14x233 W24x76 W24x76 W24x76 W24x76 W24x76 W27x94 W14x233 W14x233 W27x94 W14x233 W27x94 W14x233 W27x94 W14x233 W27x94 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W30x108 W14x283 W14x283 W30x108 W14x283 W30x108 W14x283 W30x108 W14x283 W30x108 W30x116 W30x116 W30x116 W30x116 W30x116 W33x141 W14x398 W14x398 W33x141 W14x398 W33x141 W14x398 W33x141 W14x398 W33x141 Figure 5. = 25.17 3.59 3.65 2. 62.14 5.24 3.12 ∆ (in.66 2.94 ∆NS (in.5 5.4 mm.93 5.) 0.08 1.5 5. Table 5.76 3.5) Story Drift from 3D Elastic Analysis at Building Centroid Cd (Cd ) x (Elastic Story Drift) Allowable Story Drift δEW (in.20 3.5 5.58 0.94 δNS (in.24 3.58 0.) 5.14 3.20 3.) 2.19 2.5 5.57 0.14 3.5 2.20 3.92 3.19 3.19 3.57 0.58 0.93 ∆EW (in.08 1.19 2.51 0.57 0.36 1.20 3.20 5.50 0.26 SMRF frame in NS direction (penthouse not shown).48 0.20 3.47 0.5.77 3. 545 .64 3.0 in.57 0.) 4.14 2.24 Alternative A (Moment Frame) Story Drifts under Seismic Loads Total Displacement at Building Centroid (86.) ∆NS (in.97 3.Chapter 5.19 2.5 ∆EW (in.53 0.5 5.57 0.) 0.) Roof Floor 7 Floor 6 Floor 5 Floor 4 Floor 3 Floor 2 4.5 5.
1.04 3. this frame is controlled by drift.2δ avg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 If Ax < 1. max (in.0) 4.2.FEMA 451.03 1.4 mm. 9.25. Table 5.00 1.) δNS max (in. = 25. So.42 2.27.0.04 1. Check the ColumnBeam Moment Ratio – Check the columnbeam moment ratio per AISC Seismic Sec. The expected moment strength of the beams were projected from the plastic hinge location to the column centerline per the requirements of AISC Seismic Sec.) δEW /δEW max avg δNS / δNS max avg (175. the moments at the location of the beam flanges is projected to the columnbeam intersection as shown in Figure 5. the plastic hinge was taken to occur at 0.07 1.28.04 1.07 1.4. 8. Check Torsional Amplification – The torsional amplification factor per Provisions Eq.54 4.08 Member Design Considerations – Because Pu/φPn is typically less than 0.6.57 0.89 3. 4. then torsional amplification need not be considered.0) 4.6.2. we will check the columnbeam moment ratio and the panel zone shear.0 in. For purposes of this check. For the columns. 5.08 1. then torsional amplification will not be necessary.75 2. Because none of the ratios for δEW Roof Story 7 Story 6 Story 5 Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 1.04 1.04 1. δmax/δavg exceed 1.23 1.3]). However. 9.2 [8.4.16 1. torsional amplification of forces is not necessary for the moment frame alternative. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3.4 for the columns (re: AISC Seismic Sec.30 2.213] is: ⎛ δ Ax = ⎜ max ⎜ 1.07 1.25 Alternative A Torsional Analysis Torsion Checks The 3D analysis provided the story deflections listed in Table 5.5db from the face or the column in accordance with FEMA 350 for WUFW connections (see below for description of these connections).98 (125.04 1.31 [5.04 1. with both strength and drift requirements satisfied. It is readily seen that if the ratio of δmax/δavg is less that 1.07 1. 546 .39 3. This is illustrated in Figure 5. In sizing columns (and beams) for strength we will satisfy the most severe value from interaction equations.62 1. combinations involving Ω0 factors do not come into play for the special steel moment frames.85 2.07 1.
4 mm.0 ft = 0.2 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ Adjust this by the ratio of average story height to average clear height between beams.27 Projection of expected moment strength of beam (1.1 for Grade 50 steel Mp = Fy Z = (50) (514) = 25.3048 m). ΣM * pb = Σ (1. For the beams. ΣM*pc = (1.0 in.44) = 1. Therefore. ⎜ 50 ksi − ⎟ = 66.13)(66. at gridline G (W14×370 column and W33×141 beam).850) = 75.35 + 128.1R y M p + M v ) where Ry = 1.850 ftkips 109 in. or (268 + 160)/ (251.700 in.Chapter 5.kips Mv = VpSh Sh = Distance from column centerline to plastic hinge = dc/2 + db/2 = 25. Vp = Shear at plastic hinge location 547 . 1. For the columns: ⎛ P ⎞ ΣM * Fyc − uc ⎟ pc = ΣZ c ⎜ ⎜ Ag ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 500 kips ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ 3⎛ ΣM * pc = 2 ⎢ 736 in. Level 2. Structural Steel Design Center line of column Assumed plastic hinge location Center line of column MV Sh M*Pb Center line of beam MP Sh 25'0" Figure 5.300 ftkips. = 25.13.61 in. The columnbeam strength ratio calculation is illustrated for the lower level in the EW direction.
406 klf Therefore.29 Free body diagram bounded by plastic hinges.29) is computed as: Vp = [2M p + (wL′ 2 /2] / L′ Figure 5.700) + ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ 12 ⎠ = 221. ΣM*pb = Σ(1.700) + 5.1RyMp + Mv) = 2[(1.665] = 73.8 in.5(0. hs Mp Vp W Mp L' Plastic hinges where L′ = Distance between plastic hinges = 248.8)2 ⎞ (2)(25.1)(25.665 in.28 Story height and clear height. Vp = ⎛ (1.FEMA 451. The ratio of column moment strengths to beam moment strengths is computed as: 548 .2)(25. w = Factored uniform gravity load along beam w = 1.kips Finally.4D + 0.61) = 5.500 in.5L = 1.4(0.406) (248.5 ft) + 0.8 and Mv = VpSh = (221. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Center line of beam Center line of column hc clear height Center line of beam The shear at the plastic hinge (Figure 5.2 kips = 248.0625 ksf)(12.1)(1.050 ksf)(12. 2M p + wL ′ 2 L′ 2 Vp Figure 5.kips.5 ft) = 1.
900 74.Chapter 5.000 53.700 63.05 > 1.kip = 0.0 73. only these are shown.300 42. Structural Steel Design Ratio = ΣM * 76.900 75. 1.900 pc = = 1.100 ColumnBeam Ratio 1.04 1.700 53.00.16 For levels with the same size column.400 50. All cases are acceptable because the columnbeam moment ratios are all greater than 1.0 in.113 kNm.600 48.06 1.kip = 0. the one with the larger beam size will govern.700 48.500 ColumnBeam Ratio 1.300 ΣM*pb (in.24 for the EW direction (sevenbay) frame and in Table 5.24 ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for SevenBay Frame (NS Direction) Story 7 5 3 2 Member column W14×145 beam W24×62 column W14×233 beam W27×102 column W14×257 beam W30×108 column W14×370 beam W33×141 ΣM*pc (in.11 1.02 For levels with the same size column.100 85.900 ΣM*pb (in. Check Panel Zone – The Provisions defers to AISC Seismic for the panel zone shear calculation.36 1.25 ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for FiveBay Frame (NS Direction) Story 7 5 3 2 Member column W14×145 beam W24×76 column W14×233 beam W30×108 column W14×283 beam W30×116 column W14×398 beam W33×141 ΣM*pc (in.kips) 29. Because the two methods for calculating panel zone shear (AISC Seismic and FEMA 350) differ.kips) 21. the one with the larger beam size will govern.500 ΣM * pb OK The columnbeam strength ratio for all the other stories is determined in a similar manner. Table 5.17 1.113 kNm.000 40. only these are shown. both are illustrated below.25 for the NS direction (fivebay) frame.15 1.kips) 29. They are summarized in Table 5.800 73. 5.0 in.kips) 27. 1. 549 . Table 5.
210 Illustration of AISC Seismic vs. In its simplest form.210). dc 2 x L' x dc 2 Column center line Column center line Mf M pe M pe lc M f = Expected moment at plastic hinge projected to face of column (AISC Seismic method) dc 2 dc 2 Mf Column center line x L' x Column center line Mc M pr M pr L Mc = Expected moment at plastic hinge projected to column centerline (FEMA 350 method) Mc Figure 5. FEMA 350 methods for panel zone shear. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Seismic Method Check the shear requirement at the panel zone in accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.FEMA 451.3. 550 . 9. the shear in the panel zone (Ru) is Ru = Σ Mf db − t fb Mf is the moment at the column face determined by projecting the expected moment at the plastic hinge points to the column faces (see Figure 5. This depends on the style of connection. The factored shear Ru is determined from the flexural strength of the beams connected to the column.
92)(t p ) ⎦ ⎥ Rv = 537..475)(2. 91: Rv = 0. E. Structural Steel Design For a column with equal beams of equal spans framing into opposite faces (such as on Grids C. 537.98 = 1.1 ⎥ = 64.92)(t p ) ⎢1 + ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ (3)(16.1 − (2)(16.91 in. Thus the frame Ru = 1. From analysis.96 The shear transmitted to the joint from the story above opposes the direction of Ru and may be used to reduce the demand. beam: W33×141) is from AISC Seismic Eq. only one beam frames into the column. the above relationship needs to be modified accordingly.883 kips. the effect of gravity loads offset. 4.056 in.30 − 0. For Grids 1 and 6.655 in.6t p + 315 The required total (web plus doubler plate) thickness is determined by: Rv = φRu Therefore. at Grids A and H.0)(1883) and tp = 2. at Grids B and G. 2. Use a plate thickness of 11/4 in. the required doubler plate thickness is 1. Because the column web thickness is 1. and ΣM f = 2Ry Fy Zx ⎢ ⎡ lc ⎤ ⎥ − l ⎣ c 2x ⎦ where lc = the clear span and x = distance from column face to plastic hinge location. the distance x is different on one side.1)(50)(514) ⎢ ⎡ ⎤ 282.6Fy dct p ⎢1 + ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ 2 ⎤ 3bcf tcf ⎥ dbd ct p ⎦ ⎥ Rv = (0. D. there is no moment because the beams are pinconnected to the corner columns.Chapter 5.586 ⎤ ⎥ tp ⎦ ⎥ Rv = 537.660)2 ⎤ ⎥ (33. F. For all these cases. The panel zone shear calculation for Story 2 of the frame in the EW direction at Grid F (column: W14×370.26 in.6t p ⎢1 + 0. and 5).6)(50)(17.981 kips 33. For W33×141 beams framing into each side of a W14×370 column (such as Level 2 at Grid F): ΣM f = (2)(1.981 . 3.30)(17.55) ⎦ Ru = 64.kips ⎣ 282.6tp + 315 = (1. 551 . this is 98 kips at this location. 056 = 1.
. where h is the average story height.” to determine the required total panel zone thickness (t): CyM c t= ∑ (0.210. 3. 34: ⎡h − d ⎤ Cy = 1 Z Cpr be Sb Cpr.2.2. 32: Cpr = (Fy + Fu ) 2Fy For the case of a W33×141 beam and W14×370 column (same as used for the above AISC Seismic method). one on each side of the column web. the minimum individual thickness as limited by local buckling is: t ≥ (d z + wz )/90 t≥ (31.49 in.2.4) and is computed from FEMA 350 Eq. 3.) The term ⎢ is an adjustment similar to reducing Ru ⎣ h ⎥ ⎦ by the direct shear in the column. two doubler plates (each of half the required thickness) may be used. In the case of thick doubler plates. the detailing of connections that may be attached to the (thinner) doubler plate on the side of the weld needs to be carefully reviewed for secondary effects such as undesirable outofplane bending or prying.6) = 0. values for the variables are: 552 . buckling also must be checked using AISC Seismic Eq. If necessary. For this case.FEMA 451.49 in. to avoid thick welds. Also. (This b difference is illustrated in Figure 5. Cy is a factor that adjusts the force on the panel down to the level at which the beam begins to yield in flexure (see FEMA 350 Sec.7) and is computed from FEMA 350 Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Both the column web thickness and the doubler plate thickness are checked for shear buckling during inelastic deformations by AISC Seismic Eq. the doubler plate may be plugwelded to the column web as indicated by AISC Seismic Commentary Figure C9. whereas AISC Seismic uses the expected beam moment projected to the face of the column flange.) The term Mc refers to the expected beam moment projected to the centerline of the column. a factor accounting for the peak connection strength. 37 is an inadvertent typographical error.38 +12. 3. 92.3. 90 Because both the column web thickness and the doubler plate thicknesses are greater than 0. plug welding of the doubler plate to the column web is not necessary.3.2. 92 as doubler plate buckling would be a greater concern.6) F ⎡ h − db ⎤ ⎢ h ⎦ ⎥ ⎣ R yc d c ( d b − t fb ) yc (Please note the Σ. For such cases. among others (see FEMA 350 Sec.9)(0. see FEMA 350 Sec. “Panel Zone Strength. includes the effects of strain hardening and local restraint. its omission from FEMA 350 Eq. FEMA 350 Method For the FEMA 350 method.
61 in.92)(33.924) + ⎜ ⎟⎥ (12)(2) ⎢ ⎥ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎣ Vp = (20.92/2 + 25. L′ = 25 ft . Check Redundancy – Return to the calculation of rx for the moment frame.1)(17.93 in.9)(0.Chapter 5. ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ The required doubler plate thickness is equal to t .916 in. Span between plastic hinges.6)(50)(1. 70 percent of the shear in that column may be used in the column shear summation (Figures 5.2(25.30 − 0.27 in. the doubler plate thickness for 1.2) Cpr 448 Sb Therefore.kips Cy = 1 1 = = 0. 5.73)2 ⎞⎤ ⎢(2)(33.92/2 + 33. For columns common to two bays with moment resisting connections on opposite sides of the column at the level under consideration.2. = 1. Structural Steel Design Distance from column centerline to plastic hinge.916) ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ (214) ⎣ ⎦ ⎥ t = 2⎢ ⎢ (0.266)(20.93 in. Thus.73)(40. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ (214) − (33.2)(1. rmax x is taken as the maximum of the sum of the shears in any two adjacent columns in the plane of a moment frame divided by the story shear.1.27 in.212).4. by FEMA 350 is close to the thickness of 1.1)(514)(50) = 33. 6.73)(12) = 273 kips Mc = Mpr + Vp(x + dc/2) (FEMA 350 Figure 34) Mc = 33.924 in. 553 .924 + (273)(17.96) ⎥ = 2. Figure 34) ⎡ ⎛ wL′ 2 ⎞ ⎤ 2 M + ⎢ pr ⎜ 2 ⎟⎥ ⎝ ⎠⎦ Vp = ⎣ L' ⎡ ⎛ (1.655 in.30/2 = 25. In accordance with Provisions Sec.61/2) = 40.61 in.30) ⎤ (0. .73 514 Zbe (1.73 ft Mpr = CprRyZeFy (FEMA 350 Figure 34) Mpr = (1.tcw = 2.kips (FEMA 350.211 and 5.26 by AISC Seismic.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].)/12 = 20. Sh = dc/2 + db/2 = 17.
7)(113. 5.160. + (0.160 21.139 r x = (1. rx was computed for every column pair at every level in both directions.1 kips 70. The maximum value of rmax x in the NS direction is 0.1) + (0.3) = 0. (If ρ > 1. Level 2) (1.0 kip = 4.2) = 0.0)(14.1 kips Figure 5.7)(70.105 1.1 kips rx = (0.5. and ρ is now determined using Provisions Eq.7 kips 70.4.212 Column shears for NS direction (partial elevation.15.FEMA 451.45 kN).45 kN). The shear carried by each column comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.25 for special moment frames per the exception in the Provisions Sec.3) 977 56.) 554 .1) = 0. For this example.0 kip = 4.1 kips 113.2 kips 76.7) + (0.2 kips 76. Selected results are illustrated in the figures.1 kips 110.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: ρ = 2− 20 rmaxx Ax 20 = 1.3 kips 110.25.2.014 rx = (1. which includes the effect of accidental torsion.7)(76.3 kips 56. then the framing would have to be reconfigured until ρ < 1.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].0)(56.25.063 1. Level 3) (1.1) 977 + (0.2.875 ft2 ρ = 2− Because 1.4.7)(76. use ρ =1.1 kips 113.7 kips 14.15 0.014 Figure 5.7)(113.7)(110.15 is less than the limit of 1.211 Column shears for EW direction (partial elevation.160 r x = (0.7 kips 76. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 14.7 kips 76.7) = 0.
The procedure outlined above for the FEMA 350 method for panel zone shear is repeated here to determine Sh. Mc . All other beamtocolumn connections in the moment frame will be similar. First review FEMA 350 Table 33 for prequalification data.00. which is less than 1.2 notes that the WUFW connection can perform reliably provided all the limitations are met and the quality assurance requirements are satisfied. Connection Design – One beamtocolumn connection for the momentresisting frame is now designed to illustrate the FEMA 350 method for a prequalified connection.1 for this application is reviewed below.) The connection. The welded unreinforced flangeswelded web (WUFW) connection is selected because it is prequalified for special moment frames with members of the size used in this example. 3.5. shown in Figure 5. here the panel zone strength requirement is from FEMA 350.1: tcf < 0.00. (However. Mpr. While the discussion of the design procedure below considers design requirements. Continuity plates are required in accordance with FEMA 350 Sec. rmax x = 0.213 illustrates the forces at the beamtocolumn connection.5.213 Forces at beam/column connection. moment) obtained from analysis must be increased by the ρ factors. Our case of a W36×135 beam connected to a W14×398 column meets all of these. FEMA 350 Sec. is based on the general design shown in FEMA 350 Figure 38. 3.3.Chapter 5. drift controls the design in this example.214. Vp.4 1.2. 3. so use ρ = 1. (Of course. shear. Drift and deflections are not subject to the ρ factor.105 and ρ = 0. Sh Sh M pr Vp M pr Vp Figure 5. Figure 5. Cy and the required panel zone thickness. The design procedure outlined in FEMA 350 Sec.8bf t f FybRyb FycRyc 555 .71. Structural Steel Design In the EW direction. remember that the quality assurance requirements are a vital part of the total requirements and must be enforced. All design force effects (axial force. not the AISC Seismic method.3.) 7.
At a minimum.950)(0.215 Figure 5. required (50)(1.8)(11.0 in. thickness. Provide continuity plates of 7/8 in. 1 2" R See Figure 5. Second level. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples tcf < 0. continuity plates are not necessary at this connection because the column flange is so thick. 556 .79 in.845 in. But we will provide them anyway to illustrate continuity plates in the example. > actual OK Therefore.1) = 1.65 in.4 (1.FEMA 451. NSdirection (1.214 WUFW connection.1) tcf = 2. continuity plates should be at least as thick as the beam flanges. = 25. which is thicker than the beam flange of 0.790) (50)(1.4 mm).
9: b t Width of stiffener + cw ≥ bf 2 3 1. = 25. 557 . > 0. Structural Steel Design Check AISC LRFD K1.8" 6 Erection bolt PP 4 Shear tab: 5 " x 3" 8 Figure 5. > 3.875 in.88 in.0 in.950 ⎛ ⎜5 + ⎟ = 5.4 mm).395 in.79 2 OK 0.98 in.Chapter 5. = tstiffener > wstiffener Fy 95 1 1" Backing bar 1 1" 2 5 16 3 4" 3 8" 2" 238" R 3 5 1 3 4" .77 ⎞ 11.215 WUFW weld detail (1. = 2 3 ⎝ ⎠ OK tstiffener ≥ bf 2 0.
2. 3.875 in. Fillet weld shear tab to beam web.215 (indicated by circles in the figure) are: 1. See also FEMA 350 Figure 38 for more elaboration on the welds. which is the case in this example) must satisfy: 558 . Provide nonfusible weld tabs. 5. Full depth partial penetration weld from far side. so kl/r is assumed to be acceptable and is not examined in this example. 2. Wide flange members and channels must comply with the widthtothickness ratios contained in AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81]. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. These are shop welds of shear tab to column. 4.215 conform to the requirements of FEMA 350 for a WUFW connection in a special moment frame. Weld size shall be equal to thickness of shear tab minus 1/16 in. CJP groove weld at top and bottom flanges. = (5) ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 50 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ 95 ⎠ OK The details shown in Figures 5. CJP groove weld full length between weld access holes.2 Size Members for Alternative B.FEMA 451. Braced Frame 1.216 and in the NS direction (five bays) in Figure 5. Weld shall extend over the top and bottom third of the shear tab height and extend across the top and bottom of the shear tab. made with backing bar. Notes for Figure 5. backgouge. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – The preliminary member sizes are shown for the braced frame in the EW direction (seven bays) in Figure 5. 5. check slenderness and widthtothickness ratios – the geometrical requirements for local stability.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 0.3.217. Then fillet weld from near side. and add fillet weld. > 0. which shall be removed after welding. bracing members must satisfy kl 1000 1000 ≤ = = 141 r Fy 50 The columns are all relatively heavy shapes. Flanges must satisfy: b 52 52 ≤ = = 7.214 and 5. 13. Root opening between beam web and column prior to starting weld 5.35 2t Fy 50 Webs in combined flexural and axial compression (where Pu/φbPy < 0.37 in.2.4.125. 6. Check Strength – First. The arrangement is dictated by architectural considerations regarding doorways into the stairwells. Remove backing bar. Grind end of weld smooth at weld access holes.
54 ⎥ tw φb Py ⎦ Fy ⎣ ⎢ ⎥ Rectangular HSS members must satisfy: b 110 110 ≤ = = 16.216 Braced frame in EW direction.217 Braced frame in NS direction. Structural Steel Design PH W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 PH W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 R W14x109 HS 1 x4 S4x 4x4 4x 1 S 4 HS W14x34 x x8 S8 HS HS S8 x8 x1 2 HS 1 x4 S4x 4x4 4x 1 S 4 HS W14x34 HS S8 x8 x1 x x8 S8 HS 2 R W14x109 HS 14 S4x 4x 4x 1 S4x S 4 H W14x38 W14x109 W14x109 W14x109 7 W14x34 HS S8 x8 x1 x x8 S8 HS 2 W14x34 x x8 S8 HS HS S8 x8 x1 2 7 HS 5 8 S10 10x x10 10x x5 S S 8 H W14x38 6 W14x211 W14x38 x 10 0x S1 HS HS S1 0x 10 x5 8 W14x38 HS S1 0x 10 x5 x 10 0x S1 HS 6 8 HS 5 8 S10 10x x10 10x x5 S 8 HS W14x38 W14x211 W14x211 W14x211 W14x211 5 W14x43 HS S1 0x 10 x5 x 10 0x S1 HS 8 W14x43 x 10 0x S1 HS HS S1 0x 10 x5 8 5 HS 5 S12 x 8 x12 x12 2 1 x5 S S 8 H W14x38 4 W14x455 W14x48 HS S1 2x 12 x5 W14x48 W14x455 W14x455 W14x455 S1 2x 12 x5 HS 8 4 W14x455 HS 5 S12 x 8 x12 x12 2 1 x5 S S 8 H W14x38 8 3 HS W14x53 S1 2x 12 x5 8 W14x53 HS S1 2x 12 x5 8 3 x 12 2x S1 5 HS x 8 S12 x12 x12 2 1 S x5 S H 8 W14x38 HS 2 W14x61 HS 8 W14x61 2 5 8 HS S12 12x x12 12x S x5 HS 8 W14x38 HS 2x 5 HS W14x665 W14x665 W14x665 W14x665 S1 2x1 W14x665 x 12 2x 1 S HS 5 8 HS S1 2x 12 x5 8 x 12 2x 1 S HS 5 8 HS S1 2x 12 x5 8 Figure 5.2 t Fy 46 559 W14x665 HS W14x455 HS W14x211 W14x109 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 8 1 2 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 x 12 2x S1 x 12 2x S1 5 8 x 12 2x S1 5 8 5 8 2x 2x1 S1 5 8 . Figure 5.Chapter 5. hc 520 ⎡ Pu ⎤ ≤ ⎢1 − 1.
40 in. This is summarized in Table 5.2 t 0. and it would have to be specified for this tube to meet the b/t limit. 3. OK HSS12×12×5/8: kl = r ⎛ 28.6 < 7. 560 .5]. depends on a corner radius slightly larger than 2t.62 OK b 9. which affects the dimension b. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Selected members are checked below: W14×38: b/2t = 6.35.8 [4.17 < 16. The building was modeled in 3D using RAMFRAME. Maximum displacements at the building corners are used here because the building is torsionally irregular.2.8 < 141 4. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.4 > 7. which is barely significant for this braced frame. Calculated story displacements are used to determine Ax. 5.35 W14×34: b/2t = 7. the torsional amplification factor.33 × 12 ⎞ (1) ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ ⎠ = 36.FEMA 451.26. not nominal. 9.. but is acceptable for this example. Pdelta effects are included. Displacements at the building centroid are also calculated because these will be the average between the maximum at one corner and the minimum at the diagonally opposite corner. Note that the W14×34 is at the penthouse roof. Use of the displacements at the centroid as the average displacements is valid for a symmetrical building.581 OK Also note that t for the HSS is actual.4 = = 16. The value of b used here. The corner radius of HSS varies somewhat.
30 1.32 1.33 1.70 19.71 7.95 16. See Sec.2 and 9. Structural Steel Design Table 5.70 1.75 1.0 in.47 1.60 EW 7. The results are summarized in Table 5.03 0.2. One reason for this is that the computed period of vibration would lengthen.05 L)*** (ft) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. The Provisions does not require an arbitrary offset for center of mass in dynamic analysis nor is it common practice to do so.96 1.30 0.89 0.57 * These values are taken directly from the analysis.08 1.06 2.23 2 Amplified Eccentricity = Ax(0. However.14 2.89 NS 15.41] indicates that an ELF analysis is “not permitted” for torsionally irregular structures. Check Torsional Amplification – A second RAMFRAME 3D analysis was made.44 1.62 1.) δ max ** δ avg Torsional Amplification Factor = ⎛ δ ⎞ Ax = ⎜ max ⎟ ⎝ 1.26 Alternative B Amplification of Accidental Torsion Average Elastic Displacement = Displacement at Building Centroid (in. The building is torsionally irregular in plan.48 1.69 1.82 1.27.34 1. 1.95 0.79 1.) Maximum Elastic Displacement at Building Corner* (in. which. ** Amplification of accidental torsion is required because this term is greater than 1.2δ avg ⎠ EW 1.2 (Provisions Table 5. 561 .67 1.25 1.64 1.28 1. 1.13 1.05L for accidental torsion. Provisions Table 5.86 0.2 Item 1a [4.18 1.2 1.08 7.99 18.3 of this volume of design examples for a more detailed examination of this issue.72 1.15 1.99 2.20 7. Item 1a]).0 ft = 0. Accidental torsion is not amplified here.3.15 1.86 17.3048 m.41 17.35 NS 1. These will be used in the next round of analysis.34 EW 3.26 NS 1.93 1. given rigid diaphragms and symmetry about both axes.32.37 2. in turn.23 1. *** The initial eccentricities of 0. using the amplified eccentricity for accidental torsion instead of merely 0.27 0.59 0.Chapter 5.79 EW 1.16 0.65 1.39 NS 2.53 NS 3. 9. would reduce the overall seismic demand.29 1.93 2.52 7.2.1 [4.5.37 7.04 1.80 7.38 2.05 in the EW and NS directions are multiplied by Ax to determine the amplified eccentricities.62 2. = 25.41 16.66 0. a modal analysis will not give any difference in results than an ELF analysis insofar as accidental torsion is concerned unless one arbitrarily offsets the center of mass.4 mm.03 2. 4.88 1.
19 3.2.50 in.020hsx in accordance with Provisions Sec. it would more properly be called torsional flexibility) of amplifying the accidental torsion and checking the drift limits at the corners combine to create a demand for substantially more stiffness in the structure. rmax x for braced frames is taken as the lateral force component in the most heavily loaded brace element divided by the story shear (Figure 5.25 1. the elastic displacements at the main roof are: At the centroid = 2.223 below Level 7 in the NSdirection. Even though many braced frames are controlled by strength.2. 5.20 3.45 0.36 ∆EW 2.49 0.10 2. Check Redundancy – Now return to the calculation of rx for the braced frame.85 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cd (Cd) × (Elastic Story Drift) (in.37 in. For the final structure.) ∆ 3. This a good point to reflect on the impact of accidental torsion and its amplification on the design of this corebraced structure.2. 5.) ∆EW 0.4 mm All story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0. A value for rx was determined for every brace element at every level in both directions.38 0.8 [4.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].45 0.55 ∆NS 0.3.218).64 0. The maximum rx was found to be 0.14 2.59 0.61 0.75 3.95 3.63 0.20 3.77 1.43 0.98 1.93 4.55 NS 4.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 3. The lateral component carried by each brace element comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.32 0.75 ∆NS 2.08 in.85 Elastic Story Drift at Location of Max. Elastic Displacement at Building Corners (in. 5.89 2.16 3.20 3.0 in.FEMA 451. Selected results are illustrated in the figures. 5.50 3. At the corner with amplified accidental torsion = 4.23 1. The sizes of members were increased substantially to bring the drift within the limits (note how close the NS direction drifts are).55 0.07 2.42 0.4.27 2.72 2.27 Alternative B Story Drifts under Seismic Load Max. this is an example of how the Provisions places significant stiffness demands on some braced structures. which includes the effect of amplified accidental torsion.51] and the allowable deflections for this building from Sec.46 2. Displacement (at corners) (in.93 0.24 1. 5. = 25.20 5.20 3.32 2.40 0. Per Provisions Sec. The reliability factor (ρ) is now determined using Provisions Eq.) Allowable Story Drift (in.6 above.05 1.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5. The two effects of torsional irregularity (in this case.20 3.64 0.2.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: 562 .68 2.18 3. At the corner with accidental torsion = 3.
V and inverted V (chevron) configurations are an exception to this.3.216).) If the chevron bay were not at the top story.2. all design force effects (axial forces.39.223 21.4 should be checked although. 13. Structural Steel Design ρ = 2− 20 r max x A x = 2− 20 0. drift controls because of amplified accidental torsion. certain limitations of AISC Seismic do not apply because the beam is at the top story of a building. the beam must be able to 563 . 4. AISC Seismic Sec. Beams in many configurations of braced frames have small moments and forces. The requirements of AISC Seismic Sec. although Ω0 factors do not apply to braces in a SCBF. There is a panel of chevron bracing at the top story of one of the braced frames (Figure 5. Similarly.) [See Sec.23 and 4.2 kips 7 530 kips = story shear rx = 118. 13 and columns also need to satisfy AISC Seismic Sec.1). When Pu/φPn is greater than 0. or overstrength.4a. 13.7 [4. for this building.4. which requires that both the compression brace and the tension brace share the force at each level (as opposed to the “tension only” braces of Example 5. 5.216 is a minor penthouse that is not considered to be a story. Braced Frame Member Design Considerations – The design of members in the special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) needs to satisfy AISC Seismic Sec.2.223 Figure 5. for the EWdirection.192 and 1. 8. Basically.39 In the NS direction.2]).] 118.2 also stipulates a kl/r limitation and local buckling (widththickness) ratio limits.2c.2 530 = 0.45 kN). (However drift controls the design for this problem.0 kip = 4. the required axial strength needs to be determined from AISC Seismic Eq. Note in particular AISC Seismic Sec.2. The load combination for the beam is modified using a Qb factor defined in AISC Seismic Sec. moments) obtained from analysis must be increased by the ρ factor of 1. 13.Chapter 5. Note that ρ is not used where Ω0 is used (see Provisions Sec. Drift and deflection are not subject to the ρ factor. (The level above in Figure 5.875 ft 2 = 1.218 Lateral force component in braces for NS direction – partial elevation.2. 13. 5. Bracing members have special requirements as well. 6. 41 and 42 [Provisions Eq.2 for a discussion of the significant changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions. in this case. the size of the braces must be known in order to design the beam.26. factors. These equations are for load combinations that include the Ω0. which is the case here. shears.24]. as is the predominant case here. rmax x and ρ are found to be 0. respectively. Moments are generally small for the braced frame so load combinations with Ω0 can control column size for strength considerations but. Level 7 (1.
0 ft = 0. = 25. but the tension brace has not yet yielded). 1.FEMA 451.e.) p (T y W14x211 Pl as tic 2'7" hi ng ez on e= 8 Plate: 118" (A36) 7'11" 2'31 2" W14x38 6 2'1 2" Le ff 3'1" 2x S1 HS Figure 5. 2t x5 HS S 10 x 10 30° . tic as Pl ng hi ez e on = 2t 12 x 5 8 564 ..219 illustrates a typical connection design at a column per AISC Seismic Sec. First. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples carry a concentrated load equal to the difference in vertical force between the postbuckling strength of the compression brace and the yield strength of the tension brace (i.4 mm. Connection Design – Figure 5.3048 m). The bracing members satisfy these checks. 13.219 Bracing connection detail (1. The prescribed load effect is to use 0. 7. check the slenderness and widthtothickness ratios (see above).3φcPn for the compression brace and Py for the tension brace in order to determine a design vertical force to be applied to the beam. the compression brace has buckled.0 in.
677 kips > 1.993 kips > 1. For an HSS12×12×5/8.933 kips is less than 2.7 in.5 30 30° HS W14x211 x 12 2x S1 5 8 Figure 5.) = 1.90)(36 ksi)(1.3048 m). design the connections.639 kips Since 1. the nominal axial tensile strength is computed using AISC Seismic Sec. 1. See Figure 5.4 in. × 54. yielding (ductile behavior) governs over fracture.7 in.677 kips.639 kips The area of the gusset is determined using the plate thickness and the Whitmore section for effective width.3a: Pn = RyFyAg = (1.220 for the determination of this dimension. = 25. OK 565 .2) = 1.) = 2.0 in. 13.125 in.3)(46 ksi)(27. " 37 " 12 For tension yielding of the gusset plate: φTn = φFyAg = (0.125 in.4 mm. × 54.Chapter 5.220 Whitmore section (1.0 ft = 0. Structural Steel Design Next. 54 3 4" 30 ° " .75)(58 ksi )(1.639 kips For fracture in the net section: OK φTn = φFuAn = (0. The required strength of the connection is to be the nominal axial tensile strength of the bracing member.
3c. Inelastic rotation associated with brace postbuckling deformations: The gusset plate is detailed such that it can form a plastic hinge over a distance of 2t (where t = thickness of the gusset plate) from the end of the brace.151 kips Now.151 kips/54.04 kips/(1 in. See also AISC Seismic C13. fillet weld.60)π 29. With such a plastic hinge. E24: λc = kl rπ Fy E = (1)(169) 46 = 0. For the brace being considered. Try a plate thickness of 1. using a design compressive load from the brace of 1. Proper detailing is imperative so that tears or fractures in the steel do not initiate during the cyclic loading. the design of brace connections need not consider flexure if the connections meet the following criteria: a.)(31. there will be alternating cycles of compression to tension in a single bracing member and its connections.466 (4. The design strength for a fillet weld per AISC LRFD Table J2. b. Therefore. The demand in each weld will be 1.000 Since λc < 1.6)(70 ksi) = 31. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For a tube slotted to fit over a connection plate. E22: Fcr = (0. 13. fa = P/A = 21. (0. the compression brace may buckle outofplane when the tension braces are loaded. First. The connection design strength must be at least equal to the nominal compressive strength of the brace.5 is: φFw = φ(0.25 in.5 in.658λc ) Fy = (0. By this method.× 1. determine the buckling capacity of the gusset plate using the Whitmore section method. there will be four welds.) = 21.639 kips/4 = 410 kips.7 ksi 566 .0 ksi 2 Pcr = AgFcr = (27.3c. Leff = 169 in.4)(42.FEMA 451.151 kips.) = 18.217 )(46) = 42. determine the nominal compressive strength of the brace member. illustrated by Figure 5.125 in. the connection will be designed in accordance with these criteria.6Fexx) = (0.0) = 1.75)(0.04 kips/in.220.6580.5.707)(0. unrestrained by any other structural member. the compressive force per unit length of gusset plate is (1.5 ksi) In accordance with the exception of AISC Seismic Sec. The gusset plate must be permitted to flex about this hinge. use AISC LRFD Eq.7 in. The effective brace length (Leff) is the distance between the plastic hinges on the gusset plates at each end of the brace member. and the nominal compressive strength is determined using AISC LRFD Eq. the required length of weld is determined to be: Lw = 410 kips = 37 in.5 ksi For a 1/2 in. Remember that during the earthquake.
Structural Steel Design The gusset plate is modeled as a 1 in.2) = 1. This design is considered satisfactory.8)(30.662 kips > 1. but this is clearly impossible. the effective width is shown in Figure 5.9375 in.5) 36 = 0.182 kips Fracture = FuAn =(58 ksi)(24. For tension yielding of the gusset plate: φTn = φFyAg = (0.125 in. The effective length for buckling of this plate will be k[12" + (2)(2t + weld length)].75 x 1.45 in.4 ksi > 18.) = 2.658λc ) Fy = (0.7 in.000 Since λc < 1.7 ksi OK Now consider the bracetobrace connection shown in Figure 5. and the net section. check the reduced section of thetube.406 kips OK OK AISC Seismic 13.231 kips.406 = 1.7 in.639 kips Since 1. OK For compression loads. the compression length is much less.4 ksi φFcr = 27. Again. the plate must be detailed to develop a plastic hinge over a distance of 2t from the end of the brace.) = 1.221.639 kips).662 kips is less than 2. E22: Fcr = (0. even if the net area equaled the gross area.2 in.7 . plate. deep rectangular section. pinned at one end (the plastic hinge) and fixed at the other end where welded to column (see Whitmore section diagram).581 × 1. wide slot for the gusset plate (at the column).25 in.9375 in. and the Whitmore section is the same. which has a 1 1/4 in.257 )(36) = 32. wide by 1. 567 .6580. use AISC LRFD Eq.7 in. the effective length is 0.3 ksi 2 φFcr = (0.25 in.54)π 29.51 (0.220.85)(32.3b could be used to require design fracture strength (0.2 Compare yield in the gross section with fracture in the net section: Yield = FyAg =(46 ksi)(25. so a thinner plate may be adequate.25 × 2) = 1. Try a 15/16 in. The reduction in HSS12×12×5/8 section due to the slot is (0. The gusset plate will experience the same tension force as the plate above. Compression in the plate over this effective length is acceptable by inspection and will not be computed here. × 54. The effective length factor (k) for this “column” is 0. Next.65[12 + (2)(2 × 15/16 + 5/16)] = 9. However.1. E24: λc = kl rπ Fy E = (0.75)(58 ksi)(0.2.231 kips > 1. For this case.Chapter 5.8.45) = 24.639 kips For fracture in the net section: OK φTn = φFyAg = (0.3) = 27. Anet = (25. yielding (ductile behavior) governs over fracture. Per AISC LRFD Eq. × 54.055 kips) to exceed probable tensile yield (1.90)(36 ksi)(0.5.2) = 1.
doubler plates will still be necessary. 5. 2.4 mm). 5. it may be prudent to defer some of the checks until the design has progressed a bit further. The methodology for the analysis and these checks is covered in Sec. Preliminary sizes for the perimeter moment frames are shown in Figures 5.1 [4. drift. however. However. In accordance with the building systems listed in Provisions Table 5. panel zone shear.2. and redundancy) and all must be checked.2. It is designed for strength using 25 percent of the design lateral forces. 5. so they will not be repeated here.223. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 2x 5 HS S1 2 x1 Le ff 8 W14x38 2 S1 HS x1 2x 5 8 Pl zo asti ne c h = ing 2t + e 5 16 " Figure 5. All the design requirements for special moment frames still apply (flange and web widthtothickness ratios.68 568 .2.1.2. For some buildings this may present an opportunity to design the columns without doubler plates because the strength requirement is only 25 percent of the total. for the members used in this example. columnbeam moment ratio.FEMA 451. This is a good place to start a design. but feasible.3.0 in.1]). a dual system consisting of special moment frames at the perimeter and special concentrically braced frames at the core will be used.31].3 Size Members for Alternative C.221 Bracetobrace connection (1.2. The sequence of column sizes that is shown is W 14×132 .4.82 .4. The increase in column size to avoid doubler plates is substantial. = 25.3. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – A dual system is a combination of a momentresisting frame with either a shear wall or a braced frame.222 and 5.3. Check Strength of Moment Frame – The moment frame is required to have sufficient strength to resist 25 percent of the design forces by itself (Provisions Sec. Dual System 1.2 [4.
3] apply to these columns.2 [8.4 for a few of the columns when analyzed without the braced frame so the overstrength requirements of AISC Seismic Sec. this should help to realize significant savings in the braced frame member sizes.176 to avoid doubler plates. followed by analysis of the entire dual system.3] because Pu/φPn > 0. the sizes are not controlled by the check using Ω0E.211 . W16x31 W14x53 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W 14x53 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W14x68 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W16x31 W 14x68 W18x35 W18x35 W18x35 W18x35 W18x35 W18x35 W18x35 W18x40 W14x82 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x74 W18x40 W 14x82 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x50 W14x132 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 W21x50 W14x132 Figure 5. Note that Pu /φPn > 0.4. This last requirement causes a significant increase in column sizes. All members need to be checked for widththickness ratios and the braces need to be checked for slenderness.222 and 5.223 are controlled by strength because drift is not a criterion. In combination with the larger R factor (smaller design forces). 8. except in the upper few stories. Because the check using Ω0E is for axial capacity only and the moment frame columns are dominated by bending moment. A trial design is selected.222 Moment frame of dual system in EW direction. the accidental torsion on the building will be reduced as compared to a building with only a braced core. 569 . The beams in Figures 5. 3. Check the Strength of the Braced Frames – The next step is to select the member sizes for the braced frame.Chapter 5.233 . 8. Because of the presence of the moment frame. Structural Steel Design 53 and would become W14×257 .2 [8. Note that columns in the braced frame will need to satisfy the overstrength requirements of AISC Seismic Sec.
Check Torsional Amplification – Calculated story drifts are used to determine Ax. the torsional amplification factor (Table 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples W16x31 W14x53 W14x53 W16x31 W14x53 W16x31 W14x53 W16x31 W14x53 W16x31 W14x53 W14x132 W14x82 W14x68 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W16x31 W18x40 W14x68 W14x68 W18x40 W14x68 W18x40 W14x68 W18x40 W14x68 W18x40 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x44 W21x50 W14x82 W14x82 W21x50 W14x82 W21x50 W14x82 W21x50 W14x82 W21x50 W21x50 W21x50 W21x50 W21x50 W21x50 W24x55 W14x132 W14x132 W24x55 W14x132 W24x55 W14x132 W24x55 W14x132 W24x55 Figure 5. Use of the displacements at the centroid as the average displacements is valid for a symmetrical building. Displacements at the building centroid are also calculated because these will be the average between the maximum at one corner and the minimum at the diagonally opposite corner. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.223 Moment frame of dual system in NS direction. 5. Pdelta effects are included. 570 . 4. 5.2.5].8 [4.28).FEMA 451. Maximum displacements at the building corners are used here because the building is torsionally irregular. The building was modeled in three dimensions using RAMFRAME.
57 EW 7.3.46 10.41 EW 3.37 3. These will be used in the next round of analysis.37 2 Amplified Eccentricity = Ax(0. The amplifier increased for the EW direction but decreased for the NS direction. which was the controlling direction for torsion.56 1. Item 1a [4.16 1.50 1.6.15 2.14 1. The design that yielded the displacements shown in Table 5. *** The initial eccentricities of 0.34 1. ** Amplification of accidental torsion is required because this term is greater than 1.3048 m.77 2.) δ max δ avg ** Torsional Amplification Factor = ⎛ δ ⎞ Ax = ⎜ max ⎟ ⎝ 1. 1.29 1.05L in the EW and NS directions are multiplied by Ax to determine the amplified eccentricities.28 Alternative C Amplification of Accidental Torsion Average Elastic Displacement = Displacement at Building Centroid (in.28 1.20 1.81 0. These member sizes are shown in Figures 5.10 1.2.05 0.03 0.27 1.14 7.54 10.13 7.2 (Provisions Table 5. That structure was then checked for its response using the standard 0. That design was revised by increasing various brace and column sizes and then reanalyzing using the amplified eccentricity instead of merely 0. Accidental torsion is not amplified here.43 NS 2.2. After a few iterations. = 25.38 1. 1.28 1.05L for accidental torsion.05L accidental eccentricity in order to validate the amplifiers used in design. 571 .0 ft = 0.05 L)*** (ft.28 1.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 2.13 1. even without amplifying the accidental torsion.51 1.33 1.11 0.14 1. The building is torsionally irregular in plan.57 NS 3.05 1.91 1.32 NS 1.15 11.28 1.28 does not quite satisfy the drift limits.31 1.75 0.35 1.224 and 5. a design that satisfied the drift limits was achieved.0 in.00 2.09 1.57 3.2.64 1.Chapter 5.25 1. Structural Steel Design Table 5.08 7.19 7.20 NS 1.52 NS 9.29.25 7.28 1.40 EW 1. Item 1a).15 1.98 * These values are directly from the analysis.2δ avg ⎠ EW 1.45 2.4 mm.14 1.31 1.22 0.225.07 7. The results are summarized in Table 5.) Maximum Elastic Displacement at Building Corner* (in.13 1.8 11.50 11.29 1.01 10.01 1.63 2.69 2.23 1. See discussion in footnote ** of Table 5.32.50 2.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples PH W14x48 W14x34 W14x48 W14x48 W14x34 W14x48 PH W14x48 W14x48 W14x48 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R W14x68 HS S6 x6 x1 2 W14x48 W14x68 W14x68 x x6 S6 HS HS 1 2x3 S3 1 1 2x 4 HS S3 1 W14x48 2 x3 1 2x 1 4 R SS 6x 6x 1 2 HS W14x68 S3 1 1 2x 4 1 2x3 HS S3 1 W14x48 2 x3 1 2x1 4 W14x68 7 H W14x48 HS S6 x6 x1 2 W14x48 SS 6x 6x 1 2 HS 7 x x6 S6 HS 12 6x S6x W14x48 HS S6x 6x 1 6 W14x176 W14x48 x x7 S7 HS W14x38 W14x176 W14x176 W14x176 HS S7 x7 x5 x x7 S7 HS 8 S HS 6 W14x176 x 6x6 H 12 HS S6x 6x 1 W14x48 5 W14x48 HS S7 x7 x5 x x7 S7 HS 8 W14x48 x x7 S7 HS HS S7 x7 x5 8 S HS 12 x 7x7 H HS S7x 7x 1 5 W14x48 4 W14x311 W14x48 W14x311 W14x311 W14x48 W14x311 S HS 4 W14x311 8x 5 8x 8 12 x 7x7 HS S7x 7x 1 W14x48 HS S HS S 3 W14x48 W14x48 S HS x 8x8 12 HS S8x 8x 1 3 S HS 8x W14x48 x8 x5 x8 x5 8 S8 S8 8 2 W14x48 0x 0x1 S1 HS 8 W14x48 H 2 x 8x8 SS HS HS 12 HS S8x 8x 1 W14x48 HS S1 0x1 0x 5 W14x426 W14x426 W14x426 W14x426 W14x426 H 8x 8x SS 5 8 HS S8 x8 x5 8 x x8 S8 S H 1 2 HS S8 x8 x1 Figure 5.FEMA 451. Figure 5.225 Braced frame of dual system in NS direction. 572 W14x426 W14x311 8x 5 8 8x W14x176 SS 7x 7x 5 8 W14x68 H 1 2 5 8 x x6 S6 HS 1 2 1 2 6x 6x SS 1 2 5 8 5 8 5 8 HS HS x x8 S8 5 8 x x8 S8 5 8 S HS 8x 8x 5 8 8x 5 8 5 8 .224 Braced frame of dual system in EWdirection.
93 0. 5.58 1.41 0.42 3.4.0 for this example.37 0. = 25. 6.8 [4.8 factor comes from Provisions Sec.218 for Alternative B. so use ρ = 1.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].11 0.01 4.46 0. Elastic Displacement at Building Corners (in.5 6.0. In accordance with Provisions Sec. This is illustrated in Figure 5.06 2.2. therefore.20 3.986 ⎥ ⎦ The 0.64 6. > 3. ρ = 1. 5.17 ∆ 3.2. Check Redundancy – Now return to the calculation of rx for the braced frame.64 Elastic Story Drift at Location of Max.1762 21.54 NS 3. Displacement (at corners) (in.8 2 − 2 ⎢ r max A x ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ 0. rx was determined for every brace element at every level in both directions.2.34 0.) Cd (Cd ) x (Elastic Story Drift) (in.47 0.20 3.24 1.93 2.20 3. Structural Steel Design Table 5.79 1. 5.30 in. [See Sec.51 0.] 573 . 5.5 6.52 ∆NS 2.Chapter 5.45 0.09 1. The lateral component carried by each brace element comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.4 mm The story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0.29 Alternative C Story Drifts under Seismic Load Max.) Allowable Story Drift (in.2 for a discussion of the significant changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions.1 in.8 ⎢ 2 − ρ = 0.5 ∆EW 2.45 0. Level 5 has a drift of 3. ρ will be less. As ρ is less than 1.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].20 5.66 2.43 2.37 0. rmax x for braced frames is taken as the lateral force component in the most heavily loaded brace element divided by the story shear.875 ft.39 0. The maximum value was found to be 0.09 3. In the EW direction.0 in.30 3. 5.2.20 3.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 3.20 3.48 0. Thus.0 for both directions. ρ is now determined to be (see Sec.5 6.2): ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 20 20 ⎢ ⎥ = 0.55 3.42 3.49 0.20 in.45 0.5 6.05 2.94 2. which includes the effect of amplified accidental torsion. but the difference of only 0.54 ∆NS 0.3.1].4.4.17 3.5 6.58 2.05 3.5 6. For this design.5.1762 at the base level in the NS direction. rmax is less.) ∆EW 0.36 1.2.89 2. x ⎣ ⎦ ⎤ ⎥ = 0. is considered close enough for this example.020hsx as per Provisions Sec.69 2.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7. Torsional amplification and drift limitations both increased the weight of steel in the bracing.2.1 and 5.4. The takeoffs are based on all members. but do not include an allowance for plates and bolts at connections. Special Steel Moment Resisting Frame Alternative B. where resistance to torsion is poor.2.2. Dual System 593 tons 640 tons 668 tons The higher weight of the systems with bracing is primarily due to the placement of the bracing in the core. Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Alternative C. 5. Connection Design – Connections for both the moment frame and braced frames may be designed in accordance with the methods illustrated in Sec.FEMA 451. The result of the material takeoffs are: Alternative A. 574 . the total structural steel was estimated.3.2. 5.5 Cost Comparison Material takeoffs were made for the three alternatives.4.3. The weight of the momentresisting frame is controlled by drift and the strong column rule. In each case.
The beams and girders on the column lines are tied to the slabs with stud connectors. The following items of seismic design of steelframed buildings are illustrated: 1.31 Main floor framing plan (1. 1. B. Analysis of eccentrically braced frames 2. It has an unusually high roof load because of a plaza with heavy planters on the roof.Chapter 5.1 Building Description This twostory hospital. Structural Steel Design 5. 120 ft by 140 ft in plan. OAKLAND. The bay spacing is 20 ft each way. is shown in Figure 5. The building is founded on a thick mat.4 mm. and F as Brace (typical) 20'0" Basement walls 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 140'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 120'0" 20'0" N Figure 5.3 TWOSTORY BUILDING.0 in. The lateralforceresisting system for Stories 1 and 2 consists of EBFs on Gridlines 1. CALIFORNIA This example features an eccentrically braced frame (EBF) building. The verticalloadcarrying system consists of concrete fill on steel deck floors supported by steel beams and girders that span to steel columns and to the perimeter basement walls. The building has a basement and two floors.3. 575 . Floor beams are spaced three to a bay. and stiff clays overlying rock. The foundation soils are deep stable deposits of sands. Brace connections 5. = 25. Design of bracing members 3.0 ft = 0.3048 m). 8.31. gravels.
32 Section on Grid F (1. The braced frames are designed for 100 percent of lateral load and their share of vertical loads. The combination of the basement walls and the first floor diaphragm is so much stiffer that the superstructure that the base (see Provisions Chapter 2 [4. overstrength checks. but because it is below the base that classification does not apply. Column design for an EBF is illustrated later in this example. 1. 2.4 mm. the diagonal braces do not extend into the basement because the horizontal force is in the basement walls (both in shear parallel to the motion considered and in direct pressure on perpendicular walls).2 Method The method for determining basic parameters is similar to that for other examples. although either is permitted. not the foundation.31. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples shown in Figure 5. The inelastic displacement must be within the allowable story drift from Provisions Table 5. Therefore. This affects widththickness ratios. This has a similarity to the irregularity Type 4 “outofplane offsets” defined in Provisions Table 5. However. Select member preliminary sizes. 576 . the columns in the basement that are part of the EBFs must be designed and detailed as being the extension of the EBF that they are.3048 m). A typical bracing elevation is shown in Figure 5. 3'0" 15'6" Basement The structure illustrates a common situation for lowrise buildings with basements.34 Figure 5.32.1. Perform an elastic analysis of the building frame. It will not be repeated here. Compute the inelastic displacement as the product of Cd times δe. Compute elastic drift (δe) and forces in the members.2.0 in. The fundamental concept behind the eccentric braced frame is that seismic energy is absorbed by yielding of the link. A summary of the method is as follows: 1.51]. EBFs have been selected for this building because they provide high stiffness and a high degree of ductility while permitting limited storytostory height. and so on. rather the focus will be on the design of a specific example of an EBF starting with the forces in the frame as obtained from a linear analysis. Yielding in shear is more efficient than yielding in flexure.0 ft = 0. splice requirements.FEMA 451. Roof 2nd floor 1st floor 12'8" 12'8" Figure 5.3. 3.3.3] for definition) of the building is the first floor. These EBFs transfer lateral loads to the main floor diaphragm. 5.32].2 [4. = 25.2.8 [4. Keep in mind that the load path is from the floor diaphragm to the beam to the braces.
3. The force from the braces coming down from the roof level has a direct pass to the braces below without affecting the link. 1.02 radians for yielding dominated by flexure in the link. Table 5.3 Analysis Because the determination of basic provisions and analysis are so similar to those of other examples.0 kip = 4. Therefore. only the link portion of the beam yields. For this case. The EBF system will not impose large rotational demands on a beam to column connection.31 Summary of Critical Member Design Forces Member Link Force Designation Plink Vlink Mleft Mright Pbrace Mtop Mbot Magnitude 5. Therefore from Provisions Table 5. then α will have to be limited to 0. they will not be presented here.7 kips 85.) 6.34 for illustration of α). The axial load in the link at Level 2 may be computed directly from the secondfloor forces. Should the moment become high enough to govern over shear yielding.Chapter 5.45 kN.08 radians.02 radians instead of 0. Cd = 4.08 radians for yielding dominated by shear in the link or 0.3 ftkips 120.2 kips 127. (Neither the Provisions nor AISC Seismic offer very much detailed information about requirements for momentresisting connections for the beam to column connection in an EBF. are summarized in Table 5.31]. Structural Steel Design 4.0 ftkip = 1. Compute the link rotation angle (α) and verify that it is less than 0. The axial forces in the link and brace may be determined as follows: Total secondstory shear (determined elsewhere) = 535. 5.36 kNm. determined from computer analysis. it is the authors’ interpretation that an ordinary moment resisting frame connection will be adequate). The criteria is based on the relationship between Mp and Vp as related to the length of the link. without further detail.0 kips 15. (See Figure 5.5 ftkips 9. there are momentresisting connections at the columns.6 kips 577 . but the more efficient approach is to increase the link length.3. The portions of the beam outside the link are to remain elastic. The braces and building columns are to remain elastic. (The tradeoff to increasing the link length is that the moment in the link will increase. and Ω0 =2. 5. 5. 7.3.31. the inelastic deformations are confined to the link. it may be necessary to modify member sizes. There are explicit requirements for the connection from a link to a column.5 ftkips Brace 1. An ELF analysis was used. R = 8.9 ftkips 121. To meet the link rotation angle requirement.2.2 [4.1 Member Design Forces The critical forces for the design of individual structural elements.
shown in Figures 5. L = 20 ft. and a link length. The link rotation angle is computed for a span length.9 kips Secondstory shear per brace = 133.4 Design of Eccentric Bracing Eccentric bracing adds two elements to the frame: braces and links.95 (15.6/2 = 267. e = 3 ft as follows: α = ⎜ ⎟θ = ⎜ ⎟ = 0.8 kips Secondstory shear per linear foot = 267.FEMA 451.91 klf Axial force in link = (1.7 kips 5.8/2 = 133. further calculations deal with the braced frames on Line F. thus creating a link subject to high shear. As can be seen in Figure 5.3.33 and 5. ⎛L⎞ ⎛ 20 ft ⎞ ⎛ 0.3. The criteria for the design of eccentric bracing are given in AISC Seismic Sec.34. In a severe earthquake.247) = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Secondstory shear per braced line = 535.91 klf)(3 ft) = 5.0 kips Secondstory shear per braced line = 267.5 ft) = 120. 578 . For now. energy is dissipated through shear yielding of the links while diagonal braces and columns remain essentially elastic.67 ft)(12) ⎠ The design is satisfactory if we assume that shear yielding governs because the maximum permissible rotation is 0. All section sizes and connection details are made similar for all braced bays. the elastic drift was determined to be 0.3.25 ft/8.08 radians (AISC Seismic Sec. The following sections have been selected as a preliminary design: Typical girders Typical columns Typical braces W16×57 W14×132 HSS 8×8×5/8 Since all members of the braced frames are to be essentially the same.9/2 = 66.2 Drift From the linear computer analysis. ⎞ 5.2]).99 in.043 radians ⎟⎜ ⎝e⎠ ⎝ 3 ft ⎠ ⎝ (12. The total inelastic drift is computed as: Cdδc = (4)(0. 15.247 inches.8 kips Secondstory shear per individual EBF = 267.99 in.33. 15.8 kips/140 ft = 1. we will assume that shear yielding of the link governs and will verify this later.95 kips Axial force per brace = 66. two eccentric braces located in one story of the same bay intersect the upper beam a short distance apart.2g [15.
33 Diagram of eccentric braced frames on Grid F.9 ftkips Mright = 121. Drift 8'6" 3'0" 8'6" α 12'8" θ 15 '3 Figure 5. The shear force and end moments in the link (W16x57 beam section) are listed in Table 5. 1. Structural Steel Design Figure 5. = 25.0 in.34 Typical eccentric braced frame (1.32) is examined first.4.3.7 kips Vlink = 85.4 mm.3 ftkips " 579 .34 Roof 2nd floor 1st floor Basement Figure 5.3048 m).31 and repeated below: Plink = 5.Chapter 5.0 ft = 0.1 Link Design The firststory eccentric braced frame (identified in Figure 5. 5.2 kips Mleft = 127.
First.3.430) = 193.2 kips and Vn is the nominal shear strength of link.715)](0.1. 15. and Mright must not exceed member strength computed from AISC Seismic Sec.(2)(0.60)(50)[16. which refers to AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81].7 OK 5. check the beam flange widththickness ratio.3.2].9Fy Zx = (0.60Fy)(d2tf)tw and 2 Mp e For the W16×57 section selected for the preliminary design: Vp = (0.2].8 = = 0. therefore.9)(16.008 φb Py (0.98. The nominal shear strength of the link is defined as the lesser of: Vp = (0.2d [15.9)(50)(105) = 4725 in.5 kips and Mp = φMn = 0.1.35 OK The permitted web slenderness is dependent on the level of axial stress.5 kips e (3 × 12) 580 .2 Link Shear Strength The forces Vlink.0 for the selected section is less than the limiting widthtothickness ratio computed as: 253 Fy = 253 50 = 35.4. where Vu = Vlink = 85. b/t = 4.125.8 × 50) It is less than 0.1 WidthThickness Ratio The links are first verified to conform to AISC Seismic Sec.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.FEMA 451. For the selected section. which is less than the permitted b/t ratio of : 52 Fy = 52 50 = 7.2a [15. That section specifies that the required shear strength of the link (Vu) must not exceed the design shear strength φVn. The level of axial stress is determined as: Pu 5.43 .kips 2 Mp (2)(4725) = = 262. the ratio tw/hc = 33. Mleft. 15.
15. Because the link length (e) is less than 1.1. 15.4 Link Rotation Angle In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. was determined to be 0.1.16. 15.9)(193.d/5) = (30 × 0. requirement and also fits nicely within the link length of 36 in.3a [5.3b [15. the link rotation angle is permitted up to 0.f [15. the additional requirements of AISC Seismic Sec.2e [15.3.4 in. because it conforms to the 15.3b.2g [15.6Mp/Vp long or less.43/5) = 9.2. the link rotation angle is not permitted to exceed 0.15Py of the link = (0.16.2] do not need to be invoked.Chapter 5.1. 15. use a stiffener spacing of 12 in.3] requires fulldepth web stiffeners on both sides of the link web at the diagonal brace ends of the link. α. Therefore.d/5) = (52 × 0. For our case the link rotation angle is 0.7 kips is less than 126 kips.3.043 radians. the link axial strength is examined: Py of the link = FyAg = (50 ksi)(16.3 Link Axial Strength In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. Structural Steel Design Therefore. the maximum link length is determined as: 1.15)(840) = 126 kips OK Since the axial demand of 5.1 in.430 .43/5) = 19. because Pu < Py.5) = 39.3. intermediate stiffeners are necessary in accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.08 radians: Spacing = (30tw . Interpolation of the stiffener spacing based on the two equations presented in AISC Seismic Sec.3a [15. the effect of axial force on the link design shear strength need not be considered.1 in. From Sec.5) = 174.4.8 in) = 840 kips 0. the link rotation angle. 5. Vn = 193.430 .08 radians for links 1.5 Link Stiffeners AISC Seismic Sec.5 kips φVn = (0.6Mp/Vp.6Mp/Vp.043 radians. Since the link length (e) of 36 in.4. For link rotation angle of 0. and interpolation results in a spacing requirement of 15. Further.3.3.6 in.2 kips 5.2].02 radians: Spacing = (52tw . full depth stiffeners must be provided on both sides of the link. and the stiffeners must be sized as follows: 581 .3]. 15.3] will be necessary. Therefore. 5.1 [15.3].4 in. 15. These serve to transfer the link shear forces to the reacting elements (the braces) as well as restrain the link web against buckling. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.6)(4725)/(193. 15.6Mp/Vp = (1. 5. For a link rotation angle of 0.2].4.2 ftkips > 85. is less than 1.08 radians. which is acceptable.
Such angles will need to be designed for 16. Use 3/8 in.8) = 514 kips AISC Seismic Sec. the length is 15. which specifies a maximum unbraced length of: Lpd = [3.1. 5.96π 29. The braces.000 E 2 2 Fcr = (0.120 .4)(34. Accordingly.430) = 6. the end lateral supports must have a design strength computed as: 0.35 shows angle braces attached to the lower flange of the link.06)(1.200(M1 / M2 )]ry Fy = [3. Figure 5.3.06RyFybftf = (0. the brace at the bottom flange will need to be designed for this condition.26 feet.8 ksi The design strength of the brace as an axial compression element is: Pbr = φc AgFcr = (0.1)(50)(7. 15. Thickness at least 0.5) is sufficient.600 + 2.26 × 12) 50 = = 0. 5. each.9)](1.60) 50 = 182 in.FEMA 451. 15.3.75tw or 3/8 in.817 2.26 in.120)(0.715) = 16.85)(17.5.25 in.96 (k has been conservatively taken as 1.658λc ) Fy = (0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Combined width at least (bf .6 Lateral Support of Link The spacing of the lateral bracing of the link must not exceed the requirement of AISC LRFD Eq. determined to be 8×8×5/8 in. 15. Use 3.600 + 2. lateral bracing of beams with one brace at each end of the link (which is required for the link design per AISC Seismic Sec. F117.) Using AISC LRFD E24 for Fy = 46 ksi: λc = kl rπ Fy (1)(15.0. The slenderness ratio is kl (1)(15. are subjected to a calculated axial seismic load of 120 kips (from elastic analysis in Table 5.26)(12) = = 61. 582 .25.8 kips tension or compression.4. see Chapter E. but is actually lower because of restraint at the ends.8 kips While shear studs on the top flange are expected to accommodate the transfer of this load into the concrete deck.2 Brace Design For the design equations used below.6] requires that the design axial and flexural strength of the braces be those resulting from the expected nominal shear strength of the link (Vn) increased by Ry and a factor of 1.200(121.4.3/127. tubes with Fy = 46 ksi in the preliminary design. of the AISC LRFD Specification.2 × 0.9 r 2. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.2tw) = (7.6a [15.6580.817 )(46) = 34.31). Taking the length of the brace conservatively as the distance between panel points.
Mu. the factored Vn is equal to (193. determined from elastic analysis.2 kips. Let us now determine the design values for brace axial force and moments by increasing the values determined from the elastic analysis by the same factor: Design Pbrace = (3.4)(46) = 1.4 ⎜ 1 ⎟ = 0. is computed in accordance with AISC LRFD Chapter C and must account for second order effects.6 ⎞ Cm = 0.36 ⎝ 48.2 = 3.5 kips)(1. the required flexural strength is computed from AISC LRFD C11 as: M u = B1 M nt where Mnt = 48.Chapter 5.4 ftkips Design Mbot = (3.25) = 266 kips. the brace must also be checked for combined axial and flexure using AISC LRFD Chapter H.12)(120) = 374 kips Design Mtop = (3.12)(15.4 ⎠ ⎝ M2 ⎠ Therefore.5) = 48. axial and flexure interaction is governed by AISC LRFD H11a: ⎛ Mu ⎞ + 8⎜ ≤ 1. the increase is 266/85.817)2 ⎛M ⎞ ⎛ 29.0 1 − Pu Pe Pe = Ag Fy λc2 = (17. the required flexural strength in the brace to resist lateral translation of the frame only (Mlt) is negligible. 514 kips.0 φ Pn 9 ⎝ φ bMn ⎟ ⎠ Pu where Pu = 374 kips Pn = 514 kips Mn = ZFy = (105)(50) = 5250 in. so the brace is adequate for axial loading.12.kips The flexural demand. Therefore. The shear in the link.6 ftkips The design strength of the brace. exceeds the design demand of 374 kips. However.6 − 0. Thus. 583 . per AISC LRFD C12: B1 = Cm ≥ 1.1)(1.4 ⎜ ⎟ = 0.199 kips (0.6 − 0. Structural Steel Design Thus.20. For axial demandtocapacity ratio greater than 0.4 ftkips as determined above and. is 85. For a braced frame only two stories high and having several bays.12)(9.5) = 29.
35.4) = 25.3.35. to add another stiffener to the beam opposite the flange on the gusset.4) = = (0. a check should be made of stiffener requirements on the beam web opposite the gusset flanges (if any) and the panel zone in the beam web above the connection.6 requires that.85)(514) 9 ⎝ (0. like the brace itself. the connection of the brace to the girder be designed to remain elastic at yield of the link.3 Brace Connections at Top of Brace AISC Seismic Sec.3 ftkips P 374 1− u 1− Pe 1. The design of the gusset and connecting welds is conventional except that cutting the gusset short of the link may require adding a flange. the connections must also be designed as a fully restrained moment connection. Because there is a moment at the top of the brace.) Adding a similar flange on the other side of the brace will keep the joint compact.830) ⎟ ⎠ OK The design of the brace is satisfactory. 15.FEMA 451. 5. and brace centerlines intersect at a common work point. The tube may be attached to the girder with a gusset plate welded to the bottom flange of the girder and to the tube with fillet welds. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples M u = B1 M nt = Cm M nt (0. The required strength of the bracetobeam connection must be at least as much as the required strength of the brace.9)(4. 584 .00 + ⎜ + 8⎜ ⎟ φ Pn 9 ⎝ φb M n ⎠ (0.52)(48. In such a case. link. and no part of this connection shall extend over the link length.199 and ⎛ (25. (Such a flange is shown ine Figure 5.3)(12) ⎞ Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 374 = = 0.92 < 1.36)(48. or at least desirable. The beam.4. In addition to the design of the gusset and the connecting welds. It also should be remembered that the axial force in the brace may be either tension or compression reflecting the reversal in seismic motions. All of these calculations are conventional and need no explanation here. Details of the link and adjacent upper brace connection are shown in Figure 5. it may be required.
0 in..4.35 Link and upper brace connection (1.36 could be a collector. the right beam in Figure 5. 5. as well as beam vertical loads. 585 .. In order to be able to use R = 8. = 25.g. If so.3.36 if it is at the first floor level) .4 mm.P.36.Chapter 5.3048 m).g.4 Brace Connections at Bottom of Brace These braces are concentric at their lower end. The beam on the left in Figure 5.0 ft = 0. Details of a lower brace connection are shown in Figure 5. the left beam in Figure 5. moment connections are required at the ends of the link beams (at the roof and second floor levels). Plate 1"x7" TS 8x8x5 8 Gusset plate 1" W16x57 Equal Link: 3'0" Equal Equal Plate 3 8"x31 4" stiffener each side C. the connection must carry the axial load (force from floor deck to collector) that is being transferred through the beam to column connection to the link beam on the right side. framing into the columngirder intersection in a conventional manner. outside of the EBF (e. 1. Structural Steel Design 2nd floor or roof (not shown) Plate 1"x both sides Plate 3 8"x31 4" each side Angle brace (typical) C. The design of the gusset plate and welds is conventional. Moment connections could be used.P.36) or at the bottom of the brace at the first floor (e. Gussets shall not influence link in this zone Figure 5. but are not required.
3. Floor beam with pinned connection Beam framing to column web (not shown) Figure 5. = 25. 15.4. the axial load is substantially higher.FEMA 451.36 Lower brace connections (1. Although the moment and shear are less in the beam than in the link. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples TS 8x8x5 8" CJP 2nd floor or 1st floor (not shown) 1" Gusset plate W. 15.P.4 mm)..8 for design of the columns. W16x57 5. The philosophy is very similar to that illustrated for the brace: the demand becomes the forces associated with expected yield of the link.5 Beam and Column Design Refer to AISC Seismic Sec. 586 .6 for design of the beam outside the link and AISC Seismic Sec.0 in.
. the frames consist of two exterior 40ft bays and one 20ft interior bay. on center and have an average web thickness of 6 in. the interior bay has been filled with a shear panel and the exterior bays consist of 40ftlong haunched girders. Charney. At the Berkeley location. Hereafter. California. frames are referred to by their gridline designation (e. in Honolulu.g. and the 40ft spans have been divided into two equal parts forming a total of five spans of 20 ft. The building. For both locations.D. 4. NW concrete also is used for the first (ground) floor framing and. the seismicforceresisting system in the NS direction consists of four 7bay momentresisting frames. for the lower levels of the structural walls in the Berkeley building. giving the joists a total depth of 20 in. a 12story reinforced concrete office building with some retail shops on the first floor is designed for both high and moderate seismic loadings. and a depth below slab of 16 in.E. The girders are haunched to accommodate mechanicalelectrical systems. Along Gridlines 2 and 7. has 12 stories above grade and one basement level. Normal weight (NW) concrete walls are located around the entire perimeter of the basement level. 5 and 6. in section. These joists are spaced 36 in. Hawaii. these frames are detailed as special momentresisting frames. The interior frames differ from the exterior frames only in the end bays where the girders are of reduced depth. For the Honolulu building. a 4in.6 REINFORCED CONCRETE Finley A. the structural walls are not necessary so EW seismic resistance is supplied by the moment frames along Gridlines 1 through 8. it is assumed that the structure will be located in Berkeley. and for the moderate loading. the frames have five 20ft bays with constant depth girders. The joists along Gridlines 2 through 7 are supported by variable depth "haunched" girders spanning 40 ft in the exterior bays and 20 ft in the interior bays. The typical bays are 30 ft long in the northsouth (NS) direction and either 40 ft or 20 ft long in the eastwest (EW) direction. The main gravity framing system consists of seven continuous 30ft spans of pan joists. Due to the lower seismicity and lower demand for system ductility. Due to fire code requirements. The girders are not haunched on exterior Gridlines 1 and 8. but along Gridlines B and C. as described later. the frames of the Honolulu building are detailed as intermediate momentresisting frames. In this chapter. the depth of the end bay girders has been reduced to allow for the passage of mechanical systems. Ph. The frames on Gridlines 1 and 8 are fivebay frames and those on Gridlines 2 through 7 are threebay frames with the exterior bays having a 40ft span and the interior bay having a 20ft span. P.. For the more extreme loading. Figure 61 shows the basic structural configuration for each location in plan view and Figure 62. At Gridlines 3. The girders along all spans of Gridlines A and D are of constant depth. the seismicforceresisting system for the Berkeley building is a dual system composed of a combination of frames and framewalls (walls integrated into a momentresisting frame). In the EW direction.thick floor slab is used. to be constructed primarily from sandlightweight (LW) aggregate concrete. Frame 1 is located on 61 . Along Gridlines 1 and 8. The girders in each span are of variable depth as described earlier.
3048 m). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Gridline 1). 62 .FEMA 451. It is assumed that the structure for both the Berkeley and Honolulu locations is founded on very dense soil (shear wave velocity of approximately 2000 ft/sec). ' ' N Figure 62B Figure 62A 7 at 30'0" 216'0" 5 at 20'0" 102'6" Figure 61 Typical floor plan of the Berkeley building.0 ft = 0. The Honolulu building is similar but without structural walls (1.
Reinforced Concrete 11 at 12'6" 18'0" 15'0" Level R 40'0" ' 12 11 10 Story 12 11 10 G 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 11 at 12'6" 18'0" 15'0" 40'0" B B 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Level 40'0" ' 12 11 10 R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Figure 62 Typical elevations of the Berkeley building. Section at Frame 20'0" 40'0" ' 63 . Story 1 G 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 A.Chapter 6.0 ft = 0. the Honolulu building is similar but without structural walls (1.3048 m). Section at Wall ' 20'0" B.
1999 [2002]. portions of the calculations are presented in parallel. boundary elements of structural wall (Berkeley building only) and panel of structural wall (Berkeley building only). A. typical exterior column in Frame 3. Munshi. D. the Provisions may require that a modal response spectrum analysis or time history analysis be used. Design of LowRise Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Forces. ACI 318 Notes Fanella.. Hence. ASCE 7 is cited when discussions involve live load reduction. The full design then is given for the Berkeley building followed by the design of the Honolulu building. and M. Rabbat. 1999. 1997. ACI 318 is the other main reference in this example. Skokie.) is followed by discussion. wind load.g. typical beamcolumn joint in Frame 3.A. the following portions of the design process are presented in varying amounts of detail for each structure: 1. the development of seismic forces for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are presented before structural design is considered for either building. Because a single building configuration is designed for both high and moderate levels of seismicity. forces from an ELF analysis are used to apply accidental torsion and to scale the results from the more advanced analysis and are useful as a check on a modal response spectrum or timehistory analysis). The decision to use more advanced analysis can not be made a priori because several calculations are required that cannot be completed without a preliminary design.. Except for very minor exceptions. the Provisions) and to assist the reader in developing a better understanding of the principles behind the Provisions. typical interior column in Frame 1.FEMA 451. typical girder in Frame 3. Design of structural members including typical girder in Frame 1. Fanella. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The calculations herein are intended to provide a reference for the direct application of the design requirements presented in the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (hereafter. Illinois. Instead of providing one full set of calculations for the Berkeley building and then another for the Honolulu building. For final design. Munshi. 1998 [2002]. Cases where requirements of the Provisions and ACI 318 differ are pointed out as they occur. Each major section (development of forces. and B. D. The ELF analysis is useful even if the final design is based on a more sophisticated analysis (e. Skokie. The design presented represents the first cycle of an iterative design process based on the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure according to Provisions Chapter 5. 3.. Notes on ACI 31899 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete with Design Applications. G. the seismicforceresisting system design requirements of ACI 318 have been adopted in their entirety by the Provisions. the preliminary design based on an ELF analysis is a natural place to start. 2.A. Portland Cement Association. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. typical beamcolumn joint in Frame 1. For example. Editors. Structural analysis and interpretation of structural behavior. Illinois. structural design. In this context. Portland Cement Association. J. In addition to the Provisions. two different sets of calculations are required. Other recent works related to earthquake resistant design of reinforced concrete buildings include: ACI 318 ASCE 7 Fanella American Concrete Institute. and load combinations. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. 2nd Edition. 64 . Development and computation of seismic forces. etc.
The other publications cited above provide additional background for the design of earthquakeresistant reinforced concrete structures. Ghosh. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. Portland Cement Association. A. Inc. and M. 1992. revisions to the minimum base shear equation.Chapter 6. Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake and Wind Forces. K. Portions of the 2000 Provisions have been removed because they were incorporated into ACI 31802. Editor. The notes are based on the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials) instead of the Provisions. Note that these examples illustrate comparisons between seismic and wind loading for illustrative purposes. However. 2nd Edition. The changes related to reinforced concrete in Chapter 9 of the 2003 Provisions are generally intended to maintaining compatibility between the Provisions and the ACI 31802. Fanella.. Priestley. Skokie.. revisions to the redundancy requirements. Column capacity and design curves were computed using Microsoft Excel. Some general technical changes in the 2003 Provisions that relate to the calculations and/or design in this chapter include updated seismic hazard maps. with some verification using the PCACOL program created and developed by the Portland Cement Association. Detroit. Michigan. and there have not been any comparisons or annotations related to ASCE 702. also developed by Computers and Structures. California. [ ]. Reinforced Concrete ACI SP127 Ghosh Paulay Ghosh. Illinois. S. and revisions several of the system factors (R. 1995. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. 65 . J. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. ACI SP127. T. and D. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. While the general concepts of the changes are described. Paulay.. Smaller portions of the structure were modeled using the SAP2000 Finite Element Analysis Program. K. The Portland Cement Association’s notes on ACI 318 contain an excellent discussion of the principles behind the ACI 318 design requirements and an example of the design and detailing of a framewall structure. Annotations within brackets. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Other chances to Chapter 9 are related to precast concrete (as discussed in Chapter 7 of this volume of design examples). indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. American Concrete Institute. John Wiley & Sons. Cd) for dual systems. A. Ω0. New York. W. Wind load calculations are based on ASCE 798 as referenced in the 2000 Provisions.. Most of the largescale structural analysis for this chapter was carried out using the ETABS Building Analysis Program developed by Computers and Structures. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. S. Berkeley. N. 1991. EarthquakeResistant Concrete Structures Inelastic Response and Design. Domel.
4a [3.34] for Berkeley.33 and 3. 4.31] lists a short period site coefficient Fa of 1.1.51 and 4. Site Class C is appropriate as described in Provisions Sec.192 The transition period (Ts) for the Honolulu response spectrum is: 66 .10 Ts is the period where the horizontal (constant acceleration) portion of the design response spectrum intersects the descending (constant velocity or acceleration inversely proportional to T) portion of the spectrum.2.1. For the very dense soil/firm rock site condition.2.288 and the design spectral response acceleration parameters are: SDS = (2/3) SMS = (2/3) 0. Using Provisions Eq.1 Seismicity Using Provisions Maps 7 and 8 [Figures 3.288 = 0.535 sec S DS 1.5.65 SM1 = FvS1 = 1.178.62.2.65 and Site Class C.1.68 = 0.33 and 3.1. the maximum considered spectral response acceleration parameters for the Berkeley building are: SMS = FaSS = 1.1.3.52 [3.41 and 4.589 The transition period (Ts) for the Berkeley response spectrum is: Ts = S D1 0.4b [3.1.32].2.10 SD1 = (2/3) SM1 = (2/3) 0.42 [3.65 = 1.32] gives a velocity based site coefficient Fv of 1. It is used later in this example as a parameter in determining the type of analysis that is required for final design. the short period and onesecond period spectral response acceleration parameters SS and S1 are 1. respectively.589 = = 0.1.1.65 and 0.1.4b [3. 4.2a [3. the site is classified as Site Class C. the interpolated longperiod site coefficient (Fv) is 1. [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps.3 x 0.0.310] give the shortperiod and 1sec period spectral response acceleration parameters of 0.31 and 3.16 and.1 [3.0 x 1.34]: SDS = (2/3) SMS = (2/3) 1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC LOADS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 6.178 = 0. For Honolulu. The maximum considered spectral response acceleration parameters for the Honolulu building are: SMS = FaSS = 1.884 = 0.4.5 and Site Class C.708 SM1 = FvS1 = 1.FEMA 451. Using SS = 1. Provisions Table 4.65 = 1. Provisions Maps 19 and 20 [Figure 3.68.1].2.2.1. California. and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3 (instead of the previously used separate map package. the shortperiod site coefficient (Fa) is 1.708 = 0. For S1 > 0.] For the very dense soil conditions. Provisions Table 4.61 = 0. 4. from Provisions Table 4.2.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.884 The design spectral response acceleration parameters are given by Provisions Eq. respectively.61 and 0.62 x 0.472 SD1 = (2/3) SM1 = (2/3) 0.16 x 0. Interpolating from Provisions Table 4.31].32].
2. For the Honolulu building assigned to Seismic Design Category C.3 [9. this requires that a separate analysis of a frameonly system be carried out for loading in the EW direction. both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings are classified as Seismic Use Group I. the Berkeley building is classified as Seismic Design Category D. This indicates that intermediate frames can be expected to deliver lower ductility than that supplied by the more stringently detailed special moment frames. Provisions Sec. As discussed below. According to Provisions Table 5.1. Similarly.2 Structural Design Requirements According to Provisions Sec.5 in 2003 Provisions Table 4.Chapter 6.2 [4. and the deflection amplification factor (Cd) for each structural system type. the Provisions requires that the frame portion of the system be able to carry 25 percent of the total seismic force.42].1.2]. According to Provisions Tables 4.1.2. assigned to Seismic Design Category D.2. the system over strength factor (Ω0). Overstrength. and Deflection Amplification Coefficients for Structural Systems Used Location Berkeley Response Direction NS EW Honolulu NS EW Building Frame Type Special moment frame Dual system incorporating special moment frame and structural wall Intermediate moment frame Intermediate moment frame R 8 8 5 5 Ω0 3 2.2.5 [For a dual system consisting of a special moment frame and special reinforced concrete shear walls.1a and 4.5 4.472 6.1.31.625 times the value for the special frame. R = 7.2.2. 1.1.5 3 3 Cd 5. Reinforced Concrete Ts = S D1 0. For the Berkeley building.407 sec S DS 0.3] assigns an occupancy importance factor (I) of 1.1b [Tables 1. neither of these structures violate height restrictions.5 4. Ω0 = 2.3 [9. 9. The seismicforceresisting systems for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings consist of momentresisting frames in the NS direction. Table 61 Response Modification.1.4 [1.3] (which modifies language in the ACI 318 to conform to the Provisions) requires that all momentresisting frames be designed and detailed as special moment frames.0 to all Seismic Use Group I buildings.2. Provisions Table 5. Provisions Sec. 9. it is important to note that R = 5.5.1. Provisions Table 1. With regard to the response modification coefficients for the special and intermediate moment frames.1.0 for the intermediate frame is 0.31] provides values for the response modification coefficient (R).1. The values determined for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are summarized in Table 61.31].2.3] requires the structural walls to be detailed as special reinforced concrete shear walls. and Cd = 5.3 [9.3 [1. Provisions Sec.2. EW loading is resisted by a dual framewall system in the Berkeley building and by a set of momentresisting frames in the Honolulu building.2 [4. 9.2.3] allows the use of intermediate moment frames.1.5 6. 67 .192 = = 0. The Honolulu building is classified as Seismic Design Category C because of the lower intensity ground motion.41 and 1.] For the Berkeley building dual system.
1. the only possibility of a plan irregularity is a torsional irregularity (Provisions Table 5.044 x 8 x 1.192)/(0. it appears unlikely for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings because the lateralforceresisting elements of both buildings are distributed evenly over the floor.589)/(0. the first story is suspect.4.23] controls: CS = S D1 T (R / I ) However.5ft height of the story above. For the purpose of this example. the response coefficient must not be less than that given by Eq.32]) of Type 1a or 1b. The upper limit on CS is given by Provisions Eq.] 68 .044 x 5 x 0.3 [4.33]. because its height of 18 ft is well in excess of the 12. As with the torsional irregularity. the response modification coefficients are the same (R = 8) for the frame and framewall systems but are higher than the coefficient applicable to a special reinforced concrete structural wall system (R = 6).4.FEMA 451. This provides an incentive for the engineer to opt for a framewall system under conditions where a frame acting alone may be too flexible or a wall acting alone cannot be proportioned due to excessively high overturning moments.13 [changed in the 2003 Provisions]: CS = 0. 5. the dynamic properties of the system. While the actual presence of such an irregularity cannot be determined without analysis.4.1) = 1.3.3. As for the vertical irregularities listed in Provisions Table 5. 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For the Berkeley system. it is assumed (but verified later) that a vertical irregularity does not exist. Using Provisions Eq.22]: CS = S DS R/I For intermediate response periods. This limit is (0. Eq. it is assumed (but verified later) that torsional irregularities do not exist.11 [5. which would not be applicable to this example as discussed below.1.3 Structural Configuration Based on the plan view of the building shown in Figure 61. [The minimum Cs value is simply 0.1 [5.044RSDS. and the system response modification factor (R). however. the short period and long period response accelerations.4. the presence of a soft or weak story cannot be determined without calculations based on an existing design. In this case.85 sec for the Honolulu building.2 [4.472) = 1. 6.01in the 2003 Provisions. 5.2.52 sec for the Berkeley building and (0.2.2 DETERMINATION OF SEISMIC FORCES The determination of seismic forces requires knowledge of the magnitude and distribution of structural mass.1.21].12 [5. 5. 6.044SDSI Note that the above limit will apply when the structural period is greater than SD1/0. the design base shear for the structure is: V = CSW where W is the total (seismic) weight of the building and CS is the seismic response coefficient.1.
0.26].3. 6. For the preliminary design using the ELF procedure. the building mass must be determined.88 sec. With hn = 155. Consequently.2. Cu can be taken as 1.4)0.4(1. 5.2 [5. The period to be used in the ELF analysis will be in the range of Ta to CuTa.4. For the NS direction of the Berkeley building.2. the Ta = 1.4.26]. the approximate period (Ta) computed in accordance with Provisions Eq. more conservative for use in predicting base shear) than those computed from a more rigorous mathematical model. Ta may be used. The upper limit on the analytical period is T = 1. CuTa should be used. the importance factor (I) is taken as 1.2 [5.5 ft. SD1 is 0.4. If an accurate analysis provides periods greater than CuTa.2.2]. however.28 sec. For the Honolulu building. With the exception of the period of vibration (T).5) = 2.5) = 2.4 and the upper limit on the analytical period is T = 1.11 [5. the EW period Ta = 0. from Provisions Table 5.26] could be used: x Ta = Cr hn Because this formula is based on lower bound regression analysis of measured building response in California.2. Before this can be done.020 and x =0. limitations on beamcolumn joint shear and reinforcement development length usually control.23 sec. This is particularly true for buildings located in regions of lower seismicity.1 [5. Substituting the appropriate values in Provisions Eq.9.4. the Provisions places an upper limit on the period that can be used for design. If the accurate analysis produces periods less than CuTa but greater than Ta. The upper limit is T = CuTa where Cu is provided in Provisions Table 5. Cu = 1. the period from the analysis should be used. it will generally result in periods that are lower (hence. 6.21]. 5.88 = 1. For special moment frames. 69 .4. For Honolulu.2. however.2. if the accurate analysis produces periods less than Ta. the structure is a reinforced concrete momentresisting frame and the approximate period is calculated according to Provisions Eq. 4 percent vertical steel is a more practical limit.4.52.1 Approximate Period of Vibration Requirements for the computation of building period are given in Provisions Sec. This is particularly true when lightweight (LW) concrete is used. ACI 318 Sec.2.1 sec.21].2 [5.11 [5. 21. the resulting period may be too high due to a variety of possible modeling errors. An additional consideration is the amount of vertical reinforcement in the columns. Cr = 0.1 limits the vertical steel reinforcing ratio to 6 percent for special moment frame columns.192g and.22].11 [5. the approximate size of the different members of the seismicforceresisting system must be established.50 sec. the structure is a framewall system with Cr = 0.75. Ta = 1. Using Provisions Table 5.Chapter 6.4. Finally. The upper limit on the analytical period is (1. Later in this chapter. all of the other terms in previous equations have been defined and/or computed earlier in this chapter.40 for the Berkeley building.5 sec period computed above for concrete moment frames is applicable in both the NS and EW direction. Reinforced Concrete In each of the above equations.52(1. For EW seismic activity in Berkeley. If a more rigorous analysis is carried out (using a computer). 5. With SD1 > 0. 5.2 Building Mass Before the building mass can be determined.4.016 and x = 0. the more accurate periods will be computed using a finite element analysis program.
it is assumed that all columns and structural wall boundary elements are 30 in. the following superimposed dead loads (DL) were assumed: Partition DL (and roofing) Ceiling and mechanical DL Curtain wall cladding DL = 10 psf = 15 psf = 10 psf Based on the member sizes given above and on the other dead load. girders are 22.75 when allLW concrete is used and by 0. thick. As discussed below.2.4. there are some disadvantages to the use of LW concrete. the maximum compressive strength for LW concrete has been increased to 5. have an average web thickness of 6 in. ACI 318 Sec. The use of LW instead of NW concrete reduces the total building mass by more than 20 percent and certainly satisfies the minimize mass rule of earthquakeresistant design. These masses were used for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings.4] gives equations for the shear strength of the panels of structural walls.2). However. Table 62 Story Weights. For the Berkeley building.2 states that wherever the term f c′ appears in association with shear strength. LW aggregate reinforced concrete has a lower toughness or ductility than NW reinforced concrete and the higher the strength.2) but also has an effect on the amount of shear reinforcement required in the panels of structural walls. and mass moments of inertia are listed in Table 62. Masses. For this reason and also the absence of pertinent test results. 11. 610 . In this example.85 as specified in ACI 318 Chapter 11.) Mass Moment of Inertia (in. the individual story weights. In addition to the building structural weight. and Moments of Inertia Story Level Weight (kips) Mass (kipssec2/in. For the Honolulu building (which has no structural wall and ultimately ends up with slightly smaller elements).4. which utilizes sandLW concrete. A normal weight (NW) concrete building of the same configuration would have a density of approximately 14. It is also interesting to note that the average density of this building is 11.2. the mass and mass moments of inertia are required for the determination of modal properties using the ETABS program.7. by 30 in.3.85 when sandLW concrete is used.kipsec2/rad) 1 ACI 318 Sec. deep.6. the shear strength of the concrete will be multiplied by 0. the reduction in shear strength of LW aggregate concrete usually is of no concern because ACI 318 disallows the use of the concrete in determining the shear resistance of members with significant earthquake shear (ACI 318 Sec. it should be multiplied by 0. are 20 in. deep.1 For girders. However. In general. and. the masses computed from the above member sizes are on the conservative (heavy) side.0 pcf. the larger the reduction in available ductility. 21.2. wide by 32 in.4 [21.5. 21.2 allows a maximum compressive strength of 4. including a 4in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Based on a series of preliminary calculations (not shown here). Finally.c.000 psi. 21. the required tension development lengths for bars embedded in LW concrete are significantly greater than those required for NW concrete.. [Note that in ACI 31802 Sec..FEMA 451. 21.2 pcf.5 in. masses. This primarily affects the sizing of beamcolumn joints (ACI 318 Sec. 21. and the panel of the structural wall is 16 in. o. It has already been established that pan joists are spaced 36 in.4. these member sizes probably are close to the final sizes. but there is no explicit requirement to reduce the shear strength of the concrete when LW aggregate is used.thick slab.5. ACI 318 Sec.] A further penalty placed on LW concrete is the reduction of shear strength.000 psi for LW concrete in areas of high seismicity. Note from Table 62 that the roof and lowest floor have masses slightly different from the typical floors.. the term f c′ appears. In the equations.
126. flexural. It was assumed that the walls were "fixed" at their base. accurate periods of vibration and computational checks on plan and vertical irregularities). As automatically provided by the ETABS program.000 5.896 7. = 25.051 3. 4.051 3. The structural analysis also provides other useful information (e.896 7. This provides effective stiffness for beamcolumn joints halfway between a model with fully rigid joints (clear span analysis) and fully flexible joints (centerline analysis). Those aspects of the model that should be noted are: 1..051 3.3 Structural Analysis Structural analysis is used primarily to determine the forces in the elements for design purposes. Beamcolumn joints are modeled as 50 percent rigid.45 kN. and structural wall boundary members were represented by twodimensional frame elements.324. The perimeter basement walls were modeled as shear panels as were the main structural walls.051 3. an equivalent depth of stem was used.2.000 5. 6.000 5.896 7.000 5.896 7.051 3.126. Axial. 5.051 3.051 3. 611 . The structure was modeled with 12 levels above grade and one level below grade. 3. The ETABS program was used for the analysis of both the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings. all floor diaphragms were assumed to be infinitely rigid in plane and infinitely flexible outofplane. the flexural stiffness of the joists was ignored.675.126.126.126.000 5.202 7. The computed periods of vibration are addressed in this section and the other results are presented and discussed later. Except for the slab portion of the joists which contributed to Tbeam stiffness of the girders.051 3. (The effect of cracking is considered in a simplified manner.126.876 7.000 5.896 7. 2.000 5.051 3.169 36. compute story drift.g. columns. Reinforced Concrete Roof 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total 2. For the haunched girders.126.462 7. The equivalent depth was computed to provide a prismatic member with a stiffness under equal end rotation identical to that of the nonprismatic haunched member.896 8.896 7.000 5. 8.0 kip = 4.000 1.126.126.) The width of the flanges for the Tbeams is based on the definition of Tbeams in ACI 318 Sec. Beams. and shear deformations were included for all members.000 5.000 5. and assess the significance of Pdelta effects.Chapter 6.4 mm.051 3. The structural walls of the Berkeley building are modeled as a combination of boundary elements and shear panels.896 7.896 7. and properties were based on gross area for the columns and boundary elements and on effective Tbeam shapes for the girders.783 3.201 4.0 in.126.10. 1.000 5. Each member was assumed to be uncracked.
78 and 1. so CuTa can be used in the ELF analysis.1 sec.23 sec. For the purpose of computing ELF forces. For preliminary design. Provisions Sec. 90 percent of the total mass was developed in just eight modes.4 Accurate Periods from Finite Element Analysis The computed periods of vibration and a description of the associated modes of vibration are given for the first 11 modes of the Berkeley building in Table 63. if cracked section properties were used. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6. Hence. 6.5.40 sec. Table 64 provides the computed modal properties for the Honolulu building. In the EW direction. the accumulated modal mass in each direction is more than 90 percent of the total mass. it is reasonable to assume that each member has a cracked moment of inertia equal to onehalf of the gross uncracked moment of inertia. However. A summary of the approximate and computed periods is given in Table 65.77 sec. 5. If cracked section properties were used. Both of the computed periods fall within these bounds. and CuTa = 2. therefore.5 sec. the computed NS period of vibration is 1. With 11 modes. the cracked NS and EW periods are 1. a period of 2.52 sec in the NS direction and 2.77) = 2.414 (the square root of 2. For the Honolulu building. respectively. Both of these cracked periods are greater than CuTa. In the EW direction.88 sec and CuTa = 1. the increase in period from 1.4) = 1.FEMA 451.64 sec in the EW direction.28 sec. Ta = 1. and CuTa is 2.87 sec indicates a significant reduction in stiffness due to the loss of the walls in the Honolulu building.2] requires that a dynamic analysis must include at least 90 percent of the actual mass in each of the two orthogonal directions. respectively. and the assumption that flexural behavior dominates. and 1.50 sec. Based on this assumption. the uncracked periods in the NS and EW directions are 1.414(1. This is between the approximate period.0) times the uncracked periods.28 sec can be used for both the NS and EW directions in Honolulu.98 sec. 612 . the approximate period (Ta) for the Honolulu building is 1.5 sec.2 [5. which is greater than both Ta = 0. An evaluation of the accuracy of this assumption is provided later in this example. The NS period is virtually the same as for the Berkeley building because there are no walls in the NS direction of either building.2.87 sec. for Berkeley. the computed periods would be 2. the computed period is 1.4 sec to 1. For the Berkeley building. In this case. the computed period values for the Berkeley building would be somewhat greater.3. For both the EW and the NS directions. the cracked periods would be approximately 1.414(1. Pdelta effects are ignored.
00 (85.00 (0.5 Seismic Design Base Shear 613 .3) 0.610 0.50 Values in italics should be used in the ELF analysis.210 0.0 (80.50 2.230 0.04 (88.00 (88.00 (80.79 (88. 6.23 (90.7) 0.3) 2.7) 0.260 0.5) 0.5) 0.23 1.28 1.00 (90. Table 65 Comparison of Approximate and "Exact" Periods (in seconds) Berkeley Method of Period Computation Approximate Ta Approximate × Cu ETABS (gross) ETABS (cracked) * Honolulu EW 0.7) 0.6) 0.3) 2.Chapter 6.00 (0.5) 0.5) 0.6) EW 0.10 * 1.4) Description First Mode EW First Mode NS First Mode Torsion Second Mode EW Second Mode NS Second Mode Torsion Third Mode EW Third Mode NS Third Mode Torsion Fourth Mode EW Fourth Mode NS Based on gross section properties.394 0.89 (91.00 (91.3) 0.00 (90.7) 0.78 2.28 1.5) 0.7 (79.5) 0.7) 8.2) 8.3) 0.452 0.135 % of Effective Mass Represented by Mode** NS 80.2) 0. Table 64 Periods and Modal Response Characteristics for the Honolulu Building Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 * ** Period* (sec) 1.00 (80.00 (88. Accumulated mass in parentheses.38 0.00) 80.00 (85.78 1.23 (80.48 (71.27 0.336 0.8) EW 00.4) 0.00 (71.6) 0.8) 0.171 0. Accumulated mass in parentheses.0 (80.6) 0.365 0.40 (91.5) 0.17 (85.00 (88.50 2.345 0.88 (91.2.00 (91.00 (90.5) 14.98 NS 1.5) 2.4) 0.6) Description First Mode NS First Mode EW First Mode Torsion Second Mode NS Second Mode Torsion Second Mode EW Third Mode NS Fourth Mode NS Third Mode Torsion Fifth Mode NS Third Mode EW Based on gross section properties.584 0.6) 4.25 (80.00 (71.235 0.5) 0.27 (90.00 (88.00 (85.00) 71.24 (90.3) 0.00 (71.87 (91.04 (88.5) 0.52 EW 1.00 (90.2) 8.6) 0.581 0.00 (79.2) 0.87 2.2) 0.50 2. Reinforced Concrete Table 63 Periods and Modal Response Characteristics for the Berkeley Building Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 * ** Period* (sec) 1.00 (88.00 (91.7) 0.77 1.00 (88.77 2.64 NS 1.2) 0.6) 0.231 % of Effective Mass Represented by Mode** NS 79.40 1.95 (90.87 1.40 1.00 (79.88 1.00 (85.337 0.
R = 8. and T = 2. and the design base shear in the NS direction is V = 0.0168 T ( R / I ) 2. T = 1.24] (used to compute CS.23(8 /1) In this case. SD1 = 0. the minimum Cs value is 0.044(1.044 S DS I = 0.max = S DS 1.4.0) = 0.23 sec.0207 CS = 0.12 [5.589 = = 0.180 kips For the Honolulu building. Note that Provisions Sec.472 = = 0. and T = 2.462 kips (see Table 62).min above).1] states that for the purpose of computing drift. SDS = 1.472)(1.max and CS.765 kips.474. In the NS direction with W = 36.min = 0. SDS = 0.min are as before. SD1 = 0. 5.0207 controls and V = 0.462) = 2.0944 R/I 5 /1 S D1 0. In the stiffer EW direction. a base shear computed according to Provisions Eq. I = 1. R = 5.1375 R / I 8 /1 CS = S D1 0.max = CS = S DS 0.01 in the 2003 Provisions.min = 0. 5.0484 (36.589.1)(1) = 0.1.4.28 sec: CS .4.10 = = 0.23] (used to compute CS above) may be used in lieu of the shear computed using Provisions Eq. base shears are computed in a similar manner and are the same for the NS and the EW directions.044(0.10 sec: CS .28(5 /1) CS . 6.0484 [As noted previously in Sec.044 S DS I = 0.2.589 = = 0. CS. With W = 36.462) = 755 kips A summary of the Berkeley and Honolulu seismic design parameters are provided in Table 66. Seismic Shears Coefficients. and Base Shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu Buildings Location 614 Response Direction Building Frame Type T (sec) Cs V (kips) . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The seismic design base shear for the Berkeley is computed below.0598 (36.192 = = 0.462 kips.6.6 [5. I = 1.2. CS = 0.] CS.0484 controls.0207 (36.FEMA 451.13 [5.10(8 /1) CS .0598 T ( R / I ) 1.462) = 1.0598 controls and V = 0.min = 0. Table 66 Comparison of Periods.192.10.1. 5. and CS = S D1 0.0351 T ( R / I ) 2.
Also.28 2.Chapter 6.5 sec k = 0.0485 0.45 kN.5 sec k = 2.211]: Fx = CvxV Cvx = where wx h x k ∑w h i i= 1 n k i k = 1. 615 . A note at the bottom of each table gives the calculated vertical force distribution factor (k).4.2. it is just the simplest approach. 5.0207 1.0 for T > 2.0598 0.4.210 and 5.0 for T < 0. and overturning moments are easily computed using an Excel spreadsheet.32 [5.31 and 5. shears. some of the sums are not exact due to truncation error.10 1. NS EW 6.5T for 1.0 kip = 4.23 2. The tables are presented with as many significant digits to the left of the decimal as the spreadsheet generates but that should not be interpreted as real accuracy.0207 0.6 Development of Equivalent Lateral Forces The vertical distribution of lateral forces is computed from Provisions Eq. Reinforced Concrete Berkeley NS EW Special moment frame Dual system incorporating special moment frame and structural wall Intermediate moment frame Intermediate moment frame 2.75 + 0.180 755 755 Honolulu 1.765 2. The results of these computations are shown in Tables 67a and 67b for the Berkeley buildings and in Table 68 for the Honolulu building.0 < T < 2.28 0.5 sec Based on the equations above. the seismic story forces.
669.0 105.498 155.051 3.879 8.8.0 105.0 30.049 25.5 43.5 143.998 k Force Fx (kips) 330.497 41.3 190.170 23.3048 m.032 0.136 12.462 Whk 24.9 81.5 93.066.783 3.4 1.9 311.253 246.051 3.758 323.067 23.063 0.081 0.500 Table based on T = 1.1 1.5 1.8 907.8 1. 1.730.3 1.23 sec and k = 1.051 3.408 2.5 118. 1.9 19.011 0. Table 67b Vertical Distribution of EW Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building* Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total * Height h (ft) 155.486 1.0 80.452.180 4.0 1.5 41.833 1.0 ftkip = 1.177 0.220.982.208.051 3.5 263.870 733.051 3.056 6.260 207.051 3. 616 .909 2.051 3.4 143.5 43.5 93.0 kip = 4.780 4.579 967.187 0.8 35.658.975 163.051 3.462 Whk 2.753 13.0 55.526.043 0.181 208.676 1.051 3.613 53.219 177.7 226.051 3.123.821 16.365.869 16.701.3 94.129 Wh /Σ 0.051 3.5 18.682 128.987 130.118 2.361.128.512 37. 1.0 30.010 1.0 kip = 4.0 130.563.382 13.6 220.356.051 3.051 3.788 575.45 kN.125 0.7 180.8 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 330. 1.957 1.764.0 ft = 0.762.051 3.226 133.947 Table based on T = 2. 1.159 2.503 517.057 0.004 0.8 4.663 112.5 156.161 0.612.0 55.020 0.783 2.000 Force Fx (kips) 350.0 1. 1.046 0.102 0.169 36.814 1.783 3.139 0.375.5 118.1 sec and k = 1.45 kN.9 264.970 72.8 302.575 Whk/Σ 0.957 2.821.0 ftkip = 1.658.218.242 59.260 1.8 56.757.FEMA 451.799 1.053.051 2.771 103.157 0.123 91.150 0.051 3.5 68.0 80.104 0.9 642.0 2180.816 80.0 ft = 0.019 0.088 10.737.051 3.788 180.8 1764.714 1.483.121 0.645.5 143.36 kNm.393 2.432.169 36.3048 m.2 66.36 kNm.5 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 351 693 996 1.7 1.087 0.0 Weight W (kips) 2.0 130.6 342.051 3.146 153.3 7.5 68.308.0 Weight W (kips) 2.051 3.051 3.030 0.051 3.5 18.2 1.072 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 67a Vertical Distribution of NS Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building* Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total * Height h (ft) 155.6 21.5 124.8 110.154 19.
869. Reinforced Concrete Table 68 Vertical Distribution of NS and EW Seismic Forces for the Honolulu Building* Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total * Height h (ft) 155.6 94.051 3.36 (load factor of 1.041.729. the seismic shears for the Berkeley building are well in excess of the wind shears and will easily control the design of the members of the frames and walls.45 kN.6 751.2 114.193 0.051 3. Also shown in the figures are the story shears produced by ASCE 7 wind loads.343 10.5 744.807 747.8 1. wind controls the strength demands and.102 0. all of the elements must be detailed for inelastic deformation capacity as required by ACI 318 rules for intermediate moment frames.0 55.626.0 30. a 3sec gust of 105 mph. 1. For Berkeley.903 1.6 times directionality factor 0.8 754.0 Weight W (kips) 2.093 Table based on T = 2.152 0.299 16.820 5.539 31.051 3.027.783 3.5 93.080 0.89.051 3.5 118.051 3.075 25.028 8. in the upper levels. an Exposure B classification was assumed.218. 1. For the Honolulu building.508 90.061 0.8 76.85) to bring them up to the ultimate seismic loading limit state represented by the Provisions.5 491.044 0.9 754. seismic forces control the strength demands.169 36.801 67. for Honolulu.004 1. a 3sec gust of 85 mph was used and.348 36. As can be seen from the figures. (A somewhat more detailed comparison is given later when the Honolulu building is designed.197 Wh /Σ 0.002 k Force Fx (kips) 145.3 707.192 6.030 0. 1.051 3.655 3.010 0.051 3.2 567.393 39.440 23.210.051 3.136.462 Whk 38.5 18. 617 .181 0.4 46. In each case.126 0.669 57.176 20.7 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 145.6 136.5 68.Chapter 6.9 396.051 3.0 33.7 60.5 143.4 22.0 80.5 43. The wind shears have been factored by a value of 1.115 200.0 105.019 0. but the EW seismic and wind shears are closer. respectively.341. the NS seismic shears are significantly greater than the corresponding wind shears.3 674.051 3.0 kip = 4.) With regards to detailing the Honolulu building.9 628.405.108 76.260 30.143.0 ftkip = 1.8 730.1 7.0 130.28 sec and k = 1.839 12.3 2. In the lower stories of the building.3048 m.948.822 48.8 14.36 kNm The computed seismic story shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are shown graphically in Figures 63 and 64.799 16.6 281.0 ft = 0.
kips 1.3048 m.0 ft = 0. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 EW seismic 140 NS seismic EW wind NS wind 120 100 Height.FEMA 451.000 2. 618 .500 2.500 Figure 63 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Berkeley building (1.000 Shear. 1.45 kN).0 kip = 4.
1] and 5.020hsx where hsx is the height of story x.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].6. 6. 1. Reinforced Concrete 160 Seismic 140 EW wind NS wind 120 100 Height. 5. With regards to the values shown in Table 69a .0 kip = 4.45 kN).2.6 [5. cracked section 619 . According to Provisions Table 5.3048 m. respectively.4.2. This limit may be thought of as 2 percent of the story height. which governed for base shear. was not used in computing drift.2.2].8 [5.4. 5. In Table 69b.Chapter 6. it must be noted that cracked section properties were used in the structural analysis and that 0.2.3. This adjusts for the use of Provisions Eq.8 [4.200 Figure 64 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Honolulu building (1.1. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 Shear.725 times the story forces shown in Table 67a were applied.3 DRIFT AND PDELTA EFFECTS 6.0 ft = 0.51].000 1. Quantitative results of the drift analysis for the NS and EW directions are shown in Tables 69a and 69b.1 Direct Drift and PDelta Check for the Berkeley Building Drift and Pdelta effects are checked according to Provisions Sec. kips 800 1.6.0484=0.0351/0. the story drift limit for this Seismic Use Group I building is 0. respectively.
23] controlled in this direction.4 mm). In neither case does the computed drift ratio (magnified story drift/hsx) exceed 2 percent of the story height. 620 . 1.0 25.0 30.5 x NS 2% limit 0. = 25. Magnified drift ratio = ∆5/h5 = (2. * Elasticlly computed under codeprescribed seismic forces Figure 65 Drift profile for Berkeley building (1. ft 80 60 40 EW* 6.613 in.0% 160 OK 140 120 100 Height.0 20 0 Total drift.12 [5.4. Deflection amplification factor.0 10.0 40.0 15.1. but the modifying factor does not apply because Provisions Eq. Story drift = ∆5e = δ5e .410 in.5 Importance factor. An example calculation for drift in Story 5 loaded in the EW direction is given below.0 in.0 ft = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples properties were also used. in.0 35.402 in. 5. I = 1.3048 m. Deflection at top of story = δ5e = 1.410 = 0.0 5.0 = 2.5(0. Therefore.0 20.812 in.0 Magnified story drift = ∆5 = Cd ∆5e/I = 6.402)/1. Note that the relevant row is highlighted in Table 69b.δ4e = 1.742% < 2.5 x EW NS* 5. Cd = 6. Deflection at bottom of story = δ4e = 1.812 . the story drift requirement is satisfied. A plot of the total drift resulting from both the NS and EW equivalent lateral seismic forces is shown in Figure 65.01742 = 1.613/150) = 0.1.FEMA 451.
410 1.1 [4.509 2.319 0.41] requires that a modal analysis be used.301 2. .353 Drift Ratio (%) 1.697 2.117 1.834 1.914 1.205 2.673 1.950 2.232 0. .398 1.733 1.733 1.3. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.) 0.276 1.5 for loading in this direction. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.) 4.652 2.515 1.914 2.798 1.618 Story Drift × Cd * (in. When a soft story exists in a Seismic Design Category D building.3 [4.059 1.276 1.473 1.473 1. story height = 150 in.276 1.210 2.744 0.402 0.973 2.600 2.3 [4. story height = 150 in. = 25.340 2.675 1.533 3.397 Drift Ratio (%) 0.348 0.3. The story drift ratios of the top two stories of the structure are not required to be evaluated.380 3.400 0.220 1.400 0.3.532 0.334 0.360 0.) 3.573 Cd = 5.2. 621 .0 in.478 0. total drift is at top of story.363 0.408 0.0 in.3] lists an exception: Structural irregularities of Types 1a.362 Story Drift × Cd * (in.335 1.560 1.024 0.851 1.742 1. .354 0.002 2.010 1.334 1.393 2.4 mm.5 for loading in this direction.002 2.) 0.340 0.5.711 1.087 0.2.999 0.600 2.308 0.) 0.620 2. Provisions Sec. Table 69b Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction Story 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Total Drift (in.2.618 Story Drift (in. 1.340 0.223 1.Chapter 6.089 Cd = 6.360 4. However.300 1.) 1.670 0.362 Story Drift (in. Provisions Table 5.348 0.203 0.32] do not apply where no story drift ratio under design lateral load is less than or equal to 130 percent of the story drift ratio of the next story above.097 3. or 2 in Table 5.2.386 0.060 3.812 1.305 0.276 0.720 3. Reinforced Concrete Table 69a Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction Story 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Total Deflection (in.408 3.020 2.145 0.768 1.4 mm.300 0.117 1. total drift is at top of story.381 0.613 2. 5.364 0. for Level 2. = 25.640 3. 1.210 2.534 1. 1b. for Level 2.
2]. the stability ratio (θ) does not exceed the maximum allowable value computed above.5 = 0.5 ≤ 0. The upper limit on the allowable story stability ratio is given by Provisions Eq.613 in.1. Moreover.5)/(1957. in this example. a modal analysis is not required and the equivalent static forces from Tables 67a and 67b may be used for design.22 [changed in the 2003 Provisions] as: θ max = 0.335 = 0.3.0)6.10 at all levels.50 β Cd Taking β as 1. As can be seen in the last column of each table. Deflections are based on cracked sections.” Therefore. the ratio is 1. which is less than 1. since the values are less than 0.] For this Pdelta analysis a (reduced) story live load of 20 psf was included in the total story weight calculations.1)(150) = 0. 5. The importance factor.10 if and only “if the resistance to lateral forces is determined to increase in a monotonic nonlinear static (pushover) analysis to the target displacement as determined in Sec.3.0)5. Therefore. 5. Note that the relevant row is highlighted in Table 610b.] 622 . I. However. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For the building responding in the NS direction.2 [5.23].16. and story shears are adjusted as necessary for use of Provisions Eq. this does not affect this example because I = 1.077 OK [Note that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions. the ratio of first story to second story drift ratios is 1.6. Story shear = V5 = 1.5 θ = (P5 (∆5/Cd)) /(V5hs5) = 27.2.077.5/(1. the stability coefficient should be evaluated directly using 2003 Provisions Eq.4. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq.4. Magnified story drift = ∆5 = 2. Pdelta effects shall be included in the analysis. For EW response.0 (see Provisions Sec. [In the 2003 Provisions.3.500 kips Story height = hs5= 150 in.5/(1. and for the EW direction the limit is 0. 5. 5.089/1.398 = 1.2.6.6.4.0. The Pdelta analysis for each direction of loading is shown in Tables 610a and 610b. the stability ratio limit for the NS direction is 0. A5.2.4.13.0377 < 0. Cd = 6. the maximum limit on the stability coefficient has been replaced by a requirement that the stability coefficient is permitted to exceed 0.500(2.FEMA 451. which also is less than 1. 5.573/1.957 kips Accumulated story weight P5 = 27.613/6.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]). An example Pdelta calculation for the Level 5 under EW loading is shown below.091.6.5 = 0.13 [5.82. Pdelta effects can be neglected for both drift and strength computed limits according to Provisions Sec. 5.216.
8 1273.2].914 1.0928 Story shears in Table 67a factored by 0. = 25. 6.515 1.4.0327 0.6 1485.4 Story Dead Load (kips) 2783 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3169 Story Live Load (kips) 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 Total Story Accum. This will now be verified by applying the story forces of Table 63a at an eccentricity equal to 5 percent of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of force (accidental torsion requirement of Provisions Sec.0582 0.5 * Story Dead Load (kips) 2783 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3169 Story Live Load (kips) 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 Total Story Accum.6 693.509 2. 623 .0357 0.0231 0.3.0259 0.002 2.8 1279.0535 0.0 in.4.301 2.0663 0.2.340 2.4 mm.2.0 in.1.0361 0.8 2159.0 kip = 4.3 1192. Story Stability Load Load Ratio (kips) (kips) θ 3203 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3589 3203 6674 10145 13616 17087 20558 24029 27500 30971 34442 37913 41502 0.914 2. 6.45 kN.117 1. 6.6 1233.8 817.3 2117.45 kN.1. Table 610b PDelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction Story Drift Story Shear Level (in.675 1.2 Test for Torsional Irregularity for Berkeley Building In Sec.0389 0.600 2.0307 0.) (kips) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1.0077 0.9 1957.613 2. This test is required per Provisions Sec.2 [4.3 it was mentioned that torsional irregularities are unlikely for the Berkeley building because the elements of the seismicforceresisting system were well distributed over the floor area.4 mm.0757 0.3. 5.0 kip = 4.0384 0.4 1832. Story Stability Load Load Ratio (kips) (kips) θ 3203 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3589 3203 6674 10145 13616 17087 20558 24029 27500 30971 34442 37913 41502 0.652 2.0209 0.1 2051. = 25.725.3 995.0 657.798 1. Reinforced Concrete Table 610a PDelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction Level 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Story Drift Story Shear (in.950 2.8 1259.0331 0.9 466.0396 0.353 350.9 1676.0377 0.2.3.097 3.210 2.9 1133.7 1052.3.) (kips) 0.9 948.2]).0319 1.4. 1.0183 0.600 2.276 1.0257 0.210 2. See Sec.478 0. 1.4 2180. 5. 1.Chapter 6. Analysis was performed using the ETABS program.0138 0.2 [5.834 1.397 239.9 1259.002 2.0218 0.0471 0.
As with the Berkeley building. so no torsional irregularity exists.20. The applied seismic forces.1.756/3.13.020hsx (Provisions Table 5.360 in.3.03 < 1. [As noted previously in Sec. show that the story drift at each level is less than the allowable interstory drift of 0. 5.2. (see Table 69b) Rotation at center of mass = 0. 5.20. Ratio dmax/davg = 5.000189 radians Maximum displacement at corner of floor plate = dmax = 3. the minimum Cs value has been removed in the 2003 Provisions. 6. a soft first story does not exist for the Honolulu building because the ratio of first story to second story drift does not exceed 1.125 ft for forces in the NS direction and 0. even though the building is extremely regular in plan. It is interesting that this building.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The eccentricity is 0.360 = 1.360 + 0.3.4.808 to adjust for the use of Provisions Eq.0168/0.200 in.3 Direct Drift and PDelta Check for the Honolulu Building The interstory drift computations for the Honolulu building deforming under the NS and EW equivalent static forces are shown in Tables 611a and 611b. Even though it is not pertinent for Seismic Design Category C buildings.05(102. Ratio δmax/δavg = 3.FEMA 451.640 in. 624 . when loaded in the EW direction.5) = 5. so no torsional irregularity exists. and 6.32]). (see Table 69a) Rotation at center of mass = 0.0207 = 0. as well as Figure 66. is very close to being torsionally irregular (irregularity Type 1a of Provisions Table 5. 4.19 < 1.8 ft in the EW direction.000648 radians Maximum displacement at corner of floor plate = dmax = 4.000189(102.3. 6.000648(216)(12)/2 = 5.2.8 [4.05(216) = 10. The torsional flexibility of the building arises from the fact that the walls exist only on interior Gridlines 3.640 = 1.640 + 0.2 [4.51]). For forces acting in the NS direction: Total displacement at center of mass = δavg = 3. shown previously in Table 63b were multiplied by the ratio 0.756 in.] These tables. the analysis used cracked section properties. For forces acting in the EW direction: Total displacement at center of mass = δavg = 4.200/4.5)(12)/2 = 3.
0 30.Chapter 6.0 40. 625 .0 10.0 ft = 0. 1.0 5.0 25.3048 m.0 20.0 35.5 x NS 2% limit 0.0 in. = 25. * Elasticlly computed under codeprescribed seismic forces Figure 66 Drift profile for the Honolulu building (1.0 15.0 20 0 Total drift. in.4 mm).5 x EW NS* 5. ft 80 60 40 EW* 6. Reinforced Concrete 160 140 120 100 Height.
313 0.191 0. story height = 150 in. Story drift = ∆5e = δ5e .5 for loading in this direction.766 1.412 0.597 1. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.713 0.558 0.0903 = 0.705 0.208 0.558% < 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 611a Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction Story 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total Drift (in.137 0.559 1.186)/1.) 2.531 0. Deflection at bottom of story = δ4e = 0.171 0.186 in.514 0.462 Drift Ratio (%) 0. I = 1.572 0.772 0.306 1.440 1.136 0.157 0.097 0. for Level 2.619 * Cd = 4.524 0.436 0.0890. for Level 2.5(0. A sample calculation for Level 5 of Table 611b (highlighted in the table) is as follows: Deflection at top of story = δ5e =1.887 1.726 1.171 0.5 Importance factor.941 1.658 0.090 0.850 1.182 0.720 0.514 0.734 1.4 mm.061 0.470 0. story height = 150 in.407 0.572 0.480 0.184 0.0 in.) 0. Deflectiom amplification factor.197 0.656 1.269 1.0 = 0.482 0. = 25.858 0.089 0.836 in.903 0.271 0.528 0.504 0.807 0.118 0.0% 626 OK .349 0. Cd = 4.149 0.160 0.116 0.997 0.771 0.836 0.591 0.446 0.407 0.325 Story Drift × Cd * (in.089 in.903 in.) 1.291 0.186 0.157 0.325 Story Drift (in.338 Drift Ratio (%) 0. total drift is at top of story.611 0.0 Magnified story drift = ∆5 = Cd ∆5e/I = 4.522 0.168 0.297 Story Drift (in. 1.441 1. 1.354 0.669 0.829 0. total drift is at top of story.) 0.836/150) = 0.069 0.) 0.538 0.176 0. Magnified drift ratio = ∆5 / h5 = (0.179 0.00558 = 0.829 1.4 mm.FEMA 451.553 0.793 0. Table 611b Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction Story 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Total Drift (in.618 0.040 0.297 Story Drift × Cd * (in. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.121 0.677 Cd = 4.002 1.5 for loading in this direction.) 0.756 0.276 0. = 25.δ4e = 1.0 in.858 0.184 0.191 0.
0539 0.3.0937 0.436 0.9 507. 1. Reinforced Concrete Therefore. 6. 1.771 0. respectively.5/Cd = 0. Because the stability ratio is less than 0. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq.9 590.0599 0.531 0.7 544. Story shear = V5 = 571.0401 0.836 in.1023 in the first story for the EW direction is considered by the author to be close enough to the criterion. The importance factor.5 = 0. Story Stability Load Load Ratio (kips) (kips) θ 3203 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3589 3203 6674 10145 13616 17087 20558 24029 27500 30971 34442 37913 41502 0.0205 0.0766 0. Pdelta effects need not be considered (Provisions Sec.836/4.) Table 612a PDelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction Story Drift Story Shear * Level (in. See Sec. Cd = 4. Calculations for Pdelta effects are shown in Tables 612a and 612b for NS and EW loading.6.9)(150) = 0.808.0672 0.6 609.0337 0.0596 [Note that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions.216.0470 0.6 607.111) are satisfied.720 0. this does not affect this example because I = 1.4 mm.9 571.2.7 227.3.0270 0.0. = 25.0 kip = 4.5)/(571. However.8 Story shears in Table 68 factored by 0.2 [5.4.3 601.5 θ = [P5 (∆5/Cd)]/(V5hs5) = 27500(0.4 396.0 in.5/4.182 0.9 458.7 320.9 = kips Accumulated story weight P5 = 27500 kips Story height = hs5 = 150 in. (The value of 0.Chapter 6. 627 .0073 0. story drift satisfies the drift requirements. 5. I.) (kips) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Story Dead Load (kips) 2783 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3169 Story Live Load (kips) 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 Total Story Accum.829 1.611 0. The stability ratio at the 5th story from Table 612b is computed: Magnified story drift = ∆5 = 0.45 kN.756 0.338 117.313 0.6. 5.793 0.10 at all floors.] The requirements for maximum stability ratio (0.669 0.2]).0136 0.
22] require combination of load effects be developed on the basis of ASCE 7.2.2. ASTM A615 reinforcement may be used if the actual yield strength of the steel does not exceed the specified strength by more than 18 ksi and the ratio of actual ultimate tensile stress to actual tensile yield stress is greater than 1. sandLW aggregate concrete of 4.3].7 544. = 25.0463 0. the loads were applied at a 5 percent eccentricity as required for accidental torsion by Provisions Sec.618 0.2].4. be defined as: 628 .6 609.462 117.21 and 4.887 1.858 0. All reinforcement has a specified yield strength of 60 ksi. Story Stability Load Load Ratio (kips) (kips) θ 3203 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3471 3589 3203 6674 10145 13616 17087 20558 24029 27500 30971 34442 37913 41502 0. However.72 [4. 1.0177 0.71 and 5. See Sec.0596 0.2.6 607.4 Test for Torsional Irregularity for the Honolulu Building A test for torsional irregularity for the Honolulu building can be performed in a manner similar to that for the Berkeley building.2. 21.0527 0. E. 5. do not exist in the Honolulu building.836 0.FEMA 451.0820 0.0728 0. According to ACI 318 Sec.0111 0.5. 6.807 0.858 0.000 psi NW concrete is used. 6.7 227.2. For strength analysis.45 kN.1023 Story shears in Table 68 factored by 0.4.4.3 601. 5.4. it is clear that a torsional irregularity will not occur for the Honolulu building if the Berkeley building is not irregular.0246 0. This reinforcement must conform to ASTM A706. 1. This will be the case because the walls.25. except for the panel of the structural walls which contains 40 ksi reinforcement.276 0.0314 0. orthogonal loading effects were included per Provisions Sec.000 psi strength is used everywhere except for the lower two stories of the structural walls where 6.4. 5. 6. Where applicable. except that the earthquake load effect.5.7 [4.9 571.0389 0.4.4 mm. however.9 507.3 [4.213] was not used because the building has no significant plan irregularities. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 612b PDelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction Level 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * Story Drift Story Shear (in.2. 6.3.8 * Story Dead Load (kips) 2783 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3051 3169 Story Live Load (kips) 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 Total Story Accum.31 [5. Provisions Sec.2. 5.3.1] and Eq.2 [5.0667 0.2 Combination of Load Effects Using the ETABS program.4.808.2.2.524 0.0 in.9 458. 5.) (kips) 0. the structure was analyzed for the equivalent lateral loads shown in Tables 67a and 67b. which draw the torsional resistance towards the center of the Berkeley building.7 320. The torsional magnification factor (Ax) given by Provisions Eq.0 kip = 4.4.4 396.407 0.2.4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE BERKELEY BUILDING 6.3.1 Material Properties For the Berkeley building.705 0.9 590.772 0.
the shear in an interior column will be Vinterior = 0.0. Special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D are an exception and must be proportioned such that ρ is not greater than 1.71 and 5.2 [9.25 (1/14) V = 0.72 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] should be taken as the maximum value of ρx defined by Provisions Eq. the structural system consists of special moment frames.0525 22. but need not exceed 1. the shear in an exterior column will be Vexterior= 0. The special load combinations given by Provisions Eq.140 629 . Hence.0375V + 0.7(0.2S DS D when the effects of seismic load counteract gravity. for a floor diaphragm area Ax equal to 102.2. In the NS direction.7Vint + Vext ) 0.0441 V V The larger of these values will produce the largest value of ρx. (See Provisions Sec.2. 5.0357V.4.0525 V V For one interior and one exterior column: rix = (0.) The reliability factor (ρ) in Eq. Using the portal frame idealization. For two adjacent interior columns: rix = 0.25 (2/14) V = 0.2.71 and 5.72 [4.2S DS D when gravity and seismic load effects are additive and E = ρ QE − 0. For the structure loaded in the NS direction. 5.7(Vint + Vint ) 0.0375V ) = = 0.Chapter 6.56 0.140 square ft: ρx = 2 − 20 = −0.2.5. and rix is taken as the maximum of the shears in any two adjacent columns in the plane of a moment frame divided by the story shear.24] do not apply to the Berkeley building because there are no discontinuous elements supporting stiffer elements above them.0179V. Similarly. For interior columns that have girders framing into both sides.1].0375V ) + 0.23 and 4. 5.5 × 216 = 22. Reinforced Concrete E = ρ QE + 0. The computed value for ρ must be greater than or equal to 1.4.25.0179V ) = = 0.2: ρx = 2 − 20 rmaxx Ax where Ax is the area of the floor or roof diaphragm above the story under consideration and rmaxx is the largest ratio of the design story shear resisted by a single element divided by the total story shear for a given loading. 9. there are four identical frames.6.2. only 70 percent of the individual column shear need be included in this sum.7(0. Each of these frames has eight columns.
For seismic forces acting in the EW direction.42D + 0.1.2SDS)D + 0.2 + 0. According to the Provisions. ρ = 1. the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: 1. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions. For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D.0E 0. as this will clearly not control. Alternatively. ρ will be taken as 1. Note that ρ need not be computed for the columns of the frames in the dual system.2SDS)D .5L + E (1.5L .140 ⎟ ⎠ 20 and as with the NS direction.9 .740 0. if the structure is regular in plan and there are at least 2 bays of perimeter framing on each side of the structure in each orthogonal direction.0. Substituting E from the Provisions.4 times dead load will not control for any condition in this building.125 V Only 80 percent of the ρ value based on the above computations need be used because the walls are part of a dual system. it is permitted to use. ρ = 1. 4.4.42D + 0.] For the Berkeley structure.9D ± 1. There are no reductions in the redundancy factor for dual systems.5L ± 1.E Finally.8 ⎜ ⎜2− ⎝ ⎛ ⎞ ⎟ = 0.0.2 + 0.2D + 1. it will be assumed that they take all the shear.0.0.0 in the NS direction.FEMA 451. the walls carry significant shear.0E The ASCE 7 load combination including only 1.25V (10 / 20) = 0.9 . Hence.5L .2 SDS)D + E (0.0. ρ = 1. the basic ASCE 7 load combinations that must be considered are: 1.0 as long as it can be shown that failure beamtocolumn connections at both ends of a single beam (moment frame system) or failure of a single shear wall with aspect ratio greater than 1.6L 1. rix for walls is taken as the shear in the wall multiplied by 10/lw and divided by the story shear.E (0.0 (shear wall system) would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity.2D + 0.10 for SDS. with ρ taken as 1.2SDS)D + 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples As this value is less than 1. Based on the preliminary design.0. The term lw represents the plan length of the wall in feet.0.E 630 . Per 2003 Provisions Sec. ρ may be taken as 1.125 22. Thus. substituting 1. the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: (1. in the EW direction ρ x = 0. and for the purposes of computing ρ.3 special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D must be configured such that the structure satisfies the criteria for ρ = 1.0 for because the structure has a perimeter moment frame and is regular.5L + E 1.3. for one wall: rmaxx = rix = 0.
As may be observed from Figure 67.68D .4. 9. The deflected shape of the structure loaded in the EW direction (see Figure 65) also shows the effect of framewall interaction because the shape is neither a cantilever mode (wall alone) nor a shear mode The analysis used to create Figures 67 and 68 did not include the 5 percent torsional eccentricity or the 30 percent orthogonal loading rules specified by the Provisions. The eccentricity and orthogonal load were included in the analysis carried out for member design. the overturning moments in the structural walls are reduced significantly as a result of interaction with the remaining frames (Frames 1. This happens because the structural wall pulls back on (supports) the top of Frame 1. and 8).3 are: Flexure without axial load φ = 0.75 Shear if shear strength is not based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.68D + E 0.85] 6. a large reverse force acts at the top of Frame 3 which contains a structural wall. and Frame 6 is similar to Frame 3. The strength reduction factors relevant to this example as contained in ACI 31802 Sec. 2.80 [The strength reduction factors in ACI 31802 have been revised to be consistent with the ASCE 7 load combinations.65 (transitions to 0. and 8). For the frames containing structural walls. using tied columns φ = 0. 3.75 Shear if shear strength is not based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.55 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0.E It is very important to note that use of the ASCE 7 load combinations in lieu of the combinations given in ACI Chapter 9 requires use of the alternate strength reduction factors given in ACI 318 Appendix C: Flexure without axial load φ = 0. 2. For frames containing structural walls (Frames 3 through 6). 7. using tied columns φ = 0.65 (transitions to 0. the shears developed in the girders (except for the first story) do not differ greatly from story to story.8 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0. For frames without walls (Frames 1.9 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.2 This figure shows the response of Frames 1.Chapter 6.80 Axial compression. 2. Thus. By symmetry.9 (tensioncontrolled sections) Axial compression. 2. Frame 8 is similar to Frame 1. with some modification. and 3 only. This behavior is beneficial to the design of the structure because: 1.3 Comments on the Structure’s Behavior Under EW Loading Framewall interaction plays an important role in the behavior of the structure loaded in the EW direction. This allows for a uniformity in the design of the girders. 7. Frame 7 is similar to Frame 2. Frames 4 and 5 have a response that is virtually identical to that of Frames 3 and 6. The actual distribution of story forces developed in the different frames of the structure is shown in Figure 67. the factors that were in Appendix C of ACI 31899 are now in Chapter 9 of ACI 31802. 2 631 . the 40ftlong girders act as outriggers further reducing the overturning moment resisted by the structural walls. Reinforced Concrete 0.60 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0.
77 31. kips Figure 67 Story forces in the EW direction (1. As can be seen.62 6.26 34.8 Frame 3 (includes wall) 12 77.72 8.7 12 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2.98 15.2.64 255. Frame 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 8.1 29.96 Frame 2 107.12 26. The reversal of moment at the top of Frame 3 is a typical response characteristic of framewall interaction.9 Story force.88 66.3. It is the “straightening out” of the deflected shape of the structure that causes the story shears in the frames without walls to be relatively equal.2 [4.31. the 25 percent rule controls only at the lower level of the building. Provisions Sec.1 [4. 2.18 30. 632 .37 34.56 1.74 9.56 21. [Note that R = 7 per 2003 Provisions Table 4.18 20. A plot of the story shears in Frames 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (frame alone).45 kN).29 52. kips 1 114.26 0.58 18. The distribution of overturning moments is shown in Figure 69 and indicates that the relatively stiff Frames 1 and 3 resist the largest portion of the total overturning moment. and 3 is shown in Figure 68. The boundary elements of the walls were retained in the model so that behavior of the interior frames (Frames 3.71 61.88 36. 6.2.FEMA 451.2.88 8.28 8. This provision ensures that the dual system has sufficient redundancy to justify the increase from R = 6 for a special reinforced concrete structural wall to R = 8 for a dual system (see Provisions Table 5.96 13. 4. The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 610.0 kip = 4.96 Story force.] The 25 percent analysis was carried out using the ETABS program with the mathematical model of the building being identical to the previous version except that the panels of the structural wall were removed. and 612.14 39. and 6) would be analyzed in a rational way.67 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 120.68 8.1] requires the frames (without walls) to resist at least 25 percent of the total base shear.48 19. 5.31]).4 Story force.76 4. the original analysis (structural wall included) is shown by a solid line and the 25 percent (backup frame) analysis (structural wall removed) is shown by a dashed line.1.4 Analysis of FrameOnly Structure for 25 Percent of Lateral Load When designing a dual system. 5.79 91.14 45. kips 1 58. 611.4. In these figures.
000 0 10.000 50.0 ft = 0. ft 80 60 40 20 0 200 100 0 100 200 Shear.3048 m. kips 300 400 500 600 Figure 68 Story shears in the EW direction (1.000 30. ft 80 60 40 20 0 10.000 40. 633 .000 20.0 kip = 4.3048 m.0 ftkip = 1.0 ft = 0. ftkips Figure 69 Story overturning moments in the EW direction (1.45 kN). 160 Frame 1 140 Frame 2 Frame 3 120 100 Height.36 kNm). Reinforced Concrete 160 Frame 1 140 Frame 2 Frame 3 120 100 Height.000 Bending moment. 1. 1.Chapter 6.
kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 610 25 percent story shears.45 kN). 634 .0 kip = 4. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear. Frame 1 EW direction (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 25% V analysis for Frame 1 140 Frame 1 120 100 Height.0 ft = 0.3048 m. 1.FEMA 451.
45 kN).0 ft = 0. ft 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear.3048 m. Frame 2 EW direction (1. kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 611 25 percent story shears. Reinforced Concrete 160 25% V analysis for Frame 2 Frame 2 140 120 100 80 Height. 1.0 kip = 4. 635 .Chapter 6.
The preliminary design established that beams would have a maximum depth of 32 in. it is assumed that #8 bars will be used for longitudinal reinforcement and that hoops and stirrups will be constructed from #3 deformed bars. All moment diagrams are drawn using the reinforced concrete or tensionside convention.FEMA 451. In order to consider the beamcolumn joints “confined” per ACI 318 Sec.. In this example. by 30 in.5.0 kip = 4.45 kN).3048 m.4. is assumed. and columns would be 30 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 25% V analysis for Frame 3 140 Frame 3 (without panels) 120 100 Height. In all cases. it was necessary to set the beam width to 22. it is useful to establish. Frame 3 EW direction (1. which is 75 percent of the column width. moments are drawn on the tension side of the member. For beams. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear..0 ft = 0. the moment is designated as a positive moment.5 Design of Frame Members for the Berkeley Building A sign convention for bending moments is required in flexural design. how the reinforcement will be distributed. this means negative moments are plotted on the top and positive moments are plotted on the bottom. in an overall sense. In establishing this depth. 21.1 Initial Calculations Before the quantity and placement of reinforcement is determined. clear cover of 1.5. For columns.4. kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 612 25 percent story shear. In order to determine the effective depth used for the design of the beams. when the steel at the top of a beam section is in tension. 1. Since this structure has beams spanning in 636 . 6.5 in. 6. it is necessary to estimate the size and placement of the reinforcement that will be used.5 in. the moment is designated as a negative moment. When the steel at the bottom is in tension.
8. 21. (span length) b = 22.3. B. The minimum reinforcement to be provided at the top and bottom of any section is: As .1. Beams spanning in the NS direction.375 . 1.5 + 20(12)/12 = 42.2 fy 60. (slab thickness) b = 22.5 + [6(4)] = 46.0 in = 25.5 in.5 in. (slab thickness) ACI 318 Sec. Given Figure 613.1.22 in.000 2'8" 637 .1. 1.5 + 2[8(4)] = 86.Chapter 6.5 in.5" cover #8 bar 2'41 2" 2'51 2" Northsouth spanning beam Eastwest spanning beam #3 hoop 2'6" Figure 613 Layout for beam reinforcement (1.10.5 in.6 = = 2.5 .6 in. the effective width is 22.0 . C.3048 m.0 ft = 0. Reinforced Concrete two orthogonal directions. d = 32 . for all beams. The effective widths for positive moment are as follows (with the parameter controlling effective width shown in parentheses): 20ft beams in Frames 1 and 8 Haunched beams 30ft beams in Frames A.00/2 = 29. d = 32 . For positive moment.0. the slab is in compression and the effective Tbeam width varies according to ACI 318 Sec.375 .5 .6 in.2 controls the longitudinal reinforcement requirements for beams.0. For negative moment bending. compute the effective depth for both positive and negative moment as: Beams spanning in the EW direction. The reinforcement for the EW spanning beams was placed in the upper and lower layers because the strength demand for these members is somewhat greater than that for the NS beams.00/2 = 28.5)29.1.1. it is necessary to layer the flexural reinforcement as shown in Figure 613.4 mm).min = 200bw d 200(22. and D b = 22.
For fc' = 4.410 ldh hook (in.5. For bars hooked into 30in. 7. the available development length is 30 .7 16.9 39.500 0.. Development length requirements for hooked and straight bars are summarized in Table 613.37 in.0 64.000 psi LW concrete. the computed length should not be less than 6 in.) 9.9 48. From Eq.7 72.7 ld top (in. there will be no problem developing hooked bars in the columns. ld = 2.. or 8db. 12.8 28. it is useful to check the required tension development length for hooked bars since the required length may control the dimensions of the columns and the boundary elements of the structural walls.0 in. 21. the minimum length is the larger of 1. With this amount of available length.5ldh and for straight bottom bars.2 638 .0 ld bottom (in.1.270 1.0 56.0.5 = 28. hooked bars have a 12db extension beyond the bend.1. The development length for the portion of the bar extending into unconfined concrete must be increased by a factor of 1.5 51.2 requires that #3 through #8 bars have a 6db bend diameter and #9 through #11 bars have a 8db diameter.25 times that given by ACI 318 Eq. Where hooked bars are used.4 mm.5ldh. 216 controls for #3 through #11 bars.000 psi LW Concrete Bar Size #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 1.1 11.) 22. 216.625 0.1 81.2 90.5 in.5.0 18.128 1.50 .000 1.) 0.3 40.FEMA 451. For LW concrete. = 25. ACI 318 Eq.square columns with 1.2 25. These values are applicable only when the bars are anchored in well confined concrete (e.6. or 10db. 216 of ACI 318 Sec. ACI 318 Sec.5 58. Table 613 is applicable to bars anchored in joint regions only. the required development length is: ldh = f y db 65 f c′ For NW concrete.0 45.5 34.2 20. column cores and plastic hinge regions with confining reinforcement). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This amount of reinforcement can be supplied by three #8 bars with As = 2.4 13. reinforcement required for strength will include these #8 bars. of cover and #4 ties. As required by ACI 318 Sec.g.) 31. ld = 3.4.2 Since the three #8 bars will be provided continuously top and bottom. 7. Before getting too far into member design. ACI 318 Chapter 12 should be used.5 in. For straight “top” bars.875 1. the hook must be 90 degrees and be located within the confined core of the column or boundary element. db (in.0 63.0 in.750 0. For development of bars outside of joint regions.6 23. Table 613 Tension Development Length Requirements for Hooked Bars and Straight Bars in 4.
0.25 fy Various aspects of the design of the beams and other members depend on the above capacities as follows: Beam rebar cutoffs Beam shear reinforcement Beamcolumn joint strength Column flexural strength Column shear strength Design strength Probable strength of beam Probable strength of beam 6/5 × nominal strength of beam Probable strength of column In addition. For this part of the example. These capacities were based on: Design strength Nominal strength Probable strength φ = 0. it should be mentioned that the design of ductile reinforced concrete moment frame members is dominated by the flexural reinforcement in the beams. This assumes the stress block in compression is less than the 4.0.0inch flange thickness.3 The preliminary design of the girders of Frame 1 was based on members with a depth of 32 in. the equivalent lateral forces of Table 67b were applied at an eccentricity of 10.8.6 in. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1.. and the effective widths for positive and negative bending are 42.5 ft together with 30 percent of the forces of Table 67a applied at an eccentricity of 5. The seismic moments are taken directly from the ETABS program output and the gravity moments were computed by hand 3 See Chapter 1 of the 2nd Edition of the Handbook of Concrete Engineering edited by Mark Fintel (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.5. The beams are designed first because the flexural capacity of the asdesigned beams is a factor in the design and detailing of the column and the beamcolumn joint. three different flexural strengths were used for the beams. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1.5 in.5 in. This is a valid design assumption because reinforcement ratios are quite low.08. beams in ductile frames will always have top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement throughout their length.2 Design of Members of Frame 1 for EW Loading For the design of the members of Frame 1. The eccentricities were applied in such a manner as to maximize torsional response and produce the largest shears in Frame 1.4. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1. and the column shear reinforcement. the crosssectional characteristics of the column. The layout of the geometry and gravity loading on the three easternmost spans of Level 5 of Frame 1 as well as the unfactored gravity and seismic moments are illustrated in Figure 614. The design of a corner column will be presented later. the size and spacing of beam shear reinforcement. only the tension steel will be considered.5 and 22. the design and detailing of all five beams and one interior column of Level 5 are presented in varying amounts of detail.00 fy φ = 1. The effective depth for positive and negative bending is 29. The percentage and placement of beam flexural reinforcement governs the flexural rebar cutoff locations.0 ft.15 times the depth) . while the neutral axis depth at ultimate ranges from 0. Reinforced Concrete 6. 639 .07 to 0. and a width of 22. In carrying out the design calculations.00 fy φ = 1. yielding a depth to the neutral axis similar to the depth of the compression reinforcement (d'/d is about 0. In computing flexural capacities. respectively.Chapter 6. Before continuing with the example. 1984). The beam reinforcement is critical because the basic concept of ductile frame design is to force most of the energyabsorbing deformation to occur through inelastic rotation in plastic hinges at the ends of the beams. the column flexural reinforcement.
Negative moment at the supports is controlled by the 1. and positive moment at the support is controlled by 0.0) + 3(0.0(4515) = 5.000 psi fy = 60 ksi 640 .453 4. 6.641 951 4.641 5.708 3.kips) 1.E 492 221 221 221 152 5.kips) 4.149 4.79) = 4.457 4.028 Figure 614 Bending moments for Frame 1 (1. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of the Support Mu = 1. 1.kips) (e) Required strength envelopes (in.kip = 0.225 5.028 834 4.3048 m.kips) (d) Unfactored LL moment (in.1. Factored bending moment envelopes for all five spans are shown in Figure 614.122 3.0E load combination.515 (a) Span layout and loading 4.5(221) + 1.641 in.2.5L + 1.0 in.68D .42D + 0. Note that all moments (except for midspan positive moment) are given at the face of the column and that seismic moments are considerably greater than those due to gravity. ' 17'6" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 4.6L.5.0 ft = 0. The design process is illustrated below starting with Span BC.1 Span BC 1.834 242 221 152 786 715 4.midspan 0.37 in.0E.kips Try two #9 bars in addition to the three #8 bars required for minimum steel: As = 2(1.42D + 0.4.761 5.68D .42(715) + 0.5L + E 1.FEMA 451.2D + 1.232 5.2D+1.2 fc' = 4. Midspan positive moments are based on the load combination 1.6L . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples using the coefficient method of ACI 318 Chapter 8.635 715 715 (b) Earthquake moment (in.515 715 492 (c) Unfactored DL moment (in.113 kNm).988 492 562 152 173 5.222 834 4.
6 in.849 in.57) 60(29. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support Mu = [0.48/2) = 4. φMn = φAsfy(d .a/2) φMn = 0.6 in.kips) will work as shown for Span BC.6(152)] = 833. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support B' Mu = [0.kips As before.761 in.kips Try two #7 bars in addition to the three #8 bars already provided as minimum steel: As = [2(0.37 (60)/[0.0(4.57(60)]/[0. d = 29.42(715)] + [0.kips OK OK Minimum reinforcement (three #8 bars) controls by inspection.2 Span A'B 1.3.028 in.kips 3. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support B Mu = [1.8(3.945 in.1.kips > 5.48 in.85fc'b a = 4.68(715)] + [1.5(221)] + [1.6 in.0(4.4.kips Three #8 bars plus two #7 bars (capacity = 4.42(715)] + [0.60)] + [3(0.43/2) = 5.37)60(29.kips Three #8 bars plus two #9 bars (capacity = 5.2(492)] + [1.5] = 1. Design strength.85 (4) 22. d = 29.5] = 3.945 in.kips As before. use three #8 bars plus two #9 bars.0(4.43 in. Reinforced Concrete Width b for negative moment = 22.708)] = 5. Depth of compression block.5 in.0(4. This positive moment reinforcement will also work for Spans A'B and AA'.kips) works as shown for Span BC. 6. a = Asfy/. 2.8(4.kips 2.68(715)] + [1.57 in.849 in. φMn = 0.68(715)] + [1.5 in.149 in.Chapter 6.635)] = 5.5(221)] + [1. 641 .834 in. 3. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A' Mu = [1.6 . 4.028 in.85(4)42.222 in.641 in.6 . a = [3. Positive Moment at Midspan Mu = [1. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = [0.0(4708)] = 4. 2 Width b for positive moment = 42. use three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.2.kips > 4.515)] = 4.5.79)] = 3.635)] = 4.
5] = 3.5.3. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A Mu = [1.FEMA 451.68(492)] + [1. a = [3.95 in. 6.0(4. d = 29. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A' Mu = [1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.10 in.0(4. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A Mu = [0.5(242)] + [1.95(60)/[0. 4.453 in.6 in.988)] = 3.42(786)] + [0. The arrangement of bars actually provided is based on the above computations with the exception of Span BC where a total of six #8 top bars were used instead of the three #8 bars plus two #9 bars combination. but it allows 642 .25 maximum strength OK (three #8 bars continuous top and bottom) OK (at all joints) OK (As provided = three #8 bars is more than 25 percent of reinforcement provided at joints) OK The preliminary layout of reinforcement is shown in Figure 615.5 in.318 in.68(786)] + [1.2 Width b for negative moment = 22.95)60] (29.457)] = 5. 21.kips > 5. The use of six #8 bars is somewhat awkward for placing steel.2: Minimum of two bars continuous top and bottom Positive moment strength greater than 50 percent negative moment strength at a joint Minimum strength along member greater than 0.79 = 3.kips Try three #8 bars plus two #8 bars: As = 5 × 0. six #8 bars are used at the bottom of Span BC.4.5.3 Span AA' 1. the final layout of reinforcing steel also must satisfy the following from ACI 318 Sec. 3.225 in. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = [0.457)] = 4.232 in.kips Three #8 bars plus two #7 bars will be sufficient.988)] = 5. Similarly.6 . In addition to the computed strength requirements and minimum reinforcement ratios cited above. respectively. use three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.85(4)22.5(152)] + [1.2.232 in. φMn =[0.0(3.42(492)] + [0.kips 2.8(3.2.3.0(3.4.10/2) = 5.122 in.kips As before.4 Spans CC' and C'D Reinforcement requirements for Spans CC' and C'D are mirror images of those computed for Spans A'B and AA'.kips Use three #8 bars plus two #9 bars as required for Support B of Span A'B.
kip = 0.79) = 4.kips) Probable Strength (in.195 three #8 + two #7 4.5] = 4.25fy)(d . Mpr = 1. later phases of the frame design will require computation of the design strength and the maximum probable strength at each support.0033. An alternate choice would have been to use two #9 continuous across the top of Span BC instead of the three of the #8 bars. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 614. Depth of compression block.677 4.25fy)/0.195 A' three #8 + two #9 5. As mentioned above. A five #8 5.697 six #8 6.65 in. the use of two #9 bars (ρ = 0.510 10.311 9.100 9. consider the case of six #8 top bars: As = 6(0.0 ft = 03.849 8.25)60/[0.085 C' three #8 + two #9 5.945 7.677 As an example of computation of probable strength. Reinforced Concrete for the use of three #8 continuous top and bottom at all spans.2 Width b for negative moment = 22.6 in.5 in.74(1.kips) Reinforcement Positive Moment Design Strength (in.697 six #8 6.0 in.945 7.85fc'b a = 4.Chapter 6. Table 614 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 Location Item Reinforcement Negative Moment Design Strength (in.a/2) 643 . However.85(4)22.677 three #8 + three #8 + two #7 two #7 4. d = 29.00303) does not meet the minimum reinforcement requirement ρmin = 0.74 in.kips) 1.945 7.0As(1.318 8.113 kNm.999 B six #8 6.655 D five #8 5.849 8.945 7.085 C six #8 7.kips) Probable Strength (in.048 m).510 10. a = As(1.999 three #8 + two #7 4.318 8. ' (2) #8 (3) #8 2'8" ' (2) #9 (3) #8 (3) #8 (2) #8 (2) #9 (3) #8 2'6" (3) #8 (2) #7 (2) #7 20'0" (typical) (2) #7 (2) #7 Note: Drawing not to scale Figure 615 Preliminary rebar layout for Frame 1 (1.
4.79)] = 355.6 in.000 psi) allowed for LW concrete.5/2) Vc = 150. gravity loads are not included in this computation. the largest shear that theoretically can be developed in the column above Level 5 is 150.5 Adequacy of Flexural Reinforcement in Relation to the Design of the BeamColumn Joint Prior to this point in the design process. If the computed joint stresses are too high.46 in.2(9. The beam shears shown in Figure 616c are based on the probable moment strengths shown in Table 614.5.2.9 kips being developed in the beams. NW concrete with a strength greater than 4.999)/(240 .4 kips With equal spans.79) = 4.697 in.kips For the case of six #8 bottom bars: As = 6(0. except at the end column.50) = 2Vc(12.2 kips For Span CC': VE = (10.25)60/(0.83) + 90. the layout of reinforcement has been considered preliminary because the quantity of reinforcement placed in the girders has a direct bearing on the magnitude of the stresses developed in the beamcolumn joint. changing the reinforcement layout. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Mpr = 1. d = 29.4. a = 4.25 fy: T = C = 1. compute the earthquake shear in Span BC: VE = (Mpr. The forces in the beam reinforcement for negative moment are based on six #8 bars at 1.+ Mpr+ )/lclear = (9.000 psi may be used for the columns and beamcolumn joint region while the LW concrete is used for the joists and beams.3. This is computed from equilibrium as shown at the bottom of Figure 616: 94. 21.5. For forces acting from west to east.FEMA 451.74)1.697 + 10.6 .74 in. The option of increasing concrete strength is not viable for this example because it is already at the maximum (4.2 and 90.85 × 4 × 42. the only remedies are increasing the concrete strength.9(10.0(4.25(60)(29.085 + 8. Mpr = 1. increasing the column area.5 kips 644 .25(60)[(6(0. or increasing the beam depth.74)1.30) = 94. The design of the beamcolumn joint is based on the requirements of ACI 318 Sec.5 kips.74(1.6 .65/2) = 9. where the seismic shear is much less. If absolutely necessary.30) = 90.46/2) = 10.9 kips With the earthquake shear of 94.085 in. gravity loads do not produce significant column shears.2 Width b for positive moment = 42.5 in.5 ) = 2.0(4.25(60)(29.kips 6. however.2. which shows how plastic moments are developed in the various spans for equivalent lateral forces acting to the east. Therefore. An isolated subassemblage from the frame is shown in Figure 616b.085)/(240 . The determination of the forces in the joint of the column on Gridline C of Frame 1 is based on Figure 616a.
0 kip = 4.5 + 355.VE = 355. For positive moment.5 .kip = 0.6 kips The joint shear stress is: vj = Vj d c2 = 560.kips) in spans BC and CC' 10.150.4 94.0 ft = 0. As illustrated in Figure 617. the joint shear force Vj is computed as: Vj = T + C .0 in.113 kNm).697 8.999 (b) Plastic moments (in.4 Figure 616 Diagram for computing column shears (1.5 = 623 psi 30 2 645 . assuming C = T.085 9'10" 20'0" 10.085 10'6" 20'0" 150.3048 m.2 (c) Girder and column shears (kips) 90.9 150.Chapter 6.4 = 560.5 kips. 1. 1. Reinforced Concrete ' ' + + + +  (a) Plastic mechanism ' 9.45kN. six #8 bars also are used. C = 355.
75 as a modifier for LW concrete: v j . As shown later.FEMA 451.5 kips T = 355.4 will be placed within the depth of the joint. If the column is increased in size to 32 in.5 kips T = 355. φ = 0.45kN). Using φ = 0. Joint stresses would be checked for the other columns in a similar manner. by 32 in. 646 . the new joint shear stress is: vj = Vj d c2 = 560.5 kips Figure 617 Computing joint shear stress (1. the final solution will be to rearrange the bars to three #8 plus two #7. this reinforcement consists of fourleg #4 hoops at 4 in. The six #8 bottom bars at Columns B and C could be reduced to three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.5 kips Vg = 2(355. See Sec 6.4.75)(15 4. It is left to the reader to verify that the joint shear stress would be acceptable under these circumstances. C'. the total amount of transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318 Sec. A'.3 as referenced by the 2003 Provisions. these joints will not be overstressed.85 per ACI 31802 Sec 9. Another remedy would be to increase the size of the column.3 controls the amount of reinforcement required in the joint.0 kip = 4.5 kips C = 355.2 for discussion. ACI 318 Sec..] Since the actual joint stress (623 psi) exceeds the allowable stress (569 psi). For now we will proceed with the larger column. and D is less than that for Columns B and C.5.5. the joint is overstressed.80 for joints (from ACI Appendix C) and a factor of 0. the allowable shear stress for LW concrete is based on ACI 318 Sec. allowable = 0.000) = 569 psi [Note that for joints.4. 21. This would require a somewhat different arrangement of bars than shown in Figure 615. on center. One remedy to the situation would be to reduce the quantity of positive moment reinforcement.3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Vc = 150. Since the joint is not confined on all four sides by a beam. 21.5)150.5 kips C = 355.5 = 547psi < 569 psi 322 which is also acceptable.80(0. Because the combined area of top and bottom reinforcement used at Columns A.2. 21.5 = 560. For joints confined on three faces or on two opposite faces. but as discussed later. Given that the joint stress is acceptable.
Loading diagrams for determining cut off locations are shown in Figure 618. 12.) is 0. 73.Chapter 6. and a 6 ft1 in.311 2 where the distance x is computed to be 75. shorter bars are used to make up the additional reinforcement required for strength. the loading is taken as earthquake plus 1.3 in. 0.7 x = 3. For negative moment cutoff locations. To determine where bars should be cut off in each span. Cutoff locations are based on the members developing their design flexural capacities (fy = 60 ksi and φ = 0. and 3. For positive moment cutoffs.0 + 29.9 + 29. refer to Figure 619a.5 times live load.121 (kips/in.6 = 105.3 requires an additional length equal to the effective depth of the member or 12 bar diameters (whichever is larger).3 kips is the end shear.261 in. effective depth. ACI 318 Sec.121x 2 − 73. To determine the cutoff location for negative moment. C' and D. An additional three #8 bars are placed top and bottom in the center span. 6. or 8 ft9 in.6 x = 3.281x 2 − 31.261 in. these bars are cut off in Spans A'B and CC'. A'.10. Reinforced Concrete Because the arrangement of steel is acceptable from a joint strength perspective.9 in.6 = 72.8). it is assumed that theoretical cutoff locations correspond to the point where the continuous top and bottom bars develop their design flexural strength. it has been determined that the design flexural strength supplied by a section with only three #8 bars is 3. see Figure 614 and Figure 619b. For positive moment cutoff.kips is the design strength of the section with three #8 bars. Note that this is exactly at the midspan of the member. Using calculations similar to those above.42 times dead load plus 0. Since the goal is to develop a negative moment capacity of 3. Consequently. the required extension beyond the face of the support is 76.kips in the continuous #8 bars summing moments about Point A in Figure 619a: 6.311 + 0.311 in.7 in.5 in. the cutoff locations of the various bars may be determined (see Figure 615 for a schematic of the arrangement of reinforcement). which is a free body diagram of the west end of the member. The free body diagram produces an equilibrium equation as: 6. the total length of the bar beyond the face of the support is 42.261 2 In the above equation. At Supports A.kips) is the negative moment capacity for the section with six #8 bars. Solving the quadratic equation results in x = 42. The three #8 bars (top and bottom) required for minimum reinforcement are supplied in one length that runs continuously across the two end spans and are cut off in the center span.68 times the dead load forces.kips for positive moment and 3.6 in.kips for negative moment. 647 . Adding the 29.510 − 0.311 (in.261 in.68 times the uniform dead load. Sample cutoff calculations are given first for Span BC. it is assumed that the member is subjected to earthquake plus 0. extension beyond the face of the column could be used.
1 in. 1.510 Figure 618 Loading for determination of rebar cutoffs (1. As shown in Figure 620. and the columns may remain at 30 in.6 kN/m.0 kip = 4. another requirement in setting cutoff length is that the bar being cut off must have sufficient length to develop the strength required in the adjacent span.kips) 3.0 in.261 E E +0.14 klf Face of support 17'6" 6. 1. 1.FEMA 451. From Table 613.311 in. A 6. Clearly.113 kNm).311 X X+ 6. The confined length in which the bar is developed is shown in Figure 620 and consists of 648 .66 klf WD= 2.68D E +1.68L Bending moment (in. the bottom steel will be rearranged to consist of three #8 plus two #7 bars continuous.7 kips 1.42D+0. Instead. Recall that this arrangement of reinforcement will satisfy joint shear requirements.0 ft = 0.kips (b) X+ 31.281 kip/in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples WL = 0.6 kN/m.0 klf = 14.3048 m.0 klf = 14.121 kip/in. if the bar is anchored in a confined joint region.kip = 0.6 kips Figure 619 Free body diagrams (1. the required development length of the #9 top bars in tension is 72.510 in.0 in.311 3. A (a) X73.42D+0. 6. the short bottom bars shown in Figure 615 are impractical.kip = 0. 1. by 30 in.kips 0.113 kNm).5L = 0.45kN.68 WD= 0.
0 (bottom bar).0 (#9 bar).5 + 0 ⎞ 40 ⎜ ⎝ 4. 12.3 × 37. The splice length is taken as the bottom bar Class B splice length for #8 bars.) plus 1/2 bar diameter (0. From ACI 318 Sec. 21.3 (1. and using Ktr = 0. the splice length is 1. contact splice.) = 2. the entire region of the splice must be confined by closed hoops spaced no closer than d/4 or 4 in. use a 48in.1 in. The splice length = 1. 649 d b = 2'8" .2.2.3 and 21.4 mm). Reinforced Concrete the column depth plus twice the depth of the girder. According to ACI 318 Sec. ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ 2.3048 m.0 ft = 0. the strength at the supports must be recomputed.5 in.. Required length = 3. which is greater than the 72. λ = 1.0 × 1.0 ⎠ ' Must also check for force F.0 = 48. 12.3. β =1. the development length for one #9 bar is: ld = 3 ⎛ 60. γ = 1.50 in.4.3. According to ACI 318 Sec.3.Chapter 6. 1.1" #9 bar F Confined region Cut off length based on moments in span A'B dc = 2'6" 7'10" 6'1" Figure 620 Development length for top bars (1. Therefore.50 in.4.0 in.0 in = 25.3 times the development length. required.5 in.000 ⎠ ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 1. Due to the different arrangement of bottom steel. the development length (ld) is computed from: ld 3 fy αβγλ = ' db 40 f ⎛ c + K tr ⎞ c ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ db ⎠ using α = 1. The column and girder are considered confined because of the presence of closed hoop reinforcement as required by ACI 318 Sec.15.5 l dh = 72. taking c as the cover (1. The final bar placement and cutoff locations for all five spans are shown in Figure 621.0 (uncoated).0) = 37.3 (LW concrete). The results are shown in Table 615.1 in.) plus the tie dimension (0. This length is 30 + 32 + 32 = 94 in..000 ⎞ 1 × 1 × 1. 21. The bottom bars are spliced at the center of Spans A'B and CC' as shown in Figure 621.2.
kips) Probable moment (in.kip = 0.25fy.318 8.944 7.0 ft = 0.kips) Reinforcement Positive Moment Design Moment (in.311 9. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples ' 5'0" (3) #8 (2) #9 ' (3) #8 (2) #8 (3) #8 + (2) #7 4'0" Hoop spacing (from each end): Typical spans AA'.3.0 in.4. 15 at 5. 6 at 4" Figure 621 Final bar arrangement (1.CC'. To avoid nonductile shear failures.677 6.2.849 8. Table 615 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 (Revised) Location Item Reinforcement Negative Moment Design Moment (in.677 three #8 + three #8 + three #8 + three #8 two #7 two #7 two #7 + two #7 4.5.311 9.944 7.849 8.944 7.kips) Probable moment (in.677 D five #8 5.5" Typical spans A'B.0 and the flexural reinforcement reaches a tensile stress of 1.0 in = 25. 650 . 1.195 A' three #8 + two #9 5.677 4.944 7. the shear strength demand is computed as the sum of the factored gravity shear plus the maximum probable earthquake shear. 21.195 three #8 + two #7 4.3048 m.677 4.FEMA 451.6 Transverse Reinforcement Transverse reinforcement requirements are covered in ACI 318 Sec.696 C six #8 6. The probable moment strength at each support is shown in Table 615. 19 at 5.3 (minimum reinforcement) and 21.999 B six #8 6.113 kNm.3.944 7. A five #8 5.696 C' three #8 + two #9 5.kips) 1.677 4.4 mm).5".999 three #8 + two #7 4.318 8.4 (shear strength). (4) #3 leg 1 at 2". BC. The maximum probable earthquake shear is based on the assumption that φ = 1. C'D (4) #3 leg 1 at 2".944 7.
and BC. the values shown in the figure are: VE = − + M pr + M pr lclear where lclear = 17 ft6 in.7 kips. For forces acting to the east. Reinforced Concrete Figure 622 illustrates the development of the design shear strength envelopes for Spans AA'. VE = (8999 + 7677) / 210 = 79.4 kips. A'B. 651 . VE = (9696 + 7677) / 210 = 82. The earthquake shears produced by the maximum probable moments are shown in Figure 622b. The moments shown occur at the face of the supports. In Figure 622a. For Span AB.Chapter 6. Note that the earthquake shears act in different directions depending on the direction of load. For forces acting to the west. = 210 in. the maximum probable earthquake moments are shown for seismic forces acting to the east (solid lines) and to the west (dashed lines).
6 79.2 112. 652 .195 8.kips 7.677 7.1 108. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Loading ' 8. 1.kip = 0.9 49.7 (b) Seismic shear positive kips 75.5 29.2 53.42D + 0.4 mm.0 kip = 4.696 9.2 (d) Design shear seismic + gravity 46.4 82.5 29. 1.677 7.9 49.5 (c) Gravity shear (1.999 9.45kN.7 29.677 15" 210" 240" 15" 79.696 (a) Seismic moment (tension side) in.2 positive kips Figure 622 Shear forces for transverse reinforcement (1.0 in = 25.5 29.9 53.5L) positive kips 29.2 53.9 112.2 112.4 82.5 29.FEMA 451.113 kNm).1 105.7 82.5 108.0 in.677 7.
1.29. a shear of 82.7 + 29.8) = 29.6 in. From Figure 622.7 kips Vlive = 0. the spacing of reinforcement required is computed as described below. In designing shear reinforcement.3" Figure 623 Detailed shear force envelope in Span BC (1.2 kips acts at the opposite end of the member.4" 41..5/2 = 18.45kN).Chapter 6. the design shear strength of the concrete must be taken as zero when the axial force is small (Pu/Agf!c < 0.2)/2 = 82. say 7.2 kips 9.6 in. the shear strength can consist of contributions from concrete and from steel hoops or stirrups.2 for discussion.2 kips φ Vs = 110. Compute the required spacing: s = 0.42(18.6/82.2).7) + 0. However.4 mm. Reinforced Concrete The gravity shears shown in Figure 622c are: Factored gravity shear = VG = 1.2: 653 .. from the face of the support: Vu = φVs = 112. See Sec 6.11)](60)(29.2 .3.66 × 17.5 in. The strength envelope for Span BC is shown in detail in Figure 623.0 in.5 = 112.3" 54.6 kips s = 5" 112.44 in.42Vdead + 0. this ratio is VE/Vu = 82.3.2 = 0.7 kips.2 kips. 21.2 .9 kips Vs = Avfyd/s Assuming four #3 vertical legs (Av = 0.3.6/103.5Vlive Vdead = 2.11)](60)(29.8 kips VG = 1. so concrete shear strength must be taken as zero. compute the required spacing: s = φAvfyd/Vu = 0.2.14 × 17. say 5.2 kips 53.5/2 = 5.65 in.5 kips Total design shears for each span are shown in Figure 622d.] Compute the shear at d = 29.0 in = 25.75. φ Vs = 132. which indicates that the maximum design shears is 82.0 kip = 4.9) = 5. 21.7 .7 kips s = 7" 112.6/210)(112.7) = 7.75[4(0.3.5.5(5.(29.7/112..5 = 53.5 kips s = 6" φ V s = 94.75[4(0. [Note that this is the basic strength reduction factor for shear per ACI 31802 Sec 9.05) and the ratio VE/Vu is greater than 0. according to ACI 318 Sec. Check maximum spacing per ACI 318 Sec.2 + 53. the design shear Vu = (112.73. Using the ASCE 7 compatible φ for shear = 0. At midspan. fv = 60 ksi and d = 29.53. While this shear acts at one end.08 in.2 kips 53.4.4.2) = 103.
on center. The column. From that point on. stirrups will not be used. from face of support).4. The ETABS analysis indicates that the maximum axial earthquake force is 84 kips.0) = 8. This is being done because the earthquake shear is a large portion of the total shear.3.5.4 in. tension or compression.3 Design of a Typical Interior Column of Frame 1 This section illustrates the design of a typical interior column on Gridline A'.0 in.5 in. The flexural reinforcement in the beams framing into the column is shown in Figure 621. at midspan. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples d/4 = 29.3. which supports Level 5 of Frame 1.3. is 30 in. the column bending moment for NS forces can be neglected. Hoops should be arranged such that every corner and alternate longitudinal bar is supported by a corner of the hoop assembly and no bar should be more than 6 in. at the support and 7. An isolated view of the column is shown in Figure 624.0 in. square and is constructed from 4. For the girders of Frame 1. and accidental torsion. 60 ksi longitudinal reinforcement.0 in. and the hoops will be used along the entire member length. The spacing must vary between 5. Using simple tributary area calculations (not shown). and C'D. 24dh = 24(3/8) = 9. the column is designed for axial force plus uniaxial bending. will be used for the full length of the beam. Because no beams frame into this column along Gridline A'.5 in.1 states that closed hoops are required over a distance of twice the member depth from the face of the support.10. and 60 ksi transverse reinforcement. Due to the relatively flat shear force gradient. Details of the transverse reinforcement layout for all spans of Level 5 of Frame 1 are shown in Figure 621. 7. 30 percent of the NS force. a spacing of 5. The load combination used to compute this force consists of full earthquake force in the EW direction. ACI 318 Sec.FEMA 451. clear from such a supported bar. 21. stirrups may be used. the bottom flexural reinforcement is spliced and hoops must be placed over the splice region at d/4 or a maximum of 4 in. the column supports an unfactored axial dead load of 528 kips and an unfactored axial live load of 54 kips. longitudinal reinforcing bars should be supported as specified in ACI 318 Sec. the girder is relatively short. BC. Where hoops are required (first 64 in.5.6/4 = 7. Hence. 6.000 psi LW concrete. 8db = 8(1. In Spans A'B and CC'. 654 . The first hoop must be placed 2 in. This arrangement of hoops will be used for Spans AA'. and the economic premium is negligible. however. from the face of the support.
6.849/0.1fc'Ag = 0. 21.68D . a column with adequate capacity must be selected.kips Nominal (positive) moment strength at end A' of Span A' B = 4.0(84) = 861 kips (compression) The combination for minimum compression (or tension) is: Pu = 0. by 30 in. columns of 4.000 psi concrete and reinforcement consisting of 12 #8. Figure 625 gives design curves for 30 in. The combination that results in maximum compression is: Pu = 1.0 in = 25.5L + 1. #9. 1.4 mm.0E 0.kips.4.181 in.311 in.3. according to ACI 318 Sec. 1.5(54) + 1. Thus.1 Longitudinal Reinforcement To determine the axial design loads. or #10 bars.095 in.68(528) . Reinforced Concrete ' P L= 54 kips Includes PD= 528 kips level 5 32" See Figure 621 for girder reinforcement Level 5 12'6" 30" 32" Level 4 20'0" 20'0" Figure 624 Layout and loads on column of Frame A (1.1(4)(302) = 360 kips.2.kips Average nominal moment framing into joint = 6.746 in.kips Nominal column design moment = 6/5 × 6746 = 8. Nominal (negative) moment strength at end A' of Span AA' = 5.8 = 6.42(528) + 0.1. These curves.1.42D + 0.4. Beam moments at the face of the support are used for this computation.Chapter 6. use the basic load combinations: 1.5.945/0.3048 m.45kN).0 kip = 4. Knowing the factored axial load and the required design flexural strength.8 = 7. computed with a 655 . the nominal column flexural strength must be at least 6/5 of the nominal flexural strength of the beams framing into the column.0(84) = 275 kips (compression) The maximum axial compression force of 861 kips is greater than 0.0E.0 ft = 0. These capacities are provided in Table 615.
000 2.000 (12) #10 4.2 and 1.4.000 Mu (ftkips) Figure 625 Design interaction diagram for column on Gridline A' (1. are based on a φ factor of 1.09shc fc′ f yh The first of these equations controls when Ag/Ach > 1.5 .by30in.FEMA 451. solid horizontal lines are drawn.2 Transverse Reinforcement ACI 318 Sec.5)2 = 729 in.2 Ag/Ach = 900/729 = 1. columns: Ach = (30 .3 ⎜ c c ⎟ ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎜ f yh ⎟ ⎝ Ach ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ Ash = 0.kips) at each axial load level. 214 therefore controls. The dots on the lines represent the required nominal flexural strength (8095 in.5. 656 . For both the minimum and maximum axial forces. These dots must lie to the left of the curve representing the design columns.3. ACI 318 Eq.0 ftkip = 1. At axial forces of 275 kips and 861 kips.45kN.1. For the 30in.4 gives the requirements for minimum transverse reinforcement. 6.500 2.3.0 as required for nominal strength.48 in. Pu (kips) 5.1.4.0 kip = 4.05 percent of steel) is clearly adequate.2 Ag = 30 (30) = 900 in.000 0 500 1.000 1.24 ACI 318 Eq.000 2.000 (12) #9 (12) #8 3. For rectangular sections with hoops.000 0 1.36 kNm). 213 and 214 are applicable: ⎛ sh f ′ ⎞ ⎛ Ag ⎞ Ash = 0. a column with 12 #8 bars (with As = 9. 1.000 1. 21. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
657 .5x118) = 143 kips.833 in. 6. so a spacing of 5 in.03 in.5.4.25/0.1. This is done for practical reasons only.).09 (26.2) 60. but it does not specify what the details of reinforcement should be.Chapter 6. try hoops with four #4 legs and fc' = 4. 11.000(30)(27. ACI 318 requires transverse steel at this spacing.2) in addition to the capacity reduction factor for shear. at each end of the member and. should be located in the center half of the of the column and must be proportioned as (Class B) tension splices.8) times the average design moment = (1.75(4)(0.5 .5 in.2.. For the column with twelve #8 bars and #4 hoops and cross ties. six bar diameters (6 × 1.).3. If this capacity is well in excess of the demand. or 6db.2 kips φVs = φ Av f y d / s = 0. The average probable moment is roughly 1.4. where required.000 psi: hc = 30 .4. 21. 21. hx = 8. This shear will be compared to the capacity provided by the 4leg #4 hoops spaced at 6 in.000]/[0. will be used.5) / 6 = 165 kips φVn = φVc + φVs = 33. the concrete contribution to shear strength may be considered because Pu > Agf!c/20.0 in. The spacing of reinforcement through the joint has been reduced to 4 in. the design shear strength contributed by concrete is: φVc = φ 0.6 requires a maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in the region of the column not covered by Sec. The final column detail with both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement is given in Figure 626.4.3 Transverse Reinforcement Required for Shear The amount of transverse reinforcement computed above is the minimum required.85)( 4.75 fc′bc dc = 0. spacing required by ACI Eq.8 (φ = 0. The 5. 21.25 = 26. on center. and sx = 5.5 . Reinforced Concrete For LW concrete. must extend through the joint at (at most) the same spacing.5.0 in.2 + 165 = 198.5) 4000] = 5.kips.2)(60)(27. For the design of column shear capacity.2 kips > 143 kips OK The column with the minimum transverse steel is therefore adequate for shear.25/0.5) = 33.0. In this example.72 in.25 .0. s = [4 (0. hoops and crossties with the same details as those placed in the critical regions of the column are used. The maximum spacing is the smaller of 6.1. the column shear can be estimated at 8433/(0.85 for sandLW concrete (ACI 318 Sec. ACI 318 Sec. 214 controls. With a clear height of 118 in. However. according to ACI 318 Sec.2. This transverse reinforcement must be spaced over a distance lo = 30 in. on center. the maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement is the lesser of onefourth the maximum column dimension (30/4=7. Using a shear strength reduction factor of 0.4.0 = 6. the columns will be acceptable for shear. which for #8 bars is also 6 in.8)(5397) = 8.433 in.1. Column bar splices. or the dimension sx where: sx = 4 + 14 − hx 3 and where hx is the maximum horizontal spacing of hoops or cross ties.75(0.03in.4.5 in. The column also must be checked for shear with the column shears being based on the maximum probable moments in the beams that frame into the column.
For determining earthquake forces. the entire structure was analyzed using the ETABS program. throughout. 6. The length of the haunch at each end (as measured from the face of the support) is 8 ft9 in. This girder is of variable depth with a maximum depth of 32 in. was modeled as fixed. This analysis included 100 percent of the earthquake forces in the EW direction and 30 percent of the 658 30" #4 hoops Level 6 . for the middle half of the span. Based on a tributary gravity load analysis.4 Design of Haunched Girder The design of a typical haunched girder of Level 5 of Frame 3 is now illustrated. a separate analysis of the girder was carried out using the SAP2000 program. The width of the web of girder is 22.4.90 kips/ft of reduced live load.5 in. The loading and geometry of the girder is shown in Figure 627a. which is supported by a shear wall. End A of the girder was supported with halfheight columns pinned at midstory and End B.0 in = 25.375 kips/ft of dead load and 0.FEMA 451.5.4 mm). this girder supports an average of 3. at the support and a minimum depth of 20 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples ' Level 7 32" 6 at 5" 2" (12) #8 bars + + 9 at 6" 30" 2" 6 at 5" 2" 7 at 4" 32" 30" Figure 626 Details of reinforcement for column (1. Each haunch was divided into four segments with nonprismatic section properties used for each segment. For the purpose of estimating gravity moments.
000 8.kip = 0.2D + 1.000 8.0 k/ft = 14. WL = 0.E 1.kips) 4.0 in.824 = φMn 1.5E 0.000 2.000 6.5L + 0.5E 1. and accidental torsion.5E 0.Chapter 6. 659 . 1.5L .42D + 0.68D .0 ft = 0.113 kNm).000 4.102 = φMn (7) #11 Level 5 (5) #9 (c) Flexural reinforcement details Negative moment hinge Level 5 4'0" 6'0" 6'0" 4'0" (d) Potential plastic hinge locations Range of possible positive moment hinges Figure 627 Design forces and detailing of haunched girder (1.000 6. 1.000 4.000 0 2.000 12. Reinforced Concrete earthquake force in the NS direction.42D + 0.38 kips/ft Level 5 (a) Span geometry and loading 1'3" 8'9" 10'0" 10'0" 8'9" 1'3" 13.6L Strength envelope (b) Moment envelope (in. Each of these systems of lateral forces was placed at a 5 percent eccentricity with the direction of the eccentricity set to produce the maximum seismic shear in the member.68D + 0.000 6.982 = φMn 6.000 10.167 = φMn 14.6 kN/m.0.3048 m.90 kips/ft WD= 3.
a = [5. ρ = 10.0) = 5.600 in.00 in.102 in. b = 86.K.128/2 = 29.982 in.68D .02/2) = 6. These four top bars are part of the negative moment reinforcement already sized 660 .92/(29.2. ρ =5.3/8 .8 (5.85 (4) 22.6 × 22.8 (5.4 .6L controls positive moment at midspan.00) 60] (29. a = [10.56 in. OK OK The five #9 bottom bars are adequate for strength and satisfy ACI 318 Sec.68D ± E controls positive moment at the support.2 d = 32.92) 60](29. the design for negative moment controls the amount of reinforcement required at all sections per ACI 318 Sec. and assuming #3 hoops: As = 7 × 1.6 .3. 21.5 .1.6 × 22. This moment is larger than the design moment and.167 in. For positive moment at midspan the same five #9 bars used for positive moment at the support will be tried: As = 5 (1. Depth of compression block.FEMA 451.0165 < 0.kips. Using four bars across the top also eliminates the possibility that a negative moment hinge will form at the end of the haunch (8 ft9 in.42D + 0. 21.41/2 = 29. four #11 bars (ρ = 0.92 in.0075 > 0.85 (4) 86.4. O.5) = 0.1. The maximum positive moment at the support is less than 50 percent of the maximum negative moment and the positive and negative moment at midspan is less than 25 percent of the maximum negative moment. try seven #11 bars.02 in.2 d = 20 .025.K.92 (60)]/[0. φMn = [0.kips at Support B.3.02 in. try five #9 bars. which supplies about half the negative moment reinforcement: As = 5 (1. 0.00/(17.kips > 3.2 d = 32 . For a factored negative moment of 12. from the face of the support) when the 0. Envelopes of maximum positive and negative moment are shown on the figure indicate that 1.4.8 (10.2. φMn = [0.00 in. b = 22.4 in.1.600 in. and 1.5 in. For negative moment in the 20ft span between the haunches.kips.3.4 × 22.3/8 .5 .00 (60)]/[0.02/2) = 4.E load combination is applied.033.2.00/(29.8.0) = 5.2D + 1.016) could be used at the top.1.1 Design and Detailing of Longitudinal Reinforcement The results of the analysis for five different load combinations are shown in Figure 627b.00) 60] (17. which requires that the positive moment capacity be not less than 25 percent of the negative moment capacity at the face of the support.2.0126 b = 86. ρ = 5. (assuming stress block in flange) a = [5. Design strength.5 in.6 in.6 in.56/2) = 13.5L ± E controls negative moment at the support. as required by ACI 318 Sec.6 .5] = 8. These bars provide a strength greater than 25 percent of the negative moment capacity at the support. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.1.kips > 12. O. φMn = [0.282 in.5 .3/8 .2.5) = 0.5] = 1.00 (60)]/(0.1.1. 21.5 in.54 = 10.85 (4) 86.5] = 1.5.5) = 0.128/2 = 17.kips For positive moment at the support. therefore.1. is greater than 50 percent of the negative moment capacity at the face of the support.2.
25) 60]/[0. the location of the positive moment hinge that will form in the constant depth portion of the girder must be identified.2 d = 20 . seven #11 bars in 20in. which is a violation of ACI 21.25) 60]/[0. The violation is minor and will be accepted in lieu of cutting off the bars in a potential plastic hinge region.4 in.71 in. however.4. Mpr = [1.5 in.2 Design and Detailing of Transverse Reinforcement The design for shear of the haunched girder is complicated by its variable depth. Mpr = 1.5] = 10.5] = 1. Under combined gravity and earthquake load. thus R – wx = 0 661 .693 in.1.0 (5.0) = 5.1.5. For positive moment in the constant depth region and using five #9 bars: As = 5 (1. deep portion of the girder provide ρ = 0. however. The layout of longitudinal reinforcement used for the haunched girder is shown in Figure 627c.56) = 10.4 ..4 in. As discussed in the following sections. b = 86. The other three bars extending from the support are not needed for negative moment in the constant depth region and would be cut off approximately 6 ft beyond the haunch.025).1. To do so.028.Chapter 6.128/2 = 17.5 in. Note that these bars provide a negative design moment capacity of 6. therefore. the hooked #11 bars can be developed in the confined core of the columns.25)(60)(29. and the flexural strength envelope provided by the reinforcement is shown in Figure 627b. based on the moment envelopes from the loading (Figure 627b).824 in.3.71/2) = 19.28/2) = 6. This spacing should accommodate the vertical column reinforcement. b = 22.2 d = 32 . consider the freebody diagram of Figure 628a.25 (60)] (17.92 in.5 .28 in. the corresponding positive moment hinge will form in the constant depth portion of the girder.2.kips Before the earthquake shear may be determined.41/2 = 29. where seven #11 top bars are used.00 (1.00 in. Summing moments (clockwise positive) about point B gives: + − + M pr + Rx − M pr wx 2 =0 2 At the positive moment hinge the shear must be zero. which is greater than the diameter of a #11 bar and is therefore acceptable. Finally. Another alternative would be to extend all seven #11 bars across the top and thereby avoid the bar cutoff in a possible plastic hinge region.6 in.85 (4) 86.10.5 . a negative moment plastic hinge will form at the support and. a tabular approach is taken for the calculations. For negative moment at the face of the support and using seven #11 bars: As = 7 (1.6 .360 in.0(10.1. the spacing between bars is approximately 1.85 (4) 22. a = [5.92 (1.kips in the constant depth region of the girder.1 (ρmax = 0. Reinforced Concrete for negative moment at the support. a = [10.kips.4. Before the table may be set up. the maximum probable strength must be determined for negative moment at the support and for positive moment in the constant depth region.00) 1. however.92)(1.3/8 . this detail results in a possible bar cutoff in a plastic hinge region (see below) that is not desirable.3/8 . 6. the exact location of plastic hinges must be determined in order to design the transverse reinforcement.1. As noted in Table 613.
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
By combining the above equations:
x=
+ − 2( M pr + M pr )
w
Using the above equation with Mpr as computed and w = 1.42(3.38) + 0.5(0.90) = 5.25 k/ft = 0.437 k/in., x = 345 in., which is located exactly at the point where the right haunch begins.4 The reaction is computed as R = 345 (0.437) = 150.8 kips. The earthquake shear is computed as VE = R = wL/2 = 150.8(0.437)(450)/2 = 52.5 kips This earthquake shear is smaller than would have been determined if the positive moment hinge had formed at the face of support. The earthquake shear is constant along the span but changes sign with the direction of the earthquake. In Figure 628a, this shear is shown for the equivalent lateral seismic forces acting to the west. The factored gravity load shear (1.42VD + 0.5VL) varies along the length of the span as shown in Figure 628b. At Support A, the earthquake shear and factored gravity shear are additive, producing a design ultimate shear of 150.8 kips. At midspan, the shear is equal to the earthquake shear acting alone and, at Support C, the ultimate design shear is 45.8 kips. Earthquake, gravity, and combined shears are shown in Figures 628a through 628c and are tabulated for the first half of the span in Table 616. For earthquake forces acting to the east, the design shears are of the opposite sign of those shown in Figure 628. According to ACI 318 Sec. 21.3.4.2, the contribution of concrete to member shear strength must be taken as zero when VE/VU is greater than 0.5 and Pu/Agf!c is less than 0.05. As shown in Table 616, the VE/VU ratio is less than 0.5 within the first threefourths of the haunch length but is greater than 0.50 beyond this point. In this example, it is assumed that if VE/VU is less than 0.5 at the support, the concrete strength can be used along the entire length of the member. The concrete contribution to the design shear strength is computed as:
φVc = φ (0.85)2 f c' bw d
where the ASCE 7 compatible φ = 0.75 for shear, and the 0.85 term is the shear strength reduction factor for sandLW concrete. [Note that this is the basic strength reduction factor for shear per ACI 31802 Sec 9.3. See Sec 6.4.2 for discussion.] The remaining shear, φVs = Vu  φVc, must be resisted by closed hoops within a distance 2d from the face of the support and by stirrups with the larger of 6dh or 3.0 in. hook extensions elsewhere. The 6dh or 3.0 in. “seismic hook” extension is required by ACI 318 Sec. 21.3.3.3.
The equation for the location of the plastic hinge is only applicable if the hinge forms in the constant depth region of the girder. If the computed distance x is greater than 28 ft  9 in. (345 in.), the result is erroneous and a trial and error approach is required to find the actual hinge location.
4
662
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
W
'
R
x
M PR "B"
+
(a) Location of plastic hinge
face of support 52.5 kips (b) Earthquake shear (kips) 98.3 kips pos
(c) Factored gravity shear (kips) pos 150.8 kips 98.3 kips
(d) Earthquake + factored gravity shear (kips) A B 45.8 kips (e)
6 at 6" 13 at 5"
30 at 4"
Provide two additional hoops (detail B) at kink
b 6d
#3 hoops A B
Figure 628 Computing shear in haunched girder (1.0 in = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45kN).
6d
b
663
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
Table 616 Design of Shear Reinforcement for Haunched Girder
Distance from Center of Support (in.) Item Ve 1.42VD + 0.5VL Vu VE/VU d 15 52.5 98.3 150.8 0.35 29.4 53.3 97.5 5.97 7.35 #3 at 6 42.25 52.5 86.4 139.2 0.38 26.5 48.1 91.2 5.78 6.63 #3 at 5 67.5 52.5 75.4 127.9 0.41 23.5 42.6 85.3 5.46 5.88 #3 at 5 93.75 52.5 63.9 116.6 0.45 20.5 37.2 79.4 5.12 5.13 #3 at 5 120 52.5 52.4 104.9 0.50 17.6 0.0 104.9 3.32 4.40 #3 at 4 180 52.5 26.2 78.7 0.67 17.6 0.0 78.7 4.43 4.40 #3 at 4 240 52.5 0.0 52.5 1.00 17.6 0.0 52.5 6.64 4.40 #3 at 4 in. in. kips kips Units
φVC φVS
s d/4 Spacing
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN.
In Table 616, spacings are computed for four #3 vertical leg hoops or stirrups. As an example, consider four #3 vertical legs at the section at the face of the support:
s = [0.75(4)0.11(60)29.4]/97.5 = 5.97 in.
φVc = φ(0.85)2 f c′ db = 0.75(0.85)2(4000)0.529.4(22.5) = 53,300 lb = 53.3 kips φVs = Vu  φVc = 150.8  53.3 = 97.5 kips φVs = φAvfyd/s = 97.5 kips
The maximum spacing allowed by ACI 318 is shown in Table 616. These spacings govern only in the center portion of the beam. In the last line of the table, the hoop and stirrup spacing as actually used is shown. This spacing, together with hoop and stirrup details, is illustrated in Figure 628d. The double Ushaped stirrups (and cap ties) in the central portion of the beam work well with the #11 top bars and with the #9 bottom bars. 6.4.5.4.3 Design of BeamColumn Joint The design of the beamcolumn joint at Support A of the haunched girder is controlled by seismic forces acting to the west, which produces negative moment at Support A. ACI 318 Sec. 21.5 provides requirements for the proportioning and detailing of the joint. A plastic mechanism of the beam is shown in Figure 629a. Plastic hinges have formed at the support and at the location of the far haunch transition. With a total shear at the face of the support of 150.8 kips, the moment at the centerline of the column may be estimated as MCL = Mpr + 15(150.6) = 19,693 + 15(150.6) = 21,955 in.kips. The total shear in the columns above and below the joint is estimated as 21,955/(150) = 146.3 kips.
664
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
The stresses in the joint are computed from equilibrium considering the reinforcement in the girder to be stressed at 1.25fy. A detail of the joint is shown in Figure 630. Compute the joint shear Vj: Force in the top reinforcement = 1.25Asfy = 1.25(7)1.56(60) = 819 kips Joint shear = Vj = 819.0  146.3 = 672.7 kips The joint shear stress vj = Vj/dc2 = 672.7/[30 (30)] = 0.819 ksi

+
(a) Plastic mechanism
19,693
(b) Plastic moment (in.kips) 6,360 10,800
15" 450" 15"
146.3 kips
75"
61.1 kips
75"
(c) Column shears (kips)
146.3 kips
288"
Figure 629 Computation of column shears for use in joint design (1.0 in = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN).
In the case being considered, all girders framing into the joint have a width equal to 0.75 times the column dimension so confinement is provided on three faces of the joint. According to ACI 318 Sec. 21.5.3, the allowable joint shear stress = 0.75φ(15)2pfc'. The 0.75 term is the strength reduction factor for LW concrete. Compute the allowable joint shear stress: vj,allowable = 0.75(0.80)15(4,000)0.5 = 569 psi = 0.569 ksi
665
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
This allowable stress is significantly less than the applied joint shear stress. There are several ways to remedy the situation: 1. Increase the column size to approximately 35 × 35 (not recommended) 2. Increase the depth of the haunch so that the area of reinforcement is reduced to seven #10 bars. This will reduce the joint shear stress to a value very close to the allowable stress. 2. Use 5000 psi NW concrete for the column. This eliminates the 0.75 reduction factor on allowable joint stress, and raises the allowable stress to 848 psi. For the remainder of this example, it is assumed that the lower story columns will be constructed from 5000 psi NW concrete. Because this joint is confined on three faces, the reinforcement within the joint must consist of the same amount and spacing of transverse reinforcement in the critical region of the column below the joint. This reinforcement is detailed in the following section.
146 kips
T = 819 kips
VJ = 819146 = 673 kips
C = 819 kips
30"
Figure 630 Computing joint shear force (1.0 kip = 4.45kN).
6.4.5.5 Design and Detailing of Typical Interior Column of Frame 3
The column supporting the west end of the haunched girder between Gridlines A and B is shown in Figure 631. This column supports a total unfactored dead load of 804 kips and a total unfactored live load of 78 kips. From the ETABS analysis, the axial force on the column from seismic forces is ±129 kips. The design axial force and bending moment in the column are based on one or more of the load combinations presented below. Earthquake forces acting to the west are: Pu = 1.42(804) + 0.5(78) + 1.0(129) = 1310 kips (compression)
666
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
P L= 78.4 kips Includes PD= 803.6 kips level 5
12'6"
32"
Level 5
20"
Figure 631 Column loading (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m, 1.0 in = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45kN).
This axial force is greater than 0.1fc'Ag = 360 kips; therefore, according to ACI 318 Sec. 21.4.2.1, the column flexural strength must be at least 6/5 of the nominal strength (using φ = 1.0 and 1.0 fy) of the beam framing into the column. The nominal beam moment capacity at the face of the column is 16,458 in.kips. The column must be designed for sixfifths of this moment, or 19,750 inkips. Assuming a midheight inflection point for the column above and below the beam, the column moment at the centerline of the beam is 19,750/2 = 9,875 in.kips, and the column moment corrected to the face of the beam is 7,768 in.kips. Earthquake forces acting to the east are: Pu = 0.68(804)  1.0(129) = 424 kips (compression) This axial force is greater than 0.1fc'Ag = 360 kips. For this loading, the end of the beam supported by the column is under positive moment, with the nominal beam moment at the face of the column being 8,715 in.kips. Because Pu > 0.1fc'Ag, the column must be designed for 6/5 of this moment, or 10,458 in.kips. Assuming midheight inflection points in the column, the column moment at the centerline and the face of the beam is 5,229 and 4,113 in.kips, respectively. Axial force for gravity alone is: Pu = 1.6(804) + 1.2(78) = 1,380 kips (compression)
32"
Level 4
667
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
This is approximately the same axial force as designed for earthquake forces to the west, but as can be observed from Figure 625, the design moment is significantly less. Hence, this loading will not control. 6.4.5.5.1 Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement Figure 632 shows an axial forcebending moment interaction diagram for a 30 in. by 30 in. column with 12 bars ranging in size from #8 to #10. A horizontal line is drawn at each of the axial load levels computed above, and the required flexural capacity is shown by a solid dot on the appropriate line. The column with twelve #8 bars provides more than enough strength for all loading combinations.
Pu (kips) 5,000
(12) #10
4,000
(12) #9 (12) #8
3,000 2,000 1,000
0 1,000 2,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Mu (ftkips)
Figure 632 Interaction diagram and column design forces (1.0 kip = 4.45kN, 1.0 ftkip = 1.36 kNm).
6.4.5.5.2 Design of Transverse Reinforcement In Sec. 6.4.5.3, an interior column supporting Level 5 of Frame 1 was designed. This column has a shear strength of 198.2 kips, which is significantly greater than the imposed seismic plus gravity shear of 146.3 kips. For details on the computation of the required transverse reinforcement for this column, see the “Transverse Reinforcement” and “Transverse Reinforcement Required for Shear” subsections in Sec. 6.4.5.3. A detail of the reinforcement of the column supporting Level 5 of Frame 3 is shown in Figure 633. The section of the column through the beams shows that the reinforcement in the beamcolumn joint region is relatively uncongested.
668
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
Level 7
7 at 4"
2"
(12) #8 bars
5"
8 at 6"
+
+
30"
5"
2" 7 at 4"
Level 6
6 at 4" 4"
30"
Figure 633 Column detail (1.0 in = 25.4 mm).
6.4.5.6 Design of Structural Wall of Frame 3
The factored forces acting on the structural wall of Frame 3 are summarized in Table 617. The axial compressive forces are based on a tributary area of 1,800 square ft for the entire wall, an unfactored dead load of 160 psf, and an unfactored (reduced) live load of 20 psf. For the purposes of this example it is assumed that these loads act at each level, including the roof. The total axial force for a typical floor is: Pu = 1.42D + 0.5L = 1,800((1.42×0.16) + 0.50x0.02)) = 427 kips for maximum compression Pu = 0.68D = 1,800(0.68×0.16) = 196 kips for minimum compression The bending moments come from the ETABS analysis. Note the reversal in the moment sign due to the effects of framewall interaction. Each moment contains two parts: the moment in the shear panel and the couple resulting from axial forces in the boundary elements. For example, at the base of Level 2:
30"
#4 hoops
669
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
ETABS panel moment =162,283 in.kips ETABS column force = 461.5 kips Total moment, Mu = 162,283 + 240(461.5) = 273,043 in.kips The shears in Table 617 also consist of two parts, the shear in the panel and the shear in the column. Using Level 2 as an example: ETABS panel shear = 527 kips ETABS column shear = 5.90 kips Total shear, Vu = 527 + 2(5.90) = 539 kips As with the moment, note the reversal in wall shear, not only at the top of the wall but also at Level 1 where the first floor slab acts as a support. If there is some inplane flexibility in the first floor slab, or if some crushing were to occur adjacent to the wall, the shear reversal would be less significant, or might even disappear. For this reason, the shear force of 539 kips at Level 2 will be used for the design of Level 1 as well. Recall from Sec. 6.2.2 that the structural wall boundary elements are 30 in. by 30 in. in size. The basic philosophy of this design will be to use these elements as “special” boundary elements where a close spacing of transverse reinforcement is used to provide extra confinement. This avoids the need for confining reinforcement in the wall panel. Note, however, that there is no code restriction on extending the special boundary elements into the panel of the wall. It should also be noted that preliminary calculations (not shown) indicate that a 12in. thickness of the wall panel is adequate for this structure. This is in lieu of the 18in. thickness assumed when computing structural mass.
Table 617 Design Forces for Structural Wall
Supporting Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Axial Compressive Force Pu (kips) Moment Mu (in.kips) 1.42D + 0.5L 0.68D 427 854 1,281 1,708 2,135 2,562 2,989 3,416 3,843 4,270 4,697 5,124 5,550 196 392 588 783 979 1,175 1,371 1,567 1,763 1,958 2,154 2,350 2,546 30,054 39,725 49,954 51,838 45,929 33,817 17,847 45,444 78,419 117,975 165,073 273,043 268,187
Shear Vu (kips) 145 4 62 118 163 203 240 274 308 348 390 539 376 (use 539)
1.0 kip = 4.45 kN, 1.0 in.kip = 0.113 kNm.
670
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
6.4.5.6.1 Design of Panel Shear Reinforcement First determine the required shear reinforcement in the panel and then design the wall for combined bending and axial force. The nominal shear strength of the wall is given by ACI 318 Eq. 217:
Vn = Acv (α c
f c' + ρ n f y )
where αc = 2.0 because hw/lw = 155.5/22.5 = 6.91 > 2.0. Note that the length of the wall was taken as the length between boundary element centerlines (20 ft) plus onehalf the boundary element length (2.5 ft) at each end of the wall. Using fc' = 4000 psi, fy = 40 ksi, Acv = (270)(12) = 3240 in.2, and taking φ for shear = 0.55, the ratio of horizontal reinforcement is computed: Vu = φVn
⎛ 539.000 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ − (0.85 × 2 4,000)3, 240 0.55 ⎠ ρn = ⎝ = 0.0049 3, 240(40,000)
Note that the factor of 0.85 on concrete strength accounts for the use of LW concrete. Reinforcement ratios for the other stories are given in Table 618. This table gives requirements using fc' = 4,000 psi, as well as 6,000 psi NW concrete. As shown later, the higher strength NW concrete is required to manage the size of the boundary elements of the wall. Also shown in the table is the required spacing of horizontal reinforcement assuming that two curtains of #4 bars will be used. If the required steel ratio is less than 0.0025, a ratio of 0.0025 is used to determine bar spacing.
Table 618 Design of Structural Wall for Shear
Level
fc' = 4,000 psi (lightweight) Reinforcement ratio Spacing1 (in.) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 12.00 (6.0) 6.84 (6.0) 6.84 (6.0)
fc' = 6,000 psi (normal weight) Reinforcement ratio 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00369 0.00369 Spacing * (in.) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (12.0) 13.33 (9.0) 9.03 (9.0) 9.03 (9.0)
R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
*
0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00278 0.00487 0.00487
Values in parentheses are actual spacing used. 1.0 in. = 25.4 mm.
For LW concrete, the required spacing is 6.84 in. at Levels 1 and 2. Minimum reinforcement requirements control all other levels. For the final design, it is recommended to use a 6in. spacing at 671
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
Levels 1, 2, and 3 and a 12in. spacing at all levels above. The 6in. spacing is extended one level higher that required because it is anticipated that an axialflexural plastic hinge could propagate this far. For the NW concrete, the required spacing is 9.03 in. at Levels 1 and 2 and minimum reinforcement requirements control elsewhere. For the final design, a 9in. spacing would be used at Levels 1, 2, and 3 with a 12in. spacing at the remaining levels. ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.4.3 [21.7.4.3] requires the vertical steel ratio to be greater than or equal to the horizontal steel ratio if hwl/lw is less than 2.0. As this is not the case for this wall, the minimum vertical reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 is appropriate. Vertical steel consisting of two curtains of #4 bars at 12 in. on center provides a reinforcement ratio of 0.0028, which ill be used at all levels. 6.4.5.6.2 Design for Flexure and Axial Force The primary consideration in the axialflexural design of the wall is determining whether or not special boundary elements are required. ACI 318 provides two methods for this. The first approach, specified in ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.6.2 [21.7.6.2], uses a displacement based procedure. The second approach, described in ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.6.3 [21.7.6.3], is somewhat easier to implement but, due to its empirical nature, is generally more conservative. In the following presentation, only the displacement based method will be used for the design of the wall. Using the displacement based approach, boundary elements are required if the length of the compression block, c, satisfies ACI 318 Eq. 218:
c≥ lw
600(δ u hw )
where δu is the total elastic plus inelastic deflection at the top of the wall. From Table 69b, the total elastic roof displacement is 4.36 in., and the inelastic drift is Cd times the elastic drift, or 6.5(4.36) = 28.4 in. or 2.37 feet. Recall that this drift is based on cracked section properties assuming Icracked = 0.5 Igross and assuming that flexure dominates. Using this value together with lw = 22.5 ft, and hw = 155.5 ft:
600(δ u hw )
lw
=
22.5 = 2.46 ft = 29.52 in. 600(2.37 155.5)
To determine if c is greater than this value, a strain compatibility analysis must be performed for the wall. In this analysis, it is assumed that the concrete reaches a maximum compressive strain of 0.003 and the wall reinforcement is elasticperfectly plastic and yields at the nominal value. A rectangular stress block was used for concrete in compression, and concrete in tension was neglected. A straight line strain distribution was assumed (as allowed by ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.5.1 [21.7.5.1]). Using this straight line distribution, the extreme fiber compressive strain was held constant at 0.003, and the distance c was varied from 100,000 in. (pure compression) to 1 in. (virtually pure tension). For each value of c, a total cross sectional nominal axial force (Pn) and nominal bending moment (Mn) were computed. Using these values, a plot of the axial force (Pn) versus neutral axis location (c) was produced. A design value axial forcebending moment interaction diagram was also produced. The analysis was performed using an Excel spreadsheet. The concrete was divided into 270 layers, each with a thickness of 1 in. The exact location of the reinforcement was used. When the reinforcement was in compression, an adjustment was made to account for reinforcement and concrete sharing the same physical volume.
672
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
Two different sections were analyzed: one with fc' = 4,000 psi (LW concrete) and the other with fc' = 6,000 psi (NW concrete). In each case, the boundary elements were assumed to be 30 in. by 30 in. and the panel was assumed to be 12 in. thick. Each analysis also assumed that the reinforcement in the boundary element consisted of twelve #9 bars, producing a reinforcement ratio in the boundary element of 1.33 percent. Panel reinforcement consisted of two curtains of #4 bars spaced at approximately 12 in. on center. For this wall the main boundary reinforcement has a yield strength of 60 ksi, and the vertical panel steel yields at 40 ksi. The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 634 and 635. The first of these figures is the nominal interaction diagram multiplied by φ = 0.65 for tied sections. Also plotted in the figure are the factored PM combinations from Table 617. The section is clearly adequate for both 4,000 psi and 6,000 psi concrete because the interaction curve fully envelopes the design values.
18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Axial force, kips 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Bending moment, in.kips 1.42D + 0.5L 0.68 D 6 ksi NW 4 ksi LW
Figure 634 Interaction diagram for structural wall (1.0 kip = 4.45kN, 1.0 in.kip = 0.113 kNm).
673
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
15,000 13,000 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 3,000 1,000 0 1,000 3,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 Neutral axis location, in. 6 ksi NW 4 ksi LW
Figure 635 Variation of neutral axis depth with compressive force (1.0 in = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45kN).
Figure 635 shows the variation in neutral axis depth with axial force. For a factored axial force of 5,550 kips, the distance c is approximately 58 in. for the 6,000 psi NW concrete and c is in excess of 110 in. for the 4,000 psi LW concrete. As both are greater than 29.52 in., special boundary elements are clearly required for the wall. According to ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.6.4 [21.7.6.4], the special boundary elements must have a plan length of c  0.1lw, or 0.5c, whichever is greater. For the 4,000 psi concrete, the first of these values is 110 0.1(270) = 83 in., and the second is 0.5(110) = 55 in. Both of these are significantly greater than the 30 in. assumed in the analysis. Hence, the 30in. boundary element is not adequate for the lower levels of the wall if fc' = 4,000 psi. For the 6,000 psi concrete, the required length of the boundary element is 580.1(270) = 31 in., or 0.5(58) = 29 in. The required value of 31 in. is only marginally greater than the 30 in. provided and will be deemed acceptable for the purpose of this example. The vertical extent of the special boundary elements must not be less than the larger of lw or Mu/4Vu. The wall length lw = 22.5 ft and, of the wall at Level 1, Mu/4Vu = 273,043/4(539) =126.6 in., or 10.6 ft. 22.5 ft controls and will be taken as the required length of the boundary element above the first floor. The special boundary elements will begin at the basement level, and continue up for the portion of the wall supporting Levels 2 and 3. Above that level, boundary elements will still be present, but they will not be reinforced as special boundary elements. Another consideration for the boundary elements is at what elevation the concrete may change from 6,000 psi NW to 4,000 LW concrete. Using the requirement that boundary elements have a maximum plan dimension of 30 in., the neutral axis depth (c) must not exceed approximately 57 in. As may be seen from Figure 635, this will occur when the factored axial force in the wall falls below 3,000 kips. From Table 617, this will occur between Levels 6 and 7. Hence, 6,000 psi concrete will be continued up through Level 7. Above Level 7, 4,000 psi LW concrete may be used. 674
Factored axial force, kips
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
Where special boundary elements are required, transverse reinforcement must conform to ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.6.4(c) [21.7.6.4(c)], which refers to Sec. 21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3. If rectangular hoops are used, the transverse reinforcement must satisfy ACI 318 Eq. 214:
Ash = 0.09 shc
f c′ f yh
If #5 hoops are used in association with two crossties in each direction, Ash = 4(0.31) = 1.24 in.2, and hc = 30  2(1.5)  0.525 = 26.37 in. With fc' = 6 ksi and fyh = 60 ksi:
s= 1.24 0.09(26.37) 6 60 = 5.22
If 4,000 psi concrete is used, the required spacing increases to 7.83 in. Maximum spacing is the lesser of h/4, 6db, or sx where sx = 4 + (14hx)/3. With hx = 8.83 in., the third of these spacings controls at 5.72 in. The 5.22in. spacing required by ACI 318 Eq. 214 is less than this, so a spacing of 5 in. on center will be used wherever the special boundary elements are required. Details of the panel and boundary element reinforcement are shown in Figures 636 and 637, respectively. The vertical reinforcement in the boundary elements will be spliced as required using Type 2 mechanical splices at all locations. According to Table 613 (prepared for 4,000 psi LW concrete), there should be no difficulty in developing the horizontal panel steel into the 30in.by30in. boundary elements.
(12) #9 #5 x developed in wall
4"
#5 at 5" o.c. Alternate location of 90° bend
4"
#5
4"
at 5" o.c.
Figure 636 Details of structural wall boundary element (1.0 in = 25.4 mm).
675
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
f'c = 4.0ksi (LW) #4 at 12" EF
Class B
(24) #11 #4 at 12" See figure EWEF 626 (24) #9 #4 at 12" EWEF #4 at 12" EWEF
(12) #9 #4 at 12" EF See figure 626 #4 at 12" EF
Class B
#5 at 4" f'c = 6.0ksi (NW)
#4 at 12" EF
#4 at 12" EF See figure 626 #4 at 12" EF
Class B
#4 at 4"
#4 at 6" EF #5 at 4" #4 at 12" EWEF #4 at 12" EF (24) #11 #4 at 6" EF #5 at 4" #4 at 12" EWEF
(12) #9 #4 at 12" EF See figure 626 #4 at 12" EF
#4 at 4" (24) #10
#4 at 12" EF See figure 626 #4 at 12" EF
Class B
#4 at 4"
#4 at 12" EF See figure 626
#4 at 4"
#4 at 12" EWEF f'c = 4.0ksi (LW)
Figure 637 Overall details of structural wall (1.0 in = 25.4 mm).
ACI 318 Sec. 21.6.6.4(d) [21.7.6.4(d)] also requires that the boundary element transverse reinforcement be extended into the foundation tie beam a distance equal to the tension development length of the #9 bars used as longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary elements. Assuming the tie beam consists of 6,000 psi NW concrete, the development length for the #9 bar is 2.5 times the value given by ACI 318 Eq. 216:
⎡ f d y b ld = 2.5 ⎢ ⎢ 65 f c′ ⎣
⎤ 60,000(1.128) ⎥ = 2.5 = 33.6 in. ⎥ 65 6,000 ⎦
Hence, the transverse boundary element reinforcement consisting of #5 hoops with two crossties in each direction, spaced at 5 in. on center, will extend approximately 3 ft into the foundation tie beam.
6.5 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE HONOLULU BUILDING
The structure illustrated in Figure 61 and 62 is now designed and detailed for the Honolulu building. Because of the relatively moderate level of seismicity, the lateral load resisting system will consist of a series of intermediate momentresisting frames in both the EW and NS directions. This is permitted for Seismic Design Category C buildings under Provisions Sec. 9.6 [9.4]. Design guidelines for the reinforced concrete framing members are provided in ACI 318 Sec. 21.10 [21.12].
676
Chapter 6, Reinforced Concrete
Preliminary design for the Honolulu building indicated that the size of the perimeter frame girders could be reduced to 30 in. deep by 20 in. wide (the Berkeley building has girders that are 32 in. deep by 22.5 in. wide) and that the columns could be decreased to 28 in. square (the Berkeley building uses 30in.by30in. columns). The haunched girders along Frames 2 through 7 have a maximum depth of 30 in. and a width of 20 in. in the Honolulu building (the Berkeley building had haunches with a maximum depth of 32 in. and a width of 22.5 in.). The Frame 2 through Frame 7 girders in Bays BC have a constant depth of 30 in. Using these reduced properties, the computed drifts will be increased over those shown in Figure 66, but will clearly not exceed the drift limits.
6.5.1 Material Properties
ACI 318 has no specific limitations for materials used in structures designed for moderate seismic risk. For the Honolulu building, 4,000 psi sandLW concrete is used with ASTM A615 Grade 60 rebar for longitudinal reinforcement and Grade 60 or Grade 40 rebar for transverse reinforcement.
6.5.2 Combination of Load Effects
For the design of the Honolulu building, all masses and superimposed gravity loads generated for the Berkeley building are used. This is conservative because the members for the Honolulu building are slightly smaller than the corresponding members for the Berkeley building. Also, the Honolulu building does not have reinforced concrete walls on Gridlines 3, 4, 5, and 6 (these walls are replaced by infilled, nonstructural masonry designed with gaps to accommodate frame drifts in the Honolulu building). Provisions Sec. 5.2.7 [4.2.2] and Eq. 5.2.71 and 5.2.72 [4.21 and 4.22] require a combination of load effects to be developed on the basis of ASCE 7, except that the earthquake load (E) is defined as:
E = ρ QE + 0.2S DS D
when gravity and seismic load effects are additive and as:
E = ρ QE − 0.2S DS D
when the effects of seismic load counteract gravity. For Seismic Design Category C buildings, Provisions Sec. 5.2.4.1 [4.3.3.1] permits the reliability factor (ρ) to be taken as 1.0. The special load combinations of Provisions Eq. 5.2.71 and 5.2.72 [4.23 and 4.24] do not apply to the Honolulu building because there are no discontinuous elements supporting stiffer elements above them. (See Provisions Sec. 9.6.2 [9.4.1].) For the Honolulu structure, the basic ASCE 7 load combinations that must be considered are: 1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + 0.5L ± 1.0E 0.9D ± 1.0E The ASCE 7 load combination including only 1.4 times dead load will not control for any condition in this building.
677
FEMA 451, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples
Substituting E from the Provisions and with ρ taken as 1.0, the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: (1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + E (1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + 0.5L  E (0.9  0.2SDS)D + E (0.9  0.2SDS)D E Finally, substituting 0.472 for SDS (see Sec. 6.1.1), the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: 1.30D + 0.5L + E 1.30D + 0.5L  E 0.80D + E 0.80D  E Note that the coefficients on dead load have been slightly rounded to simplify subsequent calculations. As EW wind loads apparently govern the design at the lower levels of the building (see Sec. 6.2.6 and Figure 64), the following load combinations should also be considered: 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6W 1.2D + 0.5L  1.6W 0.9D  1.6W The wind load (W) from ASCE 7 includes a directionality factor of 0.85. It is very important to note that use of the ASCE 7 load combinations in lieu of the combinations given in ACI 318 Chapter 9 requires use of the alternate strength reduction factors given in ACI 318 Appendix C: Flexure without axial load φ = 0.80 Axial compression, using tied columns φ = 0.65 (transitions to 0.8 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.75 Shear if shear strength is not based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.55 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0.80 [The strength reduction factors in ACI 31802 have been revised to be consistent with the ASCE 7 load combinations. Thus, the factors that were in Appendix C of ACI 31899 are now in Chapter 9 of ACI 31802, with some modification. The strength reduction factors relevant to this example as contained in ACI 31802 Sec. 9.3 are: Flexure without axial load φ = 0.9 (tensioncontrolled sections) Axial compression, using tied columns φ = 0.65 (transitions to 0.9 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.75 Shear if shear strength is not based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.60 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0.85]
6.5.3 Accidental Torsion and Orthogonal Loading (Seismic Versus Wind)
As has been discussed and as illustrated in Figure 64, wind forces appear to govern the strength requirements of the structure at the lower floors, and seismic forces control at the upper floors. The seismic and wind shears, however, are so close at the midlevels of the structure that a careful evaluation 678
75 P W 0. where 100 percent of the story force is applied at a 5 percent eccentricity.4.2 [4.3 [5.75 P L 0.2.56 P L 0. As mentioned earlier. This determination is complicated by the differing (wind versus seismic) rules for applying accidental torsion and for considering orthogonal loading effects. In Cases 1 and 2. For wind. Because the Honolulu building is in Seismic Design Category C and has no plan irregularities of Type 5 in Provisions Table 5. 6.4.Chapter 6.2. the Honolulu building has no orthogonal seismic loading requirements.75 P W 0.57% the building width.) For wind.75 P L 0.2.75 P L PW PL 0. 5. which is reproduced directly from Figure 69 of ASCE 7. Case 4 is similar to Case 2 because of the torsion inducing pressure unbalance. ASCE 7 requires that buildings over 60 ft in height be checked for four loading cases.56 P W 0.4.75 P W 0.56 P W PL 0.2 [4.5.3] because the building does not have a Type 1a or 1b torsional irregularity.4.2. 5.2]. However.75 P L Case 2 Case 4 Figure 638 Wind loading requirements from ASCE 7. 679 . as required by Provisions Sec.32]. 5. (See Sec.2].4 for supporting calculations and discussion.4.2 and 6.56 P L 0. This is relatively less severe than required for seismic effects.4.3. Load Cases 3 and 4 require that 75 percent of the wind pressures from the two orthogonal directions be applied simultaneously.75 P W 0.2.75 P W 0.3.4.75 P L Case 1 PW Case 3 0.3.2 [5. Case 2 may be seen to produce torsional effects because 7/8 of the total force is applied at an eccentricity of 3. The required loads are shown in Figure 638.75 P W 0. load is applied separately in the two orthogonal directions. Torsional amplification is not required per Provisions Sec. orthogonal loading effects need not be considered per Provisions Sec.75 P L PL 0.2. Reinforced Concrete must be made to determine which load governs for strength. seismic story forces must be applied at a 5 percent accidental eccentricity. PW 0.
This is somewhat different from that shown in Figure 64. 680 . Hence. the girder shears produced from seismic effects control at the fifth level. the girders and a typical interior column of Level 5 of Frame 1 are designed and detailed. only loading in the EW direction is considered. This is shown graphically in Figure 639. For the five load cases indicated above. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In this example. wherein the total story shears are plotted and where wind controlled for the lower five stories. with the next largest forces coming from direct EW wind without torsion. Frame 1 sees a relatively larger seismic shear. The basic difference between Figures 64 and 639 is that Figure 639 includes accidental torsion and. Wind controls at the lower three stories and seismic controls for all other stories.5. 6. the following lateral load conditions were applied to the ETABS model: 100% EW Seismic applied at 5% eccentricity ASCE 7 Wind Case 1 applied in EW direction only ASCE 7 Wind Case 2 applied in EW direction only ASCE 7 Wind Case 3 ASCE 7 Wind Case 4 All cases with torsion are applied in such a manner as to maximize the shears in the elements of Frame 1. hence.FEMA 451.4 Design and Detailing of Members of Frame 1 In this section. where the shears in the exterior bay of Frame 1 are plotted vs. story height.
2 Design of Flexural Members ACI 318 Sec.6 in. #3 stirrups and #8 longitudinal reinforcement.10.4.45kN).Chapter 6. For positive moment bending.5. 6. seismic shears in exterior bay of Frame 1 (1. Reinforced Concrete 160 Seismic (with torsion) 140 Wind (without torsion) 120 100 Height. deep and 20 in.12. 2.5 in. The requirements for longitudinal steel are as follows: 1.1 Initial Calculations The girders of Frame 1 are 30 in. The positive moment strength at the face of a joint shall be at least onethird of the negative moment strength at the same joint. 681 .0 kip = 4. cover. Assuming 1. kips Figure 639 Wind vs.0 in.3048 m. the effective depth for computing flexural and shear strength is 27. the effective width of the compression flange is taken as 20 + 20(12)/12 = 40. 1.4 [21. Neither the positive nor the negative moment strength at any section along the length of the member shall be less than onefifth of the maximum moment strength supplied at the face of either joint. 21.0 ft = 0. wide.4. 6.4] gives the minimum requirements for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the beams of intermediate moment frames.5. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Girder shear.
kips) 2. ' WL = 0. The gravity loads and design moments for the first three spans of Frame 1 are shown in Figure 640.3 times the amount of reinforcement required for strength.302 850 2. 682 . The gravity moments shown in Figures 640c and 640d are slightly larger than those shown for the Berkeley building (Figure 614) because the clear span for the Honolulu building increases due to the reduction in column size from 30 in. according to ACI 318 Sec.0 ft = 0.kip = 0.14 kips/ft 17.1 as 200/fy or 0.6L 225 729 (c) Unfactored DL moment (in.67' 20.796 2.0' (a) Span layout and loading 2.886 2.910 (e) Required strength envelopes (in.FEMA 451.12.113 kNm).5L+E 0.5. 21. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The second requirement has the effect of requiring top and bottom reinforcement along the full length of the member.0 kip/ft = 14.3048 m.kips) 1. All moments are given at the face of the support.0033 for fy = 60 ksi. the minimum reinforcement provided need not exceed 1.3. The seismic moments are taken directly from the ETABS analysis. 1.492 502 573 155 176 3.0' 20.E 1.269 2.252 850 2.910 3. to 28 in. The minimum reinforcement ratio at any section is taken from ACI 318 Sec.0' 20.4].6 kN/m. 10.835 729 502 225 155 225 155 3.kips) 2. 1. Based on preliminary calculations.927 3.2D+1.4 [21. Note that the steel clearly satisfies the detailing requirements of ACI 318 Sec.0 in.3D+0.5.946 247 225 802 729 2.252 Figure 640 Bending moment envelopes at Level 5 of Frame 1 (1. 10.835 (b) Earthquake moment (in.852 729 502 969 2. However. the reinforcement layout of Figure 641 will be checked.850 2. and the gravity moments were computed by hand using the ACI coefficients.66 kips/ft WD = 2.kips) (d) Unfactored LL moment (in.526 3.658 3.394 1.10.8D .
05 in.98/2] = 5.2 Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A Mu = 0.8 (502) + 1.236 in.38 (60.5 (225) .kips Design capacity.0061 Depth of compression block.0043 a = 2.0)][27.37 (60.6 .796) = 2.a/2) = [3.3 (502) .3 Design for Negative Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = 1.kips 6.394 in.0 in = 25. Mn = Asfy(d .37 (60)/[0.0)] [27. Asfy = 3 (0.5. 5 at 8" (typical each span).4. φMn = 0.kips Try three #8 long bars. Reinforced Concrete ' 5'0" ' (1) #7 (1) #7 (1) #7 (2) #8 (1) #7 (3) #7 (3) #7 30" (2) #8 (2) #8 (3) #8 28" 48" (2) #8 (3) #8 20'0" (typical) #3x stirrups spaced from each support: 1 at 2".2.Chapter 6.kips > 3.8(5.2 ρ = 0.2.85 (4) 20] = 2.79) + 1 (0. As = 3 (0.kips > 2.60) + 2 (0.85 (4) 40] = 1.98 in. 6.kips This reinforcement also will work for positive moment at all other supports.0 (2.5.6 .946 in.2 ρ = 0.79) = 2.886) = 3.05/2] = 3.1.1.080 in.4.0068 683 OK OK . 6.0.38 (60)]/[0.394 in.4 mm.6) = 3.0 (2.2. Nominal moment capacity. 10 at 6".295 in.3 (729) .0.8(3850) = 3.79) = 3.2.796) = 3.1. (2) #8 (3) #8 Figure 641 Preliminary reinforcement layout for Level 5 of Frame 1 (1.526 in.kips Try four #8 long bars and one #7 short bar: As = 4 (0.0 (2.0 ft = 0.76 in.5 (155) .3048 m).kips Try three #7 short bars and two #8 long bars.1 Design for Negative Moment at Face of Support A Mu = 1. 1.37 in. Mn = Asfy(d .2 ρ = 0.kips φMn = 0.526 in.38 in. a = [3.295) = 4.5.a/2) = [2.850 in.4.
8 kips 212 where 212 in.0)][27.32 in.0fy and a flexural φ factor of 1.0.a/2) = [3.1 kips. 6.76 (60. The gravity load shears at the face of the supports are: VD = 2.852 in.3 [21.kips φMn = 0. Mn = Asfy(d .852 in. Therefore.946 in. the earthquake shear is 43.kips for positive moment at Support A' and 5.3.14(20 − 2. The required design strength is: 684 . Compute the design earthquake shear VE: VE = 5. 2. 21.5. The design shear force is resisted by a concrete component (Vc) and a steel component (Vs).32/2] = 5.9 kips 2 VL = 0.9) + 0. Note that the concrete component may be used regardless of the ratio of earthquake shear to total shear. For earthquake forces acting in the other direction. Unlike special moment frames. is the clear span of the member.681 in.8) = 73. the first option is used.850 = 45.852 + 3.8(5.0 times the factored earthquake shear taken from the structural analysis.852) = 4. there are no requirements that the spliced region of the bars in intermediate moment frames be confined by hoops over the length of the splice.3(18.kips OK This reinforcement will also work for negative moment at Supports B and C.66(20 − 2. Nominal moment strengths are computed with a flexural reinforcement tensile strength of 1.33) = 5. For this example. The bottom bars are spliced in Spans A'B and CC' with a Class B lap length of 48 in.76 (60)]/[0.5(5.85 (4) 20] = 3.kips > 3. from the face of the support. This shear is used in combination with the factored gravity shears.4 Design for Shear Force in Span A'B: ACI 318 Sec.10. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples a = [3.3] provides two choices for computing the shear strength demand in a member of an intermediate moment frame: 1.8) + 1.4.12.0(45.FEMA 451.2.kips for negative moment at Support B.33) = 18. The earthquake shears computed from the nominal flexural strength are added to the factored gravity shears to determine the total design shear. The first option requires that the design shear force for earthquake be based on the nominal moment strength at the ends of the members.83 kips 2 The factored design shear Vu = 1.3 kips. This shear force applies for earthquake forces coming from either direction as shown in the shear strength design envelope in Figure 642. The top short bars are cut off 5 ft0 in. The second option requires that the design earthquake shear force be 2. the flexural reinforcement layout shown in Figure 641 is adequate.6 . The nominal strengths at the ends of the beam were computed earlier as 3850 in.
75 for shear.85 above reflects the reduced shear capacity of sandLW concrete. The final spacing used for the beam is shown in Figure 641.000) = 8. The shear to be resisted by steel.3 − 0.4 kips 0. 38.9 in. from the face of the support.3 [21.5.12. or 12 in.12. The first stirrup should be placed 2 in.6/4 = 6. Vc = (0. 11. This is in contrast to the details of the Berkeley building where full hoops with 135degree hooks are required in the critical region (within 2d from the face of the support) and stirrups with 135degree hooks are required elsewhere.22) and fy = 40 ksi is: Vs = Vu − φ V c φ = 73.Chapter 6.4 Minimum transverse steel requirements are given in ACI 318 Sec. which requires a 90degree hook with a 6db extension.3 must be checked: smax = 0. stirrups should be placed at a maximum of d/2 (ACI 318 Sec. than the 6. and within a distance 2h from the face of the support.5. This is slightly greater.3 kips 1.3]).4.22)(40)(27. 7.2 [21. with the maximum spacing being 27.000 The factor of 0. 000)20(27. the minimum requirements of ACI 318 Sec. eight times the smallest longitudinal bar diameter. This spacing is used for all other spans as well.4.3.2(40.6) = 59. For the beam under consideration d/4 controls minimum transverse steel. 50(20) This spacing controls over the d/2 requirement. required for strength. Reinforced Concrete Vu # φVc + φVs where φ = 0.10.32 in. the spacing should be not greater than d/4.4. In the remainder of the span. The stirrups may be detailed according to ACI 318 Sec. 21.75(59.2].32 in. 685 .0 in.85) (2 4. however.75 Using VS = Av fyd/s: s= (0. Because the earthquake shear (at midspan) is greater than 50 percent of the shear strength provided by concrete alone.10. 24 times the stirrup diameter. 21.4.6) = 6. assuming stirrups consist of two #3 legs (Av = 0.1.3) = 38.
5 27. 686 .5 27.5 27.295 5.850 3.1 45.8 45. 1.3 18.3 18.45kN.0 in.3 (d) Design shear seismic + gravity positive kips 15.113 kNm). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Loading ' 5.3 18.850 3.175D + 1.850 14" 212" 240" 14" 45.6 73.850 3. 1.3 18.0 in = 25.852 (a) Seismic moment (tension side) in.8 45.5 27.FEMA 451.8 (c) Gravity shear (1.3 73.5 27.4 mm.6 70.8 (b) Seismic shear positive kips 43.3 Figure 642 Shear strength envelopes for Span A'B of Frame 1 (1.0L) positive kips 27.5 73.3 73.kips 3.3 73.0 kip = 4.852 5.3 18.852 5.8 45.kip = 0.
33. ' P = 54 kips Includes P = 528 kips level 5 30" Level 5 28" 12'6" 30" Level 4 See Figure 641 for girder reinforcement 20'0" 20'0" Figure 643 Isolated view of column A' (1.3 Design of Typical Interior Column of Frame 1 This section illustrates the design of a typical interior column on Gridline A'.3.000 psi LW concrete. square and is constructed from 4.5. The factored gravity force for maximum compression (including earthquake) is: Pu = 1.Chapter 6. Reinforced Concrete 6. The column.2 kips. The ETABS analysis indicates that the axial earthquake force is ±33. 60 ksi longitudinal reinforcement. which supports Level 5 of Frame 1.4. 6.3(528) + 0.8(528) .6 kips The factored gravity force for minimum compression (including earthquake) is: Pu = 0. the earthquake shear force is ±41.2(528) + 1.9 kips. An isolated view of the column is shown in Figure 643. is 28 in.708 in.0 kip = 4.137 and ±2. and the earthquake moments at the top and the bottom of the column are ±2.45kN).5.3048 m. The column supports an unfactored axial dead load of 528 kips and an unfactored axial live load of 54 kips.1 Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement The factored gravity force for maximum compression (without earthquake) is: Pu = 1.5(54) + 33.2 kips 687 .0 ft = 0.2 = 746. 1.kips. and 40 ksi transverse reinforcement. respectively.4.6(54) = 720 kips This force acts with no significant gravity moment. Moments and shears due to gravity loads are assumed to be negligible.2 = 389.
(ACI 318 Sec.7 = 0.4 in.13.4 = 14.12.FEMA 451. the structure must be considered unbraced. ACI 318 Sec.0. 221 in. For use with the nomograph for unbraced columns (ACI 318 Figure R10.216] except that in the ACI equation. As can be seen from earlier calculations shown in Table 612b. This factor is given as: Q= ∑ Puδ 0 Vu lc which is basically the same as Provisions Eq.88 720 I Column = 283 (28) = 51.4(51. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq. 10.05 for Level 5 of the building responding in the EW direction.4.11. the ACI story stability factor will be in excess of 0.3.5 E ⎜ ⎟ 240 ⎝ L ⎠Girder According to ACI 318 Sec.2 and 1. slenderness effects should be checked. δ0 does not include Cd.1b): E (45. 221E ) 1 + 0. and is therefore consistent with the Provisions.21 [5. In this example. r = 0. 10. lu = 120 in. column with a clear unbraced length.000) ⎛ EI ⎞ = = 187. The importance factor.3(28) = 8.4 12 0.3: ⎛ 0. 5.by28in. This requires that the effective length factor k for this column be less than 1. the gravity forces are factored.5 688 . For a 28in. Hence. Even though the frame is defined as unbraced. 10. this does not affect this example because I = 1. However.12.7 E 150 ⎛ EI ⎞ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ L ⎠Column Because there is a column above and below as well as a beam on either side: Ψ Top = Ψ Bottom = 72.4.6 load factors on gravity load: βd = 1. [Note also that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions.05.11.2(528) = 0.54. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Since the frame being designed is unbraced in both the NS and EW directions.4EIColumn ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎝ (1 + βd ) ⎠ = ⎜ ⎟ 150 ⎝ L ⎠Column Using the 1.3) and lu/r = 120/8.2 states that the frame may be considered braced against sidesway if the story stability factor is less than 0. ACI 318 Sec.] ACI is silent on whether or not δ0 should include Cd.2 allows slenderness effects to be neglected when klu/r < 22.216. I.39 187.88 = 72.. 5.6. 10.
the column under consideration has no beam framing into it in the direction of loading.2 Design and Detailing of Transverse Reinforcement ACI 318 Sec.by28in.9) = 83.36 kNm).000 M x (ftkips) Figure 644 Interaction diagram for column (1.0 times the factored shear force as derived from the structural analysis.85(2) fc′bw d = 0.4.54.500 2.0121) is shown in Figure 644.12.500 1. the effective length factor for the column in the NS direction is effectively infinity. If the stiffness contributed by the joists and the spandrel beam acting in torsion is ignored.0(41.000(28)(25. 21.3 [21.1b).1 kips For loading in the NS direction.5.6) = 77.0. column with 12 #8 bars (ρ = 0. The column clearly has the strength to support the applied loads (represented as solid dots in the figure). 5 689 .8 kips.9 kips and the design shear is 2. 1.0 ftkip = 1.000 500 0 500 0 200 400 600 800 1. As the computed effective length factor is less than 1.12. P (kips) 3.000 1.3. an axialflexural interaction diagram for a 28in.85(2) 4.5 Continuing with the design.0 kip = 4. slenderness effects need not be checked for this column.10. Reinforced Concrete and the effective length factor k = 1. Since each of the other 32 columns has a lateral stiffness well in excess of that required for story stability in the NS direction. However. The ETABS analysis indicates that the shear force is 41. 6.3] allows the column to be checked for 2.15 (ACI 318 Figure R10.000 2. this column is only one of four in a story containing a total of 36 columns. A Pdelta analysis carried out per the ACI Commentary would be required to substantiate this. the columns on Lines A' and C' can be considered to be laterally supported by the other 32 columns and therefore can be designed using an effective length factor of 1.45kN.Chapter 6. The concrete supplies a capacity of: Vc = 0.
02 in. below the beam soffit.0db = 8. Note that the tie spacing is not varied beyond lo. (using #8 longitudinal bars) 24dtie = 24 (3/8) = 9.0 in. (using #3 ties) 1/2 the smallest dimension of the frame member = 28/2 = 14 in. 21. One tie will be provided at 4 in.0 in. the next tie is placed 4 in.0 in. a fourlegged #3 tie spaced at 8 in. over a depth of 28 in. 690 .5 [21. maximum cross section dimension = 28 in. the tie spacing should not exceed: 8.12. maximum spacing controls. ACI 318 Sec.00 in. Ties at this spacing are required over a length lo of: 1/6 clearspan of column = 120/6 = 20 in.5] specifies the minimum reinforcement required.10. 18.008) = 8. above the floor slab. and the remaining ties are spaced at 8 in.8 − 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The requirement for steel reinforcement is: Vs = Vu − φVc φ = 83. Within a region lo from the face of the support. s = [4(0.0 (25. on center.75 Using ties with four #3 legs.11)] [40.6 kips 0.75(77.6)] = 13.FEMA 451.6/34. Given the above.0 (1. The 8. 12 in.1) = 34. The final spacing is as shown in Figure 645. will be used.
11.11.5.000) = 12.5.12. 11.4 mm).4 Design of BeamColumn Joint Joint reinforcement for intermediate moment frames is addressed in ACI 318 Sec. ACI 318 Sec.6 in.0 in = 25. Assuming Av is supplied by four #3 ties and fy = 40 ksi: s= 4(0.Chapter 6.4.5].11.2 requires that all beamcolumn connections have a minimum amount of transverse reinforcement through the beamcolumn joints. The amount of reinforcement required is given by ACI 318 Eq. 28" 4" 30" 28" Figure 645 Column reinforcement (1. 6.11)(40.5.10. The only exception is in nonseismic frames where the column is confined on all four sides by beams framing into the column. Reinforced Concrete ' Level 7 4" 3" 3 at 8" 30" 3" (12) #8 bars 14 spaces at 8" o.c.3 [21. 21. 1113: ⎛b s⎞ Av = 50 ⎜ w ⎟ ⎜ fy ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ This is the same equation used to proportion minimum transverse reinforcement in beams. which refers to Sec. 50(28) 691 28" Level 6 .2.
and reinforcement for haunched girder (1.FEMA 451.5.kip = 0.0 in = 25. below the top of the beam and then three additional ties will be placed below this hoop at a spacing of 8 in.by28in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This effectively requires only two ties within the joint. the reinforcement at Gridline B is extended into the adjacent span (Span BC) instead of being hooked into the column.3048 m. columns on Gridlines A and B. moments. The width of the girder is 20 in.2D + 1.6L Strength envelope (3) #10 (3) #10 (2) #10 Level 7 (2) #10 48" (4) #9 48" 48" (4) #9 Figure 646 Loads. WL = 0.5.000 8. located between Gridlines A and B.0 ft = 0.8D + E 0. 1.90 kips/ft 30" 20" Level 5 (a) Span geometry and loading 8'10" 1'2" 10'0" 10'0" 8'10" 1'2" 12. The final arrangement of ties within the beamcolumn joint is shown in Figure 645. 1.000 2.000 4.3D + 0. However.5L + E 1. This girder.000 (b) Moment envelope (in. 692 . at the support and a minimum depth of 20 in.5L .3D + 0.000 0 2.1 Design of Haunched Girder A typical haunched girder supporting Level 5 of Frame 3 is now illustrated.kips) 1. the first tie will be placed 3 in. has a variable depth with a maximum depth of 30 in. The girder frames into 28in. for the middle half of the span.8D . throughout.0 kip/ft = 14.000 6.000 4.5.5 Design of Members of Frame 3 6.000 6.6 kN/m.E 1.000 8. 6.0 in.90 kips/ft WD = 0.113 kNm).4 mm.000 10.E 0. 1. The length of the haunch at each end (as measured from the face of the support) is 106 in. As illustrated in Figure 646c.
5L ± E produce approximately equal negative end moments.0114 a = [4.49 in.3D + 0.1.49 .964 OK OK OK 693 . Mn = [7.0.kips on Gridline B. this girder supports an average of 3.0..1.0) = 4.8(11.824 in. try eight #10 bars.375 . 21.62 (60)](27.8.0] = 8. ρ = 4. Nominal capacity.641 in.2 Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 646b for five different load combinations.6. a positive moment capacity of at least onethird of the negative moment capacity will be supplied per ACI 318 Sec.16/[20 (27. try six #10 bars.031) = 8.0185 a = [10.kips The three #10 bars that extend across the top of the span easily supply a minimum of onefifth of the negative moment strength at the face of the support.62 in.kips φMn = 0.16 in.1 [21.0/[20 (17. try four #9 bars: As = 4 (1. For determining earthquake forces. Mn = [10.5.56)] = 0.kips > 8.kips For the maximum factored positive moment at midspan of 2.8(4.128/2 = 17.0.4.85 (4) 84] = 0.113 in.27) = 7. Reinforced Concrete Based on a tributary gravity load analysis.996) = 11.1.00 (60)]/[0.996 in.85 (4) 20. ρ = 7.27) = 10.5 .00 in. For a factored negative moment of 8. φMn = 0.) Mn = [4. a = [7.5 . 6.4.56 . ρ = 10. As = 8 (1.72 in.16 (60)](27.1.2 d = 30 . Three of the bars are short. A gravity load analysis of the girder was carried out in a similar manner similar to that described above for the Berkeley building.kips > 2. Since positive moment at the support is negligible. The envelopes of maximum positive and negative moment indicate that 1. For a factored negative moment of 10.62/[20 (27.0] = 6.1.113) = 3.85 (4) 20.221 in.49)] = 0.1.kips on Gridline A.106 in.84/2) = 4.375 . As = 6 (1.Chapter 6.27/2 = 27.8(13. This analysis included 100 percent of the earthquake forces in the EW direction placed at a 5 percent eccentricity with the direction of the eccentricity set to produce the maximum seismic shear in the member.49 . and gravity controls midspan positive moment.964 inkips.2 d = 30 .49)] = 0. The other three bars are long and extend into Span BC.290 in. and the remaining two are short bars centered over Support B. The minimum positive or negative moment strength at any section of the span will not be less than onefifth of the maximum negative moment strength.031 inkips Design capacity.0139 Depth of compression block.16 (60)]/[0.8D E.56 in.641 in.2 d = 20 .5.38 kips/ft of dead load and 0.0.10.1].72/2) = 11.5 . Three of the bars extend from Span AB.96/2) = 13.2D + 1.62 (60)]/[0.12.49 in.96 in.27/2 = 27.6L and 1. the entire structure was analyzed using the ETABS program. extending just past the end of the haunch.90 kips/ft of reduced live load.kips > 10.kips φMn = 0.106 in. three extend from Span BC. (effective flange width = 84 in. Positive moment at the support is nearly zero under 0.375 .00 (60)](17.84 in.
12.kips For positive moment and four #9 bars. ACI 318 Sec.56)] = 0.031 + 6.7 kips 0.211 in.5.5.3 [21.1.00 (60)] (27.514 in.4+91. 6.75(59. Vc = (0.75 φ 694 .514) = 5.8(6.514 in.1 = 136. 000 Vs = Vu −φVc 136.3 kips 1. The design positive moment strength for the 30in.3) = =122. the approach based on the nominal flexural capacity (φ = 1. Stirrup spacing required for strength is based on two #4 legs with fy = 60 ksi.kips The final layout of longitudinal reinforcement used is shown in Figure 646. the nominal moment strength = 6. Splices shown are Class B and do not need to be confined within hoops.deep section with four #9 bars is computed as follows: As = 4 (1.00 in.0] = 0.3 (63.56 .9 = 130.6) + 0.28) = 45. For the haunched girder.56 in. Due to the small difference in end shears.28) = 38.3] gives the two options discussed above.84 in.0 (60)]/[0.5(16. the nominal strength =13.0. The hooked #10 bars can easily be developed in the confined core of the columns. Mn = [4. the nominal moment strength = 11.10.84/2) = 6. the four #9 bars will be extended into the supports as shown in Figure 646.996 + 6.85)(2) 4.0) of the girder will be used as follows: For negative moment and six #10 bars.kips Earthquake shear when Support A is under positive seismic moment is: VE = (13.00/[20 (27.5 .128/2 = 27.5VL = 1.1 kips Maximum total shear occurs at Support B: Vu = 45. ρ = 4.FEMA 451.5 − 0.2 d = 30 .375 .9) = 91. use the larger shear for designing transverse reinforcement at each end.3VD + 0. 21. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Even though they provide more than onethird of the negative moment strength at the support.6) = 59. The complete design shear (demand) strength envelope is shown in Figure 647a.kips φMn = 0.514)/(480 .3 Design of Transverse Reinforcement For the design for shear.8 + 91.1.0073 a = [4.1 kips.85 (4) 20.0.4 kips Earthquake shear when Support B is under positive seismic moment is: VE = (11.kips For negative moment and eight #10 bars.031 in.514)/(480 .996 in.8 kips VG = 1.5 kips The shear at Support A is 38. 000)(20)(27.00) = 1. Note that the supplied design strengths at each location exceed the factored moment demands.
39 in. depth region. h = 30 in. at midhaunch and 8. 8" o.4)(60)(27. 122.1 kips 136.6) = 5.0 kip = 4. depth.4 kips (a) Required shear strength envelope 42.1 in. VU = 69.60 in. on either side of the kink.7 130. the first stirrup is placed 2 in. 5" o. 695 .c.7 in. 1.1 kips s = 5. 6" o.. Reinforced Concrete Using Vs = Av fyd/s: s= (0. Outside this region. the allowable maximum spacing is d/4 = 6. the spacing required for other stations is: At support.0 kips 46. Vu = 45. VU =93.0 ft = 0. For the constant 20in. 1.4 kips Middle of haunch.c. 5" o. at the support and approximately 5. Within a region 2h from the face of the support. h =20 in. through the remainder of the haunch. VU = 136.0 in = 25.9 kips End of haunch.deep segment of the beam.0 kips 52. is used. At the haunched segments at either end of the beam. s = 6.39 in. s = 29.Chapter 6.2 in. VU = 114. s = 12. and then 13 stirrups at 6 in. The final spacing of stirrups used is shown in Figure 647b. (b) Spacing of transverse reinforcement 2" 8'10" 2" 20'0" 8'10" #4 stirrups Figure 647 Shear force envelope for haunched girder (1. One should be located at the kink and the others approximately 2 in.2 kips Midspan.75 in.87 in. Following the same procedure as shown above. Three additional stirrups should be placed at each bend or “kink” in the bottom bars. s = 7. h = 25 in.5 kips 6" o. a constant spacing of 8 in.c.c. at the end of the haunch and in the 20in. the maximum spacing is d/2 = 11.61 in.c.45kN)..4 mm.3048m.67 in. at midhaunch.4 kips Quarter point of region of 20in.. from the face of the support followed by four stirrups at a spacing of 5 in.
392 in.5(11.5) = 57. the forces in the column are obtained from the ETABS analysis as follows: Moment at top of column = 690 in. the forces in the column are obtained from the ETABS analysis as follows: Moment at top of column = 690 in.6) + 1.80(43.6) .232 in.FEMA 451. respectively.4) .kips This moment causes tension on the outside face of the top of the column and tension on the inside face of the bottom of the column.80(2603) .5 kips. P = 1.kips Moment at bottom = 0.208 in.8 kips Axial compression. Under gravity load alone.kips. The factored gravity load combinations for designing the column are as follows: Bending moment. The layout of the column is shown in Figure 648.2(803. M = 1. The corresponding shears are 43.kips (tension on inside face adds to gravity) Shear in column = 13.690 = 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.6(693) = 4.4 Design of Supporting Column The column on Gridline A which supports Level 5 of the haunched girder is 28 in.kips (tension on outside face subtracts from gravity) Shear in column = 13.kips Shear = 0.1 kips (using the second option for computing EQ shear) Axial force = 0.4 and 11.80(2603) .2(43.3 kips (opposite sign of gravity shear) Axial force = 63.1 kips tension The factored forces involving earthquake from west to east are: Moment at top 0.63.kips and the corresponding live load moment is 693. V = 1.4 kips.4) = 1.1 kips compression 696 . by 28 in. and supports a total unfactored dead load of 803.3 kips (same sign of gravity shear) Axial force = 63.0 in.kips (tension on inside face subtracts from gravity) Moment at bottom of column = 874 in.874 = 1. the unfactored dead load moment is 2.603) + 1.090 kips For equivalent static earthquake forces acting from west to east.2(13.1 = 580 kips For earthquake forces acting from east to west.3) = 8.2(2.80(803.6 kips and an unfactored reduced live load of 78.5.kips (tension on outside face adds to gravity) Moment at bottom of column = 874 in.4) + 0.603 in.6(78.5. Shear.
Frame 3 (1.147 kips As may be observed from Figure 649. the details for the column currently under consideration are similar to those shown in Figure 645.3(2.5) + 2(13.6) + 0.1 = 1. The factored forces involving earthquake from east to west are: Moment at top 1. 1.45kN).3(43.4 kips P D = 803.0 in = 25.603) + 0.5(693) + 874 = 4.3048 m.0 ft = 0.6 kips (using second option for computing EQ shear) Axial force = 1.0 kip = 4. Reinforced Concrete P L = 78.604 in. The actual details for the column supporting the haunched girder of Frame 3 are shown in Figure 650.4 mm.3(803.5(693) + 690 = 4.5(11. the column with 12 #8 bars is adequate for all loading combinations. 30" Level 4 697 .6 kips 30" Includes level 5 Level 5 12'6" 28" 20" Figure 648 Loading for Column A.4) + 63.420 in.3(2.Chapter 6.5(78.4) + 0.603) + 0.kips Moment at bottom = 1. Since the maximum design shear is less than that for the column previously designed for Frame 1 and since minimum transverse reinforcement controlled that column. 1.3) = 94.kips Shear = 1.
FEMA 451.36 kNm).000 2.0 kip = 4.5.45kN. Frame 3 (1.000 M x (ftkips) Figure 649 Interaction diagram for Column A. 698 . 1.5.000 1.5 Design of BeamColumn Joint The detailing of the joint of the column supporting Level 5 of the haunched girder is the same as that for the column interior column of Frame A. 6. The joint details are shown in Figure 650.500 1.0 ftkip = 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples P (kips) 3.000 500 0 500 0 200 400 600 800 1.500 2.
Frame 3 (1. 28" 4" Level 4 28" Figure 650 Details for Column A.Chapter 6.4 mm). 28" 699 .0 in = 25. Reinforced Concrete Level 5 4" (12) #8 bars 14 spaces at 8" o.c.
4.101). P. provide a minimum degree of redundancy measured as a fraction of available bays. Some detail is given for special moment frame designs that emulate monolithic concrete. Ph.E. Allows special moment frames and special shear walls of precast concrete to either emulate the behavior of monolithic concrete or behave as jointed precast systems. Defines both ductile and strong connections can be either: a.7 PRECAST CONCRETE DESIGN Gene R. Provide a momentresisting connection at all beamtocolumn joints with positive lateral support for columns and with special considerations for bearing lengths.E. (Because ordinary shear walls are used in lower Seismic Design Categories. if momentresisting frames are used as the vertical system. reference is made to a new ACI testing standard (ACI T1. in which the nonlinear response occurs at a connection between a precast unit and another structural element. P. in which the nonlinear response occurs in reinforced concrete sections (generally precast) away from connections that are strong enough to avoid yield even as the forces at the nonlinear response location increase with strain hardening. (In the authors’ opinion this does not apply to buildings in Seismic Design Category A.) 2.. this requirement applies in Seismic Design Categories B and C. Requires assurance of ductility at connections that resist overturning for ordinary precast concrete shear walls. or b.D. Resist amplified chord forces in diaphragms and. the Provisions: 1. or b. or lap splices (observing the restrictions regarding the location of splices given for monolithic concrete) and the connection is completed with grout. welds. Requires the system (even if the precast carries only gravity loads) to satisfy one of the following two sets of provisions: a. Very briefly. for precast concrete structural systems.) 3. Ductile connections. and James Robert Harris. This chapter illustrates the seismic design of precast concrete members using the NEHRP Recommended Provisions (referred to herein as the Provisions) for buildings in several different seismic design categories. To validate designs that do not emulate monolithic concrete. Wet connections where reinforcement is spliced with mechanical couplers. 5. Strong connections. Stevens. precast or not. Defines that monolithic emulation may be achieved through the use of either: a. or 71 .
with a minimum ductility ratio of 8 and stronger anchorage requirements.1. The reader should bear in mind that the appendices of the Provisions are prepared for trial use and comment.2. Type Y. ACI 31802 identifies this system as an “intermediate precast concrete shear wall” and does not specifically define the Type Y or Z connections. Such designs have usually been performed using design force coefficients and strength limits as if the precast walls emulated the performance of castinplace reinforced concrete shear walls.1 illustrate the design of untopped and topped precast concrete floor and roof diaphragms of the fivestory masonry buildings described in Sec. Requires that ductile connections be either: a. Conventional tiltup buildings may deserve a unique treatment for seismicresistant design.2. 7. although tiltup panels with large heighttowidth ratios could behave in the fashion described in design example 7. In tiltup buildings subject to strong ground shaking.3. The examples in Sec.1 show the requirements for Seismic Design Categories B and C using 8in. The example in Sec. There are very few seismic requirements for such walls in the Provisions. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples b. 7.thick composite lightweight concrete topping for the fivestory masonry building in Seismic Design Category D described in Sec. 7. Although untopped diaphragms are commonly used in regions of low seismic hazard. prestressed concrete planks. the only place they are addressed in the Provisions is the Appendix to Chapter 9. 6. and they are not the subject of any of the examples in this chapter.3 illustrates the design of a special precast concrete shear wall for a singlestory industrial warehouse building in the Los Angeles.2.3 presents an interpretation of monolithic emulation of precast shear wall panels with ductile. Sec. Given the brief nature of the requirements in both the Provisions and ACI 318. The example in Sec. 7.1.2 illustrates the design of an ordinary precast concrete shear wall building in a region of low or moderate seismicity. but some differences remain.1. with a minimum ductility ratio of 4 and specific anchorage requirements. they are explained. This example identifies points of yielding for the system and connection features that are required to maintain stable cyclic behavior for yielding. primarily because there has been little demand for postelastic performance in that direction. the inplane performance of the precast panels has rarely been a problem. Dry connections. Sec. Whether this connection would qualify under ACI 31802 is a matter of interpretation. Tiltup concrete wall buildings in all seismic zones have long been designed using the precast wall panels as shear walls in the seismicforceresisting system.4] requires that the precast seismicforceresisting system emulate the behavior of monolithic reinforced concrete construction or that the system’s cyclic capacity be demonstrated by testing. The Provisions describes methods specifically intended to emulate the behavior of monolithic construction. Type Z. the authors offer some interpretation. 9. which is where most precast concrete seismicforceresisting systems are constructed. or b. dry connections. The precast concrete walls in this example resist the seismic forces for a threestory office building. 9. 9. 7. and dry connections are permitted.2 shows the same precast plank with a 2 ½ in. however. 72 . For buildings in Seismic Design Category D. located in southern New England (Seismic Design Category B). 7.2 of this volume of design examples. One such requirement qualifies is that overturning connections qualify as the newly defined Type Y or Z. Provisions Sec. which are defined as any connection that is not a wet connection. and future changes should be expected. Many of these requirements have been adopted into the 2002 edition of ACI 318. Additional clarity in the definition and application of design provisions of such precast systems is needed. which they usually do not.thick hollow core precast. the system probably would behave more like a jointed precast system. The design is computed using the Provisions rules for monolithic emulation.1.FEMA 451. The two untopped precast concrete diaphragms of Sec. Where those differences are pertinent to the examples illustrated here.12 [9.
). Third Edition. Vol. 26. 27. 45. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. 1988. The most significant change related to precast concrete in the 2003 Provisions is that precast shear wall systems are now recognized separately from castinplace systems. No. Design and Typical Details of Connections for Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 3 (MayJune). 1999. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. 2002. American Institute of Steel Construction. and No. xxx (ACI Sec.). Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Saad E. 5 (Sept. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformatting of all chapters for the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the Provisions and its primary reference documents. Second Edition.” PCI Journal. 2000. Neil M. The 2003 Provisions recognizes ordinary and intermediate precast concrete shear walls. No. 1999. “Proposed Revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Precast Concrete Structures.Oct. 1 (Jan. Precast Concrete Design In addition to the Provisions. it has been annotated to reflect changes made for the 2003 Provisions. “Effectiveness of ShearFriction Reinforcement in Shear Diaphragm Capacity of HollowCore Slabs. K. Structural Engineers Association of Arizona.. the following documents are either referred to directly or are useful design aids for precast concrete construction: ACI 31899 ACI 31802 AISC LRFD ASCE 7 Hawkins American Concrete Institute. Hawkins. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. Central Chapter. No. Parts 1. Vol. Annotations within brackets. 6 (Nov. 21. Vol. The design of ordinary precast shear walls is based on ACI 31802 excluding Chapter 21 and the design of intermediate shear walls is based on ACI 31802 Sec. Moustafa. and S. Load & Resistance Factor Design. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. PCI Design Handbook.” PCI Journal.13 (with limited modifications in Chapter 9 of the 2003 Provisions). The 2003 Provisions does not distinguish between precast and castinplace concrete for special shear walls.Feb. 3 (MayJune 1982).Dec. 1998 [2002]. Moustafa PCI Handbook PCI Details SEAA Hollow Core The following style is used when referring to a section of ACI 318 for which a change or insertion is proposed by the Provisions: Provisions Sec. Special precast shear walls either need to satisfy the design requirements for special castinplace concrete shear walls 73 . 1981 and 1982. 1981) and the discussion contained in PCI Journal. 2. American Concrete Institute. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. [ ]. Design and Detailing of Untopped HollowCore Slab Systems for Diaphragm Shear. No. Fifth Edition. yyy) where “xxx” is the section in the Provisions and “yyy” is the section proposed for insertion into ACI 31899. Although the general conepts of the changes are described. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes made for the 2003 Provisions. Ghosh. and 3. 2002.Chapter 7. Manual of Steel Construction. American Society of Civil Engineers.
21. 74 .7) or most be substantiated using experimental evidence and analysis (2003 Provisions Sec. and the requirements in ACI 31802 are in some ways less specific. revisions to the redundancy requirements. Where they affect the design examples in the chapter.2. 9.4 and 9. and revisions to the minimum base shear equation. Where this occurs.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (ACI 31802 Sec.FEMA 451. Many of the design provisions for precast shear walls in the 2000 Provisions have been removed.6). However.” Commentary on how the specific design provision was incorporated into ACI 31802 is included where appropriate. the 2000 Provisions references in this chapter are simply annotated as “[not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]. Some general technical changes for the 2003 Provisions that relate to the calculations and/or designs in this chapter include updated seismic hazard maps. other significant changes for the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. some minor changes may not be noted.
2 General InPlane Seismic Design Forces for Untopped Diaphragms The inplane diaphragm seismic design force (F!px) for untopped precast concrete in Provisions Sec.1.1. Diaphragms with untopped precast elements are designed to remain elastic.1. which also bounds Fpx to be not less than 0.4SDSIwpx. Figure 9.1 Untopped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Buildings Located in Birmingham. chord elements) are provided as needed for clarity in this example. 9A.3. ACI 318 requires grout or concrete placed against hardened concrete to have clean. No outofplane offsets in vertical seismicforceresisting members (Type 4 plan irregularities) are permitted with untopped diaphragms. 7.21 shows the typical floor plan of the diaphragms.3 [A9. 21.Chapter 7. 21. The floors and roofs of these buildings are to be untopped 8in. 75 . 5. The Appendix to Chapter 9 provides design provisions for untopped precast concrete diaphragms without limits as to the Seismic Design Category.1. µ. This method makes use of the shear friction provisions of ACI 318 with the friction coefficient. New York (Seismic Design Category C). Reinforced concrete diaphragms constructed using untopped precast concrete elements are addressed in the Appendix to Chapter 9 of the Provisions. Topped precast concrete elements. but the source is clear from the context of the discussion.6.g. The terminology used is defined in ACI 318 Chapter 21 and Provisions Chapter 9. Roughness for formed edges is provided either by sawtooth keys along the length of the plank or by hand roughening with chipping hammers.5.0. Alabama. Dynamic modeling of seismic response is not required. To use µ = 1.9]. Other definitions (e.2] “shall not be less than the forcee calculated from either of the following two criteria:” 1. 7.1. Precast Concrete Design 7. This equation normally is specified for Seismic Design 1 Note that this equation is incorrectly numbered as 5. The example in Sec. prestressed concrete plank. untopped precast diaphragms are permitted only in Seismic Design Categories A through C. on soft rock (Seismic Design Category B) and in New York. Static rational models are used to determine shears and moments on joints as well as shear and tension/compression forces on connections.1 HORIZONTAL DIAPHRAGMS Structural diaphragms are horizontal or nearly horizontal elements. ρΩ0Fpx but not less than ρΩ0Cswpx where Fpx is calculated from Provisions Eq. 9.2 provides design parameters used in this example. Precast concrete diaphragms may be constructed using topped or untopped precast elements depending on the Seismic Design Category of the building. These two sources occasionally conflict (such as the symbol µ used above).1 General Design Requirements In accordance with the Provisions and ACI 318.63].41 [4.4.2SDSIwpx and not more than 0.7 [ACI 31802 Sec. New York This example illustrates floor and roof diaphragm design for the fivestory masonry buildings located in Birmingham. laitance free.. are designed using the requirements of ACI 31899 Sec.2. The design method used here is that proposed by Moustafa.2. and New York.4 in the first printing of the 2000 Provisions. and connections are designed for limited ductility. such as floors and roofs. and intentionally roughened surfaces with a total amplitude of about 1/4 in. that transfer seismic inertial forces to the vertical seismicforceresisting members. being equal to 1. 7. (peak to valley). which act compositely or noncompositely for gravity loads.2.0. Details from the SEAA Hollow Core reference are used to develop the connection details.thick hollow core precast. Alabama.
1 [5.3.25 times the shear force to cause yielding of the vertical seismicforceresisting system. splices.3.31]) Cs is the seismic response coefficient (Provisions Sec. the shear force to cause yielding is first estimated to be that force associated with the development of the nominal bending strength of the shear walls at their base.FEMA 451.3. the authors believe that Provisions Sec.7. collector splices. This approach to yielding uses the first mode force distribution along the height of the building and basic pushover analysis concepts.1.3]) 2.2. Because vertical forces do not normally affect diaphragm collector elements.1]) wpx is the weight tributary to the diaphragm at Level x SDS is the spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (Provisions Sec.2.2 [3.2 [4. the designer can then use the smaller of the two forces.2].4. 9.2. This requirement is different from similar requirements elsewhere in the Provisions. Provisions Sec. 1. it is intended in the Provisions Appendix to Chapter 9 that the same equation be used for untopped diaphragms in Seismic Design Categories B and C.2. and connections.1 [4.6. 5.2.2. 5. 5.62] and not limited by the minima and maxima for that equation.0) Fpx* is the seismic force at each level for the diaphragm as defined above by Provisions Eq. (Note that φ = 1. and collector connections to the vertical seismicforceresisting members be designed in accordance with Provisions Sec.1].2.1.6.0 for Seismic Design Categories A through C per Provisions Sec.4 [4. 9A. For components thought likely to behave in a brittle fashion. 4.2].6.2] requires that collector elements.2. which is 1. Here the Provisions requires the designer to compute both an overstrength level force and a yield level force and then use the larger.2. This appears to conflict with the Commentary.11. 5. 1.2 used to calculate inplane seismic design forces for the diaphragms are provided in Table 7.3 [A9.6.25KFpx* where K is the ratio of the yield strength in bending to the demand.1 [4.9] defines a minimum diaphragm seismic design force that will always be less than the forces computed above.1.2. The maximum force would normally be computed from a plastic mechanism analysis. Parameters from the example in Sec.2. My/Mu.2] is satisfied by the requirements of Provisions Sec.7. If the option is exercised.2.3.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Categories D and higher.4 [1.1. For Seismic Design Categories B and C. the designer is required to apply the overstrength factor and then given an option to check the maximum force that can be delivered by the remainder of the structural system to the element in question.2.3]) I is the occupancy importance factor (Provisions Sec. which places the overstrength factor on horizontal seismic forces and combines the horizontal and vertical seismic forces with the effects of gravity forces. which can be approximated as: F!px = 1. 5. 5. ρ is the reliability factor. which requires use of the overstrength factor.3. Provisions Sec.4. Ω0 is the overstrength factor (Provisions Table 5.6 [4. For the fivestory masonry buildings of this example.1 [4. 5. 76 .2.1 [4. For Seismic Design Category C.2.6.
77 . whereas K is maximum for the maximum axial load.2. Birmingham 1 1.0 The Provisions Appendix to Chapter 9 does not give the option of using the overstrength factor Ω0 to estimate the yield of the vertical system. 1.156 869 kips 978 kips 0. because this example was completed first).0 2.39 1. the yield moment is on the order of 90 to 95 percent of the nominal capacity. Yielding begins before the nominal bending capacity is reached. A simple factor of 0.12 861 kips 963 kips 0. An intermediate point on the interaction diagram was computed for each wall in Sec. particularly when the reinforcement is distributed uniformly along the wall rather than being concentrated at the ends of the wall.2 Design Parameter ρ Ωo Cs wi (roof) wi (floor) SDS I 1.0 ftkip = 1.2.0 2.12 shows the load information from Sec. but that does not appear necessary for design. The shape of the interaction diagram between the balanced point and pure bending is far enough from a straight line (see Figure 9. Thus. It is feasible to compute the moment at which the extreme bar yields.36 kNm. 9.0 kip = 4. The strength for design is controlled by minimum axial load. For lightly reinforced walls with distributed reinforcement and with axial loads about onethird of the balanced load.45 kN.11 Design Parameters from Example 9.5 0.2 (the final numbers in this section may have changed. which includes some live load and a vertical acceleration on dead load. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.5 0.0 New York City 1.26) in the region of interest that simply interpolating between the points for pure bending and balanced conditions is unacceptably unconservative for this particular check.95 was applied to the nominal capacity here. 9. The factor K is large primarily due to consideration of axial load. such as these.24 1. Table 7. so Mn for the wall is computed from the axial load moment interaction diagram data developed in Sec.Chapter 7. 9. and that point is utilized here.
229 ftkips 363 kips 327 kips 5. PnB Maximum Design Load.4]: Fpx = i=x n i=x ∑ Fi w px ∑ wi Calculations for Fpx are provided in Table 7. Mn0 Intermediate Load. MnB Intermediate Load.6.355 ftkips 335 kips 315 kips 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 7. 78 .782 ftkips 5.837 ftkips 2. 5.4 [4. Pu Interpolated Mn Approximate My Design Mu Factor K = My/Mu 963 ftkips 5.2.83 New York City 1.13.723 ftkips 6.67 ft) wpx n = 861 kips = 54 kips = 807 kips = 963 kips = 108 kips = 855 kips Compute diaphragm demands in accordance with Provisions Eq.092 ftkips 4.67 ft/2) wpx Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (45 psf)(277 ft)(8.1.493 ftkips 3. Compute diaphragm weight (wpx) for the roof and floor as follows: Roof Total weight Walls parallel to force = (45 psf)(277 ft)(8.4.12 Shear Wall Overstrength Birmingham 1 Pure Bending.FEMA 451.3 Diaphragm Forces for Birmingham Building 1 The weight tributary to the roof and floor diaphragms (wpx) is the total story weight (wi) at Level i minus the weight of the walls parallel to the direction of loading.640 ftkips 1.6.3.483 ftkips 1.1.58 7.
7 kips) = 2(41.45 kN.5.5)(103 kips) = 256 kips (at the floors) The second check on design force is based on yielding of the shear walls: F!px = 1.1.25KFpx* = 1.0 kips) = 38. Therefore.12(855 kips) = 103 kips (at the floors) Since Cswpx is larger than Fpx. Compare this value to Cswpx to determine the minimum diaphragm force for untopped diaphragms as indicated previously.2SDSIwpx The maximum value of Fpx = 0.8 kips (at the roof) Cswpx = 0.24)1.85)155 kips = 358 kips (at the floors) For this example.0(807 kips) = 0.4 Diaphragm Forces for New York Building The weight tributary to the roof and floor diaphragms (wpx) is the total story weight (wi) at Level i minus the weight of the walls parallel to the force. To simplify the design.0 kips (at floors) = 77.25(1.12(807 kips) = 96.820 2.8 kips) = 242 kips (at the roof) F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.25KFpx* = 1.0 kip = 4.85)164 kips = 379 kips (at the roof) F!px = 1. the force to yield the walls clearly controls the design. The value of Fpx used for the roof diaphragm is 82. Cswpx = 0.13 are listed in Table 9. Note that this will always be true when I = 1. 79 .0(855 kips) = 2(38.2(0.13 Birmingham 1 Fpx Calculations i= x Level Roof 4 3 2 1 wi (kips) 861 963 963 963 963 ∑ wi n (kips) 861 1. 7.1.13 is substantially larger than the maximum Fpx. 379 kips.Chapter 7. the diaphragm design force used for all levels will be the maximum force at any level. the diaphragm seismic design forces are as follows: F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.25(1.0(2. This is generally true at upper levels if the R factor is less than 5. The minimum value of Fpx = 0.5)(96.1 kips.1 kips (at floors) Note that Fpx by Table 7.22. the controlling force is Cswpx. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.4SDSIwpx = 0. The values for Fi and Vi used in Table 7.710 Fi (kips) 175 156 117 78 39 i=x ∑ Fi = Vi (kips) 175 331 448 527 566 n wpx (kips) 807 855 855 855 855 Fpx (kips) 164 155 137 120 103 1.0 and R is less than or equal to 2.0(2.750 4.7 kips (at the roof) = 41.24)1.790 3.5 kips (at the roof) = 82.2(0.
4] are not required for the first set of forces because Cswpx will be greater than or equal to the maximum value of Fpx = 0.5)(127 kips) = 318 kips (at the roof) F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.25KFpx* = 1.5 Static Analysis of Diaphragms The balance of this example will use the controlling diaphragm seismic design force of 423 kips for the New York building. just as with the Birmingham 1 building.25KFpx. the diaphragm design force used for all levels will be the maximum force at any level.4] are required for the second check F!px = 1.156(812 kips) = 127 kips (at the roof) Cswpx = 0. 5.67 ft/2) wpx Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (48 psf)(277 ft)(8.11.0(2.2.25(1.0 and R is less than or equal to 2.4 [4.3.5.1. Compute Cswpx as: Cswpx = 0.156(863 kips) = 135 kips (at the floors) The diaphragm seismic design forces are: F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.4. the maximum Fpx is 214 kips at the roof. 710 .3. Following the same procedure as illustrated in the previous section. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Compute diaphragm weight (wpx) for the roof and floor as follows: Roof Total weight Walls parallel to force = (48 psf)(277 ft)(8.0(2.6.6. 1. In the transverse direction. the loads will be distributed as shown in Figure 7. Thus.5)(135 kips) = 337 kips (at the floors) Calculations for Fpx using Provisions Eq.2.4SDSIwpx when I = 1.1. 7. 5.58)214 kips = 423 kips (at the roof) To simplify the design.4.6.6. The diaphragm seismic design force (423 kips) is controlled by yielding at the base of the walls.FEMA 451.67 ft) wpx = 978 kips = 115 kips = 863 kips = 870 kips = 58 kips = 812 kips Calculations for Fpx using Provisions Eq.4 [4.
67 ft)4](423 kips / 863 kips) W2 = [67 psf(72 ft)](423 kips / 863 kips) = 3. the diaphragm reactions at the transverse shear walls (F as shown in Figure 7.11). Precast Concrete Design W1 W2 W1 F F F F 40'0" 3 at 24'0" = 72'0" 152'0" 40'0" Figure 7.0 ft = 0.12 identifies critical regions of the diaphragm to be considered in this design. Assuming the four shear walls have the same stiffness and ignoring torsion.8 kips The uniform diaphragm demands are proportional to the distributed weights of the diaphragm in different areas (see Figure 7.Chapter 7. These regions are: Joint 1 – maximum transverse shear parallel to the panels at paneltopanel joints Joint 2 – maximum transverse shear parallel to the panels at the paneltowall joint Joint 3 – maximum transverse moment and chord force Joint 4 – maximum longitudinal shear perpendicular to the panels at the paneltowall connection (exterior longitudinal walls) and anchorage of exterior masonry wall to the diaphragm for outofplane forces Joint 5 – collector element and shear for the interior longitudinal walls 711 . W1 = [67 psf(72 ft) + 48 psf(8.180 lb/ft = 2.3048 m).11) are computed as follows: F = 423 kips/4 = 105.11 Diaphragm force distribution and analytical model (1.364 lb/ft Figure 7.
this amplification factor has been included in calculating the chord forces.1. 9. Because these masonry wall buildings are similar to buildings with concrete walls.1. See the initial section of this chapter for additional discussion on changes for the 2003 Provisions. twice the length of the 40ftlong cantilevers is used for Leff = 80 ft hs = story height = 8. Since the diaphragms have no infection points.4 [not applicable in 2003 Provisions] defines a chord amplification factor for diaphragms in structures having precast gravityload systems.3048 m).] This amplification factor appears to apply to buildings with vertical seismicforceresisting members constructed of precast or monolithic concrete.0 ft = 0.67 ft bd = diaphragm width = 72 ft 2 ⎡ ⎛ 80 ⎞ ⎤ ⎢1 + 0.4 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎝ 72 ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ The amplification factor = ( 72 ) ⎣ 12 ( 8.FEMA 451.0 bd ⎣ 12hs where Leff = length of the diaphragm between inflection points.67 ) = 1. Provisions Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4 1 2 3 5 72'0" 36'0" 4'0" 24'0" Figure 7.03 712 .12 Diaphragm plan and critical design regions (1. The amplification factor is: 2 ⎡ ⎛ Leff ⎞ ⎤ ⎢1 + 0. [The chord amplification factor has been dropped in the 2003 Provisions and does not occur in ASC 31802.4 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ bd ⎠ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ ⎦ ≥ 1.
25.5 kips = 2.9 kips According to Provisions Sec.1.9 kips . Mu2 = 127 kips (40 ft/2) Chord tension force.03(2.6.9 kips = 25. F = 423 kips/8 Wall shear along wall length.540 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 3 – Transverse forces Shear.6. Mu1 = 114.2] (Seismic Design Category A and greater).1.5 kips (36 ft/2) Chord tension force. Tu3 = M/d = 1. 5.0 kips Joint 4 – Outofplane forces The Provisions have several requirements for outofplane forces.738 ftkips = 54.2.9 plf Provisions Sec.0 = 156 plf According to Provisions Sec. 4.39)(48 psf)(8.2 [4.105.7 [4.1.4(0.2. all requirements for Seismic Design Category A are in Sec.0 kips = 27.8 kips Moment.061 ftkips = 29.1] (Seismic Design Category C and greater) requires masonry wall anchorage to flexible diaphragms to be designed for a larger force.03(2.2. Vu3 = 127 kips + 2.2. the required outofplane horizontal force is: 0.2 kips = 127 kips = 2. Tu2 = M/d = 1.2. 1.540 ftkips = 36.1. bearing wall anchorage shall be designed for a force computed as: 0.6 apply to Seismic Design Category B and greater].1 kips = 3.18 kips/ft (36 ft) Moment.4(SDS)Wwall = 0. 5.1] (Seismic Design Category A and greater) [In the 2003 Provisions.39)1. Assuming the planks are similar to beams and comply with the minimum requirements of Provisions Sec. Vu1 = 3.6.Chapter 7.7 kips (12 ft) .36 kips/ft (24 ft) . This diaphragm is 713 . Tu4 = Cu4 = 52.6. the minimum anchorage for masonry walls is: Fp = 400(SDS)I = 400(0.2. 5.9 kips = 114.1.5 but they generally are the same as those in the 2000 Provisions. Vu4 = 52.6. Tu1 = M/d = 1.2 [4.6.1 [4. Vu2 = 3.061 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 2 – Transverse forces Shear.05(D + L)plank = 0.738 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 4 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force.8 kips (24 ft) Chord tension force.03(3.9 kips (36 ft)/(152 ft /2) Collector force at wall end. Precast Concrete Design Joint forces are: Joint 1 – Transverse forces Shear. The design and detailing requirements in 2003 Provisions Sec.3] (Seismic Design Category B and greater).2 plf = 52. None are unique to precast diaphragms and all are less than the requirements in ACI 318 for precast construction regardless of seismic considerations.67 ft) = 64.9 kips = 78. Mu3 = 127 kips (44 ft) + 56.105.6.6.05(67 psf + 40 psf)(24 ft/2) = 64.18 kips/ft (40 ft) Moment. 5.3.
25.6.39)1.90 Shear φ = 0. 16.5. The horizontal tie force requirements are: 1. Joint 5 – Longitudinal forces Wall force. Eq. meaning that φ = 1. The 2002 edition of ACI 318 has placed the ASCE 7 load combinations within the main body of the standard and revised the φ factors accordingly. 16.00 for those forces.9 kips = 12. Both ASCE 7 and the Provisions make it clear that the appropriate φ factors within ACI 318 are those contained within Appendix C of ACI 31899.0[(48 psf)(8. ACI’s tie forces are far greater than the minimum tie forces given in the Provisions for beam supports and anchorage for of masonry walls.2. The maximum spacing of ties parallel to the span is 10 ft. 16. 16. F = 423 kips/8 Wall shear along each side of wall. . which are the same as those given in Appendix C of the 1999 edition with one exception. this is a reasonable assumption.” This is interpreted to apply to the precast elements of this masonry bearing wall structure.0 kips = 52. . The Provisions cites ASCE 7 for combination of seismic load effects with the effects of other loads. but most of the reinforcement is controlled by the computed connections for diaphragm action. 714 .61 in Sec. These factors are about 10% less than the comparable factors within the main body of the standard.9 kips .65. Tu5 = Cu5 = 52. This example uses the φ factors given in the 2002 edition of ACI 318.] The force requirements in ACI 318 Sec. 16. The maximum spacing of ties perpendicular to the span is the distance between supporting walls or beams.2(0. 4.5 kips = 27.9 kips [2(36 ft)/152 ft]/2 Collector force at wall end. a note about ACI’s φ factors is necessary.75 Compression control in tied members φ = 0.5 also has minimum connection force requirements for structural integrity of precast concrete bearing wall building construction.85SDSIWp.9 kips ACI 318 Sec. 1. However.6 Diaphragm Design and Details Before beginning the proportioning of reinforcement. Fp = 1.2(SDS)Iwp = 1.5 are specified as nominal values. for structural integrity shall apply to all precast concrete structures.FEMA 451.1 has been changed to 0. They do control some of the reinforcement provided.500 lb/ft parallel and perpendicular to the span of the floor members. 7. For buildings over two stories there are force requirements for horizontal and vertical members. and considering that it is designed to avoid yield under the loads that will yield the walls. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples considered rigid with respect to the walls. The minimum tie force requirements given in ACI 318 Sec.67 ft)] = 195 plf [In the 2003 Provisions. the φ factors used here are: Tension control (bending and ties) φ = 0.1. Thus.000 lb parallel to the perimeter of a floor or roof located within 4 ft of the edge at all edges. Vu4 = 52. This building has no vertical precast members. 2. ACI 318 Sec. 4.1 specifies that the strengths “.1.5 will be described later.
4.5 in.000 psi. Minimum spacing = 3(7/8) = 2.4 mm).738 × 12)/(4.9. which then refers to ACI 318 Sec.3 is not required.2 Use two #7 bars.9 [A9. Precast Concrete Design 7.8. 715 .19 in.3].7.13 Joint 3 chord reinforcement at the exterior edge (1.1.3.3].2 fc' = 0.3 [21.4.4]. the transverse reinforcement indicated in ACI 318 Sec.Chapter 7. = 25..6.13 shows the chord element at the exterior edges of the diaphragm.9. This section provides requirements for transverse reinforcement in the chords of the diaphragm. 21.2.8. As = 2(0. The compressive stress in the chord is computed using the ultimate moment based on a linear elastic model and gross section properties.60) = 1.2(4.. To determine the inplane section modulus (S) of the diaphragm. but not less than 2. Since the chord compressive stress is less than 0.9(60 ksi)] = 1.7. Figure 7.2 kips)/[0. 4"Ø spiral of 1 4" wire with 2" pitch over each lap splice may be required depending on geometry of specific voids in plank.3 [21.4. Require cover for chord bars and spacing between bars at splices and anchorage zones by ACI 318 Sec.5(7/8) = 2.1 psi The design 28day compressive strength of the grout is 4.1.1.3 [21.8.2 along the exterior edges (top and bottom of the plan in Figure 7.0 in.7.1 through 21.17). but not less than 11/2 in.20 in.9.0 in.63 in. an equivalent thickness (t) based on the cross sectional area is used for the hollow core precast units as follows.5.4. The chord bars extend along the length of the exterior longitudinal walls and act as collectors for these walls in the longitudinal direction (see Joint 4 collector reinforcement and Figure 7. 9A. 3" (2) #7 bars (chord bars) Contact lap splice Splice bars Artificially roughened surfaces of void as required Prestressed hollow core plank 2"± 3"± 3" 3" Grouted chord / collector element along exterior edge of precast plank Figure 7. 21.1 Design and Detailing at Joint 3 Joint 3 is designed first to check the requirements of Provisions Sec. S = td2/6 Chord compressive stress is computed as: Mu/S = 6Mu3/td2 = 6(3. 21.2). which references ACI 318 Sec. As3 = Tu3/φfy = (54.3]. Minimum cover = 2.5)(72 × 12)2 = 80.5. 21.00 in. Compute the required amount of chord reinforcement as: Chord reinforcement.8. t = area/width = 215/48 = 4.000) = 800 psi.
Avf1 = Vu1/φµfy = (114.2 Provide four #7 bars (two at each of the outside edges) plus four #6 bars (two each at the interior joint at the ends of the plank) for a total area of reinforcement of 4(0.2 Joint 1 Design and Detailing The design must provide sufficient reinforcement for chord forces as well as shear friction connection forces as follows: Chord reinforcement.0)(60 ksi)] = 2.44 in.2 = 3.5 kips)/[(0. 33 4" (2) #6 (collector bars) #3 x 4'0" (behind) at each joint between planks Figure 7. Minimum spacing = 3(6/8) = 2. but not less than 2.2 (collector force from Joint 4 calculations at 27.8.0 in.2) = 4. The chord reinforcement obviously exceeds the 16 kip perimeter force requirement.14 shows the reinforcement in the interior joints at the ends of the plank.FEMA 451. 21.16 in.54 in.60 in2) + 4(0.1. 7. = 25.9 kips)/[0.6 kips).9 kips is not directly additive). The two #6 bars extend along the length of the interior longitudinal walls as shown in Figure 7.2 ACI tie force = (3 kips/ft)(72 ft) = 216 kips.6. The 1. the cover and spacing of the two # 6 bars in the interior joints will be provided to meet the requirements of ACI 318 Sec.25 in.9(60 ksi)] = 0. Shear friction reinforcement.8.65 in.1.2 Because the interior joint reinforcement acts as the collector reinforcement in the longitudinal direction for the interior longitudinal walls.5 kips per foot requirement requires a 6 kip tie at each joint between the planks.2) + 2.75)(1.3]: Minimum cover = 2.2 at 60 ksi = 6.18.0 in.3 [21.9..2 Total reinforcement required = 2(0.60 in. 716 31 2" 21 2" 2" . As1 = Tu1/φfy = (29.88 in.4 mm).54 in.7. reinforcement = (216 kips)/(60 ksi) = 3.55 in.Joints 1 and 5 (1.55 in. which is also the collector reinforcement for the interior longitudinal walls (Joint 5).5(6/8) = 1. which is satisfied with a #3 bar in each joint (0.14 Interior joint reinforcement at the ends of plank and the collector reinforcement at the end of the interior longitudinal walls ..11 in. Figure 7. This bar is required at all bearing walls and is shown in subsequent details. but not less than 11/2 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Joint 3 must also be checked for the minimum ACI tie forces.
7.6.5.16. Therefore. which are located at the end of the walls. use ld = 4 ft.4 [21.8 kips This force must be transferred from the planks to the wall. the required ld = 58.6 factor applies when the development length is not within a confined core. This detail makes use of this supplement plank reinforcement (two #6 bars or an equal area of strand per ACI 31899 Sec.0 sin 26. = 25.6° ) ( ) 11 2" 21 2" 2" 717 .7.2db ⎜ 65 f ′ ⎟ 65 4.68 in. Using the arrangement shown in Figure 7.9(60 ksi)] = 0. the required shear friction reinforcement (Avf2) is computed as: VuMod 2 47.6° + cos 26.) = 43.2 φ f y µ sin α f + cos α f 0.6(2.5) ⎜ ⎟ = 1. and the 1. Figure 7.8 Avf 2 = = = 0. 21.4] which references ACI 318 Sec.1.9 kips)/[0.14 into the region where the plank is parallel to the bars.75 in. The anchorage length of the #6 bars is calculated using ACI 31899 Sec. Using #6 bars. Precast Concrete Design Figure 7.1. 21. The bars will need to be extended the full length of the diaphragm unless supplemental plank reinforcement is provided.4: ⎛ f y db ⎞ ⎡ 60.2 The shear force may be reduced along Joint 2 by the shear friction resistance provided by the supplemental chord reinforcement (2Achord .000 c ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠ The 2.7.9.6(2.Chapter 7.5.79 in.75 ( 60 )(1.0 )( 4 × 0. The supplemental chord bars.000( db ) ⎤ ld = 1.4 mm). are conservatively excluded here. As2 = Tu2/φfy = (36.0 in.9.3 Joint 2 Design and Detailing The chord design is similar to the previous calculations: Chord reinforcement.7 in.5.15 Anchorage region of shear reinforcement for Joint 1 and collector reinforcement for Joint 5 (1.5.15 shows the extension of the two #6 bars of Figure 7. 2" (2) #6 anchored 4'0" into plank at ends.5 factor is for the difference between straight and hooked bars. The shear force along the outer joint of the wall where the plank is parallel to the wall is modified as: ⎡φ f y µ ( A4#6 ) ⎦ ⎤ = 127 − ⎡ = Vu 2 − ⎣ VuMod 2 ⎣0.2]) and shows the bars anchored at each end of the plank.As2) and by the four #6 bars projecting from the interior longitudinal walls across this joint. which is the width of the plank.5. 21.44 ) ⎤ ⎦ = 47.2(0.75 ( 60 )(1.2 [21.5) ⎢ ⎥ = 58.
000 = 4.200) db fc′ = 0.5 klf requirement of the ACI) is computed as: φAvffyµ = (0. to apply the 0.3. The standard development length of ACI 318 Sec.2) = 0.7 factor of ACI 318 Sec. minimum requirement. The total shear reinforcement provided is 9(0. The full strength is not required for shear transfer. ldh = lhb times the factors of ACI 318 Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Use two #3 bars placed at 26.2 The shear force between the other face of this wall and the diaphragm is: Vu2 .F = 127 .11 in.7 (1.8 factor.106 = 21 kips The shear friction resistance provided by #3 bars in the grout key between each plank (provided for the 1.2. but it is not arranged to take advantage of ACI 318’s 0.0) = 49. Side cover exceeds 21/2 in. For the 180 degree standard hook use ACI 318 Sec. The continuous #5 provides transverse reinforcement.200) 0.5.5.375 4.11 in. The straight end of the #3 will now be checked. The bar will not be fully developed at the end of the plank because of the 6 in.16 shows the reinforcement along each side of the wall on Joint 2.3.5. 12. By inspection. For the #3 hook: ldh = 0.95 in. (6" minimum) The available distance for the perpendicular hook is about 51/2 in. 12. and cover on the bar extension beyond the hook is provided by the grout and the planks. Figure 7. 718 .75)(10 bars)(0.000 ( 0. which is close enough to 2 in.2 in.2 is used for ld. The angle (αf) used above provides development of the #3 bars while limiting the grouting to the outside core of the plank.7 (1.000 = 14. 12.6 degrees (2to1 slope) across the joint at 4 ft from the ends of the plank and at 8 ft on center (three sets per plank). but not less than 8db or 6 in. ld = f y db 25 fc′ = 60.5 kips The development length of the #3 and #4 bars will now be checked.FEMA 451. 12.2)(60 ksi)(1.375) 25 4. the diagonal #3 hook will be developed in the wall as required for the computed diaphragmtoshearwall transfer.99 in.
6. 7.9(60 ksi)] = 0.0)(60 ksi)] = 0.0 ft = 0. provide #3 bars at each planktoplank joint. For eight bars total.Chapter 7.88 in.20 in.52 in.0 in. which are an extension of the transverse chord reinforcement. = 25. Provide 3 sets for each plank.3048 m).11) = 0.9 kips)/[0. Precast Concrete Design " 2'2 1 2 #3 x standard hooks #3x 2'6" standard hook grouted into each key joint embedded in grouted edge cell of plank.4 mm. The bars are extended 2 ft into the grout key.56 in.1. 719 . which is less favorable at Joint 2. the area of reinforcement is 8(0. Figure 7. 1. The required collector reinforcement is computed as: As4 = Tu4/φfy = (27. which is more than sufficient even considering the marginal development length. provide an area of reinforcement of 1.75)(1.2 Based upon the ACI tie requirement.17 shows this joint along the wall. which is more than the development length and equal to half the width of the plank. 2'2 " 2" cover 71 2" (1) #5 continuous in joint to anchor hooks (2) #5 in masonry bond beam Vertical reinforcement in wall Figure 7.16 Joint 2 transverse wall joint reinforcement (1.2 The reinforcement required by the Provisions for outofplane force is (195 plf) is far less than the ACI 318 requirement.1.4 Joint 4 Design and Detailing The required shear friction reinforcement along the wall length is computed as: Avf4 = Vu4/φµfy = (25.2 The two #7 bars.2.0 kips)/[(0.
1.18 shows this joint along the wall.9 kips)/[0. = 25.1.2 Two #6 bars specified for the design of Joint 1 above provide an area of reinforcement of 0.6.FEMA 451.28 in.17 Joint 4 exterior longitudinal walls to diaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage (1.2 Provide #3 bars at each planktoplank joint for a total of 8 bars. The required collector reinforcement is computed as: As5 = Tu5/φfy = (27.4 mm. 720 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Vertical wall reinforcement beyond #3x 2'6" standard hook grouted into each key joint 2" cover (2) #7 bars in joint (chord bars) (2) #5 in bond beam Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3048 m).5 Joint 5 Design and Detailing The required shear friction reinforcement along the wall length is computed as: Avf5 = Vu5/φµfy = (12.52 in.0 in.88 in.1.75)(1.5 kips)/[(0.0)(60 ksi)] = 0. 7.9(60 ksi)] = 0.0 ft = 0.
Provisions Sec.4 mm. 1.2.6] specifies the forces to be used in designing the diaphragms.1 General Design Requirements Topped diaphragms may be used in any Seismic Design Category.1. California.03. the same as previously computed for the untopped diaphragm.000 psi and is to act compositely with the 8in. 9. Design parameters are provided in Sec. California (see Sec.2 Topped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Building. Los Angeles.9. The topping shall be lightweight concrete (weight = 115 pcf) with a 28day compressive strength (fc' ) of 4.7.0 in.7 [21.1. ACI 318 Sec. 721 .21 shows the typical floor and roof plan.2. Figure 9.3048 m). 21.1.1.4 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] is 1.Joint 5 (1. 9.2. prestressed concrete plank.4]. 5.9]provides design provisions for topped precast concrete diaphragms.thick hollowcore precast. 21. The amplification factor of Provisions Sec.18 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . Precast Concrete Design Vertical wall reinforcement beyond 4" #3 x 4'8" grouted into each key joint (2) #6 bars in joint (collector bars) (2) #5 in bond beam Figure 7. 9.2) This design shows the floor and roof diaphragms using topped precast units in the fivestory masonry building in Los Angeles.0 ft = 0. 7. 7.4 [21.6 [4. = 25. as required for composite topping slabs by ACI 318 Sec. The topping thickness exceeds the minimum thickness of 2 in.Chapter 7.
4SDSIwpx.4.094 kips 722 . Vx must be added to Fpx calculated using Eq.0 kip = 4. 9.3. 7.2 Design Parameter Value 2.0 1.3.62] but must not be less than 0.2. Table 7.6.0 D Ωo wi (roof) wi (floor) SDS I Seismic Design Category 1.4 [1. the chord amplification factor has been dropped for the 2003 Provisions and does not occur in ASC 31802.1. 5. 5.302 kips 1.] 7.2.3]) the portion of the seismic shear force required to be transferred to the components of the vertical seismicforceresisting system due to offsets or changes in stiffness of the vertical resisting member at the diaphragm being designed.2] requires that collector elements.166 kips = 72 kips = 1.166 kips 1.2.2. 4.6. 1.2 [3.FEMA 451.4 [4.2.3 Diaphragm Forces As indicated previously. 5.14 Design Parameters from Sec. the weight tributary to the roof and floor diaphragms (wpx) is the total story weight (wi) at Level i minus the weight of the walls parallel to the force. Provisions Sec.2.5]) occupancy importance factor (Provisions Sec.2 General InPlane Seismic Design Forces for Topped Diaphragms The inplane diaphragm seismic design force (Fpx) is calculated using Provisions Eq.1 [4.1. and collector connections to the vertical seismicforceresisting members be designed in accordance with Provisions Sec.7.2].2SDSIwpx and need not be more than 0.67 ft/2) wpx = 1. For Seismic Design Category C and higher. which combines the diaphragm forces times the overstrength factor (Ω0) and the effects of gravity forces. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples [As noted above. Compute diaphragm weight (wpx) for the roof and floor as: Roof Total weight Walls parallel to force = (60 psf)(277 ft)(8.4 [4.6.1 [4.2 used to calculate inplane seismic design forces for the diaphragms are provided in Table 7.6.62] where: wpx SDS I Vx = = = = the weight tributary to the diaphragm at Level x the spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (Provisions Sec.5 1. The parameters from example in Sec. 9.14. collector splices.45 kN. 5.2.4.1.2.2.
The force is only 9.302 1. 9.158 1. Precast Concrete Design Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (60 psf)(277 ft)(8. 7.1.6.302 1.0 kip = 4.2(1. The minimum value of Fpx = 0.1.15 Fpx Calculations from Sec.158 1.068 1.446 1.384 Fi (kips) 564 504 378 252 126 i= x ∑ Fi = Vi (kips) 564 1. except for collector elements where forces will be computed below.072 6.824 n wpx (kips) 1. Figure 7. Collector elements will be designed for 2.0)1. 7.166 1.158 1.5 times 1. Joint forces taken from Sec.2.158 Fpx (kips) 529 501 444 387 331 1.698 1.4 Static Analysis of Diaphragms The seismic design force of 463 kips is distributed as in Sec.Chapter 7. 7.1.5 percent higher than that used to design the untopped diaphragm for the New York design due to the intent to prevent yielding in the untopped diaphragm.2 wi (kips) 1.4SDSIwpx = 0.67 ft) wpx = 1. 5.5 times the diaphragm force based on the overstrength factor (Ω0).1.4 [4.6 (Figure 7.2(1.302 1.2SDSIwpx The maximum value of Fpx = 0. Table 7.0(1.158 kips Compute diaphragm demands in accordance with Provisions Eq.45 kN.166 2.302 kips = 144 kips = 1.0(1.770 5.12 shows critical regions of the diaphragm to be considered in this design.094 1.62]: Fpx = i=x n i=x ∑ Fi w px n ∑ wi Calculations for Fpx are provided in Table 7.2.217.4.15.11 shows the distribution).0)1. The values for Fi and Vi are listed in Table 9.1.158 kips) = 2(219 kips) = 2(232 kips) = 219 kips (at the roof) = 232 kips (at floors) = 438 kips (at the roof) = 463 kips (at floors) The value of Fpx used for design of the diaphragms is 463 kips.095 are as: 723 .468 3.302 i=x ∑ wi n Level Roof 4 3 2 1 (kips) 1.094 kips) = 0.
1] references ACI 318 Sec.4 kips = 57.095 Moment. Vu1 = 114.9 kips × 1. and the maximum spacing is 18 in. Vu4 = 12.250 ftkips / 71 ft Joint 2 – Transverse forces Shear.1.1 Minimum Reinforcement for 2.5. 21. the outofplane forces are controlled by ACI 318 Sec.054 in. Mu1 = 2.5.9 kips)(1.03 × 4.095 Chord tension force.5(27. Calculate the compressive stress in the chord with the ultimate moment using a linear elastic model and gross section properties of the topping. Mu2 = 3.2/ft.9.095 Chord tension force.090 ftkips = 59. Vu4 =25 kips × 1.095 Collector force at wall end.2/ft.095 Moment. 7.7.0018bd for welded wire fabric.5 kips per foot from floor to walls.2 Boundary Members Joint 3 has the maximum bending moment and is used to determine the boundary member reinforcement of the chord along the exterior edge.7 kips = 76.095 Collector force at wall end. F = 463 kips / 8 walls Wall shear along each side of wall. Tu1 = M/d = 1.9 kips)(1.7. the required As = 0.095 Chord tension force.4 kips = 85. It is = 57.5 Diaphragm Design and Details 7. Note that the ACI 318 Sec. Ω0Tu4 = 2. Ω0Tu4 = 2. which requires horizontal ties of 1.1 [21. The need for transverse boundary member reinforcement is reviewed using ACI 318 Sec.5(27. For a 2.5×W4.3 kips = 125 kips = 2.5.5 kips × 1.9 kips = 27. F = 52.3 kips = 139 kips = 2.090 ftkips/71 ft Joint 4 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force. Vu2 = 127 kips × 1.095) OutofPlane forces Just as with the untopped diaphragm. Mu2 = 2.540 ftkips × 1.5 in. Tu2 = M/d = 1.095) 7.5.2. Joint 5 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force.6 kips 724 .095 Moment.12 limit on spacing of five times thickness is interpreted such that the topping thickness is not the pertinent thickness.1 kips × 1.1.2. WWF 10×10 .250 ftkips = 32. The minimum spacing of wires is 10 in. 7.4 kips = 76.738 ftkips × 1.5 kips × 1.03 × 2.W4. 21.061 ftkips × 1.FEMA 451. which requires a minimum As = 0.1.9. 16.5 kips = 4. Vu3 = 78.2.5.12. Tu3 = M/d = 1.03 × 2.9 kips = 13.095 Wall shear along wall length. 7.5.780 ftkips = 39.3].5 in. Topping ACI 318 Sec.780 ftkips / 71 ft Joint 3 – Transverse forces Shear.3 [21. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Joint 1 – Transverse forces Shear.054 in. topping.5 provides 0.5.
As developed previously. but not necessary. and along the length of the interior longitudinal walls. Minimum cover = 2.10 in.7. the boundary member and chord/collector reinforcement along the edge.0 in.79 = 1.2) along the exterior edges.5 in.3 [21.9.9(60 ksi)] = 1. Provide cover for chord and collector bars and spacing between bars per ACI 318 Sec.1.3 Collectors The design for Joint 4 collector reinforcement at the end of the exterior longitudinal walls and for Joint 5 at the interior longitudinal walls is the same.3 kips)/[0. Given the close margin on cover.2fc' = 0. the transverse reinforcement at lap splices also is shown.2 Use two #8 bars (As = 2 × 0.090 × 12)/(2.0 in. Precast Concrete Design conservative to ignore the precast units.5.3]. but not less than 11/2 in.19 shows the diaphragm plan and section cuts of the details and Figure 7.2 7. Transverse reinforcement in the boundary member is not required...9(60 ksi)] = 1. the chord compressive stress is: 6Mu3/td2 = 6(4. Minimum spacing = 3(8/8) = 3. 725 . As4 = As5 = Ω0Tu4/φfy = (76.2.58 in. 21. but not less than 2.Chapter 7. along the length of the exterior longitudinal walls.5(8/8) = 2.4 kips)/[0.8. The required chord reinforcement is: As3 = Tu3/φfy = (59. Figure 7.110.2(4.19 Diaphragm plan and section cuts.8.000) = 800 psi. Figure 7.5)(72 × 12)2 = 158 psi The chord compressive stress is less than 0.41 in.
3048 m).111 shows the collector reinforcement for the interior longitudinal walls. and chord and collector reinforcement (1. Figure 7.4 mm). = 25.111 Collector reinforcement at the end of the interior longitudinal walls . WWF 21 2" min topping 3" (2) #8 (collector bars) Figure 7. 1.4 mm.FEMA 451. = 25.1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Prestressed hollow core plank with roughened top surface Splice bars (2) #8 bars (chord bars) 3" Artificially roughened edge WWF bend down into chord 41 2"Ø spiral of 1 4" wire with 2" pitch over each lap splice.110 Boundary member. 7.5. Contact lap splice 31 2" 21 2" Grouted chord / collector element along exterior edge of precast plank Figure 7. is provided by casting the topping into the cores and by the stems of the plank. is provided between the plank stems and the sides of the bars.0 ft = 0.4 Shear Resistance 726 21 2" 3" 21 2" 21 2" min (concrete topping) 3" .2.0 in.0 in.Joint 5 (1. A minimum space of 1 in. The side cover of 21/2 in.
5 Check OutofPlane Forces At Joint 4 with bars at 2 ft on center. 727 .7.5 klf tie force.7.2 [21. 1.61 in. and the detail is shown in Figure 7. Precast Concrete Design Thin composite and noncomposite topping slabs on precast floor and roof members may not have reliable shear strength provided by the concrete. Vc = 0).c. Provide #3 bars at 2 ft on center. No.25 kips.3048 m).2/ft)60 ksi = 2.112. all of the shear resistance must be provided by the reinforcement (that is. The detail at joint 2 is similar.Joint 5 (1. Using #3 bars at 2 ft on center will be adequate. As = 1.5 x W4.11 x 60 / 2 = 3. and the spacing of the No.4 mm. which provides a nominal strength of 0. The detail provides more than required by ACI 318 Sec.4 kips)/[(0.75(0.023 in.2.43 kips/ft The shear resistance in the transverse direction is: 2. = 25.112 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . 16.0 ft = 0.9)(60ksi) = 0.2. 21.2].1.7.25/(0.5.75)(1.43 kips/ft (72 ft) = 175 kips which is greater than the Joint 2 shear (maximum transverse shear) of 139 kips.054 in. each side) and place topping completely through wall and between planks #3x4'0" at 16" to lap with WWF WWF 10 x 10 W4.Chapter 7. Fp = 624 plf = 2 ft(624 plf) = 1. The development length was checked in the prior example.0 in. In accordance with ACI 318 Sec. The required reinforcement. The required shear reinforcement along the exterior longitudinal wall (Joint 4) is: Avf4 = Vu4/φµfy = (27. The topping is to be cast into the masonry walls as shown in Figure 7. 3 dowels are used to make the welded wire fabric continuous across the masonry walls. Vertical reinforcement 1" clear Cut out alternate face shells (16" o. 3 bars is set to be modular with the CMU. φVn = φAcvρnfy = 0.5 (2) #8 collector bars (2) #5 in masonry bond beam Figure 7.9.113.0)(60 ksi)] = 0.3 klf.2 7.5 for the 1.
113 Exterior longitudinal walltodiaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage .4 mm.5 #3x STD HK 2'6" at 2'0" o.c. = 25.0 ft = 0.Joint 4 (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Vertical wall reinforcement beyond 2" Cut out face shells @ 2'0" and place topping into wall WWF 10 x10 W4. (2) #8 (collector bars) (2) #5 in masonry bond beam Figure 7.0 in. 1.5 x W4.FEMA 451. 728 .3048 m).
This example shows an interpretation of the intent of the Provisions for precast shear wall systems in regions of moderate and low seismicity. 7. The storytostory height is 12 ft. The Provisions has one requirement for detailing such walls: connections that resist overturning shall be Type Y or Z. The building has no vertical irregularities. and removed some of the detail. [As indicated at the beginning of this chapter. Precast Concrete Design 7.2 THREESTORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH PRECAST CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS This example illustrates the seismic design of ordinary precast concrete shear walls that may be used in regions of low to moderate seismicity.deep prestressed double tees (DTs) spanning 40 ft to prestressed inverted tee beams for the floors and the roof.] 7. 729 . The DTs are to be constructed using lightweight concrete.2.Chapter 7.2. renamed the system as intermediate precast structural walls. As shown in Figure 7. The precast shear walls are continuous from the ground level to 12 ft above the roof. The structure utilizes 10ftwide by 18in.1 for more discussion of system requirements. Walls of the elevator/mechanical pits are castinplace below grade.21. the building has a regular plan. ACI 31802 has incorporated a less specific requirement. which should also meet the cited ACI 31802 requirements.1 Building Description This precast concrete building is a threestory office building (Seismic Use Group I) in southern New England on Site Class D soils.thick (minimum). The only features illustrated in this example are the rational selection of the seismic design parameters and the design of the reinforcement and connections of the precast concrete shear walls. The diaphragm design is not illustrated. the requirements for precast shear wall systems in the 2003 Provisions have been revised – primarily to point to ACI 31802 by reference. Each of the abovegrade floors and the roof are covered with a 2in. The vertical seismicforceresisting system is to be constructed entirely of precast concrete walls located around the stairs and elevator/mechanical shafts. See also Sec. normal weight castinplace concrete topping.2.
= 25. The concrete for the foundations and belowgrade walls has a 28day compressive strength. 730 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 150'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 40'0" 26 IT 28 precast beams 120'0" 40'0" 15'0" 18" DT roof and floor slabs (10 DT 18) 8'0" 8'0" 8" precast shear walls 40'0" Figure 7.0 in. 1. The precast walls are estimated to be 8 in.000 psi.1 Seismic Parameters of the Provisions The basic parameters affecting the design and detailing of the building are shown in Table 7.FEMA 451.4 mm.000 psi.2.21 Threestory building plan (1.21. 7. fc' = 4. fc' = 5. Reinforcing bars used at the ends of the walls and in welded connectors are ASTM A706 (60 ksi yield strength). thick for building mass calculations.2 Design Requirements 7.2.2. These walls are normal weight concrete with a 28day compressive strength.3048 m).0 ft = 0.
and Cd = 4. The flexural connections at the ends of the 731 . Ω0 = 2. [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 U.1.266 0.32]) Site Class Fa Fv SMS = FaSS SM1 = FvS1 SDS = 2/3 SMS SD1 = 2/3 SM1 Seismic Design Category Basic SeismicForceResisting System Wall Type R Ω0 Cd * * Value I = 1.2.] [Ordinary precast concrete shear walls is recognized as a system in Table 4. Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazard maps and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3.31: R = 4. as this example indicates conceptually. shear slip could kink the vertical rebar at the connection and sabotage the intended performance.2 Structural Design Considerations 7.2.3] provides for the use of ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls in Seismic Design Category B.2.21 Design Parameters Design Parameter Seismic Use Group I SS (Map 1 [Figure 3.2. These figures replace the previously used separate map package.2.5.08 D 1.31]) S1 (Map 2 [Figure 3. the design factors for the ordinary precast concrete shear walls per 2003 Provisions Table 4.1.1.31 are: R = 3. Note that while this system is permitted in Seismic Design Category B.2.4 0. Ω0 = 2.59 2.0 0. 9.S. this building could be designed incorporating intermediate precast concrete shear walls with the following design values per 2003 Provisions Table 4. Consistent with the philosophy that precast systems are not expected to perform as well as castinplace systems.3 [9.] 7. unline ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls. which counts on an R factor of 4. which does not require adherence to the special seismic design provisions of ACI 318 Chapter 21.283 0.5 4 Provisions Sec.192 0. it is not permitted in Seismic Design Category C.31 of the 2003 Provisions. Although not a stated design requirement of the Provisions or ACI 31802 for this Seismic Design Category. and Cd = 3.128 B Bearing Wall System Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls 4 2.2.1 Precast Shear Wall System This system is designed to yield in bending at the base of the precast shear walls without shear slippage at any of the joints.5. Alternatively. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.Chapter 7.425 0.
Orthogonal load combinations are not required for this building (Provisions Sec.51]).1 [21.2.1.2.2. but drift is not computed here. Careful attention to detail is required to assure adequate ductility in the location of first yield and that no other connections yield prematurely. The bearing walls must be designed for a force perpendicular to their plane (Provisions Sec. For structural design. The connections are often unavoidable weak links.12 [not applicable for the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec. are designed to be the Type Y connection specified in the Provisions.6. This example does not include consideration of nonstructural elements.4.3]). The remainder of the connections (shear connectors) are then made strong enough to ensure that the inelastic straining is forced to the intended location. use of the ELF procedure (Provisions Sec. the vertical bars at the ends of the shear walls act as flexural reinforcement for the walls and are selected as the location of first yield.7 [4. The drift limit is 0.6.2. 7. welded steel angles are designed to be flexible for uplift but stiff for inplane shear. 21.1 and 4.1.6) for the connections.1.1.2. it frequently is not possible to do so with common configurations of precast elements and connections.44]. 9.1] (ACI Sec. 16. ordinary precast concrete shear walls need only satisfy the requirements of ACI 31802 Chapters 118 (with Chapter 16 superceding Chapter 14). At the base of the panel.1.31]). The issue of most significant concern is the performance of the shear connections at the same joint. according to Provisions Table 5. The yielding will not propagate far into the wall vertically due to the unavoidable increase in flexural strength provided by unspliced reinforcement within the panel.6 [4.11. Therefore.1). which are highly stressed by seismic forces. 21.2 Building System No height limitations are imposed (Provisions Table 5. 21.1. 5. 5.6.1]).6.5. the connections are to be designed in accordance with ACI 31802 Sec.2.6.4 [5.5.1 (ACI 31802 Sec. continuity.6. but this requirement is of no real consequence for this building.2 [4.2.1 [4. the floors are assumed to act as rigid horizontal diaphragms to distribute seismic inertial forces to the walls parallel to the motion.2. 9.FEMA 451.6.2 [9.2.8 [4.1. The connections are designed to provide the necessary shear resistance and avoid slip without unwittingly increasing the flexural capacity of the connection because such an increase would also increase the maximum shear force on the joint. Ties. and the walls and columns. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples walls.6.2. 5. See Provisions Sec.2. for which. [Per 2003 Provisions Sec.2.2 [4.1.2.025hsx (Provisions Table 5.1.2.2.2. Diaphragms need to be designed for the required forces (Provisions Sec.6.2.1. 5. 5. Collector elements are required due to the short length of shear walls as compared to the diaphragm dimensions.9]).2. but that design is not illustrated here.2]) must be explicitly considered when detailing connections between the floors and roof.2. but are not designed in this example. and anchorage (Provisions Sec. 732 .] Although it would be desirable to force yielding to occur in a significant portion of the connections.1 [4.1 and 5. 9. The building is regular both in plan and elevation.2]) is permitted.1]) for the definitions of ordinary precast concrete structural walls and Provisions Sec. For this particular example.
2 Base Shear 733 .4 Seismic Force Analysis 7.2D ± 1. miscellaneous Exterior cladding (per floor area) Partitions Total The weight of each floor including the precast shear walls is: (120 ft)(150 ft)(92 psf/1. 7. the vertical forces will be described in this example.2. 5.3 Load Combinations The basic load combinations (Provisions Sec.QE + 0.5L 1.283)D = QE ± 0. = = = = = = = 56.5 requires minimum strengths for connections between elements of precast building structures.3.5 psf 4.0567D According to Provisions Sec. substitute E as determined above: 1.14D .2. Precast Concrete Design ACI 318 Sec.0 psf 10. mechanical.21 and 4.2SDSD = (1.5 psf 4.0 psf 5.2.0E Into each of these load combinations. 16.2. 5.7 [4.QE These load combinations are for loading in the plane of the shear walls.9D ± 1.Chapter 7. even though this seismic resisting system is not particularly redundant.1.2. and C. The horizontal forces were described in Sec.2. square columns Ceiling.2]) require that seismic forces and gravity loads be combined in accordance with the factored load combinations presented in ASCE 7 except that the factors for seismic loads (E) are defined by Provisions Eq. The relevant load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1. 7.0 psf 92.4. 5.4.2)(0.3.790 kips Considering the roof to be the same weight as a floor.71 and 5.843D .2.1 Weight Calculations For the roof and two floors 18 in.0 psf 7. ρ = 1.2.10 ksf) = 1.0)QE ± (0.5L (will not control) 0. 7.1 [4.72 [4.0E + 0. double tees (32 psf) + 2 in.0 psf 12. B.22]: E = ρQE ± 0. topping (24 psf) Precast beams at 40 ft 16 in.000) + [15 ft(4) + 25 ft(2)](12 ft)(0.5L 0.2.4.26D + QE + 0.1].0 for structures in Seismic Design Categories A.790 kips) = 5.96D + QE (will not control) 0. the total building weight is W = 3(1.360 kips.
21] as: V = CsW = (0.4.4.370) = 380 kips Note that this force is substantially larger than a design wind would be.75 = 0.1.01 in the 2003 Provisions.22]: CS = S DS 0. k = l in both building directions. 5. the result would be less than half this seismic force already reduced by an R factor of 4.1. With equal weights at each floor level.12 [5.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0. = = 0110 T ( R / I ) 0.29 sec Therefore.2.29(4 / 1) where T is the fundamental period of the building computed using the approximate method of Provisions Eq.1.2. 5.50 Cv3 = 0.044)(1.283) = 0 .0708)(5.3 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces The seismic lateral force (Fx) at any level is determined in accordance with Provisions Sec.11 [5.0708. which is larger than the minimum specified in Provisions Eq.6.0125 [The minimum Cs has been changed to 0.33 Cv2 = 0.4.0708 R/I 41 except that it need not exceed the value from Provisions Eq.11 [5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed using Provisions Eq.17 Fr = 190 kips F3 = 127 kips F2 = 63.4.2.3 [5.41 [5.0)(0.5 sec. If a nominal 20 psf were applied to the long face and then amplified by a load factor of 1.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: Cs = 0. use Cs = 0.044ISDS = (.4. 5.3]: Fx = CvxV where Cvx = k wx hx i =1 ∑ wi hi n k Since the period.23] computed as: CS = 0128 . T < 0. the resulting values of Cvx and Fx are as follows: Roof Third Floor Second Floor 734 Cvr = 0. 7.4.02)(36) 0.FEMA 451. S D1 .283 = = 0.0 kips . 5. 5.] The total seismic base shear is then calculated using Provisions Eq. 5.
3 kips F2 = 109(0. 95 kips 12'0" 63. 5.2 kips Seismic forces on the transverse walls of the stairwells are shown in Figure 7.2.2]).2 [5. 7.22 Forces on the longitudinal walls (1.4.0 ft = 0. 1.3048 m).50) = 54.2.5 kips F3 = 109(0.4.45 kN. Precast Concrete Design 7.5 kips 12'0" 31.5 kips 12'0" Grade V = ∑F = 190 kips 25'0" Figure 7.4.4.4.4.Chapter 7.2 Transverse Direction Design the four 15ftlong stairwell walls for the total shear including 5 percent accidental torsion (Provisions Sec.1 Longitudinal Direction Design each of the 25ftlong walls at the elevator/mechanical shafts for half the total shear.33) = 36.4. assume that torsion will be resisted by the 15ftlong stairwell walls in the transverse direction. 735 .4. The maximum force on the walls is computed as: V = 380/4 + 380(0.4 Horizontal Shear Distribution and Torsion 7.2.22. A rough approximation is used in place of a more rigorous analysis considering all of the walls.0 kip = 4.23.05)(150)/[(100 ft moment arm) × (2 walls in each set)] = 109 kips Thus Fr = 109(0. Since the longitudinal walls are very close to the center of rigidity. The forces for each of the longitudinal walls are shown in Figure 7.167) = 18.2.
Floor live load is 50 psf.23 Forces on the transverse walls (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 54.45 kN. 7. In this example. ceiling and partition (total of 70 psf).3 kips 12'0" 18.2. are included. 1. but not beams and columns. except 100 psf is used in the elevator lobby. but the behavior is different. The tension connection at the base of the precast panel to the below grade wall is governed by the seismic overturning moment and the dead loads of the panel and supported floors and roof. 9. and the application of the rules for a Type Y connection to such a design is not clear.5 kips 12'0" 36.2 kips 12'0" Grade V= 15'0" ∑F = 109 kips Figure 7.1. 7. A commonly used alternative is a threaded posttensioning bar inserted through the stack of panels.24. The weight for the floors includes double tees.1.3048 m).5.1. 7.3 [9.0 kip = 4.0 ft = 0.3]). but it is not ignored in the following calculations. the weights for an elevator penthouse.2.1 Longitudinal Direction The freebody diagram for the longitudinal walls is shown in Figure 7. with a floor and equipment at 180 psf between the shafts and a roof at 20 psf.2.) 736 .1.2. (The elevator penthouse is so small that it was ignored in computing the gross seismic forces on the building.FEMA 451. Roof snow load is 30 psf.5 PROPORTIONING AND DETAILING The strength of members and components is determined using the strengths permitted and required in ACI 318 excluding Chapter 21 (see Provisions Sec.1 Overturning Moment and End Reinforcement Design shear panels to resist overturning by means of reinforcing bars at each end with a direct tension coupler at the joints.5.2.
Chapter 7.0 kip = 4.0 ft = 0.165 ksi (3.520 ftkips 3D = wall + exterior floors (& roof) + lobby floors + penthouse floor + penthouse roof = (25 ft)(48 ft)(0. the tension reinforcement can easily be found from the simple couple shown on Figure 7.5 kips 12'0" D T 9" V 23'6" 12'0" C 9" Figure 7.5 kips 12'0" D 31.18 ksf) + (25ft )(24 ft/2)(0.070 ksf)(2) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.24.070 ksf)(3) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.02 ksf) = 120 + 126 + 14 + 18 + 6 = 284 kips 3L = (25 ft)(48 ft/2)(0.843 D = 239 kips The axial load is quite small for the wall panel. 1. The effective moment arm is: jd = 25 .2 S = 397 kips Pmin = 0.5 kips)(24 ft) + (31.26 D + 0.1 ksf) + (25 ft)(48 ft/2)(0.05 ksf)(2) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.5 = 23.3 percent of f'c). Therefore. the vertical loads for combining with the overturning moment are computed as: Pmax = 1. Precast Concrete Design 12'0" D 95 kips 12'0" D 63. The average compression Pmax / Ag = 0. At the base ME = (95 kips)(36 ft) + (63.3048 m).5 ft 737 .1 ksf) = 60 + 10 = 70 kips 3S = (25ft)(48 ft + 24 ft)(0.24 Freebody diagram for longitudinal walls (1.5 kips)(12 ft) = 5.1.5 L + 0.03 ksf)/2 = 27 kips Using the load combinations described above.45 kN.
5.2 in. so no transverse reinforcement is required at the ends of the longitudinal walls. Since the flexural reinforcement must extend a minimum distance d (the flexural depth)beyond where it is no longer required. which is 1000 psi.0 in. 16.FEMA 451. The maximum depth (c) with no boundary member per ACI 31899 Eq. required.007.007.98 in.1. the demand on the tie is: Tn = (3 kip/ft)(25 ft)/2 = 37. For those used to checking the compression stress as an index: σ= 6 ( 5. Therefore.2 ) at each end with direct tension couplers for each bar at each panel joint.80) = 19. Once the base joint yields.6. Neutral axis depth c = a/(0. At this point a check of ACI 318 Sec. 21. Although no check for confinement of the compression boundary is required for ordinary precast concrete shear walls.2 Use two #9 bars (As = 2. ignoring the effect of axial loads. the depth to the neutral axis is: Total compression force = As fy + Pmax = (2. 218 [218] is: c≤ 600(δ u / hw ) l where the term (δu/hw) shall not be taken less than 0.6. it is shown here for interest. far in excess of the 19 in. Bearing walls must have vertical ties with a nominal strength exceeding 3 kips/ft. Using the check from ACI 31899 Sec. ACI 31899 would not require transverse reinforcement of the boundary even if this wall were designed as a special reinforced concrete shear wall.2].007 in the equation results in a distance c of 71 in.0)(60) + 397 = 517 kips Compression block a = (517 kips)/[(0.520 ) P M 389 + = + = 742 psi A S 8 ( 25 )12 8 ( 25 )2 (12 ) The limiting stress is 0. With one tie at each end of a 25 ft panel.2 Transverse Direction 738 .6. width)] = 15. Thus. use both #9 bars at each end of the panel at all three levels for simplicity.9(60 ksi)] = 1. and applying the Cd factor of 4 to the results gives a ratio (δu/hw) far less than 0.5 kip The two #9 bars are more than adequate for the ACI requirement. An analysis of the wall for the design lateral forces using 50% of the gross moment of inertia.7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples and the net tension on the uplift side is: Tu = M Pmin 5320 239 − = − = 107 kips 2 23. applying the 0.2 [21. and there must be at least two ties per panel.85)(5 ksi)(8 in. 7.2fc' .2.0 in.5 will be made. it is unlikely that there will be any flexural cracking in the wall more than a few feet above the base.5 2 jd The required reinforcement is: As = Tu/φfy = (107 kips)/[0..
The weight of the precast concrete stairs is 100 psf and the roof over the stairs is 70 psf.5 ft Tu = (Mnet/jd) .2(4) = 148 kips Pmin = 0.07 ksf)] = 72 + 13 + 18 + 4 = 107 kips 3L = 2(12.03 ksf) = 3.5/2 = 181 kips As = Tu/φfy = (181 kips)/[0.3 kips)(24 ft) + (18.25.5 = 13.2 kips)(12 ft) = 3.Pmin/2 = (3.45 kN. At the base ME = (54.90. 12'0" D 54.1 ksf)(3) = 6 + 18 = 24 kips 3S = [2(12. The transverse wall is similar to the longitudinal wall.0 ft = 0. 1.Chapter 7.25 Freebody diagram of the transverse walls (1.1 ksf) + 2(12.07 ksf)(3) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)[(0.3048 m).26(107) + 0.052 ftkips 3D = (15 ft)(48 ft)(0.5 kips jd = 15 .1 ksf)(3) + (0.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2)(0.2 kips 12'0" D V 9" T C 7'0" 13'6" 9" Figure 7.9(60 ksi)] = 3.5(24) + 0.5) .2 739 .05 ksf)(2) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.5 kips)(36 ft) + (36.843(107) = 90.0 kip = 4. Precast Concrete Design The freebody diagram of the transverse walls is shown in Figure 7.5 kips 12'0" D 36.3 kips 12'0" D 18.7 kips Pmax = 1.35 in.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2)(0.052/13.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)](0.1.
and the requirement that a mechanical coupler develop 125% of specified yield strength of the bar is identical to the Type 1 coupler defined by ACI 318 Sec.1.128) 4000 = 24. The check of compression stress as an index gives: σ= 6 ( 2.25 and the 1. the computed deflections are still small and the minimum value of 0. therefore no calculation of development length is necessary in the panel.. The bar in the panel is made continuous to the roof.2. ld. which must develop the specified tensile strength of the bar. [As already noted.25)0.6 in. otherwise the depth of the foundation would be more than required for structural reasons.1. this design does concentrate a demand for overturning resistance on the foundation. Similarly. 21.25)ldh = (1. This yields a maximum value of c = 42.7(1200)d b f c' = 1365(1. Provisions Sec.6. For the # 9 bar: 1. no transverse reinforcement is required at the ends of the transverse walls. The development length.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Use two #10 and one #9 bars (As = 3.54)(60) + 148 = 360 kips Compression block a = (360 kips)/[(0. The size of the foundation will provide adequate cover to allow the 0.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI 21.930 ) P M 140 + = + = 951 psi A S 8 (15 )12 8 (15 )2 (12 ) Since σ < 1.26. 740 . Some of the grouted splices on the market can qualify as the Type 2 coupler defined by ACI.3 in. although not for this particular example. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of design of each type of foundation. or by deep piers or piles with an appropriate cap for load transfer.11. for the spliced bars is multiplied by both the 1.6. the connection requirements for ordianry precast concrete shear walls have been removed in the 2003 Provisions and the ACI 31802 requirements are less specific. The overturning reinforcement and connection are shown in Figures 7. In this instance the resistance may be provided by a large footing (on the order of 20 ft by 28 ft by 3 ft thick) under the entire stairwell.6. Note how much closer to the criterion this transverse wall is by the compression stress check. The dowel from the foundation will be hooked. 9.000 psi. Like many shear wall designs.54 in. thus confinement of the boundary would not be required. Neutral axis depth c = a/(0.80) = 13.85)(5 ksi)(8 in.7 factor on ACI’s standard development length for hooked bars.1. All three bars at each end of the panel will also extend up through all three levels for simplicity.3 factors to satisfy the Provisions requirement. Following the same method for boundary member check as on the longitudinal walls: Total compression force = As fy + Pmax = (3.3 in.4) requires that this Type Y connection develop a probable strength of 125% of the nominal strength and that the anchorage on either side of the connection develop 130% of the defined probable strength. width)] = 10. for the #10 bar.9 in.3(1. Even though this wall is more flexible and the lateral loads will induce more flexural cracking.2 ) at each end of each wall with a direct tension coupler at each bar for each panel joint.007 is used for the ratio (δu/hw).] The 125% requirement applies to the grouted mechanical splice. the length is 27.4 in.
This distribution can be affected by the shims used in construction. of 15' transverse wall panel 8" Longitudinal Wall Transverse Wall Reinforced foundation not designed in the example 25" min for #9 28" min for #10 Standard hook to develop overturning reinforcement 3" min Development at Foundation Figure 7. Tests have shown that this often leads to slip of the joint.Chapter 7.2. which could lead to a kink in the principal tension reinforcement at or near its splice and destroy the integrity of the system.4 mm.0 ft = 0. end. Precast Concrete Design 8" Direct tension coupler(typical) 1" shim and drypack (typical) 8" precast wall (2) #9 ea.5. full height of 25' longitudinal wall panel (2) #10 & (1) #9 ea. This opening would concentrate the shear stress on the small area of the drypacked joint that remains in compression.2 Shear Connections and Reinforcement Panel joints often are designed to resist the shear force by means of shear friction but that technique is not used for this example because the joint at the foundation will open due to flexural yielding. the joint will be designed with direct shear connectors that will prevent slip along the joint. 1.26 Overturning connection detail at the base of the walls (1.3048 m). This is the authors’ interpretation of the Provisions text indicating that “Type Y connections shall develop under flexural.0 in = 25. as required. . 741 . full ht. and axial load actions. 7. It would not be required by the ACI 31802 rules for intermediate precast walls. end. shear. . Therefore. a probable strength. .” based upon 125 percent of the specified yield in the connection.
1 4 #5. diameter headed anchor studs. The vertical flexibility is intended to minimize the contribution of these connections to overturning resistance.0 in.27 and is to be flexible vertically but stiff horizontally in the plane of the panel. The shear capacity of this connection is checked: 742 . which would simply increase the shear demand.5 ft) + (397 kip)(23.2.5 ft / 2) 5320 ftkip =1. provide an assembly with two face plates 3/8 in. × 12 in.75 (a) Section through connection 1 4 (c) Section through embedded assembly Figure 7. × 4 in.3048 m).1 Longitudinal Direction The shear amplification factor is determined as: M capacity M demand = As (1. connected by a C8x18. the design shear (Vu) at the base is 1.S. In the panel. on each face.2. In the foundation provide an embedded plate 1/2 × 12 × 1'6" with six 3/4 in.25)(60 ksi)(23. 4 Drypack Plate 1 2x12x1'0" C8x18.5.54(190 kips) = 292 kips The base shear connection is shown in Figure 7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.27 Shear connection at base (1. long leg horizontal.FEMA 451.0 in = 25. see (c) Welded wire fabric Plate 3 8x4x1'0" L4x3x516x0'8" LLH 1 4 8 (b) Side elevation 3 4"Ø H. weld an L 4 × 3 × 5/16 × 0'8". 1.75 and with diagonal #5 bars as shown in the figure.2 )(1.54 Therefore.25) f y jd + Pmax jd / 2 Mu = (2.0 ft = 0.A.4 mm. In the field.
. (average) The bearing will be controlled by bending in the web (because of the tapered flange.Chapter 7.53 in. D = 4 (sixteenths of an inch) k = 2 in.487 in.65 in.0.75)(0.(0.25 a = eccentricity.3125 in.6Fu)tel(2) = (0.) = 46.85f'c) = 0.487 in.31 in.5 kip Weld at toe of loose angles φVn = φ(0. Bearing of concrete at steel channel fc = φ(0.6)(58 ksi)(0.39 in.8 in.29 φVn = (1.6)(70 ksi)(0.67 in.4872 in./8 in. = 0.0)(4)(8)(2) = 82.75 for shear is used here: φVs = φfyAscosα = (0.#5 diagonal bars.)(8 in.)2 .(tw/2)2/2] = 2.65) . φ = 0.1 kip 743 . By interpolation. compute the width (b) of flange loaded at 2.243 in. the total capacity for transfer to concrete is: φVn = φVc + φVs = 46.76[(b . Mu = fc[(btw)2/2 . C = 1.29)(1.76 ksi)[(2(1. thus.0. tf = 0. but less demand. the critical flange thickness is greater than the web thickness).80 in.2)/4 = 2.67 in.6 kip To the bearing capacity on the channel is added the 4 . = 0.9)(50 ksi)(0. / 8 in.6 = 86.5 kip Thus. / o 2)(8 in. Conservatively ignoring the concrete’s resistance to vertical deformation of the flange. which are effective in tension and compression.2)(cos 45E) = 39.243 in.)(2) = 130.6 + 39. Therefore bearing on the channel is φVn = CC1Dl(2 sides) ` φVc = fc(2 .0 for E70 electrodes l = 8 in. and a = 4.25 in. bf = 2. vertical component is 2.75)(60 ksi)(4)(0.tw)(l) = (2.6 kip Weld from channel to plate has at least as much capacity. same table is 842 in 2nd edition) C1 = 1. using Table 89 in AISC Manual (3rd edition.65(0.76 ksi The C8 has the following properties: tw = 0.](6 in.1 kip Weld at face plates..6Fu)tl(2) = (0.)(2) = 89.6 from the table. Precast Concrete Design Shear in the two loose angles φVn = φ(0. al = 4. summed vectorially: horizontal component is 4 in.76 ksi that develops the plastic moment in the web: Mp = φFytw2/4 = (0.)2]/2 setting the two equal results in b = 1.75)(0.kip/in.85)(5 ksi) = 2.
which could easily cause failures in the system. for which the entire system is proportioned.44 in.69 in. ACI Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The capacity of the plate in the foundation is governed by the headed anchor studs. In summary the various shear capacities of the connection are: Shear in the two loose angles: Weld at toe of loose angles: Weld at face plates: Transfer to concrete: Headed anchor studs at foundation: 130. and the shear connections would have the unintended effect of more than doubling the flexural resistance. a factor of 42 increase over the angles. x 8 in. The vertical force at the tip of the angle that will create the plastic moment in the leg of the angle is: T = Mp / x = Fylt2/4 / (lk) = (36 ksi)(8 in)(0. It is instructive to consider how much moment capacity is added by the resistance of these connections to vertical lift at the joint. which yields 212 ftkips.5 kip 89. The Provisions contain the new anchorage to concrete provisions that are in ACI 31802 Appendix D.FEMA 451. If a straight plate 1/4 in.3.2.10.5)(12) = 271 kips Because φVc $Vu = 190 kips. the anchorage to concrete provisions have been removed and replaced by the reference to ACI 31802.5 Use four connection assemblies. The plates are recessed to position the #5 bars within the thickness of the panel and within the reinforcement of the panel. giving a total vertical force of 17 kips..31252 in.) = 2.1 kip 103 kip The number of embedded plates (n) required for a panel is: n = 292/82.kips. equally spaced along each side (5'0" on center works well to avoid the end reinforcement). the tensile capacity would be 72 kips each. D. such as these.9. [In the 2003 Provisions. the required reinforcement is: 744 .10. Note that the shear strength of wall itself is not governed by the overstrength required for the connection. and with sufficient embedment to avoid the pryout failure mode is governed by the capacity of the steel: φVs = φ n Ase fut = (0. check the shear strength of the precast panel at the first floor: φVc = φ 2 Acv fc′ hd = 0.0. The total demand moment. However.3.4 rather than Chapter 14 or 16.65)(6 studs)(0.75 to derate anchors in structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories C and higher. were used and if the welds and foundation embedment did not fail first. . The moment resistance is this force times half the length of the panel. since Vu $ φVc/2 = 136 kips. 11.10. these connections will add about 4% to the resistance and ignoring this contribution is reasonable.6 kip 86.2 per stud)(60 ksi) = 103 kip Provisions Sec 9.3.3) specifies an additional factor of 0.8 requires minimum wall reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318 Sec. 11.2)/4]/(4 in.85( 2) 5. Thus. For the minimum required ρh = 0. 11.6 = 3.0025.] Capacity in shear for anchors located far from an edge of concrete. the wall is adequate for shear without even considering the reinforcement. which would be sufficient. Using ACI 318 Sec.12 kips There are four assemblies with two loose angles each.000 ( 8)( 23.2 (ACI 31802 Sec.1 kip 82. is 5320 ft .3.
24 in. it is not necessary to make the shear connection be flexible with respect to vertical movement. Use three plates. Since the end reinforcement at the base extends to the top of the shear wall.W4.27 for embedded plates Horizontal and vertical edges 1 4 Plate 516x5"x0'8" Shim and drypack Figure 7. because of the lack of flexural yield at the joint. shear friction could rationally be used to design the connections at this level and above. the shear at this level will be increased using the same amplification factor as calculated for the first story. compute the shear strength at Level 2. Also. Av = 0. one on each face.28 shows the shear connection at the second and third floors of the longitudinal precast concrete shear wall panels.0×W4.0 in = 25. The design shear.0. Vu2 = 1.24 in. See Figure 7.12(2) = 0.0025(8)(12) = 0.5) = 244 kips. therefore. 745 . Figure 7. To be consistent with the seismic force increase from yielding at the base. use two layers of welded wire fabric.6 = 2. n = 244/82.2/ft As before. Using the same recessed embedded plate assemblies in the panel as at the base.2/ft Next.28 Shear connections on each side of the wall at the second and third floors (1. Yield of the vertical bars will not occur.54(95 + 63. equally spaced along each side. Precast Concrete Design Av = 0. Shear reinforcement provided. the second floor joint will not open (unlike at the base) and. bending is not a concern. Shear keys in the surface of both panels would be advisable. WWF 4×4 . the number of plates.96. but welded with a straight plate.Chapter 7.4 mm).
85( 2) 5. Compute the shear demand at the second floor level joint as indicated below.27).9) = 130.5)(12) = 156 kips Similar to the longitudinal direction. Use the same shear connections for the transverse walls as for the longitudinal walls as shown in Figures 7. Use the same shear connections as at the base of the longitudinal walls (Figure 7.25)(60 ksi)(13.W4. but Vu $ φVc/2 so provide two layers of welded wire fabric.FEMA 451.9. Vu = 1.5/82. Vu at base is 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.0. The design shear. WWF 4×4 .5.50(52. one on each face as in the longitudinal walls.5 ft / 2) 3052 ftkip = 1.25) f y jd + Pmax jd / 2 Mu = (3.6 = 1.000 ( 8)(13.8/82. equally spaced.6.50 Design shear. Use the same plates as in the longitudinal walls.3+ 34. Provide two connections on each panel. φVc $Vu = 142 kips.6 = 1.8 kips.5 kips.2 )(1.27 and 7.2 Transverse Direction Use the same procedure as for the longitudinal walls: M capacity M demand = As (1.5 ft) + (148 kip)(23. Check the shear strength of the first floor panel as described previously: φVc = φ 2 fc′hd = 0.6 kips and the number of connections required is n = 157. Use two plates. 746 . The number of plates. The connection capacity is 82.0×W4.54 in.28.2.50(105 kips) = 157.2. n = 130.
1.1. 21. 21. 21. Alternatively.3) for a singlestory building in a region of high seismicity. which is regular. [Many of the provisions for precast concrete shear walls in areas of high seismicity have been moved out of the 2003 Provisions and into ACI 31802. The same connections at the bottom of the panel are detailed and designed to be very strong in shear and to resist the nominal shear strength of the concrete panel.8) or intermediate precast concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec.4) permits special precast concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec.] 7.1.2.3 ONESTORY PRECAST SHEAR WALL BUILDING This example illustrates precast shear wall seismic design using monolithic emulation as defined in the Provisions Sec.1.11. The average roof height is 20 ft.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec.3. special precast concrete shear walls are permitted if they satisfy experimental and analytical requirements contained in 2003 Provisions Sec.2.3 (ACI 31802 Sec.11. The building is located in the Los Angeles area on Site Class C soils. The vertical seismicforceresisting system is the precast/prestressed DT wall panels located around the perimeter of the building. Here the connections in tension at the base of the wall panels yield by bending steel angles outofplane.31 shows the plan of the building.2.21. 21. The 2003 Provisions does not differentiate between precast or castinplace concrete for special shear walls. 9. The structure has 8ftwide by 121/2in.1 Building Description The precast concrete building is a singlestory industrial warehouse building (Seismic Use Group I) located in the Los Angeles area on Site Class C soils.Chapter 7.13). 747 . 9.6. 21. and there is a 3 ft parapet.4 and 9. 2003 Provisions Sec. 21. This is because ACI 31802 Sec.7). For buildings in Seismic Design Category D. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec.8 essentially requires special precast concrete shear walls to satisfy the same design requirements as special reinforced concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec. Provisions Sec. Figure 7. 9. 21. This example presents an interpretation of monolithic emulation design with ductile connections.deep prestressed double tee (DT) wall panels.2. The roof is light gage metal decking spanning to bar joists that are spaced at 4 ft on center to match the location of the DT legs.2. The center supports for the joists are joist girders spanning 40 ft to steel tube columns. Precast Concrete Design 7.1) requires that the precast seismicforceresisting system emulate the behavior of monolithic reinforced concrete construction or that the system’s cyclic capacity be demonstrated by testing.1.1. 9.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 15 DT at 8'0" = 120'0" 48'0" 12 DT at 8'0" = 96'0" Joist girder (typical) Steel tube columns 24LH03 at 4'0" o. This design example uses the strand as the reinforcement based on that analogy.2.1]) limits the grade and type of reinforcement in boundary elements of shear walls and excludes the use of bonded prestressing tendons (strand) due to seismic loads.5.000 psi. door 5 DT at 8'0" = 40'0" 16'0" O.5. fc' = 5.2] permits the use of strand in boundary elements of diaphragms provided the stress is limited to 60.2.1.FEMA 451. 748 24LH03 at 4'0" o. door 3 DT at 8'0" = 24'0" 48'0" Figure 7.5.0 ft = 0.2. Provisions Sec.7.H. The wall panels are normalweight concrete with a 28day compressive strength. 21.c. The use of thicker flanges is addressed later.2.c.5 [9. has been added to the thickness of the deck (flange).5. This extra thickness is intended to reduce cracking of the flanges and provide cover for the bars used in the deck at the base. ACI 31899 Sec. The rationale for this is that the primary reinforcement of the DT. Reinforcing bars used in the welded connections of the panels and footings are ASTM A706 (60 ksi). the strand.3048 m). The precast wall panels used in this building are typical DT wall panels commonly found in many locations but not normally used in Southern California. 3 DT at 8'0" = 24'0" 16'0" O. 9.5.000 psi.9. 21. fc' = 4. .4] (ACI Sec. For these wall panels. an extra 1/2 in.2 [21.H. The concrete for the foundations has a 28day compressive strength.1 [21.000 psi.1. is not working as the ductile element of the wall panel and is not expected to yield in an earthquake.31 Singlestory industrial warehouse building plan (1.1.
[The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 U.1.52 D Bearing Walls System Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall 5 2. these connections resist the shear force equal to the nominal shear strength of the panel and have a nominal strength equal to twice the shear that exists when the actual moment is equal to Mpr 749 . 9.2.2 Structural Design Considerations 7.0 1.31. The flexural connection for a wall panel at the base is located in one DT leg while the connection at the other leg is used for compression.0 0.3.] 7.5 0.2.3.1 Seismic Parameters of the Provisions The basic parameters affecting the design and detailing of the building are shown in Table 7.2 [9.1.3] requires special reinforced concrete shear walls in Seismic Design Category D and requires adherence to the special seismic design provisions of ACI 318 Chapter 21.78 1.2 Design Requirements 7.1. 9.5 0.31]) S1 (Map 2 [Figure 3.2.12 (ACI Sec.1.11. Geological Survey seismic hazard maps and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3 (instead of the previously used separate map package).32]) Site Class Fa Fv SMS = FaSS SM1 = FvS1 SDS = 2/3 SMS SD1 = 2/3 SM1 Seismic Design Category Basic SeismicForceResisting System Wall Type * R Ω0 Cd * Value I = 1.3.1) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].2.5 5 Provisions Sec. Per Provisions Sec.2.S.60 C 1.3 1.1 Precast Shear Wall System The criteria for the design is to provide yielding in a dry connection for bending at the base of each precast shear wall panel while maintaining significant shear resistance in the connection. Precast Concrete Design 7.31 Design Parameters Design Parameter Seismic Use Group I SS (Map 1 [Figure 3.3.2.Chapter 7.0 1. 21. Table 7.3.7.
2. For a shear wall building assigned to Seismic Design Category D. unless the design of special precast shear walls is substantiated by experimental evidence and analysis per 2003 Provisions Sec.8. use ρ = 1. Yielding will develop in the dry connection at the base by bending the horizontal leg of the steel angle welded between the embedded plates of the DT and footing. each individual panel should be considered a separate wall with an aspect ratio greater than 1. The reliability factor. 9. All shear wall elements (8ftwide panels) have the same stiffness.FEMA 451.7 requirements for special structural walls as referenced by ACI 31802 Sec.]. 9. Along the side with 11 panels. The maximum ρx value is given when rmaxx is the largest value. ρ = 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (which ACI defines as φ = 1. if the structure is regular in plan and there are at least two bays of perimeter framing on each side of the structure in each orthogonal direction.2 750 . The horizontal leg of this angle is designed in a manner to resist the seismic tension of the shear wall due to overturning and then yield and deform inelastically. 4.2.0455 11.0455 1.0 as long as it can be shown that failure of a single shear wall with an aspect ratio greater than 1.4 (ACI 31802 Sec.5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions. The building is regular both in plan and elevation. the design must satisfy ACI 31802 Sec.2.3. The anchorage of the connection into the concrete is designed to satisfy the Type Z requirements in Provisions Sec. The metal deck roof acts as a flexible horizontal diaphragm to distribute seismic inertia forces to the walls parallel to the earthquake motion (Provisions Sec.2.1. 21.3.520 Therefore.] 7.1 [4. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed for the 2003 Provisions. Alternatively.2.12 (ACI Sec.6.2.3]. [Based on the 2003 Provisions. ρ is computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.4. 5. Based on the design procedures for the walls.3.2 [4. rmaxx is the ratio of design story shear resisted by the single element carrying the most shear force to the total story shear.0.2.8. 5. rmaxx is computed as: 12 rmaxx = 11 = 0.3.3.1.0 Ax = 96 ft × 120 ft = 11.1. the exception in 2003 Provisions Sec.2 Building System Height limit is 160 ft (Provisions Table 5. The largest rmaxx value is along the side with the least number of panels.2 [4. Therefore. Careful attention to structural details of these connections is required to ensure tension ductility and resistance to large shear forces that are applied to the embedded plates in the DT and footing. The connection requirements are not as clearly defined as in the 2000 Provisions.3.2.11. 21.0 and a steel stress equal to 125% of specified yield).0 would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity. The connections on the two legs of the DT are each designed to resist 50 percent of the shear.520 ft2 ρx = 2 − 20 rmaxx Ax = 2− 20 = 2.31]).1]).2).0. 21. the shear in each element is the total shear along a side divided by the number of elements (wall panels).10 0. 21.
3 Load Combinations The basic load combinations (Provisions Sec.2D The relevant load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1.2. can be omitted from the equation.4 [5. 5. 5.2. This example does not include the design of these connections.2.7) require that seismic forces and gravity loads be combined in accordance with the factored load combinations as presented in ASCE 7. 5.0)QE ± (0. footnote b [4. This example does not include design of the foundation system. footnote c]).QE (will not control) (will not control) These load combinations are for the inplane direction of the shear walls. continuity.6.1 through 5.72 [4.4.3 [4.2.4 [4.Chapter 7.0)D = QE ± 0.71 and 5.5.2. 7.3.5L 0.] The structural analysis to be used is the ELF procedure (Provisions Sec.21 and 4. Orthogonal load combinations are not required for flexible diaphragms in Seismic Design Category D (Provisions Sec. so the live load term. L. Precast Concrete Design permits the use of D.2D ± 1.2. and anchorage (Provisions 5.4D + QE 1.2. ρ = 1. 751 .2SDSD = (1.0D .2. but sketches of details are provided to guide the design engineer.8.2]) as permitted by Provisions Table 5.0.41].2.3]).6]) must be explicitly considered when detailing connections between the roof and the wall panels. or the nonstructural elements.2.0E Note that roof live load need not be combined with seismic loads.1D + QE 0. There are no drift limitations for singlestory buildings as long as they are designed to accommodate predicted lateral displacements (Provisions Table 5.5 [4.6.51. Into each of these load combinations.7D . except that the load factor for earthquake effects (E) is defined by Provisions Eq.QE 1. which is regular and has more than two wall panels (bays) in both directions. the metal deck diaphragm. This exception could be interpreted as applying to this example.2)(1.22]: E = ρQE ± 0.9D ± 1. 5. substitute E as determined above: 1.0E + 0. Ties.
the 2003 Provisions. W = 138 + 236 = 374 kips 7.000) = 138 kips The exterior double tee wall weight tributary to the roof is: (20 ft/2 + 3 ft)[42 psf/1.23] as follows: Cs = S D1 0.044)(1.4.FEMA 451. 5.4 Seismic Force Analysis 7.4.21] as: 752 .13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: Cs = 0.1.189 ( 5 1) where T is the fundamental period of the building computed using the approximate method of Provisions Eq. 5.4.22] as: Cs = S DS 1.1 Weight Calculations Compute the weight tributary to the roof diaphragm Roofing Metal decking Insulation Lights.55 T ( R I ) 0.3.4.1.2 psf = 2.000](120 ft + 96 ft)2 = 236 kips Total building weight for seismic lateral load.20 R/I 5 1 except that it need not exceed the value from Provisions Eq.3.0 psf = 1. 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.1.4. 5. use Cs = 0.044 [The minimum Cs value has been changed to 0.11 [5.7 psf = 0.41 [5.52 = = 0.8 psf = 1.5 psf = 3.189 sec Therefore. mechanical.12 [5.0 = = 0.4.0)(1.75 = 0.0) = 0 .8 psf = 12.01 in. sprinkler system etc.044ISDS = (0. Bar joists Joist girder and columns Total The total weight of the roof is computed as: (120 ft × 96 ft)(12 psf/1.26]: x Ta = Cr hn = (0. which is larger than the minimum specified in Provisions Eq.11 [5.0 psf The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed using Provisions Eq.2.2 Base Shear = 2.0 ) 0. 5. The total seismic base shear is then calculated using Provisions Eq.3.20.02) ( 20.
1 Longitudinal Direction The total shear along each side of the building is V/2 = 37.32.3048 m). The maximum shear on longitudinal panels (at the side with the openings) is: Vlu = 37.4 kips On each side.4.20)(374) = 74.4/11 = 3.3 Horizontal Shear Distribution and Torsion Torsion is not considered in the shear distribution in buildings with flexible diaphragms.8 kips 7. 7.4.3. where D1 represents roof joist reactions and D2 is the panel weight. Precast Concrete Design V = CsW = (0.3. 8'0" 3'0" V lu D1 D1 D2 20'0" 2'0" 2'0" 2'0" 2'0" DT leg Foundation Vlu T C Figure 7.0 ft = 0.4 kips. 753 .3. based on a tributary area force distribution. each longitudinal wall panel resists the same shear force as shown in the freebody diagram of Figure 7.Chapter 7.32 Freebody diagram of a panel in the longitudinal direction (1. The shear along each side of the building will be equal.
4.3048 m).12 kips Figure 7.3.33 Freebody diagram of a panel in the transverse direction (1.0 ft = 0.3.33 shows the transverse wall panel freebody diagram.5 Proportioning and Detailing The strength of members and components is determined using the strengths permitted and required in ACI 318 including Chapter 21. Note the assumption of uniform distribution to the wall panels in a line requires that the roof diaphragm be provided with a collector element along its edge.3.FEMA 451. 754 .4/12 = 3. 7. 8'0" 3'0" V tu D 20'0" 2'0" 2'0" DT leg Foundation Vtu T C Figure 7. The chord designed for diaphragm action in the perpendicular direction will normally be capable of fulfilling this function. but an explicit check should be made in the design.2 Transverse Direction Seismic forces on the transverse wall panels are all equal and are: Vtu = 37. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.
these two additional requirements are interpreted as: 1. At the base ME = (3.0 ftkips Dead loads ⎛ 48 ⎞ D1 = (11. onehalf the total shear will be resisted by the angle at the DT leg in tension and the remainder by the angle at the DT leg in compression.4D = 13. Determine the forces for design of the DT connection at the base.042(23)(8) = 7. Where the moment action on the connection is assumed equal to Mpr. For the purposes of this example.2 psf.32. the coexisting shear on the connection shall be no greater than 0.5.73 kips ΣD = 2(1.7D: 755 .25 times the yield moment in the angle.Chapter 7. Provisions Sec.5.000 ) ⎜ ⎟ 4 = 1.3. 7.89 kips 1.08 kips ⎝ 2 ⎠ D2 = 0.92 kips Compute the tension force due to net overturning based on an effective moment arm.1. The nominal shear strength for the connection shall not be less than the shear strengths of the members immediately adjacent to that connection.1 Tension and Shear Forces at the Panel Base Design each precast shear panel to resist the seismic overturning moment by means of a ductile tension connector at the base of the panel. The dry connections used here do meet the definition of a yielding steel element at a connection contained in ACI 31802. When tension from the seismic overturning moment causes 1.1. A steel angle connector will be provided at the connection of each leg of the DT panel to the concrete footing.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] requires that dry connections at locations of nonlinear action comply with applicable requirements of monolithic concrete construction and satisfy the following: 1. The horizontal leg of the angle is designed to yield in bending as needed in an earthquake.73 = 9. Precisely how ductile dry connections emulate monolithic construction is not clearly explained. which excludes the joist girders and columns. the horizontal shear on this connection shall not exceed onehalf the nominal shear strength of the connection. The maximum tension for the connection at the base of the precast panel to the concrete footing is governed by the seismic overturning moment and the dead loads of the panel and the roof.8 kips 0.1 Longitudinal Direction Use the freebody diagram shown in Figure 7. Precast Concrete Design 7.4 kips)(20 ft) = 68.08) + 7. d = 4. 9.7 D = 6.3.0 ft (distance between the DT legs).1. The weight for the roof is 11.2 1. The maximum is found when combined with 0. 2. The nominal shear strength of the connections at the legs need to be designed to exceed the inplane shear strength of the DT.5SnConnection and 2. For this design.
7.3 P M 13. The section is limited by the area of drypack under the DT at the footing. and 0. The reason to limit the area of drypack at the footing is to locate the boundary elements in the legs of the DT.34 shows the cross section used. but the force from the prestress steel will be added to the compression stress above because the prestress force will be effective a few feet above the base and will add compression to the DT leg. Roof live loads need not be included as a factored axial load in the compressive stress check.12 kips)(20 ft) = 62.3.6.5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Tu = ME/d .6. Use the tension force of the longitudinal wall panels for the design of the angle connections.0.33. No load from the roof is included.6.7D/2 = 68.35 shows the location of these prestressed strands. since it is negligible. 21. The tension force is computed as above for d = 4. Each leg of the DT will be reinforced with one 1/2in.92/2 = 13.5 kips 7.41.2 Transverse Direction For the transverse direction.73 kips. Figure 7. The flange between the legs of the DT is not as susceptible to cracking during transportation as are the corners of DT flanges outside the confines of the legs.3048 m). The compressive stress due to the overturning moment at the top of the footing and dead load is: A = 227 in.800 12 ( 68.4 ftkips The dead load of the panel (as computed above) is D2 = 7.0 ft = 0.3].4/4 . At the base ME = (3. diameter strand.41/2 = 12.5. at least at the bottom of the panel. 1. diameter and one 3/8in.2 Panel Reinforcement 21 2" 23 8" 10" Check the maximum compressive stress in the DT leg for the requirement of transverse boundary element reinforcement per ACI 318 Sec.5. use the freebody diagram of Figure 7.0 ft (distance between the DT legs): Tu = 62.7.34 Cross section of the DT drypacked at the footing (1.FEMA 451.0 in = 25.2 S = 3240 in.000 ) σ= + E = + = 313psi A S 227 3. 240 4'0" M Figure 7.9 kips This tension force is less than that at the longitudinal wall panels.3 [21.4 mm.0/4 .3.7D = 5.1.6. The maximum tension for connection at the base of the precast panel to the concrete footing is governed by the seismic overturning moment and the dead loads of just the panel. 756 average 23 8" 43 4" . Figure 7.
153 + 0. strand Leg mesh 6" 43 4" average Figure 7. which is 1000 psi.91( 37.35 Cross section of one DT leg showing the location of the bonded prestressing tendons or strand (1.3 σ= P Pe 37. is less than at the top of footing.8.58fpu Aps = 0.CGStrand = 9.0 kips 757 . above the footing.300 ) + = + = 402 psi 168 189 A S Therefore. The strand reinforcement of the DT leg resisting tension is limited to 60. Precast Concrete Design Deck mesh 21 2" (1) 1 2" dia.4)(26) x 1000 = 27 psi 3.042)(20. D2 = (0.000 psi. about 26 in. Next. The limiting stress is 0. Reinforcement in the DT for tension is checked at 26 in.2 e = yb . Sb = 189 in. for the effective stress (fse). use P = 0.58(270 ksi)[0. The rationale for using this stress is discussed at the beginning of this example. Note the moment at the height of strand development above the footing. so no special boundary elements are required in the longitudinal wall panels.4 mm).Chapter 7.085] = 37.3 kips A = 168 in.91 in. the total compressive stress is approximately 313 + 402 . This reduces the compressive stress by: (3.0 in = 25. 240 In each leg.300 0.83)(8) = 7. strand 4" (1) 3 8" dia.2 fc'.27 = 688 psi.48 .57 = 0. compute the compressive stress resulting from these strands.
6.83) = 60. This angle is a L5 × 31/2 × 3/4 × 0 ft5 in.0 welded wire fabric.7. To determine the nominal shear strength of the concrete for the connection design. diameter and one 3/8 in.49 kips exceeds Vu = 3. The demand on each panel is: Vu = Vlu = 3. with the long leg vertical. First. Ash = 0.4 kips Only the deck between the DT legs is used to resist the inplane shear (the legs act like flanges. The steel for the angle and embedded plates will be ASTM A572.236 in.W2.000 = 8.4.4 kips.153 in. the required areas of reinforcement are: Ash = Asv = (0. Grade 50. 16.0 + 2(1.3.05 ( 4 )( 60 ) = 29.04 in.5 ( 48 ) 5.4)(17.9(60 ksi)] = 0.05 in.5 × W2.085 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Pmin = 0.6 [21.6.1 is: Vn = Acv α c ( f c′ + ρ n f y = ( 2. Given that the connections will be designed for a shear of 29 kips. 21.2 + 0.2 The area of one ½ in.3 Size the Yielding Angle The angle.2]. 21.0 kips The area of tension reinforcement required is: As = Tu/φfy = (12. Since Acv f c′ = 2. determine the minimum required shear reinforcement based on ACI Sec.0 kips)/[0.1 [21.75.2 The mesh in the legs is available for tension resistance.5. The horizontal leg of the angle needs to be long enough to provide significant displacement at the roof. although this is not stated as a 758 . where the connection is. the reinforcement of the deck is per ACI 318 Sec.2/ft Asv = 0.6 ftkips Tu = Mnet/d . which are not effective in shear.03 in.7].FEMA 451. but not required in this check. complete the shear calculation for the panel in accordance with ACI Sec.001)(2.4. meaning that the area effective for shear is the deck between the legs).5)(12) = 0. and the legs are like the flanges of a channel. 21. is welded between the plates embedded in the DT leg and the footing.0 kips 1.7(7.08)) = 6.2.2/ft The nominal shear strength of the wall panel by ACI 318 Sec. which is the ductile element of the connection.2/ft Provide 6 × 6 .41 kips ME = (3. 7.5 )( 48 ) ) 2 5.000 + 0. diameter strand is 0.2 = 0.0. Using welded wire fabric. which is greater than 2. The prestress force and the area of the DT legs are excluded from the calculation of the nominal shear strength of the DT wall panel. which is 3.000 where αc is 2.22 in.0 for hw/lw = 23/4 = 5.Pmin/2= 12.2.4 kips. The prestress force is not effective at the base. it is obvious that half the nominal shear strength will exceed the seismic shear demand.
. Using Provisions Sec. the tension force for the remainder of this connection other than the angle is based upon a probable strength equal to 140% of the nominal strength.6. or the shear associated with Tu'.kips φb M n = 0.25 Check the welds for the tension force of 21.6 in. This will be examined briefly here.75 )2 ⎤ ⎥ = 31.4 = 21.25) = 30. 21.11.g.4 mm).36 Freebody of the angle and the fillet weld connecting the embedded plates in the DT and the footing (elevation and section) (1.5(3. 1" 759 .5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]. The bearing panel.5 .9 ( 50 ) ⎢ ⎡ 5 ( 0.5 − 1. will give a larger shear.0/2 = 14. with its larger vertical load.1.k) = 13.5 kips. Precast Concrete Design requirement in either the Provisions or ACI 318.36.1.0 in = 25.1. Thus Tu′ = M n (1.Chapter 7.5 − k 3. whichever is greater. y y z x My t L5x31 2x3 4x5 (LLV) Tu' Vu' 5" Tu' Vu' 4" CG Mx Mz t Mz yB Mx Fillet weld "t" Vu' Tu' 21 4" k = 11 4" Location of plastic hinge My Fillet weld Tu' Vu' Figure 7.75) 2 / 4 = × 1.4) (50)(5)(0. The angle and its welds are shown in Figure 7.9 kips 3. The bending moment at a distance k from the heel of the angle (location of the plastic hinge in the angle) is: Mu = Tu(3. a shorter horizontal leg) will simply increase the demands on the remainder of the assembly.9 Fy Z = 0.kips 4 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ Providing a stronger angle (e.5 .4 in.12 (ACI Sec. 9.9 kips and a shear force (Vu')of 29.
Size a fillet weld. For the base metal. For which the limiting stress is φFy = 0.FEMA 451.6)70(0.96 in. particularly the plate and reinforcement embedded in the DT.4D(2)]/20 = [21. and V = [Tu'(4) + 1. the vertical deformation at the design moment in the leg is δv = TL3/3EI = (13. the diaphragm deformation will overwhelm all other aspects of deformation.) = 0.707)Aw.8(2)]/20 = 5. But before checking the welds. φRn = φ(Fy)ABM.4D = 13.9/4 + 13. Given a weight of 374 kips.3. given the design seismic base shear of 74. Ignore all sources of deformation except the angle. This is about 50% larger than the simplistic calculation considering only the angle.3 kips 760 .t/2 + 1 in.)3/12] = 0. For which limiting stress is 22. which amounts to: L = 3. this would imply an elastic displacement of δh = 74. (20 ft to the roof.) With Cd of 4.047 in.76 kips.4 Welds to Connection Angle Welds will be fillet welds using E70 electrodes.5 kips)(3. . will contribute to the overall deformation.0 ksi. 7. it appears that this dry connection will provide enough deformability to be in the range of expectation of the Provisions. but this is not the place to address flexible diaphragm issues. For the weld metal. divided by the 4 ft from leg to leg at the base of the DT. Also. Vn for the panel obviously controls.24 in. K Now.8 kip / (201 kip/in. φRn = φ(Fy)Aw = 0. Using an elasticplastic idealization. These displacements are not very large. then upward to the level of the bottom of the DT. as computed previously.75 in.t/2 = 3. .5 in.8 kips. thus.75 in.8 kips.5. The approximate period predicted for a 20fttall shear wall building is 0. 5 in. but other aspects of the connections.3 ksi.52 + 219 .19 sec. but now compare with the expectations of the Provisions.19) = 201 kip/in.9(50) = 45. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1. 2 = 26.) The angle deformation will be idealized as a cantilever with a length from the tip to the center of the corner. consider the deformability of the system as controlled by the yielding angle. long at the angle to embedded plate in the footing: Using an elastic approach Resultant force = V 2 + T 2 = 14. The bending of angle legs about their weak axis has a long history of providing ductility and. the predicted total displacement is 0. this would imply a stiffness from the fundamental equation of dynamics: T = 2π W /g ⇒ K = 4π 2W /( gT ) = 4π 2 374 /(386 × 0. (This is not a bad assumption regarding the double tee itself. This translates into a horizontal motion at the roof of 0.75 in.)3/[3(29000 ksi)(5 in.37 in.)(0.75(0.
kips My = Vu'(3. top view. Given the importance of this weld.0) = 54.kips Mz My V X Z V Figure 7.7 in. showing only shear forces and resisting moments.5) = 76. For the weld between the angle and the embedded plate in the DT as shown in Figure 7.5)(3.4 761 .0t in.37 the section properties for a weld leg (t) are: A = 13t in.18 in. For a 3/4 in. would be a reasonable step. Precast Concrete Design Aw = 26. increasing the strength of this weld by such an amount should not have a detrimental effect elsewhere in the connection. long on each vertical leg of the angle. the weld moments and stresses are: Mx = Tu'(3.18 in. Try a fillet weld 5 in. = 0. fillet weld.5) = 50.2/5 in. increasing the size to 3/8 in.2 Ix = 23.7 in.Chapter 7.8 in. Continue to use the conservative elastic method to calculate weld stresses.37 Freebody of angle with welds.4t in.3/22.0) = 14.5) = 21.5(2. long across the top and 4 in.kips Mz = Vu'(yb + 1. Using the freebody diagram of Figure 7. use a 5/16 in.3 = 1. angle leg.37 for shear.24 in. With ordinary quality control to avoid flaws.77 + 1.36 for tension and Figure 7. Now size the weld to the plate in the DT.2 t = Aw/l =1.4 Iy = 60.9(3.5) = (14.
per Provisions Sec.5) ⎛ 0.FEMA 451.77) ⎛ 2.36.5 (54)(2.2 o φ f y cosθ 0.93 + = + =⎜ 13t 83. say 9/16 in.5E) = 16.2)(2)(60)(cos 26.3) 2 = ⎜ ⎟ ksi t ⎝ t ⎠ Thus. 9.0t Ix ⎛ 11. To check the weld.4t A Ip ⎝ t ⎞ ⎟ ksi ⎠ σy =− Tu′ M z xL 21. The resultant shear resistance is: φVn = 0.1 kips 762 . t = 11.3.9 (54. xL = 2.5 ( ) Use two #5 bars (As = 0.5) (76.5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].77 in.11. σx = Vu′ M z yb 14.75(0. Reinforcement in the DT leg and in the footing will be welded to embedded plates as shown in Figure 7.93) 2 + (0.3 ⎞ ⎜⎟ ksi ⎝ t ⎠ σz = − − 2 2 2 +σ y +σz = σR = σx 1 ⎛ 11. The welded reinforcement is sloped to provide concrete cover and to embed the bars in the central region of the DT leg and footing.52 in.77) == 60.67 ⎞ (2.38.5.. The maximum stress is at the lower right end of the inverted U shown in Figure 7.1. The shear bars in the footing will be two #4 placed on an angle of two (plus)toone. Field welds are conservatively sized with the elastic method for simplicity and to minimize construction issues.8)(2.3 = 0.045 ⎞ + =− + =⎜ ⎟ ksi 13t 83.4t A Ip ⎝ t ⎠ M y xL Iy M x yb (50.6.Sloped = Tu′ 21.7)(2.45 in.7)(2. 21. The tension reinforcement area required in the footing is: As.045) 2 + (−11.4t 23.67/22. and the development lengths are lengthened by an additional 30%.62 in. stresses are computed at all four ends (and corners).4t in.12 (ACI Sec.9 ( 60) cos26.2 ) at each embedded plate in the footing.4 yb = 2.5 in.1.9 = = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Ip = Ix + Iy = 83. 7.5 Tension and Shear at the Footing Embedment Reinforcement to anchor the embedded plates is sized for the same tension and shear.
2) = 27.)(5 in. 763 . Note that the bars in the DT leg are required to extend upward 1.39) Plate 1 x 6 x 0'10" DT 2 16 4 9 16 5 L5x31 (LLV) 5 3 2x 4x5 (2) #3 with standard hooks weld on #4 16 5 Plate 6x41 2x1 2 2'6 " (2) #4x 1 Interior slab L6x4x1 2x10" (2) #5 2 C.2 o φ f y cosθ 0.5 kips. 7.I. which develop tension as the angle bends through cycles is: As = Tu′ 21.Chapter 7.6 Tension and Shear at the DT Embedment The area of reinforcement for the welded bars of the embedded plate in the DT. Precast Concrete Design (2) #4x48" (See Fig 7. The transfer of direct shear to the concrete is easily accomplished with bearing on the sides of the reinforcing bars welded to the plate.5 in. In this case they will be extended 22 in.38 Section at the connection of the precast/prestressed shear wall panel and the footing (1.6 kips > 14. which would be 22 in.9 = = 0. The same embedded plate used for tension will also be used to resist onehalf the nominal shear.5 kip demand.(available)) = 10 in. This shear force is 14.408 in.3 times the development length.39) (2) #4 with standard hooks 9 1 9 (2) #4x24" (see Fig 7.3.P. concrete footing " 2'6 1 2 Figure 7. The available bearing area is approximately Abr = 4(0.0 in = 25. which totals about 48 in.2 and the bearing capacity of the concrete is φVn = (0.65)(0.3 Two #4 bars are adequate. past the point of development of the effective stress in the strand.4 mm). Two #5 and two #4 bars (explained later) are welded to the plate.9(60) cos 6.5.85)(5 ksi)(10 in.
21 in.4 / 6. The #4 bars are effective in resisting Mx.9 ( 60 )( 9. This is the same bar used to transfer direct shear in bearing. φMny = φAs fy jd = (0. 7.95)(5 in.75)(0. Begin by assigning onehalf of the “corner” #4 to each component.5.2 times the bar diameter along each side of the bar.11 in. Each component is strong enough. and one each of the #3 and #4 bars are effective in resisting My.) For the #4 bar.FEMA 451.4 kip. the minimum length of weld is 15.11 + 0. This approximate method is demonstrated here.9)(0. Thus. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The weld of these bars to the plate must develop both the tensile demand and this shear force.kips. As = Mz 54.2)(0.20/2 = 0.9)(0.3 in.21 in. The tension demand is the larger of 1.6)(70 ksi)(0.2.) = 54 in.7 Resolution of Eccentricities at the DT Embedment Check the twisting of the embedded plate in the DT for Mz.7 = = 0.30 in.kips (>50. assume a triangular shaped compression block in the concrete. Check the DT embedded plate for My (50. so the proposed bars are satisfactory. beyond the edge of the angle (equal to twice the thickness of the plate).7).95)(5 in.2)(60 ksi)(0.25 fy on the bar (15 kip) or Tu/2 (11. With Asx = 0.5 in. 764 .7 in. The shear demand is prorated among the four bars as (14.2 φ f y ( jd ) 0.20 + 0.20/2 = 0. and then compute the resisting moment. (Refer to the PCI Handbook. It is quicker to make a reasonable assumption as to the bars that are effective and then compute resisting moments about the X and Y axes.5 kip)/4 = 3.0 kip).2)(60 ksi)(0.3 kips/in.2 . φMnx = φAs fy jd = (0.) = 77 in.8).7 in. With Asy = 0.0 ) Use one #4 bar on each side of the vertical embedded plate in the DT as shown in Figure 7.kips) and Mx (76. the weld capacity is φVn = (0.39.kips (>76.4 in. It is relatively straightforward to compute the resultant moment magnitude and direction.)(2) = 6. with an effective throat of 0.3.kips) using the two #4 bars welded to the back side of the plate near the corners of the weld on the loose angle and the two #3 bars welded to the back side of the plate near the bottom of the DT leg (as shown in Figure 7.3 = 2.5 kip.39). For My assume that the effective depth extends 1 in. The vectorial sum of shear and tension demand is 15.8 in. Use Mz = 54. The weld is a flare bevel weld.
0 in = 25.311 Sketch of connection of loadbearing DT wall panel at the roof (1.0 in = 25.4 mm).25 Fy Plate 10"x6"x1 2" 2" 3" 1" (2) #3 with standard hook Plate 41 2"x6"x1 2" with 5 8" slot at center 10" Figure 7.Chapter 7.4 mm). Precast Concrete Design 3" 2" 3" #4 (2) #4 with standard hook For 1.39 Details of the embedded plate in the DT at the base (1. DT Plate at each DT leg L4x3x1 4x continuous Metal deck Bar joists DT corbel at each leg Figure 7. 765 .
5.310 and 7.1] requires specific force minimums for the connection and requires continuous ties across the diaphragm. These types of connections are not considered here.310 Sketch of connection of nonloadbearing DT wall panel at the roof (1. 1. In that direction. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7. Provisions Sec. it specifically prohibits use of the metal deck as the ties in the direction perpendicular to the deck span. In the direction parallel to the deck span. the deck may be used but the laps should be detailed appropriately. they should not constrain relative movement inplane. Plate at each DT leg Deck straps as needed Metal deck #4 continuous weld to plates L4x3x1 4 continuous Bar joist 2'0" Figure 7.2 [4. Therefore. In precast double tee shear wall panels with flanges thicker than 21/2 in. 766 .. with an appropriate connection at the joist girder. the designer may wish to use the top chord of the bar joists. since the uplift force is small relative to the shear force and cyclic loading of bars in thin concrete flanges is not always reliable in earthquakes.6. this means the chord for the roof diaphragm should not be a part of the panels.2. Figures 7. Because the diaphragm supports concrete walls out of their plane. if connections are installed along the vertical joints between DT panels to control the outofplane alignment. Note that the continuous steel angle would be expected to undergo vertical deformations as the panels deform laterally.4 mm. Also. consideration may be given to using vertical connections between the wall panels to transfer vertical forces resulting from overturning moments and thereby reduce the overturning moment demand.5.0 ft = 0.3.2.0 in = 25. These connections are not designed here.3.FEMA 451. as the continuous cross ties.6. In a practical sense.8 Other Connections This design assumes that there is no inplane shear transmitted from panel to panel.311 show the connections at the roof and DT wall panels.3048 m).
v.E. in particular AISC Seismic. but this is the only one illustrated in this set of design examples. is presented.E. The example covers only design for seismic forces in combination with gravity. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions.5 (Risa Technologies. California) is used in the example. although a check on drift from wind load is included. The design of partially restrained composite (PRC) connections and their effect on the analysis of frame stiffness are the aspects that differ most significantly from a noncomposite design. While the general concepts of the changes are described. Foothill Ranch. The RISA 3D analysis program. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. An example of a multistory medical office building in Denver. This system is referred to as a “Composite Partially Restrained Moment Frame (CPRMF)” in the Provisions. 81 . Chapter 10 in the 2003 Provisions has been expanded to include modifications to the basic reference document.8 COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE James Robert Harris. There are not any general technical changes to other chapters of the 2003 Provisions that have a significant effect on the calculations and/or design example in this chapter of the Guide with the possible exception of the updated seismic hazard maps. and Frederick R.D. Ph. Colorado. a method is presented by which a designer using readily available frame analysis programs can account for the effect of the connection stiffness on the overall frame. The structure is analyzed using threedimensional static methods. have some affect on the calculations illustrated herein. Rutz.. AISC Seismic.. [ ].D. Part II. In addition. P. This chapter illustrates application of the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions to the design of composite steel and concrete framed buildings using partially restrained composite connections. which is illustrated in this example. Ph. Updates to the reference documents. P. These modifications are generally related to maintaining compatibility between the Provisions and the most recent editions of the ACI and AISC reference documents and to incorporate additional updated requirements. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. The Provisions set forth a wealth of opportunities for designing composite steel and concrete systems. indicate both organizational changes (as a result of a reformat of all of the chapters of the 2003 Provisions) and substantive technical changes to the 2003 Provisions and its primary reference documents.4. Some types of PRC connections have been studied in laboratory tests and a design method has been developed for one in particular. Annotations within brackets.
Chicago: AISC. 2nd Edition. 1999. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Detroit: ACI. 1997. 1998. 2 (2000). including Supplement No. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction. Load and Resistance Factor Design.. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Standard ACI 31899. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (referred to herein as the Provisions). Reston: ASCE. However. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. or are as defined in the text. 1998. 1999. 82 . October 1998.FEMA 451. the following documents are referenced: ACI 318 American Concrete Institute. American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago: AISC. Steel Design Guide Series 8. Volumes 1 and 2. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 798. American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC LRFD AISC Manual AISC Seismic AISC SDGS8 ASCE TC ASCE 7 The shortform designations presented above for each citation are used throughout.” Journal of Structural Engineering 124(10). American Society of Civil Engineers Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete. American Institute of Steel Construction. The symbols used in this chapter are from Chapter 2 of the Provisions. American Society of Civil Engineers. “Design Guide for Partially Restrained Composite Connections.S. the above referenced documents. Customary U. Partially Restrained Composite Connections. Chicago: AISC. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. units are used. Manual of Steel Construction. 1996.
1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION This fourstory medical office building has a structural steel framework (see Figures 81 through 83). Figure 84 shows the typical connection.3048 m). Composite Steel and Concrete 8.0 ft = 0. The floor slab is composite with the floor girders and the spandrel beams and the composite action at the columns is used to create moment resisting connections. which depend on the building as well as the ground shaking hazard. (typical) 25'0" (ty W1 pi 0 ca l) W18x35 (typical for EW beams) 25'0" 12'6" 12'6" Figure 81 Typical floor plan (1.2.2 and in AISC Seismic. and it is an appropriate choice for buildings with lowtomoderate seismic demands. The structure is free of irregularities both in plan and elevation. The floors and roof are supported by open web steel joists. This is considered a Composite Partially Restrained Moment Frame (CPRMF) per Provisions Table 5.c. W21x44 (typical for NS beams) 25'0" 83 .Chapter 8. N W E 25'0" S 12'6" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 12'6" 20K5 at 3'11 2" o. This connection has been studied in several research projects over the past 15 years and is the key to the building’s performance under lateral loads.
The building is located in a relatively low hazard region (Denver.3048 m). and to push the example into Seismic Design Category C. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" Roof 4 at 13'0" = 52'0" W18x35 (typical) 4 3 2 North and South End Elevation Figure 82 Building end elevation (1.3048 m). but some internal storage loading and Site Class E are used in this example to provide somewhat higher seismic design forces for purposes of illustration.0 ft = 0. Colorado). 12'6" 12'6" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 12'6" 12'6" Roof 4 at 13'0" = 52'0" W21x44 (typical) 4 3 2 East and West Side Elevation Figure 83 Building side elevation (1.0 ft = 0.FEMA 451. 84 .
The exterior frames in the northsouth direction have momentresisting connections at all columns. There are no foundations designed in this example. For this location and system. and the stiffness for serviceability in wind is a factor in the design. The frames in each bay in the eastwest direction have momentresisting connections at all except the end columns. Assessing the flexibility of the connections 3. and by inspection they are stiff enough to be considered as rigid. The floor slabs serve as horizontal diaphragms distributing the seismic forces. normal weight): Steel reinforcing bars (ASTM A615): Fy = 50 ksi Fy = 36 ksi fc' = 3000 psi Fy = 60 ksi