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 B00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3140 Response of structure with discrete dampers and with equivalent viscous damping .11 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3142 Energy timehistory for structure with discrete added damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3136 Summary of All Analyses for Strong Panel Structure. 3141 Base shear time histories as obtained from inertial forces . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . .Figure 3. . . . . . . . .13 Time history of roof and first story displacement . . . . . . . . . . .254 Figure 3. . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3130 Time history of total base shear. . . . .266 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . .269 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . .251 Figure 3. . . . .271 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3133 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3135 Time history of base shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 4. . . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3131 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . .224 Table 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3128 Energy time history. . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . 3129 Energy time history. . 3134 Timehistory of roof displacement. . . . . . . .273 Figure 4.265 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . 3135 Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to Ground Motion A00. . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . .261 Figure 3. . . . . . .259 Figure 3. . 3138 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 Figure 3. . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3128 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . . 3132 Energy time history. . . . 3131 Energy time history.) from TimeHistory Analysis Ground Motion A00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground motion B00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 Figure 3. . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . 44 45 47 47 xvi . . Ground Motion B00. 135 with and without Pdelta effects . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . Including Pdelta Effects . . . . . . . Ground Motion A00. . . . . including Pdelta effects . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . .272 Figure 3. . . . . . .262 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil pressure distributions . . Strong Panels. . . 3130 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . . . Geotechnical Parameters .223 Figure 3. . . . . . . .253 Figure 3. . . . . . . Ground Motion C00. 3141 Base shear time histories obtained from column forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3139 Modeling a simple damper . . . . 3134 Energy time history. . . . . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . .11 Table 4. . . . .252 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263 Figure 3. . Ground Motion B00. . . . . .258 Figure 3. .255 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 Table 3. . . . . 3129 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical sections for isolated footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3132 Time history of total base shear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 Figure 3. . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground motion A00. . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . Ground Motion C00. . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . including Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3127 Time history of total base shear. . . . including Pdelta effects . . 3143 Typical framing plan . . . . Strong Panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Motion B00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270 Figure 3. . .268 Table 3. . . . . . 3137 Comparison of inertial force patterns . . . . . . . . . . . excluding Pdelta effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3133 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3138 Maximum Story Drifts (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . with and without Pdelta effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 Design Response Spectra . . . . . . . 511 ELF Analysis in NS Direction . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – sheer versus depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 4. . . . . .11 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation plan for momentresisting frame system . . . . . . . .15 Figure 5. . and Longitudinal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . Schematic model of deep foundation system . . . . . . .214 Figure 4. . . . . . . . .216 Figure 4. Framing plan for moment resisting frame system . Foundation tie section . . .17 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 xvii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . Results of pile – head displacement versus applied lateral load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM interaction diagram for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation plan for concentrically braced frame system . . . . Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile Lengths Required for Axial Loads . . . . . . . . .112 Figure 4. Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 4. . 55 ELF Vertical Distribution for NS Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 Moments in Gable Frame Members . . Results of pile analysis – displacement versus depth . . . . . . . Pile detailing for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framing plan for concentrically braced frame system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representative py curves . . . . . .113 Table 4.14 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Roof framing and mezzanine framing plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – applied lateral load versus head moment . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Gable frame schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 4. . . . . . . . .13 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of pile analysis – moment versus depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Material Quantities and Cost Comparison . . . . . . . .215 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 Design response spectrum . . . .15 Figure 5. .14 Figure 4. . . .217 Figure 4. .14 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile detailing for Site Class E . . . . . . Critical sections for shear and envelope of mat foundation shear demands . . . . 55 Foundation plan . . Pile cap free body diagram curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Pressures for controlling bidirectional case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 . . . . . PM interaction diagram for Site Class E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 5. .27 Figure 4. . . . . . .218 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demands for MomentResisting Frame System . . . .19 Table 4. . .18 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation plan for gravityloadresisting system . . . . . .11 Table 5. .Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length. . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 4. Summary of Pile Size. . . . Design condition . . . . . . . . . .211 Figure 4. . . . . Mat Foundation Section Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculated group effect factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passive pressure mobilization curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Axial Forces in Gable Frames Members . . . . . . . . . . 516 Moment diagram for seismic load combinations . . Mat foundation flexural reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 4. . . . . . . . Gravity and Seismic Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Envelope of mat foundation flexural demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section of mat foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Figure 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Footing Design for Gravity Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Projection of expected moment strength of beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative C Amplification of Accidental Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 Table 5. . . .217 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 . . . . . . WUFW connection. . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . .24 Table 5. . .21 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concentrically braced frame elevations . . . . . .214 Figure 5. .29 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 5. . Story height and clear height . . . . . . . . . . Column shears for NS direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SMRF frame in NS direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Comparison of Standards . . . . . . . . . . Alternative B Amplification of Accidental Torison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment frame of dual system in NS direction . . . . . . . . Second level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative C Story Drifts under Seismic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 5. . . . .218 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . Braced Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Table 5. FEMA 350 Methods for panel zone shear . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical eccentric braced frame . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral force component in braces for NS direction . . . . . .224 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bracing connection detail . . .16 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative A Torsional Analysis . . . . . . . . .210 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 5. . . . . Alternative B. . . SMRF frame in EW direction . . . . . . . Moment Frame Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section on Grid F . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arrangement at knee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forces at beam/column connection . . . . . . . . .26 Table 5. . . . . .18 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . .29 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . Framing plan for special moment frame . . . Summary of Critical Member Design Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative A (Moment Frame) Story Drifts under Seismic Loads . . . Main floor framing plan . . . . . . . Approximate effect of accidental of torsion . . . . Alternative A. . . . . . .211 Figure 5. . . . . . . Bolted stiffened connection at knee . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame in EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for FiveBay Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical floor framing plan and building section . Alternative B Story Drifts under Seismic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Link and upper brace connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whitmore section . . . . . . . . . . .219 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual System Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . .31 Figure 5. . . . . . WUFW weld detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Table 5. .213 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame in NS direction . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 5. . . . Diagram of eccentric braced bream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Figure 5.211 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . .221 Figure 5. . . Mezzanine framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame of dual system in NS direction . . . . .216 Figure 5. . . . . .222 Figure 5. . . . Column shears for EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ColumnBeam Moment Ratios for SevenBay Frame .26 Table 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative C. Bracetobrace connection . . . . . . .34 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced frame of dual system in EWdirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . End plate connection at ridge . . . . NSdirection . .27 Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment frame of dual system in EW direction . . . Illustration of AISC Seismic vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear force in roof deck diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free body diagram bounded by plastic hinges . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 Free body diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Pdelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 Story forces in the EW direction . . . . . . . 613 Comparison of Approximate and “Exact” Periods . . 648 Development length for top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 Periods and Modal Response Characteristics for the Berkeley building . . . . . . 649 Final bar arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Typical floor plan of the Berkeley building . . . . .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 . . . . . . . . . . . 625 Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . and Deflection Amplification Coefficients for Structural Systems Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 Story shears in the EW direction . . . . . . . . . . 627 Pdelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . 637 Tension Development Length Requirements for Hooked Bars and Straight Bars in 4. . . . . . . . . . Frame 1 EW direction . . . . Frame 3 EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .000 psi LW Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 Vertical Distribution of NS and EW Seismic Forces for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seismic Shears Coefficients. . 636 Layout for beam reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 Vertical Distribution of EW Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 25 percent story shears. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 Periods and Modal Response for the Honolulu Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Pdelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Computing joint shear stress . . 63 Response Modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 Drift profile for Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Drift Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the EW Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 Bending moments Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 Comparison of Periods. . . . . . . . 643 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength for Beams in Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . 617 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Vertical Distribution of NS Seismic Forces for the Berkeley Building . . . . . . . 635 25 percent story shear. . . . . . 623 Drift profile for the Honolulu building . . . . . 67 Story Weights. . . . . . . 620 Drift Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 Diagram for computing column shears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 typical elevations of the Berkeley building . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Shears forces for transverse reinforcement . . . Masses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Story overturning moments in the EW direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overstrength. . . . . . . . . . . Frame 2 EW direction . 640 Preliminary rebar layout for Frame 1 . . . . . . . . and Moments of Inertia . . . . . . . . . . 634 25 percent story shears. and Base Shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Pdelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction . . 618 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Honolulu building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 xix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646 Loading for determination of rebar cutoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computing shear in haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 Interior joint reinforcement at the ends of plank and the collector 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. . . . . . . . Details for Column A. . . . . 726 xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 Detailed shear force envelope in Span BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frame 3 . . Computation of column shears for use in joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 7. . . . .15 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 7. . . and reinforcement for haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Table 7. . . . . Shear strength envelopes for Span AB of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . Frame 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of Structural Wall for Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading for Column A. . . . . 723 Diaphragm plan and section cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 7. With loading requirements from ASCE 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Design Parameters form Sec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 7. . . . . . . .22 Table 7. . . . . Bending moment envelopes at Level 5 of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall details of structural wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . Wind vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 7. . . . Design Forces for Structural Wall . . . . . . 711 Diagram plan and critical design regions . . . 9. . . . . . . . Column reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Details of structural wall boundary element . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of Shear Reinforcement for Haunched Girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712 Joint 3 chord reinforcement at the exterior edge . . . . . . . . Details of reinforcement for column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 7. . . . . .18 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Diagram force distribution and analytical model . . Shear force envelope for haunched girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seismic shears in exterior bay of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout and loads on column of Frame A . 719 Joint 4 exterior longitudinal walls to diaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage 720 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . . . . . .2 . . . . . . Design forces and detailing of haunched girder . . . . . . . .19 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolated view of Column A . . 716 Anchorage region of shear reinforcement and collector reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction diagram for column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . moments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary reinforcement layout for Level 5 of Frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction diagram for Column A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Shear Wall Overstrength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variation of neutral axis depth with compressive force . . Interaction diagram for structural wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction diagram and column design forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Column loading . . . . 78 Birmingham 1 Fpx Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Joint 2 transverse wall joint reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computing joint shear force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design interaction diagram for column on Gridline A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Fpx Calculations from Sec. . . . . . . 725 Boundary member and chord and collector reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 7. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758 Freebody of the angle and the fillet weld connecting the embedded plates in the DT and the footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 Overturning connection detail at the base of the walls . . . . .38 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . .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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 Sketch of connection of loadbearing DT wall panel at the roof . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Building side elevation . . . . . . . 749 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 Walltowall diaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . . .28 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . 742 Shear connections on each side of the wall at the second and third floors . . . . . . . .21 Figure 7. 728 Threestory building plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Exterior longitudinal walltodiaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage . . . . . . . . . . 811 Partially Restrained Composite Connection Design . . . . . . . . . 822 Column Strength Check. . . . . . 754 Freebody diagram of a panel in the transverse direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2SDSD . . . . . . . . . . .9D + 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . .311 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 Detail at column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Maximum Connection Moments and Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 7.31 Figure 7. 810 Mθ Curve for W21x44 connection with 8#5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Building and elevation . . . . 818 elevation of typical connection . . . . . . 815 Moment diagram for typical beam . . . . . . . . . 750 Freebody diagram of a panel in the longitudinal direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 7. . . . . .27 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 Freebody of angle with welds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 Forces on the transverse walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Mθ Curve for W18x35 connection with 6#5 . . . . . . . . 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 . . 767 Typical floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2D + 0. . . . . . . . . . . .5L + 1. . 757 Cross section of one DT leg showing the location of the bonded prestressing tendons or strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . top view. 746 Singlestory industrial warehouse building plan . . . . . . . . . . . 820 Illustration of input for load combination for 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . 766 Sketch of connection of nonloadbearing DT wall panel at the roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . 731 Forces on the longitudinal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . .0QE 0. .21 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) and Pdelta Analysis . . . .35 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2DSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 Freebody diaphragm of the transverse walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 Freebody diaphragm for longitudinal walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 Shear connection at base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 Detail at spandrel . . . . . . . showing only shear forces and resisting moments . . . . 821 Story Drift (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Typical composite connection . . . . . . . . .32 Figure 7. 812 Analysis of seatangle for tension . . . for W10x77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826 xxi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 Cross section of the DT drypacked at the footing . . . 826 Detail at building corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Illustration of input for load combination for 1.0QE + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 942 Building elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wide pier . . . . . . . .210 Force transfer from deck to column . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937 Inplane shear on end wall and pier . 957 ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . .thick CMU walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 969 Strength of New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . .Figure 816 Figure 9. . . . .wide pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 9. . .111 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Table 9. . . . . . . . 94 Comparison of Em . . . . . . . . . . 915 Basis for interpolation of modulus of rupture. . . . .24 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 Location of moments due to story shears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954 Strength of Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931 Input loads for inplane and end wall analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 964 New York City Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . 917 Outofplane strength for 8in. . . . . . .27 Table 9. . .122 Table 9. . .11 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . 928 Cracked moment of inertia for end walls .25 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 Inplane design condition for 8ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 9. 926 Outofplane load diagram and resultant of lateral loads . 940 Inplane deflection of end wall . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure 9. . . . . 963 Shear wall deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922 Grout cells solid within 10 ft of each end of side walls . .110 Table 9. . . . . . . 926 Inplane loads on end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969 Demands for New York City Wall D . . . . . . . . . . 920 Inplane ductility check for side walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Table 9. . . . .123 Figure 9. . . . . . . . .27 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . 923 Combined Loads for Shear in Side Wall . . . . . .thick CMU side wall . . . . . . . 972 xxii . . . . 927 Investigation for outofplane ductility for end walls . . . . . . . . . . .118 Figure 9. . . . . . 93 End wall elevation . . . . . .121 Table 9. . . . . . . . . .114 Figure 9. . . 966 New York City Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . 963 Deflections. . . . . . . . . . 970 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Table 9.22 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 941 Typical floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table 9. . . . . . . . . .120 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938 Combined Loads for Shear in End Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 Ductility check for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figure 9.thick CMU side walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961 Birmingham 1 Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945 Birmingham 1 Seismic Forces and moments by Level . . 935 Inplane ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for pier . . . . 912 Investigation ofoutplane ductility for the 8in. . . . . . . . . . 911 Trial design for 8in. . .29 Figure 9. . . . . . 929 Outofplane seismic strength of pier on end wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 Inplane ductility check for 8ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Figure 9.29 Figure 9. . . 937 Combined Loads for Flexure in End Pier . . . . . . . . . .23 Table 9. . . 925 Trial design for piers on end walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 9. . . . . . . 951 Shear Strength Calculations for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954 Demands for Birmingham 1 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917 Cracked moment of inertia (Icr) for 8in. . . . . 933 Inplane seismic strength of pier . . . . .15 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 Plan of walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 Roof plan .thick CMU wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914 Comparison of Variables .26 Figure 9. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 979 Birmingham 2 Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996 Elevation . . . . . 975 New York City Deflections . . . . .Figure 9. . .221 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997 Design Parameters . . . . . .38 Table 9. . . . 976 Birmington 2 Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998 Periods. . . . . . . . . . . .39 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9130 Floor anchorage to wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . .311 Figure 9. . . .35 Table 9. . . . . . .35 Figure 9. . . 9111 Strength of Wall D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass Participation Factors. . Level 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base . . . . . . .213 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9119 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for Level 7 . 9127 Deflection for ELF Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974 New York City Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9110 Bulb reinforcement at lower levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992 Los Angeles Cracked Wall Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 Table 9. . . . .12 Figure 10. . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . . . . . .218 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 Shears and moments for diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 Los Angeles Load Combinations for Wall D . . . . . . 982 Birmingham 2 Demands for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 Variation in Reinforcement and Grout by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980 Birmingham Periods. . . . . 995 Floor plan . . . . . . 993 Los Angeles Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988 Los Angeles: Strength of wall D . . . .211 Table 9. . . . . . . . . 9118 Strength of Wall D at Level 7 .311 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981 Shear Strength Calculations for Wall D. . 9108 Periods. . . . . . 9109 Load Combinations for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 9. . . Mass Particiaptions Ratios. . . . . . . . . 982 Typical wall section fro the Los Angeles location . . 9129 Displacements from Modal Analysis . . . Foundation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9107 Shear for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 104 105 107 xxiii . . . . . . . . 9112 ΦP11 – ΦM11 Diagram for Level 1 . . . . .31 Figure 9.219 Figure 9. . . . . . . 9134 Typical floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . .217 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . .312 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . and Modal Base Shears . . . . . . Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 . . . . . . . . . .34 Figure 9. . . .34 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Table 9. . .313 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Table 9. 9122 Ductility check for Wall D. . . . . . . . .33 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9132 Diaphragm Seismic Forces . . 9116 Bulb reinforcement at upper levels . . . .211 Table 9. . 9103 Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9104 Relative Rigidities . . . . . . . . . . 9115 Ductility check for Wall D. . . . . . . 9123 Shear Strength for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load path and shear walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 9.214 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Ductility check for New York City and Birmingham 2 Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . Mass Participation Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 Los Angeles Seismic Forces and Moments by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989 ΦP11 – ΦM11 diagram for Los Angeles Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Longitudinal section and elevation . . . . . 9125 Cracked Wall Determination . . . . .312 Table 9. . . . . . . 9106 Wall dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991 Ductility check for Los Angeles Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 Figure 9. . . . . . . . . 986 Los Angeles Shear Strength Calculations for Wall D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Table 9. . Mass Participations Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310 Table 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . maximum. . . . Wall Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 11. . . . . . . Cross tie plan layout and subdiaphragm freebody diagram for end walls . . Seismic Coefficients. . . . . . . 1111 Isolation system displacement and shear force as function of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Vertical shear distribution . . . . 1119 xxiv . . Forces. . . . . 1110 Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Isolation system capacity and earthquake demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . and total maximum displacement . . . . Anchorage of masonry wall parallel to joists . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Figure10. . . . . .17 Table 10. . . . . . . . Total Deflection and Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 10. . . . . . . . .25 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 10. . . . . . .212 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 11. . . . . . Chord forces and Element 1 freebody diagram . . . . .210 Figure10. . . . . . . .23 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fastener slip equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Bilinear idealization of isolator unit behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Figure 11.11 Figure 10. . . . . . 1118 Penthouse roof framing plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord splice detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Longitudinal bracing elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Figure10. .32 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transverse wall: overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Effective stiffness and effective damping . . . . . . Total Deflection and Drift (Structural I Plywood Shear Walls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diaphragm at roof opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pdelta Stability Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Acceptable Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjustment for nonuniform nail spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 10. Bearing wall . .11 Figure 11. . . Perforated shear wall detail at floor framing . . . . . . . . . . . Plywood layout . . . .12 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16b Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diaphragm framing and nailing layout . . . . . Chord tie at roof opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure10. . . . . . . Perforated shear wall at exterior . . . . . . . . . .16a Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Figure10. . . . . .27 Figure 10. . . . . . 1114 Moments due to horizontal shear and Pdelta effects . . . . .16 Table 10. . . . . Anchorage of masonry wall perpendicular to joists . . . . . .21 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Figure 10. . . . . . . .29 Figure10. . . 1117 Typical floor framing plan . .110 Figure10. . . . . . . . . . Wall Deflection (per story) Due to Bending and Anchorage Slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perforated shear wall detail at foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Elastic Deflection and Drift of End Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation wall detail . . . . . . . Transverse section: end wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure10. . . . . Roof Diaphragm Framing and Nailing Requirements . Nonbearing wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Threedimensional model of the structural system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross tie plan layout and subdiaphragm freebody diagram for side walls . . . . . Freebody diagram for Element 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Force distribution for flexural deflections . . . . . Diaphragm chord splice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Summary of Minimum Design Criteria for Dynamic Analysis . . .51 Figure 11. . . . . . . . .18 Figure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 10.42 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Table 10. . . . . Shear wall tie down at suspended floor framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 10. . . . . .
. . . . . . .511 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514 Table 11. . . . . . . . . .514 Table 121 Figure 121 Figure 122 Figure 123 Table 12. . . . .51 Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1329 xxv . . Minimum Downward Force for Isolator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512 Table 11. . . .510 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314 Spandrel panel connections forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . .53 Table 11. . . Gravity Loads on Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 13. . . . . . . . .54 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Downward Force on Isolator Units . . Elevation of framing on Column Line B . . . . . . .55 Table 11. . . . . . . . . Maximum Downward Force (kips) on Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of design earthquake spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316 Column cover connection layout . . . . . . . . . . 138 Detailed building elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elevation of framing on Column Line 2 . First floor framing plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211 Seismic Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 13. . . . . .25 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Downward Force for Isolator Design . . . . . . . 1229 Fivestory building evaluation showing panel location . . . . .512 Figure11. . . . .32 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 13. . . Maximum Uplift Displacement of Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolator dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Earthquake Response Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Table 11. . . . Summary of Key Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Considered Earthquake Response Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of modeled isolator properties to test data . . . . . . 1320 Freebody diagram for seismic force analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Spandrel panel connection payout from interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . .58 Figure 11. . . . . . . . .36 Transverse bracing elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327 Lateral restraint required to resist seismic forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Uplift Displacement (in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Figure 13. . . . . Earthquake Time History Records and Scaling Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223 Platform for elevated transformer . . . . . . . 1214 Boiler building . . . . . . 1322 Anchor for direct attachment to structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 Pier plan and elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Distribution of Unreduced DE and MCE Forces . . . . . . . . . Stiffness and damping properties of EOC isolator units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Steel storage rack . . . .52 Figures11. . . . . .59 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220 Storage tank section . . . . . . . . . . . Prototype Test Requirements . . . . . . . . . Example design spectra . . Shears and Overturning Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Table 11. . . . . . 1325 Anchor and snubber loads for support on vibration isolation springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Pipe rack . . . . . . .59 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . Typical detail of the isolation system at columns .513 Table 11.22 Figure 13. . . . .58 Figure 11. . . . . Vertical Distribution of Reduced Design Earthquake Forces . . . . . . . .Figure 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1311 Spandrel panel moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511 Figure11. . . . . . . . 122 Combustion turbine building . . .513 Figure11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .510 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Table 11. . . . . . . . . . . .57 Table 11. . . . . . . .31 Figure 124 Figure 125 Figure 126 Figure 127 Figure 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317 Air handling fan unit . . . . . . . . 1323 ASHRAE diagonal seismic force analysis for vibration isolation springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) Of Isolator Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This applies both to knowledge of the loading function and to the resistance properties of the materials. In a way. P. all the wealth of the world would prove insufficient to fill our needs: the most modest structures would be fortresses. Several points essential to an understanding of the theories and practices of earthquakeresistant design bear restating: 1. When appropriate. . Although the set of design examples is based on the 2000 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. 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. we must contend with appreciable probabilities that failure will occur in the near future. earthquake engineering is a cartoon. Annotations within brackets. We must also face uncertainty on a large scale. . Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering. 2. Earthquake effects on structures systematically bring out the mistakes made in design and construction.D. Ordinarily. The levels of uncertainty are much greater than those encountered in the design of structures to resist other phenomena. . The probability that failure will occur is very real and is greater than for other loading phenomena. In introducing their wellknown text.E. the NEHRP Recommended Provisions has been composed of two volumes of text and a separate set of maps. . and systems. While the general concepts of the changes are 11 .. Also. even the minutest mistakes. . Otherwise. a large earthquake produces the most severe loading that a building is expected to survive. Note that through 2000. 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. . members. [ ]. Newmark and Rosenblueth (1971) comment: In dealing with earthquakes. 3. it is annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. Ph. 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.1 FUNDAMENTALS James Robert Harris. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a very abbreviated discussion of fundamentals that reflect the concepts on which earthquakeresistant design are based. in the case of earthquakes. 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. 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.
However. however. and virtually all such earthquakes occur at or near the boundaries of these plates. most earthquakes occur when two segments of the earth’s crust suddenly move in relation to one another. The Commentary includes a method for prediction of susceptibility to liquefaction as well as general guidelines for locating potential fault rupture zones. The surface along which movement occurs is known as a fault. to an extent. 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. and it is common to avoid constructing buildings and similar structures where such phenomena are likely to occur. seismic sea waves or tsunamis can cause very forceful flood waves in coastal regions. 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. large portions of a few metropolitan areas with the potential for significant ground shaking are susceptible to liquefaction. come together. the North American continent and the Pacific basin. Earthquakes have many effects in addition to ground shaking. Where related to the discussion in this chapter. Even in the West.1 EARTHQUAKE PHENOMENA According to the most widely held scientific belief. This factor. 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. Once again. This is not to say. means that the uncertainty associated with earthquake loadings is higher in the central and eastern portions of the nation than in the West. This is the case with earthquakes in the far western portion of the United States where two very large plates. 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). This effect is captured. design for such events is specialized. and it is this ground shaking that is the principal concern of structural engineering to resist earthquakes. and it is common to locate structures so that mass soil failures and fault breakage are of no major consequence to their performance. earthquakes of the nineteenth century. they are associated with movements of and strains in large segments of the earth’s crust. Missouri.FEMA 451. Abrupt ground displacements occur where a fault intersects the ground surface. In the central and eastern United States. Modification of soil properties to protect against liquefaction is one important exception. combined with the smaller amount of data about central and eastern earthquakes (because of their infrequency). and seiches (longperiod sloshing) in lakes and inland seas can have similar effects along shorelines. For various reasons. earthquake or the very large New Madrid. For example. 1. called plates. There is evidence that extreme motions near the fault in certain types of large earthquakes 12 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples described. South Carolina. These waves cause the surface of the ground to shake violently. however. liquefaction. Nearly all large earthquakes are tectonic in origin – that is. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. and gross settlement are the result of ground shaking on susceptible soil formations. Designing structures to resist such hydrodynamic forces is a very specialized topic. that they should not be considered during site exploration and analysis. they do not provide for ground failure. The amplitude of earthquake ground shaking diminishes with distance from the source. These are outside the scope of the Provisions. the design examples and calculations in this book have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. the other effects generally are not major considerations in the design of buildings and similar structures. The structural loads specified in the Provisions are based solely on ground shaking.) Mass soil failures such as landslides. The sudden movement releases strain energy and causes seismic waves to propagate through the crust surrounding the fault. Longperiod sloshing of the liquid contents of tanks is addressed by the Provisions.
Even though the most used design procedure resorts to the use of a concept called the equivalent static force for actual calculations. The stresses and strains within the superstructure are created entirely by its dynamic response to the movement of its base. there are more geological data available for the far western United States than for other regions of the country.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. There are extended discussions of these issues in the appendices to the Commentary. Prior to its 1997 edition. even the response to wind is essentially static. Precise analysis of the elastic response of an ideal structure to such a pattern of ground motion is possible. the historical record is too short to justify sole reliance on the historical record. their probabilistic basis. The first is the historical record of earthquake effects and the second is the geological record of earthquake effects. Thus. the ground motions for use with present design procedures are simply taken as being twothirds of the MCE ground motions. Both sets of data have been taken into account in the Provisions seismic hazard maps.” which is defined as having a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50year reference period. As of the 1997 edition. the ground. The increasing power and declining cost of computational aids are making such analyses more common but. 13 . however. the geological record is essential. the aboveground portion of a structure is not subjected to any applied force.2. not static.Chapter 1. In particular. however. Such data require very careful interpretation.1 Response Spectra Figure 1. The Commentary provides a more thorough discussion of the development of the maps. records of the acceleration at one point along one axis.” which was defined as having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50year reference period. for several representative earthquakes. Geological data have been developed for many locations as part of the nuclear power plant design process. On the whole. the basis became to “avoid structural collapse at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion. the basis of the Provisions was to “provide life safety at the design earthquake motion. the necessarily crude lumping of parameters. Ground shaking. In the present interim. In the long term. some knowledge of the theory of vibrations of structures is essential. at this time. or seismicity. Fundamentals are not captured by the maps. 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. Note the erratic nature of the ground shaking and the different characteristics of the different accelerograms. but they are used widely to improve knowledge of seismicity. is known to vary considerably over small distances and the Provisions maps do not attempt to capture all such local variations (commonly called microzoning). Two basic data sources are used in establishing the likelihood of earthquake ground shaking. but interim adjustments to design requirements for such a possibility are included in the Provisions. 1. and other related issues. Even on the eastern seaboard. only a small minority of structures are analyzed for specific response to a specific ground motion. 1. the change from life safety to structural collapse prevention as the limit state will create significant changes in procedures for design analysis.21 shows accelerograms. it is not commonly done for ordinary structures. note the description of the newest generation of maps introduced in 1997 and their close relationship to the development of a new design criterion. Given the infrequency of major earthquakes. Forces within the structure are due almost entirely to the pressure loading rather than the acceleration of the mass of the structure. But with earthquake ground shaking. at a given location. For most structures.
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. 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).FEMA 451. Great earthquakes extend for much longer periods of time.) 1971 Landers (Joshua Tree) 1992 North Palm Springs 1986 Mexico City 1985 Figure 1. Figure 1.
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. The Holiday Inn.4 1971 San Fernando earthquake: (a) northsouth ground acceleration. and displacement (Housner and Jennings 1982).22 Holiday Inn ground and building roof motion during the M6. 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 500 70 0 0 30 20 Displacement. cm\s\s Velocity. velocity. computing response spectra for several different ground motions and then averaging them. velocity. Note that the vertical scale of (b) is different from (a). based on some normalization for different amplitudes of shaking. and displacement and (b) northsouth roof acceleration. Note that the peak values are larger in the diagrams of Figure 1.22). The recorded building motions enabled an analysis to be made of the stresses and strains in the structure during the earthquake. Different earthquake ground motions lead to response spectra with peaks and valleys at different points with respect to the natural frequency. 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. Thus. cm\s Displacement. 15 . a 7story. It depends very much on the vibrational characteristics of the structure and the characteristic frequencies of the ground shaking at the site. The vibrational characteristics of such a simple oscillator may be reduced to two: the natural frequency and the amount of damping. will lead to a smoother set of spectra.23 shows such a result for the ground motion of Figure 1. and displacement (b) Roof acceleration. velocity.22(b) (the vertical scales are different). This increase in response of the structure at the roof level over the motion of the ground itself is known as dynamic amplification. reinforced concrete frame building. Figure 1.Chapter 1. cm 0 0 250 30 Velocity. Such smoothed spectra are an important step in developing a design spectrum. 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. velocity. In design. s 30 40 (a) Ground acceleration. velocity. It is simply the plot of the maximum value of response for each combination of frequency and damping. s 30 40 30 0 10 20 Time. Fundamentals acceleration. 250 Acceleration. and displacement Figure 1. cm 70 30 0 0 20 0 10 20 Time. 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. and displacement for the same event at the roof of the building located where the ground motion was recorded. the family of response spectra for one ground motion may be determined. was approximately 5 miles from the closest portion of the causative fault. cm\s\s 500 Acceleration.
Figure 1.24 should be rotated about the line f = 1 to compare it with Figure 1.24 for a structure with known frequency (period) and damping. 0.23 or 1.23 Response spectrum of northsouth ground acceleration (0. approximately 5 miles from the causative fault in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (Housner and Jennings 1982). Figure 1. 0.24 is an example of an averaged spectrum. one being for the known frequency (period) while the other is for the cyclic frequency.02. 0.23 and 1. 16 . 0.10. Note that the horizontal axes of Figures 1. or displacement may be obtained from Figure 1.20 of critical damping) recorded at the Holiday Inn. Cyclic frequency is the inverse of period.23.FEMA 451. therefore.05. Note that acceleration.24 are different. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 1. velocity.
The principles of dynamic modal analysis. With the introduction of the MCE ground motions. allow a reasonable approximation of the maximum response of a multidegreeoffreedom oscillator. Fundamentals Figure 1. and Kapur 1973). this procedure changed.0 percent of critical damping). Few structures are so simple as to actually vibrate as a singledegreeoffreedom system. This has removed a portion of the uncertainty in predicting response accelerations.24 Averaged spectrum (Newmark. The procedure involves dividing the total response into a number of natural modes. Blume. if many specific conditions are met.0 second. determining the maximum response for each mode from a singledegreeoffreedom response spectrum. 0.Chapter 1. Prior to the 1997 editions of the Provisions. however. such as a multistory building. the maps that characterized the ground shaking hazard were plotted in terms of peak ground acceleration. Now the maps present spectral response accelerations at two periods of vibration. horizontal components (2.2 and 1. 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. Mean and mean plus one standard deviation acceleration. modeling each mode as an equivalent singledegreeoffreedom oscillator. and design response spectra were created using expressions that amplified (or deamplified) the ground acceleration as a function of period and damping. Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers. 17 . and the design response spectrum is computed more directly. and then estimating the maximum total response by statistically summing the responses of the individual modes.
Figure 1. The degree to which a member or structure may deform beyond the elastic limit is referred to as ductility. 2. The two graphs are plotted with the independent variables on the horizontal axis and the dependent response on the vertical axis.FEMA 451. For intermediate frequencies (which applies to nearly all buildings). due to yielding in the soil. 18 . while part (c) is characteristic of induced displacements such as foundation settlement or earthquake ground shaking. Figure 1. The figures should not be interpreted as a horizontal beam and a vertical column. This is dramatically different from the case of design for other types of loads in which stresses. 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. soft soils amplify the motion at the surface with respect to bedrock motions. The reason is economic.2 and 1.25(a) would represent a beam if the load W were small and a column if W were large. are not permitted to approach the elastic limit. 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The soil at a site has a significant effect on the characteristics of the ground motion and.23 shows a peak acceleration response of about 1. Figure 1.2 Inelastic Response The preceding discussion assumes elastic behavior of the structure. the acceleration response is reduced.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. 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.2.25 illustrates the large amount of strain energy that may be stored by a ductile system in a displacementcontrolled event such as an earthquake. The Commentary contains a thorough explanation of this feature. but the displacement is increased. At the risk of gross oversimplification. 1. For structures with very high natural frequencies. This amplification is diminished somewhat. Different materials and different arrangements of structural members lead to different ductilities.0 second spectral accelerations for various classes of soils. but the displacement response is generally about the same for the ductile structure as for the elastic structure strong enough to respond without yielding. For structures with very low natural frequencies. especially at shorter periods as the amplitude of basic ground motion increases. 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). The Provisions accounts for this effect by providing amplifiers that are to be applied to the 0. 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 acceleration response of the ductile structure is essentially the same as that of the elastic structure. and therefore strains. Especially at low amplitudes of motion and at longer periods of vibration. therefore.) Thus. on the structure’s response. the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. Response spectra may be calculated for oscillators with different levels of ductility. Thus. very different design response spectra are specified depending on the type of soil(s) beneath the structure. part (b) of the figure is characteristic of the response to forces such as gravity weight or wind pressure. (The MCE ground motion maps are drawn for sites on rock.
As the displacement increases still more. Cycling the deformation can cause degradation of strength. (As W increases. a plastic hinge forms giving large displacements. the redistributions allowed therein are minor compared to what occurs in response to strong ground motion. the displacement increases until the yield point stress is reached. 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. the force producing the yield point stress is close to the force producing collapse. 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 1.26 shows the load versus displacement relation for a simple frame. the base moment increases only a small amount.25 Force controlled resistance versus displacement controlled resistance (after Housner and Jennings 1982). or system under a monotonically increasing load until failure can be very misleading. For this kind of system. For a ductile element. but this is not the same as the classic definition used in mechanics of materials. the displacement can be increased 10 to 20 times the yield point displacement before the system collapses under the weight W. In part (c) the displacement is the independent variable. ACI 318 for the design of concrete structures) do allow for some redistribution of internal forces from the critical locations based upon ductility. Figure 1. The ductility does not produce a large increase in load capacity. In part (b) the force H is the independent variable. Yield must develop at four locations before the peak resistance is achieved. 19 . this ductility is decreased dramatically. Inelastic response is quite complex. Therefore. observation of the inelastic properties of a material.) During an earthquake. As the displacement is increased. the base moment (FR) increases until the yield point is reached. or both. 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. Most structures possess enough complexity so that the peak strength of a ductile structure is not accurately captured by such an analysis. This explains why ductile structures can survive ground shaking that produces displacements much greater than yield point displacement. As H is increased. 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. If H is given an additional increment (about 15 percent).Chapter 1. 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. This property is often referred to as toughness. stiffness. Earthquake ground motions involve a significant number of reversals and repetitions of the strains. member. however.
δ curve Figure 1. Sets of R. Damping. Using the Provisions. It is used to compute a required strength.5 2 2.3. ductility. connection ductility. toughness.FEMA 451. Ω0 is intended to deliver a reasonably high estimate of the peak force that would develop in the structure. stability of resistance under repeated reversals of inelastic deformation. such as earthquake. Cd.5 4 4. Much of this damping is caused by slip at the connections. 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. Computations of displacement based upon ground motion reduced by the factor R will underestimate the actual displacements. damping. even though wood is a brittle material as far as tension and flexure are concerned. Cd. the designer calculates. Three coefficients – R. the natural period of vibration (the inverse of natural frequency).5 3 3. not for specific application. stability of resistance. These structures also possess a much higher degree of damping than the damping that is assumed in developing the basic design spectrum.2. It has some ductility in compression (generally monotonic). 1. The natural frequency is dependent on the mass and stiffness of the building. 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. 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. and overstrength. The margin from initial yield to failure (mechanism in this case) is known as overstrength. the characteristics important in determining a building’s seismic response are natural frequency. 1.5 1 1. 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.1 Wood Timber structures nearly always resist earthquakes very well. and Ω0 are specified in the Provisions for the most common structural materials and systems.2. ductility. ductility. The increased strength. and Ω0 – are provided to encompass damping.3 Building Materials The following brief comments about building materials and systems are included as general guidelines only. and overstrength depend primarily on the type of building system.5 5 (a) Structures (b) H . and high damping combine to give timber 110 . or at least approximates.26 Initial yield load and failure load for a ductile portal frame. To summarize. and overstrength. and its strength increases significantly for brief loadings. but not the building’s size or shape.
5 Precast Concrete Precast concrete obviously can behave quite similarly to reinforced concrete. also affect earthquake resistance as demonstrated in the Northridge earthquake.. concrete compression failures (through confinement with transverse reinforcement). Other defects. reinforced masonry behaves in a fashion similar to reinforced concrete. For certain types of members (such as pure cantilever shear walls). confinement of compression members) used with reinforced concrete to increase ductility and stability. Thus. the sequence of plastification. however. the discrete differences between mortar and the masonry unit create additional failure phenomena.3. This is confirmed by their generally good performance in earthquakes. if not impossible. Thus.2. however. requires special detailing. 1. to take some of the steps (e. makes it difficult. but less is known about its inelastic response characteristics. Fundamentals structures a large reduction from elastic response to design level. and very little reduction from the elastic response is permitted. Many common connection schemes. 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. The connections between pieces of precast concrete commonly are not as strong as the members being connected.Chapter 1.3. Reinforced concrete beams with common proportions can possess ductility under monotonic loading even greater than common steel beams. 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. there is a wide range of reduction factors from elastic response to design response depending on the detailing for stable and assured resistance. but it also can behave quite differently.2.3. 1. the reduction factors for reinforced masonry are not quite as large as those for reinforced concrete. As a point of reference. Clever arrangements of connections can create systems in which yielding under earthquake motions occurs away from the connections. except for rocking of masonry piers on a firm base. Unreinforced masonry possesses little ductility or stability.2.2 Steel Steel is the most ductile of the common building materials. The nature of the masonry construction. the most common wood 111 .4 Masonry Masonry is a more diverse material than those mentioned above. Providing stability of the resistance to reversed inelastic strains. such as stress concentrations and flaws in welds. 1. however. and other factors lead to larger reductions from the elastic response. buckling of compression bars. Further. Some carefully detailed connections also can mimic the behavior of reinforced concrete. 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. in which case the similarity to reinforced concrete is very real. 1. 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.g.3 Reinforced Concrete Reinforced concrete achieves ductility through careful limits on steel in tension and concrete in compression. will not do so. This requires some extra effort in design.3.2. in which local buckling is usually a limiting factor. Successful performance of such systems requires that the connections perform in a ductile manner. 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. but it can deliver successful performance. 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.
1. it is not universally accepted and is likely to change in the future. These structures generally are an attempt to combine the most beneficial aspects of each material. braced frames. such as masonry and concrete). Systems that combine different types of elements are generally allowed greater reductions from elastic response because of redundancy. Only two values of the redundancy factor.6.2. and common beamcolumn joints frequently exhibit an ability to maintain a stable response through many cycles of reversed inelastic deformations. are defined: 1. a radical change was made to the requirements related to redundancy. and unbraced frames (moment resisting frames) – are used to build a classification of structural types in the Provisions. having several different locations with approximately the same stress levels.6 Composite Steel and Concrete Reinforced concrete is a composite material. 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). Redundancy is frequently cited as a desirable attribute for seismic resistance. [In the 2003 Provisions.2. this is because frames are more redundant. some only for trial use and comment.] 1.3 ENGINEERING PHILOSOPHY 112 . Eccentrically braced steel frames and new proportioning and detailing rules for concentrically braced frames have been developed to overcome these shortcomings. Connection details often make development of ductility difficult in 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. [The 2003 Provisions include proportioning and detailing rules for bucklingrestrained braced frames. ρ.0 and 1.3.4 Building Systems Three basic lateralloadresisting elements – walls. but with performance that is superior as brace buckling is prevented.3.FEMA 451. The Provisions includes guidance. Unbraced frames generally are allowed greater reductions from elastic response than walls and braced frames. are penalized with small reduction factors. and buckling of compression members also limits their inelastic response. deemedtocomply exception is provided for certain structures. 1. for seismic design of precast structures. composite is a term reserved for structures with elements consisting of structural steel and reinforced concrete acting in a composite manner. In part. 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. such as unconfined concrete and the welded steel joint used before the Northridge earthquake. 8. In the context of the Provisions. A simple. Design provisions appear in 2003 Provisions Sec. This new system has the advantages of a special steel concentrically braced frame.] Walls that are not load bearing are allowed a greater reduction than walls that are load bearing. Systems using connection details that have not exhibited good ductility and toughness. Redundancy is one reason. Assignment of a value for ρ is based on explicit consideration of the consequence of failure of a single element of the seismicforceresisting system. As with many new empirical measures.
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. 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. structural damage from the design earthquake ground motion would be repairable although perhaps not economically so. For ground motions larger than the design levels. 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. 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. The basic structural criteria are strength. 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 SDC is used throughout the Provisions for decisions regarding the application of various specific requirements. 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 . . Although strengthbased standards for both materials have been introduced in recent years. The flow charts in Chapter 2 illustrate how these classifications are used to control application of various portions of the Provisions. 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. For most structures designed and constructed according to the Provisions. 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).” states: The design earthquake ground motion levels specified herein could result in both structural and nonstructural damage.Chapter 1. . 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. Fundamentals The Provisions. Thus. In the past. A combined classification called the Seismic Design Category (SDC) incorporates both the seismic hazard and the SUG. of the building. The yieldlevel strength provided must be at least that required by the design spectrum (which is reduced from the elastic spectrum as described previously). a full history of dynamic response (often referred to as a timehistory or responsehistory analysis). A third linear method. and distortion. With the deletion of these methods from the Provisions. a classification system is established based on the use and size of the building. For essential facilities. and a nonlinear method are also permitted. . subject to certain limitations. stability. Yieldlevel strengths for steel and concrete structures are easily obtained from common design standards. under “Purpose. 1. due to any cause. the engineering profession has not yet embraced these new methods. the intent of the Provisions is that there be low likelihood of structural collapse. 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. This classification is called the Seismic Use Group (SUG). Analytical procedures are classified by two facets: linear versus nonlinear and dynamic versus equivalent static. 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. 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. Most of these adjustments were simple factors to be applied to conventional allowable stresses.
substantial changes were made to the appendix for the nonlinear static procedure based. are determined for each mode directly from the procedure. the torsion must be amplified. 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. The specified elastic spectrum is based on a damping level at 5 percent of critical damping. The base shear for each mode is determined from a design spectrum that is essentially the same as that for the static procedure. particularly in tall buildings. which is generally the total permanent load. an envelope of gross overturning moment that is larger than the dynamic studies indicate is necessary. The particular acceleration for the building is determined from this spectrum by selecting a value for the natural period of vibration. These are calculated from a mathematical model of the structure. 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 primary difference is that the natural period and corresponding deflected shape must be known for several of the natural modes of vibration. The resulting internal forces are combined with the effects of gravity loads and then compared to the full strength of the members. which ranges from 11/4 to 8. This set of forces will produce. This summation gives a statistical estimate of maximum response when the participation of the various modes is random. and if the threshold is exceeded. and the modal procedure is required for structures with large periods (essentially this means tall structures) in the higher seismic design categories. The entire reduction from the elastic spectrum to design spectrum is accomplished by dividing the elastic spectrum by the coefficient R. The twist produced by real and accidental torsion is then compared to a threshold. 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. which are not reduced by a factor of safety. A nonlinear static method. but limits are placed on the results of such calculations. also know as a pushover analysis. [In the 2003 Provisions. the level of the design spectrum is set by determining the appropriate values of basic seismic acceleration. in part. the base shear is obtained by multiplying it by the total effective mass of the building. Once the total lateral force is determined. and the value for R. This concept is referred to as horizontal torsion. (The area and length of shear walls come into play with an optional set of equations. Equations that require only the height and type of structural system are given to approximate the natural period for various building types. and the resulting story shears and overturning moments. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples for the range of periods of interest for the structure in question. uncertainties in the strength and stiffness of the structural elements. and a part of the R factor accomplishes adjustments in the damping level. 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.FEMA 451. the modal analysis procedure is very similar to the equivalent static force procedure. Total values for subsequent analysis and design are determined by taking the square root of the sum of the squares for each mode. the appropriate soil profile type. In many respects. Dynamic analysis is encouraged. That exception accounts for uncertainties in the location of the center of mass. The distribution of forces. and rotational components in the basic ground shaking. If two or more of the modes have very 114 . With one exception. With the equivalent static force procedure. on the results of the Applied Technology Council’s Project 55.) Calculation of a period based on an analytical model of the structure is encouraged. 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). These limits prevent the use of a very flexible model in order to obtain a large period and correspondingly low acceleration. is described in an appendix for trial use and comment. the equivalent static force procedure specifies how this force is to be distributed along the height of the building.] The two most common linear methods make use of the same design spectrum.
1. may not offer enough protection to brittle elements that are rigidly bound by the structure. 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). Fundamentals similar periods. When this limit is violated. For structures that are very uniform in a vertical sense. Damage to nonstructural elements can pose a hazard to life in and of itself. Third. 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. which is common. therefore. stiffnesses. the two procedures give very similar results. The consideration of horizontal torsion is the same as for the static procedure. 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. the results are not statically compatible (that is. Both methods are based on purely elastic behavior and. the moment calculated from the story forces will not match the moment from the summation). 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 technique is referred to as the Pdelta analysis and is only an approximation of stability at inelastic response levels. The dynamic response of the structure provides the dynamic input to the nonstructural component. Second. need to be functional immediately following an earthquake. Yielding of one component leads to redistribution of the forces within the structural system. This may be very significant. many of their nonstructural elements must remain undamaged. such as hospitals and fire stations. The modal procedure is required for such structures in higher seismic design categories. the explicit design of some elements (the elements themselves. not just their anchorage) to accommodate specific structural deformations or seismic forces is required. First. indirect protection is provided by an overall limit on structural distortion. or masses. as in the case of heavy partitions or facades. all results are scaled up in direct proportion. more advanced techniques for summing the values are required. the limits specified. Early recognition of this will avoid considerable problems in later analysis and checking. 115 . The Provisions treats damage to and from nonstructural elements in three ways. More restrictive limits are placed upon those SUGs for which better performance is desired given the occurrence of strong ground shaking. none of the linear methods can account for it. Both of the common methods require consideration of the stability of the building as a whole.5 NONSTRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF BUILDINGS Severe ground shaking often results in considerable damage to the nonstructural elements of buildings. Some buildings. Because the forces applied at each story. thus. The technique is based on elastic amplification of horizontal displacements created by the action of gravity on the displaced masses. The sum of the absolute values for each mode is always conservative. many components must be anchored for an equivalent static force.Chapter 1. yet. A simple factor is calculated and the amplification is provided for in designing member strengths when the amplification exceeds about 10 percent. however. or it can create a hazard if the nonstructural element ceases to function. as in the case of a fire suppression system. these procedures must account for coupling in the response of close modes. The modal analysis method is better for buildings having unequal story heights. neither will give a particularly accurate picture of behavior in an earthquake approaching the design event. the story shears. and the overturning moments are separately obtained from the summing procedure. The response of the component is often amplified above the response of the supporting structure.
and a crude approximation of the flexibility of the component or its anchorage. Also included in the Provisions is a quantitative measure for the deformation imposed upon nonstructural components. Loads experienced during construction provide a significant test of the likely performance of ordinary buildings under gravity loads. and experience has shown that flaws in construction show up in a disappointingly large number of buildings as distress and failure due to earthquakes. The Provisions also requires that the contractor and building official be aware of the requirements specified by the designer. 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. Tragically. and 4. An estimate of component acceleration that depends on the structural response acceleration for short period structures. detailed requirements for assuring quality during construction are contained in the Provisions. 3. 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. The function or importance of the component or the building.FEMA 451. 2. such as cladding or piping. No comparable proof test exists for horizontal loads. Minimum levels of testing and inspection are specified in the Provisions for various types of systems and components. 116 . The force for which components are checked depends on: 1. the relative height of the component within the structure. 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. but it is fairly rare. The available ductility of the component or its anchorage. The component mass. soundly executed.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE Since strong ground shaking has tended to reveal hidden flaws or weak links in buildings. In the final analysis. Furthermore. 1. The quality assurance provisions require a systematic approach with an emphasis on documentation and communication. there is no substitute for a sound design. which is not the case for response to other loads. This is coupled with the fact that the design is based on excursions into inelastic straining. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The Provisions simplifies the concept greatly.
The table that concludes this chapter provides cross references for ASCE 7 and the 2000 and 2000 editions of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Additions to. The flow charts and table that follow are provided to assist the user of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and. Annotations within brackets.3). The flow charts provide an overview of the complete process for satisfying the 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. 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.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. Order by FEMA Publication number. The details contained in the many standards referenced in the Provisions are not included. P. Chart 2. For those readers coming from ASCE 705. 21 .20). [ ]. application for nonbuilding structures requires the use of various portions of the Provisions with appropriate modification. the actual flow of information when proportioning structural members for the seismic load effects specified in the Provisions will be considerably more complex. the International Building Code. and alterations of existing structures are covered by the NEHRP Recommended Provisions (see Chart 2. Notes indicate discrepancies and errors in the Provisions. Optional items and modified flow are indicated by dashed lines. The flow charts are expected to be of most use to those who are unfamiliar with the scope of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. see the cross reference table at the end of this chapter. by extension. and NFPA 5000. Although the examples in this volume are based on the 2000 Provisions.E. On each chart the flow generally is from a heavyweight box at the topleft to a mediumweight box at the bottomright. but evaluation and rehabilitation of existing structures is not. Both editions of the Provisions can be obtained free from the FEMA Publications Distribution Center by calling 18004802520.2 GUIDE TO USE OF THE PROVISIONS Michael Valley. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. 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). they have been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. The level of detail shown varies. but they cannot substitute for a careful reading of the Provisions. changes of use in. the seismic provisions of ASCE 7. including the content of all technical chapters. therefore. All of the specific provisions pertaining to nonbuilding structures are collected together on one page (Chart 2.
A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings (FEMA 310) was developed as an update to the original FEMA 178. Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273) and a corresponding Commentary (FEMA 274) have also been developed.FEMA 451. repair. and repair of steel moment frame structures (FEMA 351 and 352). although this document has since been replaced by the ASCE 31 Standard (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings). In addition. and rehabilitation of earthquakedamaged concrete and masonry wall buildings (FEMA 306. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In recent years FEMA has sponsored several coordinated efforts dealing with seismic safety in existing buildings. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings) based on FEMA 273 has been developed and is in balloting as ASCE 41. 307. rehabilitation. A prestandard (FEMA 356. postearthquake assessment. 22 . specific recommendations have been developed for the evaluation. and 308) and for the evaluation.
1 Overall Summary of Flow Chart 2.21 Foundations 23 .7 SoilStructure Interaction Chart 2.10 Seismically Isolated Chart 2.12 Deformation Requirements Chart 2.22 Architectural.17 Composite Chart 2. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. Mechanical.18 Masonry Chart 2.2 Scope of Coverage Chart 2.20 Nonbuilding Structures Chart 2.15 Concrete Chart 2.11 Strength Requirements Chart 2.9 Response History Analysis Chart 2.8 Modal Analysis Chart 2. Electrical Requirements Chart 2.14 Steel Chart 2.4 Basic Requirements Chart 2.5 Structural Design Chart 2.19 Wood Chart 2.13 Design and Detailing Requirements Chart 2.16 Precast Chart 2.23 Quality Assurance Requirements Chart 2.3 Application to Existing Structures Chart 2.Chapter 2.6 ELF Analysis Chart 2.
7.04 and S S ≤ 0. or C? No Yes Wood frame dwelling designed and constructed in accordance with Sec.5 and 5. Although the framers of the Provisions intended application of only a few simple requirements in Seismic Design Category A. B. Is it a selfsupporting structure which carries gravity loads? Yes Is structure a bridge.FEMA 451.4.1. 5. Satisfy freeboard requirement (Sec. No Provisions not applicable.6. or dam? No Is the use agricultural with only incidental human occupancy? No Determine S S and S1 (Sec. nuclear power generation plant. 1. [As a result of the complete rewrite of the Provisions at the beginning of the 2003 update cycle. offshore platform.4. 14. 1.2. Go to Chart 2.5. *The Provisions has never defined clearly the scope of application for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A. S1 ≤ 0.15? No Yes Is it a detached 1. 14.2 [1.1 (i. 12.5. this situation is improved considerably as the requirements for Seismic Design Category A all appear in Sec..5? No Is it an existing structure? No Yes Yes No additional requirements.2.] 24 . consider as Seismic Design Category A)*. Yes No Tank in SUG III? Satisfy Sec.2) [Sec.e.2 Scope of Coverage Determine if structure falls in scope of the Provisions (Sec.2]).7.1.6. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. a strict reading of the 2000 Provisions would lead to a substantial list of items that remain within the scope.3]. Yes Yes No requirements.2 [3.3. 4.1. Go to Chart 2.1]).3.3.or 2family dwelling? No Yes SDC A.
2. 1. No requirements.1.2]).3 [1. and alterations of such structures. * Change of use (Sec. Go to Chart 2. 1. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.2 [1.2.2.4].4. changes of use in.1. 1.1.4. 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.3 Application to Existing Structures * Addition to existing structure (Sec.2.Chapter 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 < 0.3]). 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.4) [Sec. No Do the affected elements still Yes comply with the Provisions? No Entire structure designed as new structure. * The Provisions applies to existing structures only in the cases of additions to. 25 . 1.2. Yes Yes New structural elements and new or relocated nonstructural elements must be detailed and connected as required by the Provisions.3? No Yes * Alteration of existing structure (Sec.
4.2.4.15 and S1 ≤ 0.4 of the 2003 Provisions defines reduced spectral ordinates for periods greater than T L. and electrical requirements.04? No Yes Assign structure to Seismic Design Category A. determine the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration at short periods (S S ) and at 1 second (S1).5 [3.5].* Determine Seismic Design Category (Sec.2.1.2]).4 [1. S MS .6 [3.1.2. 4.4 [3.4.1.or 2family No Fulfill site limitation dwelling of lightframe (Sec.4]). S D1 .1]).] 26 . 3.1.2]). Calculate design earthquake acceleration parameters S DS and S D1 (Sec. Go to Chart 2. all of the requirements for Seismic Design Category A appear in Sec. mechanical.314]. Design response spectrum required Yes for the analysis to be used? No Go to Chart 2.] Use Site Class D unless authority having jurisdiction determines that Site Class E or F could be present at the site. 1.2.3]).3 [1. 3.3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.22 for architectural. [For assignment of Seismic Design Category and determination of values needed for other calculations.3 [3. [As a result of the rewrite of the Provisions during the 2003 update cycle.2.1.] Calculate design response spectrum (Sec.FEMA 451.3.5.3. 4. * [Sec.6 and Yes base isolated? No Adjust MCE acceleration parameters for site class (Sec.5 for structural requirements.4. Soil properties known in sufficient No detail to determine Site Class? Yes Classify the site (Sec. 4. and S M1 as indicated in Sec.31 through 3.5 and application is greatly simplified.4]). Go to Chart 2. S S ≤ 0.2]) and Occupancy Importance Factor (Sec.4 Basic Requirements Determine Seismic Use Group (Sec. Yes Site Class E or F? No S1 > 0. 4.1.3) [Sec.2. compute S DS . 4. 1. Using Spectral Acceleration Maps 1 through 24 (or CDROM) [Fig.3]).23 for quality assurance requirements.1 [1. 4. 3.2 [1. Detached 1. 1.1 through 4.2.3. construction? Yes No Site Class F or Yes base isolated? Perform sitespecific evaluation to determine design response spectrum (Sec. 3.
Seismic Design Category A? No Classify the structural framing system and note R.9 for response history analysis. 27 . Height limits in Table 5. and special moment frame continuity (Sec.31]). 5. Seismic Design No Category F? Yes More stringent height limit (Sec.3 [4.3. interaction effects.2.6]). Opt to perform Yes more involved analysis? No Analyze for minimum lateral force.3]).] Classify diaphragm flexibility (Sec.31] apply.2. and Cd for later use (Sec.5.3]).11. Go to Chart 2.2 [4.32 and 4.2.) Determine required level of seismic force analysis (Sec. Go to Chart 2.4 [4.8 for modal analysis. 5. Calculate reliability factor. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.1 [4.1 [4.2. Seismic Design Yes Category B or C? No Requirements for building height.3.2.01wx (Sec.1] and Table 5. 5.2.2.4 [4.4.5.1]).33]).1.3.2. 5. Examine plan and vertical regularity and meet minimum requirements for irregular structures (Tables 5.2.2.1 [1.3.1 [4. 5. Ω0. 4.5.2 and 5.2]).0 for SDC B and C.2. 4.2. 5.2 [4.3. Go to Chart 2. (Note that ρ = 1. 5.4]).2.5.2.2. 5.2 [4.10. Seismically isolated? Yes Go to Chart 2.3. ρ.1.2. Comply with the stated design basis (Sec. Go to Chart 2.3.1]).2. and satisfy limitations for special moment frame systems (Sec. 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. F x = 0. deformational compatibility.6 for ELF analysis.1]).5 Structural Design Use load combinations and nonearthquake loads from ASCE 7 (Sec.5 [4.Chapter 2.5 [4. 5.3.2.
5 [5.5]).3 [5.4.4.2 [5.4]).2. Go to Chart 2.2]).2.4.2.2 [5. 5. 5.3 [5.4.4 [5. To determine the internal forces.2.6.4.6.2 [5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.4.6 Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Analysis Determine total weight.4.1]).4. (Sec. Determine the seismic response coefficient.21]).2.2.22]).6.1 [5. Carefully note the upper limit placed on periods calculated from analytical models of the structure (Table 5.FEMA 451.4.6.1 [5.3]). Calculate the overturning moments for all stories and apply the permitted reduction for foundations (Sec.4. Include appropriately amplified (Sec.4. 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. 28 .1]) and accidental torsions (Sec. Consider soilstructureinteraction? (Optional) No Yes Go to Chart 2.2]).4.2.4.2. 5.1]) and the total base shear (Eqn. 5.2.2.2.4.11.2]).1 [5.1 [5. Distribute the base shear to the stories of the building (Sec. W (Sec. 5.2 [5.4.1. A reanalysis based upon a period larger than the upper limit is permitted for calculating deformations (Sec. Determine the story drifts. Check the first order deformation for stability and amplify the forces if necessary (Sec. 5.4. 5. 5. 5.3]) inherent (Sec.4.3 [5. C s. 5. 5.7 to calculate reduced base shear.1]).4. 5. Determine fundamental period of vibration for the building (Sec.
5. 5.6.63].3.1.8. 5. Use Eq.Chapter 2.8.6. 5.2.3.2 [5.6.1 [5. effective height. Calculate effective gravity load. Return to Chart 2. etc. V 1 for V . 5.613] to calculate h. per Sec.3. Therefore.2. T 1 for T.8.1 [5. 29 .8.2.8.3]). V . ELF Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec. Use standard modal combination techniques (Sec.8. Revise deflections to include foundation rotation (Sec. substitute W 1 for W . Calculate reduced base shear for the first mode.32] to calculate W 1.2.3 [5. Effective damping need not be less than 5 percent of critical. This SSI procedure applies only to the fundamental mode of vibration (Sec.8.2 [5. 5.2. V 1.1 [5.7V.24 [5.7 SoilStructure Interaction (SSI) Modal Analysis: Follow SSI procedure for ELF analysis (Sec.61]. Calculate the foundation stiffnesses K y and K θ (Commentary) at the expected strain level (Table 5.5.1.42 [5. 5.21 [5. Calculate effective period using Eq. which cannot be less than 0. 5.8.6. Return to Chart 2.6.3 [5.2]). k. 5. 5.610] to modify foundation damping factor.2.3.1.2 [5.2. W (as a fraction of W ).12 [5.1 [5. 5. which cannot be less than 0.8.2]). 5.8.2 [5. and effective stiffness.3]).1]).2]) with these modifications (Sec.8.3.1.7V 1.6.11 [5.61]). of the fixed base structure.6. per Sec.61].8. 5.8. Read foundation damping factor from Figure 5.1. Calculate effective damping using Eq.2.6. Yes Use Eq. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.69].3.8. Point bearing piles? or Uniform soft soils over a stiff deposit? No Use Eq. h (as a fraction of h). Calculate reduced base shear.8.1].3.
3. Determine the number of modes to consider (Sec. 5.2]).5. Determine seismic response coefficient. Use statics to determine story shear and overturning moments in each mode (Sec. displacements. Compare base shear to lower limit based upon 85 percent of that computed using Sec.6 [5. and drifts in each mode (Sec.5.2] with T ≤ CuT a.4.8]). 5.2.9]). 5.9 [5.5.3. and model elements as directed (Sec.3]) that are not in the dynamic model (Sec. for each mode (Sec. 5.5. 5.3 [5.10]). 5. Go to Chart 2.3. Consider soilstructureinteraction? (Optional) No Yes Go to Chart 2.4 [5. 5.5]).8 Modal Analysis Determine whether a threedimensional model is required.1 [5.3.5.5.FEMA 451. effective gravity load. C sm.10 [5.3. 5.1]). 5. May reduce the overturning moments at the foundationsoil interface by only 10 percent (Sec.2 [5. Determine story forces. Include inherent and accidental torsions (Sec.5 [5. possibly including diaphragm flexibility. Amplify all quantities if necessary to increase the base shear (Sec. identify the appropriate degrees of freedom.2. Check the first order deformations for stability and amplify the forces if necessary (Sec. perform a linear elastic analysis. V m. *As indicated in the text.5.6]).4.4 [5.4. Use linear elastic analysis to determine periods and mode shapes (Sec.5.5.11.3]).3.3 [5.4. 5.5. 5.4 [5. 5. 5.7 to calculate reduced base shear. Amplify torsions (Sec.7 [5. To determine the internal forces. W m. use of the CQC technique is required where closely spaced periods in the translational and torsional modes will result in crosscorrelation of the modes.4]).4]).3. 210 . and base shear. Combine modal quantities by either the SRSS or CQC technique*.8 [5.7]).3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.3.3.
Select and scale ground motion as for linear response history analysis (Sec. the average is not less than the design spectrum. Nonlinear analyses must directly include dead loads and not less than 25 percent of required live loads.3. Analysis results need not be scaled.2 [5. the average of the SRSS spectra computed for each pair of ground motions is not less than 1. An appendix to Chapter 5 contains requirements for the application of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis to the design of new structures.6.3 [5.7.3]). 5.2]).5.5.4. must use the maximum value (Sec.7. Modeling of hysteretic behavior of elements must be consistent with laboratory test results and expected material properties (Sec.6.6 [5. 5.5]). For 2D analysis.1]). 5. use average or maximum values depending on number of ground motions analyzed (Sec.4 [5.1]). Scale analysis results so that the maximum base shear is consistent with that from the ELF procedure (Sec.2 [5. Nonlinear Response History Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec.5. 5.5. as follows.3 times the design spectrum.3.3. typical load combinations and the overstrength factor do not apply (Sec. 5.3 [5.2]). and story drift limits are increased (Sec.3. 211 . 5. Determine response parameters for use in design as follows. As for linear response history analysis.4.3 [5.1 [5.2]). The design must be subjected to independent review (Sec.4]).3. 5.5.4]).7 [5.3. 5.1]).7.3]). If fewer than seven are analyzed.2 [5.7. 5.5.9 Response History Analysis Linear Response History Analysis: Follow this procedure (Sec. If at least seven ground motions are analyzed.6.1 [5. For instance.4. Select and scale ground motions based on spectral values in the period range of interest (Sec. member deformations must be considered explicitly (Sec. may use the average value. For 3D analysis. 5. Subsequent steps of the design process change. Global modeling requirements are similar to those for modal analysis.3]).3.7.1 [5.3]). 5.7. 5.Chapter 2.3 [5.5.5. Go to Chart 2. 5. Model structure as for modal analysis (Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.11.7.
] 212 . Perform modal analysis (see Chart 2. 13.6]).2.3 [13.2.4.5.4.2. Perform design review (Sec.2 [13. requirements for structures with damping systems appear in Chapter 15 (rather than in an appendix to Chapter 13).8 [13.9 [13.1]? Yes No Site Class A. 13.2 [13.7]). 13. Satisfy requirements for elements of structures and nonstructural components (Sec.10 Seismically Isolated Structures Do the structure and isolation system satisfy the criteria of Section 13.6. 13.2.5]).2.1].6) and satisfy the provisions of Sec. [In the 2003 Provisions. or D? and isolation system meets the criteria of Sec. Satisfy detailed requirements for isolation system (Sec. 13.2 [13.2.4.FEMA 451.5 [13.5. C. Perform ELF analysis (see Chart 2. Satisfy testing requirements (Sec. 13.6]).8) and satisfy the appropriate provisions of Sec.6. 13. B.2.3. Go to Chart 2. 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. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. 13.11.5]) and structural system (Sec. 13.4.
2 [4. 5.4]). 5.2. Minimum forces for anchorage of concrete or masonry walls to flexible diaphragms (Sec.2.2. Minimum force effects for connections (Sec.1.7]).6.2.9 [4.6.3.6.3.5.Chapter 2. 5.1]). 5.3.2. Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Must consider orthogonal effects for some plan irregular structures (Sec.2.6. Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Orthogonal effects must be considered (Sec. 5. 5.3]).11 Strength Requirements Combine gravity loads and seismic forces as indicated in ASCE 7.] Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Consideration must be given to Pdelta effects (Sec.2]). Must consider critical loading direction for each component (Sec.2. 5. 5.6 [4.2.10 [4.2.3 [4.2 [4.6.4.6.7 [4.1.2 [4.1]) and diaphragms that are not flexible (Sec. and anchorage of nonstructural systems (Sec. Special requirements for strength of moment frames in dual systems (Sec. [All requirements for the structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A now appear in Sec. 5.6.13.3 [4. 5. 5.8 [4.3.2 [4.2.1]) and anchorage of concrete or masonry walls (Sec.6. Go to Chart 2. 5.2] apply to columns supporting discontinuous walls or frames (Sec.6. Vertical seismic forces must be considered for some horizontal components (Sec.2. 5.4. Go to Chart 2. 5. 213 .3.6.6.6.1 [4.2.2]).1 [4. 5.2]).2.2. inverted pendulum structures (Sec.6. 5.1 [4.5.2.7.2 [4.2.1 [5.2.2]). Special load combinations of Sec.2]). bearing walls (Sec. 5.5]).2.9]).6. Increased forces for plan or vertical irregularities (Sec.6.2.6.6. 1.4 [4. 5.2.2. Special load combinations of Sec. 5.1.6. is defined in Provisions Sec.6.10]).2].2.6.2.2.2.2.1.1.3 [6.1.2.1.6]). Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.6.3.4.7.1]) and combinations of framing systems (Sec.2.2. where the seismic load.2.6.2.2]).1.2.3]).2]).5.2. Minimum force effects for diaphragms (Sec.2.4.2.6.4.2.2.7 [4. Limits on vertical discontinuities (Sec. 6.1.1 [4.6.6.2. 5.2.2] apply to collector elements (Sec.5.6.1.2.1.1 [4.4.2.6.2.6.12. 5.1.3 [4.3. Minimum forces for diaphragms (Sec.2. E.2. 5.2]).2 [4.1.
2. Go to Chart 2. 5. Cd .51].13.2. E.] Separations between adjacent buildings (including at seismic joints) must be sufficient to avoid damaging contact. [In the 2003 Provisions the allowable drift is reduced by the redundancy factor for systems with moment frames in Seismic Design Category D. or F.2 [4.8 [4.1]).12 Deformation Requirements Enter with story drifts from the analysis of seismic force effects.31] (Sec. given in Table 5.FEMA 451. Compare with the limits established in Table 5. These drifts must include the deflection amplification factor. 214 .8 [4.2.5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.
15 Concrete Chart 2. 5.6.2. 5.6. metal deck diaphragms.5.3 [4. 5. 5. For various materials. 5.6.3]).6.2.5.6.16 Precast Chart 2. go to these charts: Chart 2.3. Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Continuous diaphragm crossties required. and connections (Sec.2.6.2.20.3. Consider effect of diaphragm displacement on attached elements (Sec.18 Wood Chart 2.2 [4.14 Steel Chart 2. Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Satisfy requirement for deformational compatibility (Sec.6.2.2.6.2.7 [4.13 Design and Detailing Requirements Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Openings in shear walls and diaphragms must be detailed (Sec.6.2]). 5.4.4]). 5.2.Chapter 2.1 [4.6 [4.1]).2.2. struts.5.1.5.2. System redundancy must be considered (Sec.1. For nonbuilding structures.19 215 . 5. Special detailing for wood diaphragms. Limit on subdiaphragm aspect ratio.1.4 [4.6 [4.2 [4. Seismic Design Yes Category D? No Certain plan and vertical irregularities not permitted (Sec.2.2. go to Chart 2.6.3]).6.2.2. and embedded straps (Sec.1.5]) and interconnection of wall elements (Sec.1]).17 Composite Masonry Chart 2.1]). Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. Requirements for diaphragm ties.2.
R = 3. B.2] may be used for design.14 Steel Structures Yes Seismic Design Category A.21.4.2.4] applies to steel deck diaphragms.6) and special steel plate shear walls (Sec. Sec. 8.4 [8.3] or Sec.] Go to Chart 2.4.2.7 [8. Sec.1 [8.5 [8. 8.31]. 8.7).2 [4. 8. or C? No No Using a "structural steel system not specifically designed for seismic resistance?" Yes Select an R value from Table 5.4.2 [4.6 [8.FEMA 451. [In the 2003 Provisions requirements are added for bucklingrestrained braced frames (Sec. 216 .8 [8.1] modifies the reference standards for design of coldformed steel members. Any of the reference documents in Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.1. Sec. The system must be designed and detailed in accordance with the AISC Seismic as modified in Sec.2] for lightframed. 8. 8. 8.31] for the appropriate steel system. 8. From Table 5.5] applies to steel cables. coldformed steel wall systems.
and coupling beams (Sec.15 Concrete Structures Modifications to ACI 318 for load combinations and resistance factors.] Design of anchors (Sec. Requirements for anchor bolts in the tops of columns (Sec.1 [9. axial strength of columns.4]).2]). [Some of these requirements are removed in the 2003 Provisions as they are now in ACI 31802. 1.] Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Limits on moment frame and shear wall systems.4 [1. 9. discontinuous members. Design in accordance with ACI 318 (Sec.3. [All requirements for the structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A now appear in Sec.2.] Go to Chart 2.5. diaphragm connectors. Classification of shear walls (Sec.2) [ACI 31802 Appendix D].1])." Detailing for deflection compatibility (Sec. and plain concrete. 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. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.3 [9.5]).1 [9. 9.] Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Moment frames to be "special". permitted reinforcement.1.7 [9.6 [9. 9.Chapter 2. shear walls to be "special reinforced. Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Limit on use of ordinary moment frames (Sec. 9.21. structural walls.2. 9. 217 .5]). [All of these requirements now appear in ACI 31802 or in the basic requirements of the 2003 Provisions.5. 9.1]).
12) and connections (either wet or dry) must satisfy the requirements of ACI 318 new Sec.12): location.5). Requirements for strong connections (Sec.FEMA 451.1. An appendix is provided for untopped precast diaphragms.2.1.1.1.1.2. No Precast gravity load carrying system? Yes Requirements for layout of seismicforceresisting system: diaphragm strength. columntocolumn and columnface connections (ACI 318 new Sec.11.11.] 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.21.11. The 2003 Provisions add some requirements for intermediate and special precast walls (Sec.1.1 and 9. and number of moment resisting frame bays.6 (Sec.1 and the additional items in ACI 318 new Sec.4). 9. 9. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. 9.2) and new sections.1.1.3.4 and 9. Go to Chart 2.1.1. 218 .11. inelastic testing (Sec.16 Precast Concrete Structures General modifications to ACI 318 to include additional notation and definitions (Sec. anchorage and splices. 9.1. design forces.12) as indicated in ACI ITG/T1.1. Connections must satisfy ACI 318 new Sec. 21.5). 21.2.1. 9. Diaphragm composed of precast elements? Yes No Topping slabs must satisfy ACI 318.1. System must comply with all applicable requirements of monolithic concrete construction for resisting seismic forces (Sec.2.1. Requirements for gravity beamtocolumn connections: design force and connection characteristics (Sec. [All of the requirements on this chart now appear in ACI 31802. 21.12). 9. 9. aspect ratios. 21.4.
10. or C? No Yes Must provide "substantiating evidence" based on cyclic testing (Sec.4]). [The 2003 Provisions make extensive modifications to Part II of AISC Seismic.31] for the appropriate composite system. 219 .2 [4.21. Go to Chart 2.Chapter 2.17 Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Select an R value from Table 5. B.2 [10.] Seismic Design Category A. The system must be designed and detailed in accordance with the AISC Seismic Parts I and II.2. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.
7).11). Ordinary plain masonry and ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls not permitted(Sec. Special moment frames of masonry (Sec.12).21.11). Material properties (Sec. flexure and axial loads (Sec. 11.8).6).] Empirical design (per Chapter 9 of ACI 530) may be used. 11. Go to Chart 2. 11.3. 11.18 Masonry Structures Must construct in accordance with ACI 530 and use materials in conformance with ACI 530. 11. Minimum wall thickness. limits on certain materials. 11. Glass unit masonry and masonry veneer (Sec. as ACI 53002 is in substantial agreement with the strength design methodology contained in the 2000 Provisions.9). does not result in significant technical changes. 11. 11. 11.8).5). and shear (Sec. 220 . 11. 11. 11.3.4). and column minimum dimensions. [A significant portion of 2003 Provisions Chapter 11 has been replaced by a reference to ACI 53002. and anchor bolts (Sec.3. 11. section properties (Sec.9). Seismic Design Yes Category D? No Requirements for grout.10). Reinforcement detailing (Sec.3. hollow units. Detailed plain masonry and intermediate reinforced masonry shear walls not permitted (Sec. however.FEMA 451.7). Strength and deformation requirements (Sec.10). 11. 11. columns (Sec. column reinforcement.3. and shear walls (Sec.12). Seismic Design Yes Category C? No Limits on materials and rules for wall reinforcement and concrete/masonry interface. Special requirements for beams (Sec. The updated chapter. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2. and stack bond (Sec.1 Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Seismic Design Yes Category B? No Special requirements for screen walls and cavity walls.3. and rules for wall reinforcement and connection to masonry columns.
12. 12. including the diaphragm and shear wall tables.1]? No Design and construct using any applicable materials and procedures in the reference documents.2. If satisfy Sec.2. 1.2]). Conform to requirements for engineered wood construction (Sec. does not result in significant technical changes. or D? No Satisfy an exception of Yes Sec. [A significant portion of 2003 Provisions Chapter 12.4).8 [12.] Go to Chart 2. The updated chapter. Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic.1. however. has been replaced by a reference to the AF&PA.2. Shear wall resistance reduced for structures with concrete or masonry walls(Sec.21 221 . as the Supplement is in substantial agreement with the 2000 Provisions.5 requirements for conventional lightframe construction? No Yes Unblocked diaphragms not permitted. 1.3) and diaphragms and shear walls (Sec.5.1. 12. Yes Seismic Design Category B.1 [1. ASD/LRFD Supplement.6. 12.Chapter 2. C.1 [1.1]? No Seismic Use Yes Group I? No Satisfy the Section 12.2.2.1 [1. 5.5]. deemed to comply with Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.2.19 Wood Structures Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Satisfy an exception of Yes Sec. Sheathing applied directly to framing.
May be exempted from drift limits on the basis of rational analysis (Sec. amusement structures.9]). 14.4]). and secondary containment systems (Sec. and calculate design forces per Sec.21.FEMA 451. substation.5].2. 14.) [In the 2003 Provisions the requirements for electrical structures and telecommunication towers have been removed since the corresponding national standards have been updated appropriately.5.4].5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.20 Nonbuilding Structures Use applicable strength and other design criteria from other sections of the Provisions. and piers and wharves (Sec. tanks and vessels.4 [14. 14. and buried structures.4 [14. 14.2. (Appendix contains provisions for: electrical transmission. Reduced seismic forces for use with allowable stress standards are defined. structural towers for tanks and vessels.2 [14.1]). determine importance factor. Structures Not Similar to Buildings Specific provisions for: earth retaining structures.2.2. 222 . 14.5 [14.2. stacks and chimneys.1.1.3]).6 [14. Determine Importance Factor and Seismic Use Group (Sec. Nonbuilding structure supported by another structure? No Yes Select R value and calculate design forces per Sec.11]).5. special hydraulic structures. 14. and distribution structures. Classify system. telecommunication towers. electrical power generating facilities. steel storage racks.6]) and fundamental period (Sec.3 [14. 14. Calculate seismic weight (Sec.5 [14. or Use approved standards. 14.5.7 [14. Yes Dynamic response similar to that of building structures? No Structures Similar to Buildings Specific provisions for: pipe racks.] Go to Chart 2.
[In the 2003 Provisions Chapter 7 includes a strength design method for foundations and guidance for the explicit modeling of foundation loaddeformation characteristics.2. pole type structures. Go to Chart 2. Seismic Design Category C? No Yes Requirements for: report concerning potential site hazards. ties between piles or piers.Chapter 2. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2.2). and reinforcement of piles. ties between spread footings.] Seismic Design Category A or B? No Yes Requirements for: report of seismic soil investigation. Design of piles must consider curvatures due to both freefield soil strains and structure response.4). Requirement for soil capacity (Sec.1). (Sec. 7.2.22. 223 .5). 7. 7. 7. and reinforcement of piles (Sec.21 Foundations Strength and detailing of foundation components must satisfy material chapter requirements (Sec.
Satisfy requirements for construction documents (Sec.2. suspended ceilings.2.4]).3]). Mechanical.1. 6. Avoid collateral failures by considering functional and physical interrelationship of components (Sec. 6.3 [6.7 [6.1 [6.3.7]) and accommodate such displacements (Sec. 6.1.2. and steel storage racks (Sec. 5.1]).5 [6. 6. 6. 6.8]). Architectural Components Specific provisions for: exterior nonstructural wall elements and connections.3.9]).4.7 [6.1 [6.1. and elevator design (Sec. piping systems.1. HVAC ductwork.5]). 224 .2.6].3. mechanical and electrical equipment.4]. partitions.2 [6.2. (Don't forget to consider nonseismic horizontal loads. boilers and pressure vessels. Mechanical and Electrical Components Specific provisions for: component certification.5 [6.2.6 [6.1 and 6. Select a p and R p values from Tables 6.3 [6. Go to Chart 2.2]).1. 6.3. 6.1].2 [6. Compute seismic relative displacements (Sec.1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chart 2.1. 6.4]).22 Architectural. and Electrical Components Seismic Design Yes Category A? No Note component exemptions in Sec. Components require positive attachment to the structure without reliance on gravityinduced friction (Sec. Calculate design seismic forces per Sec.23.4.3 and 6.6].3]).) Note additional requirements for component anchorage (Sec.3 [6.2 [6.2. storage tanks. Calculate vertical load effects per Sec. access floors. 6.2. and supports. Determine the periods of mechanical and electrical components (Sec. 6.2. outofplane bending.2 and 6. 6. utility and service lines.41] and component importance factors (Sec.2. alternative seismic qualification methods.4 [6.FEMA 451.2.2. attachments.31 and 6. 6. Must consider both flexibility and strength for components and support structures [Sec.
1 [2.2 [2. 3.2. No Reporting and compliance procedures are given (Sec. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chart 2. E.6]).3 [2.4]). wood connections. 8 through 14). steel connections.2. 3. No Registered design professional must prepare QA plan (Sec. selected architectural components. 3.Chapter 2. welded steel. 13.9 [13. E. reinforcing steel. or F? or Designated seismic system in structure assigned to Seismic Design Category D.2]). 3. Done.6]).3]).6 [2. selected mechanical and electrical components. 225 . 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. or F? Yes No Satisfy exceptions in Sec.2.2.1]) and affected contractors must submit statements of responsibility (Sec. isolator units. 3. masonry. Satisfy testing and inspection requirements in the reference standards (Ch.4 [2. Special inspection is required for some aspects of the following: deep foundations. concrete. coldformed steel connections. and energy dissipation devices (Sec. mechanical and electrical components and mounting systems (Sec. D.23 Quality Assurance Seismicforceresisting system assigned to Seismic Design Category C.2 [2. and seismic isolation systems (Sec. Seismic Design Category C? No Yes Special testing is required for some aspects of the following: reinforcing and prestressing steel. 3.2]? Yes QA plan not required.
5.3 6.5 1.2 12. 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 13.2 4.2 6.2 4.14 5. SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES Structural Design Basis Structural System Selection Diaphragm Flexibility.8 7 5.2 6.1 4.5 12.1 6.4 14.6 4.Table 21 Navigating Among the 2000 and 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions and ASCE 7 ASCE 7 Section Chapter 11 11.2.6 Chapter 14 14 14.2.2.4 1.3.2 2.2.1.7 12.1 2.4.4.3 13.2.2.3.2.2 4.2.5 1.1 4.2 4.2 11.4 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 . 5.3 12.9 12.2.4 4. 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.2 6.6.4 11.2 14.1 6.6.3 1.1 14.6 5.5 5.3.4 1.1 5.4.6 11.7 11.5 11.4 6.6 5.1 1.4.5 6.2 5.1.2 5.4 5. 7. 1.2.2.3 1.2. 1.5 7 4 Alt. 6.3 6.6 4.3 14.7.4 4.1 13.2 13.6 5.1 12.6. 5.4.1.10 12. 1.3. 7.1 6.5 13.11 12.8 12.1.3.12 12.13 12.6 5.5 3.2.2.5 5.5 Chapter 12 5 12.3 11.3 4.2.1 4. 5 4.2 5.6 12. 7.2 6.1 1. 5.5 5.2 6.8 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 1.4 13. 7.2.2.1.2 5.2.2 5.1 11.4 12.1.
13A.1 4.4 13A.1 5.2.3 14 14.4 15.2 15.1 14.14.1 17.10 5.2 19.4 4.6 17.6.3 14.6 15 15.5 18.4 13.2 17.3 13A.5.4 5.3 Chapter 20 20.2 13.4 17.2 20.4 13.9 5.5 3.3 14.4.1.5 13.8 15.9 Chapter 19 19.8 Chapter 17 13 17.3 13A.4 13.8.7 17.1 20.1 4.7 13A.6 15.2 14.1 5.1 19.7.2 18.5 227 .1 4.4 14.Chapter 2.7 18.2 15.3 13.8 13.3 13.9 13A.3 15.8 13.2.4 18.2 5.4.5 13.8.3 13.1.5 3.8 13A.2.7 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 18.4 14.1 5.3 18.5 14.6.7 14.1 14.5 14. 13.6 14.7 15.5 13A.8 18.3 3.5 15. Guide to Use of the Provisions Chapter 15 14 15.3 17.1 13.9 Chapter 18 13A 18.4 15.1 15.1 13A.3 20.4 13.2 14.5 17.1 13.2 5.8.5 3.6 15.6 13A.5 15.7 16.1 18.2.2.1 5.1 15.5 13 13.2 5.6.3 15.6 13.7 14.
1.4 1.1.2 21.1 11A.2 1. 2.1 Chapter 23 23.2 11A.4 3.3 2.4 4.2.2 1.4 1.4 3.5 3.1.2.1 3.1.1 11A 11A.5 2.2.2.2.3 11A.6 2 2.2.2.2.4 11B 11B.3 228 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Chapter 21 21.1.1.1 21.4 3.4 3.6 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 4.4 11B.2.3 3.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 4.3 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 3.2.2.4 2.1 1. 2.1 4.2.1 4.1.3 21.2 11B.1 11B.1 1.FEMA 451.3 11B. 3. 3.4 3.2.3 1.
and refinement of the pushover analysis procedure. a change in the treatment of Pdelta effects. as originally designed. The relative merits of pushover analysis versus timehistory analysis are discussed. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. modalresponsespectrum analysis. 2. the devices have the desired effect of reducing the deformation demands in the critical regions of the structure.E. the following documents are referenced: 31 . The results from each of the analyses are compared. and the accuracy and relative merits of the different analytical approaches are discussed.D. [ ].3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Finley A. A 12story steel frame building in Stockton. and only linear elastic response is considered. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. P. Ph.. This chapter presents two examples that focus on the dynamic analysis of steel frame structures: 1. In addition to changes in analysis requirements. Charney. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. While the general concepts of the changes are described. Washington. two approaches are used: static pushover analysis in association with the capacitydemand spectrum method and direct timehistory analysis. the analyses are performed for only two dimensions. responds reasonably well under the design ground motions. 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. California – The highly irregular structure is analyzed using three techniques: equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis. a second set of timehistory analyses is presented for the structure augmented with added viscous fluid damping devices. the structure is modeled in three dimensions. revision of the redundancy factor. the Provisions). 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. Due to limitations of available software. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. A sixstory steel frame building in Seattle. In each case. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (herein. As shown. However. This regular structure is analyzed using both linear and nonlinear techniques. A number of noteworthy changes were made to the analysis requirements of the 2003 Provisions. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. special attention is paid to the modeling of the beamcolumn joint regions of the structure. For the nonlinear analysis. Although the Seattle building. and modal timehistory analysis. In the nonlinear analysis. Annotations within brackets.
PEER1999/02. Bertero. Chopra.” Engineering Journal. 2002. “Performance Based Seismic Engineering: The Need for a Reliable Comprehensive Approach.. 1997 [2002].. and R. 1996.. K. College on Engineering. Berkeley. Third Quarter. Bertero. College on Engineering. Applied Technology Council. ATC40 Bertero Chopra 1999 Chopra 2001 FEMA 356 Krawinkler 32 . A Modal Pushover Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluation. American Society of Civil Engineers. Krawinkler.V. Helmut. and R. CapacityDemandDiagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDF Systems. Goel. K. Berkeley. “Shear in BeamColumn Joints in Seismic Design of Frames. University of California. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Goel. 2000. PEER2001/03. Berkeley. A. California: Pacific Engineering Research Center. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. A. 1978. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. California: Pacific Engineering Research Center. 3 (March). University of California. 1999. K. Chopra. 2001.FEMA 451. R. D. and V. K. Berkeley. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Seismic American Institute of Steel Construction.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31.
For this reason. thick to minimize pedestrianinduced vibrations. and detailing are not discussed. California). and support heavier live loads than do the upper roofs or typical floors. The total height of the building above grade is 155. member stress checks. modal timehistory analysis using a suite of three different recorded ground motions based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5. modalresponsespectrum analysis based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5. special attention is given to applying the Provisions rules for orthogonal loading and accidental torsion. The slabs on Levels 5 and 9 have an average thickness of 6.0 ft below grade. Threedimensional. Inc. CALIFORNIA 3. Berkeley. The slab at Level G is 6. Threedimensional.0 in. 33 .1. At the perimeter of the base of the building. The building is laid out on a rectangular grid with a maximum of seven 30ftwide bays in the X direction. The low roofs at Levels 5 and 9 are used as outdoor patios. 2.5 ft. and 9. For detailed examples of the seismicresistant design of structural steel buildings.1. Reinforced 1ftthick concrete walls form the perimeter of the basement. Equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure based on the requirements of Provisions Chapter 5.0 in. at all levels except Levels G. is performed using three methods: 1. Both the plan and elevation of the structure are irregular with setbacks occurring at Levels 5 and 9. member design. and seven 25ft bays in the Y direction.11 through 3. 5. STOCKTON..0 in. the columns are embedded into pilasters cast into the basement walls. All analyses were performed using the finite element analysis program SAP2000 (developed by Computers and Structures. Structural Analysis 3. for more effective shear transfer through the diaphragm. All stories have a height of 12. The analysis of the structure. All tie beams and pile caps are connected by a grid of reinforced concrete grade beams. In each case.1 Introduction This example presents the analysis of a 12story steel frame building under seismic effects acting alone. and 3.5 ft except for the first story which is 18 ft high. see Chapter 5 of this volume of design examples.13. Interior columns are supported by concrete caps over piles. and to support heavy floor loads.2 Description of Structure The structure is a 12story special moment frame of structural steel. The structure has a full onestory basement that extends 18.Chapter 3. Gravity loads are resisted by composite beams and girders that support a normal weight concrete slab on metal deck. The slab has an average thickness of 4. with the walls supported on reinforced concrete tie beams over piles. Gravity forces due to live and dead load are not computed. 3. shown in Figures 3.1 IRREGULAR 12STORY STEEL FRAME BUILDING.
34 .0 ft = 0.3048 m). 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 3.11 Various floor plans of 12story Stockton building (1.FEMA 451.
= 0.0 ft.12 Sections through Stockton building (1. 2 at 18'0" 2 2 at 18'0" 2 35 .Chapter 3.3048 m). 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.
1. much of the Ydirection seismic shears below Level 9 are transferred through the diaphragms to the frames on Grids A and H. California. According to Provisions Maps 7 and 8. The lateralloadresisting system consists of special moment frames at the perimeter of the building and along Grids C and F. Overturning moments developed in the upper levels of these frames are transferred down to the foundation by outriggering action provided by the columns.3 Provisions Analysis Parameters Stockton.40 [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps. Girders in the moment frames vary from W30x108 at the roof to W30x132 at Level G. and floor members and interior columns that are sized strictly for gravity forces are 50 ksi.25 S1 = 0. but the lateralloadresisting girders terminate at Level 5 for Grid C and Level 9 for Grid F. 3. Girders below these levels are simply connected. Members of the moment resisting frames have a yield strength of 36 ksi. 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). is in San Joaquin County approximately 60 miles east of Oakland. For the frames on Grids C and F.13 Threedimensional wireframe model of Stockton building. Due to the fact that the momentresisting girders terminate in Frames C and F.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Z Y X Figure 3. the shortperiod and 1second mapped spectral acceleration parameters are: Ss = 1. Columns in the momentresisting frame range in size from W24x146 at the roof to W24x229 at Level G.] 36 . the columns extend down to the foundation.
25) = 1.2.32]: S MS = Fa S S = 1.1. The lateralloadresisting system of the building is a special momentresisting frame of structural steel. according to Provisions Table 1.2 [4. This may be done two different ways: 1. as explained later. This requirement is based on apparent plan and vertical irregularities as described in Provisions Tables 5. 3.5. These properties include mass.52 [3. Line masses. To perform a threedimensional modal or timehistory analysis.1(b) [1. certain aspects of an ELF analysis are needed in the modalresponsespectrum analysis.32]. 4.Chapter 3.31 and 3. only the translational mass is required.1.56) = 0.56 where the coefficients Fa = 1. the adjusted maximum considered 5percentdamped spectral accelerations are obtained from Provisions Eq.1. the design level spectral acceleration parameters are 2/3 of the above values: S DS = S D1 = 2 2 S MS = (1.1.2.2. and damping.25) = 0.2. periods of vibration and their associated mode shapes.25 S M1 = Fv S1 = 1.3. 4.33].2.41] if the building has certain types of irregularities or if the computed building period exceeds 3. According to Provisions Tables 4.1.1 [4. Structural Analysis Assuming Site Class C. For this reason.0(1.51 and 4.33 and 3. the importance factor (I) is 1.373 3 3 As the primary occupancy of the building is business offices.3. The ELF procedure would not be allowed for a final design but.4 Dynamic Properties Before any analysis can be carried out. Provisions Table 5.32 and 4. For this type of system.833 3 3 2 2 S M1 = (0.42].2 and 5.42 [3. may be modeled as point masses. a complete ELF analysis is carried out and described herein. 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.41 and Eq.1.4.2.4(b) [3.31]. such as window walls and exterior cladding.2.45 seconds.2. the minimum level of analysis required for this structure is modalresponsespectrum analysis.41 and 1. According to Provisions Table 5.2.0 and Fv = 1.5.4 [1. it is necessary to determine the dynamic properties of the structure.5 seconds where TS = SD1/SDS = 0. According to Provisions Eq. 4.1.1(a) and 4. 3.31 and 3.2.34]. the Seismic Use Group (SUG) is I and.2.3 [4.2.4(0.4 come from Provisions Tables 4.31] gives a response modification coefficient (R) of 8 and a deflection amplification coefficient (Cd) of 5.1 Mass For twodimensional analysis. and for comparison purposes. Note that there is no height limit placed on special moment frames. the Seismic Design Category (SDC) for this building is D.1.4(a) and 4. The floor diaphragms 37 . respectively. 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.4) = 0.
The line masses are based on a cladding weight of 15. Table 3.kips). The reference point for center of mass location is the intersection of Grids A and 8.11 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. the computation of mass properties is not easily carried out by hand. must yield units of torsional moment (in.0 ft. In this case. Displacement constraints are used to represent the inplane rigidity of the diaphragm. The computation of the floor masses using Approach 2 is described below. 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.12. 1. both approaches are illustrated. assumed rigid inplane diaphragms and modeled the diaphragms using constraints. The location of the master node should coincide with the center of mass of the floor plate. This mass is associated with an extremely stiff story (the basement level) and is not dynamically excited by the earthquake. and definitions of auxiliary masses such as line.9 N/m2.kipsec2/radian).) In the analysis performed herein.0 psf. The uniform area and line masses associated with the various floor plates are given in Tables 3.13 includes a mass computed for Level G of the building.14 for mass location.13. 2. Final analysis used Approach 1. and locations of center of mass are shown in Table 3. but the frequencies and mode shapes obtained from Approach 1 were verified with a separate model using Approach 2. The basic input for the program consists of the shape of the floor plate. story heights of 12. floor masses are computed by hand (or an auxiliary program) and entered at the “master node” location of each floor diaphragm. when multiplied by angular acceleration (radians/sec2).0 psf = 47. by default. this mass is not included in equivalent lateral force computations. rectangular.5 or 18.FEMA 451. The floor is assumed to be rigid inplane but is modeled without explicit diaphragm elements. mass moment of inertia. and concentrated mass. The total computed floor mass. a special purpose computer program was used. (Note that this is the approach traditionally used in programs such as ETABS which. 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.0 ft high bordering each roof region. and parapets 4. 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 . Table 3. 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.11 and 3. As shown later.14 shows where each mass type occurs. its mass density. For this reason. Figure 3.
0 93. 1 60.6 3 93.8 2 93.0 1350.8 93.8 0. 39 .Chapter 3.8 153.6 N/m.14 Key diagram for computation of floor mass.8 187.0 228.0 93.8 135.0 plf = 14.12 Line Masses on Floor Diaphragms Line Mass Designation Mass Type From Story Above (plf) From Story Below (plf) TOTAL (plf) See Figure 3.14 for mass location.8 5 135. Structural Analysis Table 3.8 4 93.0 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. 1.0 1485.
however.11 [5.5 ft. Provisions Sec.4.M.8 3066.2.59) = 2.) 1260 1260 1260 1260 1637 1551 1551 1551 1159 1260 1260 1260 1260 Y Distance to C. In no case.8 2330.130 4.4 (from Provisions Table 5.13 Floor Mass. 5.0 2330. Ta = 0.807 6. = 25. When a modalresponse spectrum is used.072x106 2.59 seconds be used.028 and x = 0.85 factor).8 4323. 5.21] using SD1 = 0.356x106 6.8 1595.8 3403.kipsec2//radian) 2.032 11.2 Period of Vibration 3.373g).6 Mass (kipsec2/in.7] requires that the displacements.190 7.356x106 6.2 [5.4.3 [5.5.935 8.23 sec.2.8 1595.287 4. (in.8 for a steel moment frame from Provisions Table 5.703x106 3. drift. 1 This requirements seems odd to the writer since the Commentary to the Provisions states that timehistory analysis is superior to responsespectrum analysis.8 2330. the computed period should be used. Nevertheless. (in.015 16. Mass Moment of Inertia.0 kip = 4. the timehistory analysis performed later will be scaled as required by the Provisions.017x106 2.1 3097.437x106 1.4.4.935 7.7 [5.) 4.2. 310 .130 4.4 mm.23 seconds.309x106 3.503x107 X Distance to C.1 3066.5 1595.1 [5.1 Approximate Period of Vibration The formula in Provisions Eq.4(1.032 6. For the structure under consideration.4.703x106 3. the Provisions requires that the computed period not exceed CuTa where Cu = 1.M.017x106 2. must a period less than Ta = 1.1.22].6.FEMA 451.890 Mass Moment of Inertia (in.59 sec. Provisions Sec.3 36918.) 1050 1050 1050 1050 1175 1145 1145 1145 1212 1194 1194 1193 1187 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.0 in.45 kN.3] requires that timehistory analysis results be scaled up to an ELF shear consistent with T = CuTa (without the 0. CuTa = 1. 3.26] is used to estimate the building period: x Ta = Cr hn where Cr = 0.028(155. and Center of Mass Locations Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 G Σ Weight (kips) 1656. 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 = 2.1.032 6.1 Note that when the accurately computed period (such as from a Rayleigh analysis) is less than the approximate value shown above.703x106 9. 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.5)0.017x106 5. 5.4.3. When the period is computed from a properly substantiated analysis.130 8. 1.091x106 6. Using hn = the total building height (above grade) = 155.0 6526.8 = 1.
Charney. 1993. or 36918.1.1.4. the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) technique has generally been replaced in practice by the complete quadratic combination (CQC) approach.11 [5. 5. particularly when a virtual force analysis is used for determining member displacement participation factors. Indeed.1. For the ELF analysis. Orlando. the maximum (constant acceleration region) spectral acceleration is: CSmax = S DS 0.Chapter 3. When recombining the individual modal responses. A damping ratio of 0.1 [5.1. From Provisions Eq.104 ( R / I ) (8 /1) 2 For an explanation of the use of the virtual force technique. This is consistent with the level of damping assumed in the development of the mapped spectral acceleration values.7] requires that the CQC approach be used when the modes are closely spaced.2 The virtual force techniques cannot be used for modalresponsespectrum analysis because signs are lost in the CQC combinations.23 seconds.1 Base Shear and Vertical Distribution of Force Using Provisions Eq. see “Economy of Steel Framed Structures Through Identification of Structural Behavior” by F.22]. This analysis typically is used for preliminary design and for assessing the threedimensional response characteristics of the structure.3 kips.7 [5. the ELF analysis is based on a period of vibration equal to CuTa = 2. 5. the structure’s damping is included in the response spectrum.3 Damping When a modalresponsespectrum analysis is performed. the results are the same as those for SRSS. It should be noted that if zero damping is used in CQC.21]. the total seismic shear is: V = CS W where W is the total weight of the structure. For this structure. For timehistory analysis. 3. the total effective weight of the structure (see Table 3. Structural Analysis 3.3.6526.23 seconds.13) is the total weight minus the grade level weight.4. When using CQC. Hence. Proceedings of the 1993 AISC Steel Construction Conference. 5. the analyst must correctly specify a damping factor. 3.5. Florida.5.833 = = 0. SAP2000 allows an explicit damping ratio to be used in each mode.5 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis Prior to performing modal or timehistory analysis. This factor must match that used in developing the response spectrum. it is often necessary to perform an equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis of the structure. 311 . a damping of 5 percent of critical was specified in each mode.3 = 30392.6 . ELF analysis is also useful for investigating the behavior of driftcontrolled structures.05 (5 percent of critical) is appropriate for steel structures. it is assumed that the structure is “fixed” at grade level. Provisions Sec. In anticipation of the “true” computed period of the building being greater than 2.4.
10 Equation 5.037 [With the change of this base shear equation.00 3.23 sec 0.021 T ( R / I ) 2.12 [5. 5. This change would also result in removal of the horizontal line in Figure 3.23] controls in the constant velocity region: CS = S D1 0.4.5 1.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] controls for this building.04 0.0 Figure 3. sec 2.13 0.124 kips.06 0.373 = = 0. 5.1.5 Period.02 0.4.010 in the 2003 Provisions]: CSmin = 0.1.23(8 /1) However.12 0.0 3. 5.4.08 Spectral acceleration. 5. 312 .12 Equation 5. The acceleration response spectrum given by the above equations is plotted in Figure 3.0 1. the acceleration must not be less than that given by Provisions Eq.044 IS DS = 0.23 would control.392 kips. V = 0.13 [replaced by 0. reducing the design base shear significantly.4.037(30.1.0 2.1. the result of Eq.] The value from Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Provisions Eq.16.15.5 4.1. g T = 2.15 Computed ELF total acceleration response spectrum.FEMA 451. 0.392) = 1.044(1)(0.833) = 0.15 and the corresponding segment of Figure 3.5 0. Using W = 30.4.0 0.
For this combination of SD1 and R.13 6 Equation 5. 5.01).3.4.4. 5.1.6) has been retained. it is very important to note that Provisions Eq. 5.1.4.0 3. should be used for determining member forces.0 1.] In this example.568).4. sec 2.0 3.3. in. 5.1.4.4. Provisions Sec.16.12 [5. 5.13 are multiplied by the ratio (0.5 2.4. all ELF analysis is performed using the forces obtained from Eq. [The minimum base shear is 1% of the weight in the 2003 Provisions (CS = 0.4 mm).1.210 and 5.23].13.211]: Fx = CvxV and Cvx = wx h k i =1 ∑ wi hi n k 313 . The effect of using Eq.4.1.0 Figure 3.13.1. 5.1.23 sec 0.4.2 [5. While it is certainly reasonable to enforce a minimum base shear.12 [5. but for the purposes of computing drift.4.1 has correctly recognized that displacements predicted using Eq. the new minimum controls for periods larger than 4. representing Eq. when it controls.66 second.4.4.0 Period. but should not be used for computing drift.5 4.1. 5.5 1. Structural Analysis 7 Equation 5.021/0.16 Computed ELF relative displacement response spectrum (1.1.13 for drift is shown in Figure 3. = 25.4. Therefore.13.5 3 2 1 0 0. 5.4. The base shear computed according to Provisions Eq. forces computed according to Eq. 5. The minimum base shear equation for nearsource sites (now triggered in the Provisions by S1 greater than or equal to 0.12 5 Displacement.13 are not reasonable.0 in.4.037 = 0.6.4. 5. will predict significantly larger displacements than Eq.23]should be used.13 is distributed along the height of the building using Provisions Eq.Chapter 3. the story deflections computed using the forces from Eq. 4 T = 2. For drift calculations. where it can be seen that the fine line.1 and 5. 5.
8 55.8 68.2 δ avg where.0897 100.8 12482 1595.0 16698604 0.1 30. 5.9 2336 1595.3 121923430 1.2 [5.0 30392.0280 31.0147 16.3 1124.2.4. and story overturning moments are summarized in Table 3.3 [4. E.0500 56.8 143. For SDC D.2.0056 6.5 20266027 0.3 764.1.6 578. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples where k = 0.45 kN. for example) simultaneous with the application of 30 percent of the force acting in the orthogonal direction (the Y axis).2.2 Accidental Torsion and Orthogonal Loading Effects When using the ELF method as the basis for structural design.5 51871 2330.14. and δavg is the average displacement of the diaphragm.8 865.8 93.0 11669128 0.1155 129.0 kip = 4. The story forces. 5. as shown in Figure 3.14.6 1118.00 1124.4.2.1370 154.0 ft = 0.5.9 6597 1595.9 186.5 14079657 0.14 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in X and Y Directions hx Vx Mx Fx wx wxhxk Cvx (kips) (ft) (kips) (kips) (ftkips) 1656.8 80. Provisions Sec.5(2.8 64356 4323.1 43.0 105.8 130. and the possibility of torsional components of ground motion.5 7744119 0.7 29271 2330. can be satisfied for torsionally regular buildings by applying the equivalent lateral force at an eccentricity.” In computing the displacements.2 103372 18. a torsional irregularity exists if: δ max ≥ 1.75 + 0.5 40090 2330. story shears. uneven yielding of vertical systems. 314 .0685 77. The first of these effects accounts for the fact that the earthquake can produce inertial forces that act in any direction. If the ratio of displacements is greater than 1.5 1101.5T = 0. Table 3. or F. This requirement.0 10932657 0. E. 1.3048 m.5 155. two effects must be added to the direct lateral forces shown in Table 3.0 679242 0.17. and F buildings.7 91505 3066.4 19712 3403.2.2 77733 3066. δmax is the maximum displacement at the edge of the floor diaphragm.5.2.23) = 1.2].4.5 1798066 0.” Since this direction is not easily defined.75 + 0. 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. given in Provisions Sec.0 6097272 0. these accidental eccentricities (and inherent torsion) must be amplified if the structure is classified as torsionally irregular.3] requires that the structure be investigated for forces that act in the direction that causes the “critical load effect.9 470.2 998. According to Provisions Table 5.5 120694 3097.4 1070.0 340.0635 71.5 20194253 0.4. the torsional irregularity is referred to as “extreme.4.8 118. the Provisions allows the analyst to load the structure with 100 percent of the seismic force in one direction (along the X axis.1662 186.5 8352458 0.3. 3.86.1656 186.0957 107. the structure must be loaded with the basic equivalent lateral forces applied at a 5 percent eccentricity.FEMA 451. For structures in SDC C.5 Level x R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ 1. D. 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.0 942.0 3411968 0.
The floor diaphragm was modeled as infinitely rigid inplane and infinitely flexible outofplane. and torsional deformations were included in all columns. shear. 315 . Shell elements were used to represent the diaphragm mass. The analysis of the structure for accidental torsion was performed on SAP2000.17 Amplification of accidental torsion. As may be observed.Chapter 3. 4. 3. Except for those lateralloadresisting columns that terminate at Levels 5 and 9. Structural Analysis δ average δ minimum δ maximum θ B Figure 3.16. 5. This approximately accounts for deformations in the panel zone. axial deformation in beams was neglected. Flexural. this structure is not torsionally irregular and the story torsions do not need to be amplified. The results of the accidental torsion analysis are shown in Tables 3. and modaltimehistory analysis.15 and 3. and torsional deformations were included in the beams. Flexural. The same model was used for ELF. the largest ratio of maximum to average floor displacements is 1. ignoring composite action. Beamcolumn joints were modeled using centerline dimensions. Due to the rigid diaphragm assumption. Section properties for the girders were based on bare steel. axial. shear. 2. modalresponsespectrum. Additional point masses were used to represent cladding and other concentrated masses. Hence. 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. all columns were assumed to be fixed at their base.16 at Level 5 of the building under Y direction loading. The following approach was used for the mathematical model of the structure: 1.
story drifts are computed and compared to the allowable drifts specified by the Provisions.) δavg (in.91 1. whereas the analysis for torsional irregularity did.19 1. 3.71 5.65 0.FEMA 451.34 1.) δ2 (in.17 3.96 3.01 none 9 4.71 1.26 5.38 1.14.39 1.01 5.61 5.34 1.10 1.62 0.15 none 2 0.5. are much less than those that will actually occur because the structure will respond inelastically to the earthquake. = 25.73 2.17 and 3.07 1.71 0. The tabulated drift values are somewhat different from those shown in Table 3.83 1.18.34 4.88 3. In Tables 3.74 4. = 25.96 1.23 1.90 4. the maximum drifts at the extreme edge of the diaphragm would need to be checked.) δmax (in) δmax/δavg R 5. which by assumption is equal to Cd = 5.10 1.71 0.11 none 10 4.01 none 12 5.87 4.01 none 8 3. 1.74 1.0 in. however.11 none 5 2. The true inelastic story drift.86 3.92 5.97 6.56 1. Average story drifts are used here instead of maximum story drifts because this structure does not have a “significant torsional response.00 none 10 4.61 1.35 5.10 6. Analysis includes accidental torsion.4 mm.67 4.93 1.96 5.35 1.” If the torsional effect were significant.11 none 9 4.73 1.10 none 3 1.27 1.39 4.30 1.52 2.73 5.40 1.05 2.43 1.11 none 7 3.04 7.) R 6.11 and the equivalent lateral forces shown in Table 3.15 because the analysis for drift did not include accidental torsion.11 none 4 1.91 1.28 2.16 none 4 1.11 none 11 5.91 1. These drift values.18. Table 3.83 3. In this section.30 1.5 316 .17 and 3.01 1.11 none 6 2.27 1.07 none 5 1.88 1.91 2.92 1.74 7.67 1.01 none 7 3.75 7.17 and 3.) δmax (in. The values in column 2 of Tables 3.92 3.35 5. the values in the first numbered column are the average story displacements computed by the SAP2000 program using the lateral forces of Table 3.16 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in Y Direction Irregularity Level δ1 (in.21 4.23 2.80 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.52 0.10 none 2 0.18 are the story drifts as reported by SAP2000.34 4.60 3.3 Drift and PDelta Effects Using the basic structural configuration shown in Figure 3. the total story deflections were computed as shown in the previous section.71 1.) δmax/δavg δ1 (in.40 3. 1.52 1.42 6.11 none 8 3.10 none 12 5.57 3.43 6.30 3.) δavg (in.15 none 3 0. Analysis includes accidental torsion.33 6.34 5.72 2. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3.0 in.59 1.88 5.03 none 6 2.19 3.59 0.15 Computation for Torsional Irregularity with ELF Loads Acting in X Direction Irregularity Level δ2 (in.15 none Tabulated displacements are not amplified by Cd.43 7.1.92 4.29 4.09 none Tabulated displacements are not amplified by Cd.00 none 11 5.83 1.83 2.4 mm.54 2.96 1.04 2.82 6.14.68 5.
70 1.08 1.44 1.55 0.55 2. 5.) 6.00 3.48 1.83 4.73 0.71 0. the values in column 4 are multiplied by 0.03 2.568 (in.4 mm.00 3.38 1.67 0.568.73 0.982 6.41 5.54 2. [Recall that the minimum base shear is different in the 2003 Provisions. = 25.00 3. Instead.00 4.13 (for strength).95 0.94 1.) (in.) 3.56 3.02 5 Allowable Drift (in.19 0.] 1. which produce the drifts in Columns 1 and 2.] The allowable story drift of 2.17 and 3.18 that the allowable drift is not exceeded at any level.90 0.0 percent of the story height per Provisions Table 5. is shown in Column 3.4.28 is shown in column 5.32 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Column 4 adjusts for Provisions Eq. (Recall that this building is assigned to Seismic Use Group I.59 3.00 3.45 2. 3.70 1.65 0.5. 317 .55 3. As discussed above in Sec.00 3. would be lower by a factor of 0.1.12 (for drift) vs 5.77 0. Table 3.22 1.65 3.1.) It is clear from Tables 3.92 4.00 1.39 5.1.55 3.4.1.00 3.13 since that limit does not apply to drift checks.568 to scale the results to the base shear calculated ignoring Provisions Eq.00 3.4.32 1.00 3.00 3.63 3.00 3.27 0.) (in.58 2. Structural Analysis times the SAP2000 drift.Chapter 3.0 in.) (in.00 1.00 3.65 3.40 0.64 3.52 2.75 5.1.17 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 design forces applied to the model.95 2.39 3. [Such a modification is not necessary when using the 2003 Provisions because the minimum base shear is different.18 0. 5.
is a vector containing the components of the mode shape associated with ω.66 2.58 3.19 1.70 1.98 2.79 0. and M = (1/g)W.83 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3. and φ.01 0.32 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Column 4 adjusts for Provisions Eq.45 2. This procedure.21 0. this gives: δ T F = ω 2δ T M δ = ω2 ω= g 318 δTF δ TW δ . the frequency ω can be closely approximated.43 1.43 0.18 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 0.00 3.13 (for strength).46 2.00 4. in units of radians/second.00 3.67 3.4.49 2. where δ is the deflected shape under the equivalent lateral forces F. is derived as follows: The exact frequency of vibration ω (a scalar).98 0. the design forces applied to the model. = 25.98 1. A Rayleigh analysis will be used to estimate the periods. 5.81 2. After rearranging terms.05 0. [Such a modification is not necessary when using the 2003 Provisions because the minimum base shear is different.77 3.32 0.53 1.1.49 1.91 5 Allowable Drift (in.3. noting that F = Kδ.36 1.57 3.68 0.00 3.) (in.00 3.687 5.53 3.1 Using ELF Forces and Drift to Compute Accurate Period Before continuing with the example.5. M is the (diagonal) mass matrix.4.568 (in.49 2. If an approximate mode shape δ is used instead of φ. premultiplying both sides of the above equation by δT (the transpose of the displacement vector).00 3.36 1. which is usually very accurate.) (in.12 (for drift) vs 5. Making the substitution of δ for φ.59 0. 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).00 3.00 3.61 0.11 1.12 5. is found from the following eigenvalue equation: Kφ = ω 2 M φ where K is the structure stiffness matrix.52 1.61 3.41 4. would be lower by a factor of 0.00 3.4 mm.FEMA 451. This will serve as a check on the “exact” periods computed by eigenvalue extraction in SAP2000.67 1.] 1.0 in.1.00 3. it is helpful to use the computed drifts to more accurately estimate the fundamental periods of vibration of the building.08 4.00 3.10 0.48 1.22 1.53 0. Instead.70 1. which produce the drifts in Columns 1 and 2.49 2.) 3.26 0.64 3.) (in.568.) 6. 3.1.
64 δ2W/g (in.69 170. 1.24 424. As may be seen from the tables.50 583.75 4.19 3.90 2.0 56.49 202. = 25. Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ Table 3.91 106.9 154.110 for the structure loaded in the X and Y directions.3 1656 1598 1598 1598 3403 2330 2330 2330 4323 3066 3066 3097 1259.4 mm.4 31.6 6.27 1. T = 2π/ω = 2.40 121.10 5607. Structural Analysis Using the relationship between period and frequency.10 162.02 11.2 71. T = 2π ω .kips) Drift.87 seconds and the Ydirection period of 2.39 4.73 1.95 5.0 129.23 seconds.65 186.19 rad/sec.9 107.Chapter 3.5 = 2.39 1169. 319 .42 ω = (5607/1169)0.6 186.89 164.79 54.3 100. respectively. W (kips) δF (in.87 sec.14 and δ from Column 1 of Tables 3.19 Rayleigh Analysis for XDirection Period of Vibration Force.55 2.0 in.24 3.37 274.81 19.0 kip = 4.85 51. 1.99 147.73 seconds are much greater than the approximate period of Ta = 1.71 6.77 4.22 775.kipssec2) 194.59 seconds and also exceed the upper limit on period of CuTa = 2.16 24.41 58.71 990.) 6.19 894.19 and 3.17 and 3. the periods of vibration are computed as shown in Tables 3. Using F from Table 3.8 77. the Xdirection period of 2.18 0. δ (in.45 kN. F (kips) Weight.40 5.88 76.5 16.18.
6 3066 18.02 2.4.61 6.3 3097 3.66 5.36 88.98 107.2 PDelta Effects Pdelta effects are computed for the Xdirection response in Table 3.31 47.84 5067. F (kips) Weight.43 129.5 β Cd where β is the ratio of shear demand to shear capacity for the story. (If 0.568 times the story shears also would need to be used.30 rad/sec.21 [5.6 1598 535. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3. Instead.1.80 138.0 1598 891.45 64. [In the 2003 Provisions.45 kN.FEMA 451. W (kips) Drift.32 186.14 and thereby represent the true lateral stiffness of the system. as shown in Table 3.9 1598 705. 5. the Provisions require that where θ > 0.06 9.5 = 2. The last column of the table shows the story stability ratio computed according to Provisions Eq.0 in.091.5.3. Hence.56 164.4. A5.6.21 δ2W/g 154. that effect was unintended. = 25.73 sec.98 957.94 102.05 71.6.0 kip = 4.9 1656 1123.4 4323 146. θmax = 0.568 times the story drifts were used.2. larger axial loads (Px) would be permitted where the design shears (Vx) included an importance factor greater than 1.568 factor would cancel out as it would appear in both the numerator and denominator.37 1.111 below are taken from Column 3 of Table 3. Conservatively taking β = 1.26 0.8 2330 386.83 100. 1.216]: θ= Px ∆ Vx hsx Cd [In the 2003 Provisions.0 2330 251. T = 2π/ω = 2. This example constitutes a borderline case as the maximum stability ratio (at Level 3.36 4.103. δ (in.5.82 3.09 1.] Provisions Eq.68 56.2 2330 150.3 3403 804.08 43.79 154.5 3066 50.111) is 0.17 because these are consistent with the ELF story shears of Table 3.02 20. 3. this upper limit equation has been eliminated.3.06 3.111.01 186.60 2.10 16. As previously formulated. 1.0 and using Cd = 5.] The ∆ terms in Table 3.) δF 6.62 2.0.27 5. then 0.4 mm.10 a special analysis be performed in accordance with Sec.85 4.110 Rayleigh Analysis for YDirection Period of Vibration Force.81 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Σ ω = (5067/9589)0. 5.22 places an upper limit on θ: θ max = 0. the equation for the story stability ratio was changed by introducing the importance factor (I) to the numerator.64 121.) 320 .26 77.59 31. the 0.
a positive or negative orthogonal loading can exist. and 14 – are negatives of one of Combinations 1.096 1.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips) 150 1. for each direct application of load. 5. 16.0 1910.4 mm.1. four directions of seismic force (+X.7 150 3.45 kN.) ∆ (in.1 1070. the number of load combinations increases to 16 because.8 5793. When the 30 percent orthogonal loading rule is applied.0. Structural Analysis Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3.5 942.0 3712.8 17163.3 998.079 0.0 1910.8 150 3. β was very conservatively taken as 1.8 7703.1.103 0. 10. but are not included herein.00 3066.8 465.8 14367.9 150 2.0 3681.2 1101.38 1595.022 0.8 315. it may be observed that eight of these combinations – 7. 9.0 35972.52 2330. 11.8 24898. 2.55 3097.1 Orthogonal Loading Effects and Accidental Torsion For a nonsymmetric structure such as the one being analyzed. 1.0 4938. 321 .5 150 3. and 12.1 615.091 at Levels 2 through 4.94 3066. 3.08 1595.0 2795.4 150 3.8 315.8 150 3.0 615.0 2795.9 764.3 340.22 3403. 15.0 465.5 186.18 illustrates the basic possibilities of application of load. However.9 150 3.8 315. The stability ratio just exceeds 0.8 19959. the proper load cases and combinations of load must be identified such that all critical seismic effects are captured in the analysis.1 470.44 2330. Although this figure shows 16 different load combinations.034 0. Because a more refined analysis would most likely show a lower value of β. respectively.3 1118.8 465. 4.8 465.055 0. for each direction of force. Figure 3.9 578.0 3681.085 0.0 1910.0 1971. 13.5.8 150 3.7 150 2. +Y. there are two possible directions for which the accidental eccentricity can apply (causing positive or negative torsion).111 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in.5 315.8 615.2 216 3. 3.083 0.5 θX 0.1 615.48 1595. we will proceed assuming that Pdelta effects are not a problem for this structure.0 11571.0 2795. Y) must be considered and.7 865.0 in.046 0.Chapter 3. Calculations for the Y direction produced similar results.5.5 1971. The gravity force terms include a 20 psf uniform live load over 100 percent of the floor and roof area.3 1124. 3.059 0. Orthogonal loads are applied without accidental eccentricity.071 0.58 2330.1 32260. 8. 6.1 28579.4.0 kip = 4.2 150 3.8 3882.094 0.00 4323. This requires a total of eight possible combinations of direct force plus accidental torsion.0 3868.4 Computation of Member Forces Before member forces may be computed. X. = 25.73 1656.
22]: E = ρQE + 0.72 [4.2 Load Combinations The basic load combinations for this structure come from ASCE 7 with the earthquake loadings modified according to Provisions Sec.18 Basic load cases used in ELF analysis.FEMA 451.7 [4.2. 5.21 and 4. 3.2S and 0.71 and Eq.2.2SDSQD and E = ρQE .2.2SDSQD 322 .4D + 1. 5.4. The basic ASCE 7 load conditions that include earthquake are: 1.2.2L + E + 0.2.1.1]. 5.9D + E From Provisions Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1 5 9 13 2 6 10 14 3 7 11 15 4 8 12 16 Figure 3.5.0.
5.] For this structure.3.Chapter 3. Using SDS = 0. the final load conditions to be used for design are: 1.963 .5L +E and 0. 5. 4.2.5L + ρE and 0.0 or 1. but it may not be less than 1.750 ft2.] Based on Provisions Eq. [In the 2003 Provisions. the basic load combinations become: 1. the check is illustrated for the lower level only where the area of the diaphragm is 30. Checks for upper levels will produce an even lower value of ρx.11 shows that the structure has 18 columns resisting load in the X direction and 18 columns resisting load in the Y direction. 2003 Provisions Sec. If it is assumed that each of these columns equally resists base shear and the check. ρ = 1. ρx need not be taken greater than 1.73D + E 323 . Structural Analysis where ρ is a redundancy factor (explained later). Otherwise.3.0.111 and ρ x = 2 − 20 0.2 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.2. the redundancy factor (ρ) is the largest value of ρx computed for each story: ρx = 2 − 20 rmaxx Ax In this equation. as specified by the Provisions. or the system is configured so as to satisfy prescriptive requirements in the exception. California. Where the calculated effects fall within permitted limits. and SDS is the short period spectral design acceleration.3.11 30750 = 0. is made for any two adjacent columns: rmaxx = 2 /18 = 0. rmaxx is a ratio of element shear to story shear.3. and Ax is the area of the floor diaphragm immediately above the story under consideration.4. Instead of performing the calculations that follow. Although consideration of all possible single beam failures would require substantial effort. ρ is either 1. QE is the earthquake load effect.37D + 0.833 and assuming the snow load is negligible in Stockton. 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. the redundancy factor is 1.0.73D + ρE [The redundancy requirements have been changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions. Hence.37D + 0. Figure 3. QD is the dead load effect.0 for this structure. ρx may be taken a 1. therefore.
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. Due to the relatively short spans in the moment frames.4.112. it is not expected that the nonseismic load combinations will control.FEMA 451. the gravityonly load combinations as specified in ASCE 7 also must be checked. 3. these signs are lost in responsespectrum analysis and.3 Setting up the Load Combinations in SAP2000 The load combinations required for the analysis are shown in Table 3. In addition to the above load condition. however. 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. 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.1.5. As mentioned later. It should be noted that 32 different load combinations are required only if one wants to maintain the signs in the member force output. 324 . thereby providing complete design envelopes for all members. as a result.
0 5 [11] 1.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0. 37 0. This analysis considers only 100 percent of the Xdirection forces applied in combination with 30 percent of the (positive or negative) Ydirection forces. the girder shears are compared to those obtained from modalresponsespectrum and modaltimehistory analyses. The Xdirection forces are applied with a 5 percent accidental eccentricity to produces a clockwise rotation of the floor plates. 37 0.5 2 [9] 0. 37 0.5 4 [10] 0. 37 0.5 6 [9] 0.73 0.1.73 0. the earthquake shears in the girders along Gridline 1 are computed.37 0.0 7 [10] 1. 37 0.0 1 [9] 1.5 2 [1] 0.5 6 [11] 0. 37 0.5 6 [2] 0. 37 0.5 6 [3] 0.5 8 [12] 0. 37 0.37 0.73 0.5 4 [4] 0.0 7 [12] 1.73 0.19.73 0.4.0 3 [1] 1. 3.5 8 [2] 0.37 0.0 7 [4] 1.0 3 [4] 1.37 0.0 3 [12] 1.4 Member Forces For this portion of the analysis.0 5 [2] 1.112 Seismic and Gravity Load Combinations as Run on SAP 2000 Lateral* Gravity Combination A B 1 (Dead) 2 (Live) 1 [1] 1.0 * Numbers in brackets [#] represent load conditions shown in Figure 3.5 8 [4] 0.0 7 [2] 1. 37 0. 37 0. 37 0.5 2 [3] 0.5 8 [10] 0.73 0.0 1 [3] 1.5.73 0. 37 0.73 0.0 1 [11] 1. The results of the member force analysis are shown in Figure 3.73 0. The Ydirection forces are applied without eccentricity.5 4 [12] 0.Chapter 3.18. A negative sign [#] indicates that all lateral load effects act in the direction opposite that shown in the figure.0 5 [3] 1. In a later part of this example. Structural Analysis Run One Two Three Four Table 3.0 5 [9] 1.73 0.5 4 [1] 0.5 2 [11] 0. 325 .0 3 [10] 1.73 0.73 0.
4 32.9 36.4 21.0 16.4 31.113 are indices that quantify the direction of the mode.0 39.6 33.5 39.54 17.7 29. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 8.5 22. the second mode is primarily Y translation.2 39.4 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 13.2 32.2 24. and the third mode is largely 3 It should be emphasized that.1 26.1 31. The computed periods of vibration for the first 10 modes are summarized in Table 3.FEMA 451.9 30.113 is 0.427 seconds.7 31. A direction factor of 100.1 38.0 20.6 34. in general.5 37.7 34.0 33. The smallest period shown in Table 3. is significantly greater than CuTa = 2. Analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion.4 24.1 22.1 30. 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.0 in any particular direction would indicate that this mode responds entirely along one of the orthogonal (X.0 kip = 4. the first mode is predominantly X translation.0 31.9 30. (1.1 30.9 32.8 9.6 32.4 12.113 shows.1 25.2 20.9 31. Note that the longest period.0 33.7 34.6 26. Using the Table 3. 2. 326 .5 30. the principal direction of structural response will not coincide with one of the axes used to describe the structure in threedimensional space.2 33. displacements.3 31.4 34.2 32. which also shows values called the modal direction factor for each mode.0 32.14 structural masses and the same mathematical model as used for the ELF and the Rayleigh analyses. The modal direction factors shown in Table 3.1 22.4 20.8 22.8 31. Therefore.3 36. Y or θZ axes) of the structure.23 seconds.1 31.6 ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis The first step in the modalresponsespectrum analysis is the computation of the structural mode shapes and associated periods of vibration.1 28.9 Figure 3.867 seconds.1 40.113.1 38.45 kn) 3. drift. the mode shapes and frequencies are automatically computed by SAP2000.19 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using ELF analysis.1.07 17.3 As Table 3.31 9.3 31.
it would seem that the use of 10 modes as shown in Table 3. Similarly.87 seconds) is virtually identical to the first mode predominately Xdirection period (2. On first glance.2 [5. this mass does not show up as an effective mass until Modes 37. In Table 3. the effective mass in Modes 1 through 10 is given as a percentage of total mass. as this level is extremely stiff. the accumulated 80 percent of effective translational mass in Mode 10 actually represents almost 100 percent of the dynamically excitable mass.73 seconds) is very close to second mode predominantly Ydirection period (2. Modes 4 and 5 also are nearly unidirectional.114 are the accumulated effective masses and should total 100 percent of the total mass when all modes are considered. 5. Plots showing the first eight mode shapes are given in Figure 3. and 39 are considered. the Rayleigh periods (based on loads and displacements in the X and Y directions) would have been somewhat less accurate. However. 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. Provisions Sec. the Provisions requirements are clearly met when using only the first 10 modes in the response spectrum or timehistory analysis. 38.110. but Modes 6 through 10 have significant lateraltorsional coupling.744 seconds) from the eigenvalue analysis.114 violates this rule. 327 .5. It is interesting to note that the Xdirection Rayleigh period (2.Chapter 3. The values shown in parentheses in Table 3. Structural Analysis torsional. By Mode 10. approximately 18 percent of the total mass for this structure is located at grade level and.3. For good measure. the Ydirection Rayleigh period (2.2] requires that a sufficient number of modes be represented to capture at least 90 percent of the total mass of the structure. In the case of the building modeled as a 13story building with a very stiff first story. Had the first and second modes not acted along the orthogonal axes. In this sense.867 seconds) computed from the eigenvalue analysis. 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. 14 modes were used in the actual analysis.114.
110 Mode shapes as computed using SAP2000.72 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 7 T = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Y Z X Y Z X Mode 1 T = 2.57 sec Mode 4 T = 1.87 sec Mode 2 T = 2.74 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 3 T = 1.15 sec Y Z X Y Z X Mode 5 T = 1.63 sec Figure 3.70 sec Mode 8 T = 0.07 sec Mode 6 T = 0.FEMA 451. 328 .
9) 8.6) Y Translation 0.06 (51.7) 0.61 and 4.0 7.3) 1.0 70.0) 0.6) 1.9) 0.8) 3.1) 1.3 Y Translation 0.9) 2.46 (0. the value of which is based on the magnitude of the source earthquake that dominates the probabilistic ground motion at the site.Chapter 3. 3.0 5.64 (76.724 0.149 1.7 64.4) 0.3.25 (64.434 0. 4.149 1.7 2.3 30.1.7 98.7) 0.02 (0.114 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period (seconds) 2.867 2.7 Table 3.9) 10.1) 51.34 (64.93 (65.7) 0.4 S DS T0 and for periods greater than TS: 329 .93 (68.36].8 92.631 0.0) Z Torsion 0.43 (79.3) 1.7 3.01 (78.9 91. the design response spectrum has reduced ordinates at very long periods as indicated in Sec.94 (78.37 (80.78 (75.697 0.1.2.15 (72.6 0.113 Computed Periods and Direction Factors Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period (seconds) 2.15 (77.5) 64.4 7.62 [3.03 (59.9) 2.074 0.4 5.04 (64.00 (79.074 0.565 1.2 88.04 (75.7 1.0 9.38 (79.07 (65.30 (56.46 (51.51 (64.0) 0.1.697 0.08 (77.0) 0.9) 0.3 27.0) 0.04 (0.8 1.1 0.32 (71.0 Z Torsion 0.23 (75.1 Response Spectrum Coordinates and Computation of Modal Forces The coordinates of the response spectrum are based on Provisions Eq.6.6 S DS T + 0.8) 0.01 (79.2 0.12 49.427 Effective Mass Factor X Translation 64.7 0.4.2 0.565 1. [In the 2003 Provisions. Structural Analysis Table 3.5 47. The new portion of the spectrum reflects a constant ground displacement at periods greater than TL.1 44.6) 5.745 1.1) 0.35 and 3.724 0.3) 3.744 1.2.434 0.6) 0.96 (59.23 50.6) 0.427 Modal Direction Factor X Translation 99.7 99.7) 10.867 2.631 0.] For periods less than T0: S a = 0.
) Table 3.5 4. 330 .833 and SD1 = 0.249 0.0 3.104 0.089 (T0) 0.4 0.6 0.9 I=1. R=1 0.1 0 0.373 0.FEMA 451.115 and the response spectrum.500 0.115 Response Spectrum Coordinates Csm Csm(I/R) Tm (seconds) 0.333 0.149 0.0 0.0446 1.0 1. min = 0.0 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Sa = S D1 T where T0 = 0.0 Figure 3.0416 0. T0 = 0.000 0. sec 2. is plotted in Figure 3.5 1. R = 8.7 0.833 0.124 0.373.448 (TS) 0. the computed response must be scaled up such that the computed base shear equals 85 percent of the ELF base shear. which controlled the ELF base shear for this structure and which ultimately will control the scaling of the results from the responsespectrum analysis.833 0.2S DS / S D1 and TS = S D1 / S DS . R=8 0.186 0.000 0.0155 I = 1.089 seconds and TS = 0. Using SDS = 0.500 0.5 3.111 Total acceleration response spectrum used in analysis.0235 2.8 I=1.7.104 1.448 seconds. (Recall that if the computed base shear falls below 85 percent of the ELF base shear.3 0. The spectrum does not include the high period limit on Cs (Cs.0186 3. 0.000 0.0311 2.5 Period.5 Acceleration.2 0.044ISDS). g 0.111. The computed responsespectrum coordinates for several period values are shown in Table 3. shown with and without the I/R =1/8 modification.000 0.
Groups were defined such that total shears would be printed for each story of the structure.111 does not include the minimum base shear limit imposed by Provisions Eq. The base shears were printed as follows: Xdirection base shear = 437. Structural Analysis Using the response spectrum coordinates of Table 3. the first 14 modes of response were computed and superimposed using complete quadratic combination (CQC).1. [Recall that the equation for minimum base shear coefficient does not appear in the 2003 Provisions. the required scale factors are: Xdirection scale factor = 0.13. it is clear that the vertical distribution of forces is somewhat similar when computed by ELF and modalresponse spectrum.1.7]. direct comparisons cannot be made between Table 3.4.10 The computed and scaled story shears are as shown in Table 3.87 seconds (vs 2.7 kips Ydirection base shear = 454.7 [5. 5. the responsespectrum analysis was carried out using SAP2000. The first directed the seismic motion along the X axis of the structure. 3.85(1124)/454. Hence. 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.6.85 factor).7 = 2. Combinations of these two loadings plus accidental torsion are discussed later. The modalresponsespectrum shears are less than the ELF shears because the fundamental period of the structure used in the responsespectrum analysis is 2.85(1124)/437. A modal damping ratio of 5 percent of critical was used in the CQC calculations.1.111 and Table 3. However.23) and because the response spectrum of Figure 3.18 Ydirection scale factor = 0. and the second directed the motion along the Y axis.” SAP2000 automatically computes and prints the CQC story shears.6 = 2.3.116. 5.1 Dynamic Base Shear After specifying member “groups. The response spectrum used in the analysis did include I/R. As mentioned above.1.6 kips These values are much lower that the ELF base shear of 1124 kips.14. 5.4.] According to Provisions Sec. 331 .115. If the response spectrum shears are lower than the ELF shear. the base shears from the modalresponsespectrum analysis must not be less than 85 percent of that computed from the ELF analysis.5. Since the base shears for the ELF and the modal analysis are different (due to the 0.13. Two analyses were carried out. Recall that the ELF base shear was controlled by Provisions Eq.Chapter 3.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.0 163.5 131.091) only at the bottom two levels of the structure and are only marginally above the limit.45 kN.8 400. The story stability factors are above the limit (θmax = 0. respectively.0 kip = 4. As the β factor was conservatively set at 1.18) Story R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 1. 332 .4 437. Y Direction (SF = 2.10 for the structure loaded in the X and Y directions.7 191.7 Scaled Shear (kips) 180 286 358 417 523 586 638 688 783 838 894 956 3.2 Drift and PDelta Effects According to Provisions Sec.1.2 127. Pdelta effects are computed for the Xdirection response as shown in Table 3.6 268. the scaled story drift.116 are used in association with the scaled story drifts (including Cd) from Table 3.4 292.5 315. As may be observed from the tables.111) must also be scaled by the base shear factors (SF) of 2.6 163.5 195.2 454. 5. and the allowable story drift are listed.2 358.3.116 Story Shears from ModalResponseSpectrum Analysis X Direction (SF = 2.118.0 247.10) Unscaled Shear (kips) 79.7]. it is likely that a refined analysis for β would indicate that Pdelta effects are not of particular concern for this structure.1 239.5.6 383.6 Scaled Shear (kips) 167 268 344 410 521 583 635 686 782 843 897 956 Unscaled Shear (kips) 82.FEMA 451.2 302.6 277.9 409.0 371. the allowable drift is not exceeded at any level. In Tables 3.117 and 3.18 and 2.7 [5. the computed displacements and drift (as based on the response spectrum of Figure 3. the scaled story displacement. Note that the scaled story shears from Table 3.6.1 326.5).119. the amplified story drift (as multiplied by Cd = 5. the story displacement from the responsespectrum analysis.117.0 in computing the limit.5 426.
53 1.00 3.55 3.00 3.S.968 0.00 3.51 2.32 2.30 0.00 3.117 Response Spectrum Drift for Building Responding in X Direction 4 5 1 2 3 Total Drift Scaled Total from R.09 1.) (in.65 2.27 0.757 0.72 1.18] (in.42 0.82 1.32 1.534 0.432 0.00 4.09 2.09 2.38 0.20 0.00 3.18 4.11 1.0 in.62 1.15 0.65 1.00 3.908 0.) 1.24 0.00 3.245 4.00 4.29 0.) 3.00 3.96 1.69 1.43 1.00 3.76 1.32 1.10 0.00 3.66 1.76 2.00 3.0 in.31 2.98 2.10 1.00 0. Analysis (in. Drift Scaled Story Allowable Analysis [Col1 × 2.79 1.88 1.26 1.97 1.12 0.84 1.39 0.26 0.605 0.00 3.18] Drift × Cd Story Drift Scaled Drift (in.28 1.10 3.118 Spectrum Response Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction 1 Total Drift from R.00 3.59 1.40 1.87 2.82 1.14 2.) (in.31 2.) 0.91 3.39 0.4 mm. Structural Analysis Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3.00 3. 333 .00 3.36 0.615 0.00 3.86 5 Allowable Story Drift (in.00 3.21 2.87 3.00 3.34 0.75 3.789 0.) (in.) (in.36 0.38 0.14 2.33 0.54 3.) 3.32 Level Scaled Drift (in.00 3.32 0.) 3.Chapter 3.958 0.47 1.38 0. = 25.93 2.4 mm.00 2.35 0.40 0.87 1.34 0.37 0.518 3 4 Scaled Story Drift × Cd (in. Table 3.938 0.94 2.247 2 Scaled Total Drift [Col1 × 2.04 1.439 0.32 1.99 0.) 0.84 3.60 1. = 25.S.20 2.58 1.33 0.52 R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.
8 7703.0 2795.6.032 0.8 465.081 0.14 2330.5 315. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.8 19959. Member forces created by the accidental torsion are then added directly to the results of the responsespectrum analysis.092 1.0 3868.8 17163.0 in. For torsionally flexible structures.8 315.8 3882.119 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in. there are generally two approaches that can be taken: 1.059 0.013 0.0 35972. For structures that are torsionally regular and will not require amplification of torsion.8 5793.5 1971.0 3681.075 0. Each of the above approaches has advantages and disadvantages.0 1910.3 286 150 1.0 465.8 14367.0 kip = 4.050 0.5 180 150 1.0 1971.31 3066.1. 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 1910.041 0.8 24898. Because of the required scaling. 334 .0 2795.3 688 150 2. the first approach may be preferred because the dynamic analysis will automatically amplify the torsional effects.8 465.8 315. 1.0 3712.3 894 216 2.82 1595. Orthogonal Loading.09 3066.3 Torsion.FEMA 451.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX (kips) 150 0. As with the displaced mass method.1 783 150 2.8 315.072 0.086 0. 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. this will require four separate modal analyses for torsion with each analysis using a different set of mode shapes and frequencies.0 4938. the second approach is preferred.0 11571. it is necessary to add the effects of accidental torsion and orthogonal loading into the analysis.0 1910.1 615. In the analysis that follows.1 28579. the static torsional forces should be based on 85 percent of the ELF forces.8 615.4 mm.91 3097. 3. 2.98 2330.5 638 150 2.) ∆ (in.0 2795. Compute the effects of accidental torsion by creating a load condition with the story torques applied as static forces.1 615. = 25. there are four possible ways to apply the accidental torsion: plus and minus torsion for primary loads in the X or Y directions.1 32260.87 3403.9 417 150 1.9 523 150 1.3 956 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2X 0.8 465. the absolute value of the member forces resulting from accidental torsion should be used. As there are four possible mass locations.0 615.0 3681.024 0. 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.20 2330.09 4323.101 0.1 358 150 1.65 1595. Since the sign of member forces in the responsespectrum analysis is lost as a result of SRSS or CQC combinations.2 838 150 2.43 1595.7 586 150 2. and Load Combinations To determine member design forces. When including accidental torsion in modalresponsespectrum analysis.99 1656.45 kN.
is produced in one computer run. combine 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection results with 30 percent of the scaled Ydirection results.2.2. 3. Using SRSS. Using a direct sum.113 for the X direction of response. where the scale factor is based on the total base shear developed along the principal axes of the structure. 0. 4 335 . As stated in the paper.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. 5. 2. The design force for the Level 12 beam in Bay 3 (shown in bold type in Figure 3. The paper also suggests the use of a single scale factor.1.7 [4.4 Member Design Forces Earthquake shear forces in the beams of Frame 1 are given in Figure 3. with CQC being used for modal combinations in each analysis.112. Use CQC for combining modal maxima. one in the X direction and one in the Ydirection.1] are included. one in the X direction and one in the Y direction. Perform a similar analysis for the larger seismic forces acting in the Y direction. including the effect of accidental torsion. Structural Analysis There are three possible methods for applying the orthogonal loading rule: 1.3RS X T RS X T 0. These forces include 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection spectrum added to the 30 percent of the scaled Ydirection spectrum. Accidental torsion is then added to the combined spectral loading. with CQC being used for modal combinations in each analysis. the total number of load combinations will double to four. and Habibullah.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. Suharwardy.2. 3. the major advantage of the method is that one set of dynamic design forces. Run the responsespectrum analysis with 100 percent of the scaled X spectrum acting in one direction. Run two separate responsespectrum analyses. In addition.Chapter 3. concurrent with the application of 30 percent of the scaled Y spectrum acting in the orthogonal direction. Run two separate responsespectrum analyses.112 Load combinations from responsespectrum analysis. These are shown in Figure 3. the resulting structural design has equal resistance to seismic motions in all possible directions. combine 100 percent of the scaled Xdirection results with 100 percent of the scaled Ydirection results. Perform a similar analysis for the larger loads acting in the Y direction.3RS Y RS Y Figure 3. written in 1989 by Wilson.6.
25 kips.2 18.4 27.26) + (0.9 17. 336 .1 26.6 [5.3 26.1 Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Force from 100 percent Xdirection spectrum = 6. the response in each mode is computed using stepbystep integration of the equations of motion.8 25.0 kips 9.1 20.30 × 1.1 27.7 27. Scale factor for Ydirection response = 2.0 25.4]. and then used to compute structural displacements and member forces.1 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 11.8 30. linearly superimposed.0 31.1 18.0 28.7 24.7 26.0 28.4 22.9 28.25) = 17.FEMA 451.1.5 26. Force from 100 percent Ydirection spectrum = 1.1 29.0 24.8 24.45 kN).2 26.0 29.0 20.0 30.10.6 27.2 20.7 28.7 28.8 27.0 30. The displacement and member forces for each time step in the analysis or minimum and maximum quantities (response envelopes) may be printed.5 31. The same mathematical model of the structure used for the ELF and responsespectrum analysis is used for the timehistory analysis.0 25.10 × 0.18 × 6.8 30.26 kips (as based on CQC combination for structure loaded with Y spectrum only).6 28.6 20.6 9.9 27.4 20. Analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1.85 × 1. 5. Scale factor for Xdirection response = 2.2 30.4 9.113 Seismic shears in girders (kips) as computed using responsespectrum analysis. the modal responses are transformed to the structural coordinate system. Requirements for timehistory analysis are provided in Provisions Sec.7 ModalTimeHistory Analysis In modaltimehistory analysis.18.0 19.8 29.94) + (2.9 27.1 19.9 32.5 17. 3. Earthquake shear force = (2. Force from accidental torsion = 1.7 31.6 18.0 kip = 4.5 28.4 28.4 30.1 10.8 29.7 17.94 kips (as based on CQC combination for structure loaded with X spectrum only).8 26.
Washington.240 through 3. and SC) such that the average of the three scaled SRSS spectra over the period range 0. T1 is the fundamental mode period of vibration of 5 See Sec. and source mechanism consistent with those that control the maximum considered earthquake. Table 3. respectively.6. 2.Chapter 3.120 below. and C): a Assume an initial scale factor (SA.443 Lucern (Landers) EW 8192 @ 0. One scale factor will be determined for each pair of ground motions.4].6.005 seconds 0. 3. and d. SB.6 [3.005 seconds 1024 @ 0.4.6.5 The structure for Example 3.005 seconds 4096 @ 0.242 for additional information.3 times the 5percentdamped spectrum determined in accordance with Provisions Sec.1. b. However.407 USC Lick (Loma Prieta) USC Lick (Loma Prieta) Dayhook (Tabas. The scaling process proceeds as follows: 1.2 [5.2]. Compute the 5percentdamped elastic response spectrum for each component in the pair. 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.2]. 4.2 is situated in Seattle.02 seconds 1024 @ 0. For the purposes of this example. SB. 5.435 0.3. and SC. Iran) Dayhook (Tabas.460 0. For each pair of motions (A. they must be scaled using the procedure described in Provisions Sec. 337 . not strictly consistent with the requirements of the Provisions. The use of the Seattle motions for a Stockton building analysis is. The scale factors for record sets A.2. 5. and timehistory approaches. and C will be called SA. c. 3.02 seconds 0. Structural Analysis As allowed by Provisions Sec. the motion suite developed for Example 3. The development of a proper suite of ground motions is one of the most critical and difficult aspects of timehistory approaches.2T1 to 1.1 The Seattle Ground Motion Suite It is beneficial to provide some basic information on the Seattle motion suites in Table 3. including plots of the ground motion time histories and 5percentdamped response spectra for each motion.4. Compute the SRSS of the spectra for the two components. SC).2 is also used for the present example. SB.2. For this reason.2.120 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters (Unscaled) Number of Points and Peak Ground Orientation Source Motion Time Increment Acceleration (g) NS 8192 @ 0.2 [5.454 Lucern (Landers) NS EW NS EW 4096 @ 0. however. and uses three pairs of motions developed specifically for the site. Adjust scale factors (SA. Refer to Figures 3. the emphasis is on the implementation of the timehistory approach rather than on selection of realistic ground motions.005 seconds 0. response spectrum.5 T1 is not less than 1.2.460 0. the structure will be analyzed using three different pairs of ground motion timehistories. 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.7. B.2 of this volume of design examples for a detailed discussion of the selected ground motions. of course. Scale the SRSS using the factor from (a) above.1. B. distance.
Figure 3. hence.30 seconds. and it is up to the engineer to make sure that the selected scale factors are reasonable.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. the effect is even more pronounced. not 1.fema.4 mm). developed by Finley Charney. 338 T1 = 2. (The factor of 1.6 Because the original ground motions are similar in terms of peak ground acceleration.5 T 1 = 4. As can be seen. T = 1.922 has been applied to each original spectrum.0 in. At all other periods. Figure 3. Given the 5percentdamped spectra of the ground motions.149 6 The “degree of freedom” in selecting the scaling factors may be used to reduce the effect of a particularly demanding motion.373g (144 in./sec 2 1.3 occurs at a period of approximately 3.115 shows the ratio of the average SRSS spectrum to the Provisions spectrum over the period range 0. 7 NONLIN.57 sec 100 0 0 1 2 Period./sec2).gov/emi. in. An infinite number of different scale factors will satisfy the above requirements. where a scale factor SA = SB = SC = 0. For example. SA = SB = SC.867 sec. the ratio of the scaled average SRSS to the Provisions spectrum is 1.114 shows the average of the SRSS of the unscaled spectra together with the Provisions response spectrum using SDS = 0.114 Unscaled SRSS of spectra of ground motion pairs together with Provisions spectrum (1.922 scale factor to provide a minimum ratio of 1.115.573 seconds to 4.FEMA 451. do a search for NONLIN. 600 Average of SRSS 500 NEHRP Spectrum 400 Acceleration. = 25.8 seconds. At the higher modes. may be downloaded at no cost at www.833g (322 in.7 The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 3. at the structure’s fundamental mode. the effect of using the 0.) Note that the scale factors so determined are not unique. the minimum ratio of 1.30 sec 300 200 0.3 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 1.38. sec 3 4 5 Figure 3. this process is best carried out using an Excel spreadsheet. To find the latest version. the same scale factor will be used for each motion.2T 1 = 0. with T = 2. The spectra themselves were computed using the program NONLIN.414.30. For example.114 and 3. This equality in scale factors would not necessarily be appropriate for other suites of motions. at the second translational X mode. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples the structure.87 sec ./sec2) and SD1 = 0.
115 Ratio of average scaled SRSS spectrum to Provisions spectrum.8 1. See Sec. 5.0 Ratio 0. so the actual scale factor applied to each ground motion will be 0. I = 1 and R = 8.6.] The second paragraph of Provisions Sec.4. Structural Analysis seconds and the computed ratio is 1. 3.3].13 is 1124 kips in each direction. in Provisions Sec. If the maximum base shear from any of the analyses is less than that computed from Provisions Eq.2 1.2 1.0 0 1 2 Period.8 0.1. 5.13. 5. the design of the structure should be based on the maximum scaled quantity among all analyses. 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.6 0. the ground motions also should be scaled by the factor I/R. In this case.1.4 1. of course. but displacements are not mentioned.8 of this volume of design examples for more discussion of this apparent inconsistency in the Provisions. In this example.4. When performing lineartimehistory analysis. The first paragraph of Sec.3 states that member forces should be scaled. [In the 2003 Provisions base shear scaling is still required. The second paragraph states that member forces and displacements should be scaled.115.13 (Cs = 0. the displacements will be scaled.3 [5. This. 1. This is stated in Provisions Sec.922(1/8) = 0. 5. The Provisions is not particularly clear regarding the scaling of displacements in timehistory analysis.3 [5. mainly to be consistent with the response spectrum procedure which.3] states that if fewer than seven ground motion pairs are used in the analysis.3 Target 0.62. Recall that the base shear controlled by Eq.1. 5.6. is an inherent difficulty of using a single scale factor to scale ground motion spectra to a target code spectrum. explicitly states that forces and displacements should be scaled.5.6.4 Ratio of average SRSS to NEHRP 0. sec 3 4 5 Figure 3. 5. 5.7.044ISDS).4. 339 .Chapter 3.6 1.4. but recall that the minimum base shear has been revised.1.4.
4 454.36 15.95 5.1 14.42 2.16 3. 340 .84 2.5 19.30 Table 3.F. As may be observed from Table 3.5 2.31 1.121.85 6. The results from the analyses are summarized Tables 3.81 4.15 4.6 388.73 2.70 7. = 0.97 27.9 403.F.5 2.82 5.95 19.FEMA 451.11 22.96 1.0 in.03 33. 1.9 15.1 6. = 25.2 6. The required scale factors are shown in Table 3.6 393. Hence.121 and 3.19 28.122.6 2.122 Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis (Scaled) Maximum Base Required Additional Adjusted Adjusted Max Shear Scale Factor for Maximum Roof Roof Disp.11 11.85 19. 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.86 7. 1.2 2.45 kN.86 6.4 Analysis A00X A00Y A90X A90Y B00X B00Y B90X B90Y C00X C00Y C90X C90Y 1.0 kip = 4.79 5.75 31. 5. As with the responsespectrum analysis.5 519.39 398.43 399.05 27.91 10.17 475. This is expected because the ELF base shear was controlled by Provisions Eq.5 15. and one for each EW motion acting in the Y direction.122.02 381.38 388. 14 modes were used in the analysis.5.53 24.) (sec) 394.1 2.2 475.13 12.38 1.115) V = 1124 kips Displacement (kips) (in. = 0.) 394.) (SF = 0.89 5.4 mm.12 1.1.4 mm.1 2.2 381.29 1.8 523.005 seconds. = 25.68 12. The integration timestep used in all analyses was 0. × Cd (in.91 19. Analysis A00X A00Y A90X A90Y B00X B00Y B90X B90Y C00X C00Y C90X C90Y Scaled base shear = 1124 kips for all cases.37 5.95 32.02 519.2 12. one for each NS motion acting in the Y direction.2 11.28 11.9 2.48 4. Table 3.83 1.7 398.5 2.13.35 2.7 473. Also shown in that table are the scaled maximum deflections with and without Cd = 5.35 29.8 523.40 1.0 kip = 4.5 19.6 13.8 2.4.9 399.96 1.115) Displacement (kips) (sec) (in.2 2.45 kN.77 473.80 403.17 22.121 Result Maxima from TimeHistory Analysis (Unscaled) Maximum Base Maximum Roof Time of Shear Time of Maximum Displacement Maximum (S.0 in.37 4. 1.77 16. Five percent of critical damping was used in each mode.5 2.5 12.90 393. one for each EW motion acting in the X direction.27 454. each of the analyses will need to be scaled up.11 14.2 2.115) Shear (S. the maximum scaled base shears computed from the timehistory analysis are significantly less than the ELF minimum of 1124 kips.51 35.67 20.
1. For comparison purposes.51 6. Structural Analysis 3.05 5.123.39 0.61 0. compared to the limit of 3.2 Drift and PDelta Effects In this section.54 1. As may be observed from Table 3. the fact that the limit has been exceeded is probably of no concern because the factor β was conservatively taken as 1.62 0. together with the inertial story forces.12 3.00 3. Table 3.40 3.34 3.00 3.124 also shows the story shears and inertial forces that occur at the time of peak base shear.89 2.75 0. it is necessary to determine the story shears that exist at the time of maximum displacement.00 3.66 0. Before computing Pdelta effects. Table 3.0 in. 341 . this analysis produced the largest roof displacement. = 25. As mentioned earlier. it would be necessary to compute the scaled drifts histories from each analysis and then find the maximum drift among all analyses.66 2.00 3.7. 1.13 4 Allowable Drift (in.091 (see Sec.00 3.12 0.20 2.39 4.122.58 0.27 2.12 1.88 3.39 2 Elastic Story Drift (in.) 2.9 kips.1. the computed drift is 4. at Level 11.00 3.57 3.32 Computations are at time of maximum roof displacement from analysis A00X.0. the Pdelta effects are marginally exceeded at the lower three levels of the structure.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. These shears.32 2.39 3 Inelastic Story Drift (in.00 3. significantly less that the peak base shear of 1124 kips.) 3.63 4. As may be seen from Table 3.34 0.3 of this example). as the maximum allowable stability ratio for the structure is 0.95 2. drift and Pdelta effects are checked only for the structure subjected to Motion A00 acting in the X direction of the building. but not necessarily the maximum story drift.) 0.75 0.Chapter 3.63 3.08 1.42 0.) 6.14 4.00 4.54 0. the allowable drift has been exceeded at several levels.14 in. 3.00 3.74 0. are shown in the first two columns of Table 3. To be sure that the maximum drift has been determined. As can be seen from Table 3.124. For example.00 inches.00 3.4 mm.47 0.5. The maximum base shear at the time of maximum displacement is only 668.125.00 3.
45 kN. 3.FEMA 451. Orthogonal loading is automatically accounted for by concurrently running one ground motion in one principal direction with 342 .1 91.9 817.2 778.7 785.096 Computations are at time of maximum roof displacement from analysis A00X.8 315. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.8 14367.3 66.9 730.9 150 3.12 3066.34 2330.2 148.2 596.1 216 2.124 Scaled Inertial Force and Story Shear Envelopes from Analysis A00X Level At Time of Maximum Roof Displacement (T = 11.57 1656.39 sec) Story Shear (kips) R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.85 is not used.6 47.89 3066.8 3882.8 465.1 37.079 0.) ∆ (in.0 615.7.73 sec) Story Shear (kips) 40. 1.0 11571.044 0.9 150 4.3 Inertial Force (kips) 307.5 787.1 615.6 26.2 4.20 2330.0 kip = 4.1 559.14 1595.8 315.0 1910.4 49.0 1910.8 465.3 529.5 315.0 2795.13 3097.7 716.45 kN. At Time of Maximum Base Shear (T = 12.5 843.0 4938.0 35972.8 24898.7 817.9 730.8 186.3 716.5 150 3.3 45.0 in.8 17163. Accidental torsion is applied in exactly the same manner as done for the response spectrum approach.5 307.7 778.9 787.0 465.2 26. = 25.40 3403.2 122.8 855.2 65.0 Inertial Force (kips) 40. except that the factor 0.0 62.2 44.4 222.1 32260.1 668.094 0.0 3681.0 1910.3 855.053 0. Orthogonal Loading.5 662.7 150 4.0 2795.1 1.071 0.0 1971.3 668.020 0.3 135.7 150 2.125 Computation of PDelta Effects for XDirection Response hsx (in.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips) 150 2.0 468.8 615.7 150 1.1 664.8 315.4 mm.5 971.0 3868.083 0.3 50.084 0.4 149.5 150 3.8 19959.8 7703.4 529.1.0 828.0 2795.061 0.0 kip = 4.7 664.12 1595. it is necessary to add the effects of accidental torsion and orthogonal loading into the analysis.2 307.1 28579.63 1595.4 150 3.032 0.6 57.5 1971.4 29.6 319.1 615. 1.32 4323.9 Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Table 3.9 2X 0.9 223.103 0.8 465.3 Torsion.3 11.7 1124.7 95.95 2330.8 150 2.0 3681.5 843. and Load Combinations As with ELF or responsespectrum analysis.0 150 2.0 3712.1 828.8 5793.
45 kN).8 40.3 B90Y + Torsion B90X + 0. The envelope values from only the first two combinations are shown in Figure 3.4 41.2 23.2 30. Note that some of the other combinations (Combinations 3 through 8) control the member shears at the lower levels of the building. 16.0 44.1 32.Chapter 3.5 32.6 49.6 52.3 42.2 32. beam shears (kips) as computed using timehistory analysis. 343 .5 32.0 22.4 35.7 34.9 43.3 A00Y + Torsion B00X + 0. These forces are compared to the forces obtained using ELF and modalresponsespectrum analysis in the following discussion.3 A90Y + Torsion A90X + 0.4 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 13.0 43.4 Member Design Forces Using the method outlined above.0 kip = 4.4 28.1 30.9 23.9 42.3 44.3 45.9 39. Structural Analysis 30 percent of the companion motion being applied in the orthogonal direction.8 16.4 45.0 35.6 36.1 40.7.1.2 33.7 23.3 31.6 32.9 33.8 44.3 B00Y + Torsion C00X + 0.4 32.4 45. Envelope values from all combinations are shown in Figure 3.9 44.8 24. the individual beam shear maxima developed in Fame 1 were computed for each load combination.3 C00Y + Torsion 3.5 50.117.3 17. analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1. Six dynamic load combinations result: Combination 1: Combination 2: Combination 3: Combination 4: Combination 5: Combination 6: A00X + 0.2 17. it is appropriate to add the absolute values of the responses from the two directions.4 43.2 34.7 23. Because the signs of the ground motions are arbitrary.4 33.4 37.116 For Combinations 1 and 2.6 35.3 47.9 34.3 C90Y + Torsion C90X + 0.3 28.3 35.0 23.116.6 42.1 Figure 3.0 34.9 27.6 35.6 35.
6 34.8 35.3 17.1.8 36.45 kN).6 R12 1211 1110 109 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2G 14.8 46. 3.6 28.5 43. produce relatively larger forces at Levels 6 through 10.3 44.9 Figure 3.4 45.4 35.6 52.126. The difference between ELF shears and timehistory envelope shears is much more pronounced.9 25. particularly for the upper levels.2 17. however. beam shears (kips) as computed using timehistory analysis.8 17.2 25.2 37.4 37.3 45.1. For the timehistory analysis.5 45.7 41.7 43.5 45.4 33.5 50.2 24.4 42.6 36.8.7 44. the shears computed at the time of maximum displacement and time of maximum base shear (from analysis A00X only) are provided.3 38.5 24.9 24.2 34. 3.85 used in scaling the response spectrum results.1 Comparison of Base Shear and Story Shear The maximum story shears are shown In Table 3.7 35.6 29.128.3 24.1 37. The timehistory analysis also gives shears larger than those computed using the response spectrum procedure.117 For all combinations.1 38.9 36.6 36.6 49.2 30.5 35.1 36.5 32.8 Comparison of Results from Various Methods of Analysis A summary of the results from all of the analyses is provided in Tables 3.9 46.3 43. analysis includes orthogonal loading and accidental torsion (1.FEMA 451. Also shown from the timehistory analysis is the envelope of story shears computed among all analyses.3 29. ELF does.8 41. 344 .6 45.6 32.9 37.3 47. particularly at the upper levels where timehistory analysis gives larger forces. the shears from ELF and responsespectrum analysis seem to differ primarily on the basis of the factor 0.3 36.0 44.6 32. One reason for the difference is that the scaling of the ground motions has greatly increased the contribution of the higher modes of response.3 24.126 through 3. As may be observed.0 37.0 kip = 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 16.6 41.
Structural Analysis 3. envelope values would be somewhat greater. including torsion and orthogonal load effects.2 44.1.3 45.85 factor is not applied to timehistory response.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 40.6 319 468 559 596 663 786 972 1124 TH. it is not clear why the timehistory drifts are as high as they are. Table 3. A00X. it is also possible that the effect of scaling has been to artificially enhance the higher mode response. As with shear. The shears from the timehistory (TH) analysis are envelope values among all analyses.127 summarizes the drifts computed from each of the analyses.7 95.0 kip = 4.Chapter 3. particularly in the upper levels of the building. The timehistory approach produced larger beam shears than the ELF and response spectrum (RS) approaches. Aside from the fact that the 0. One possible explanation is that the drifts are dominated by one particular pulse in one particular ground motion.8. The timehistory drifts are from a single analysis.45 kN.128. but the drifts from timehistory analysis are significantly greater.2 Comparison of Drift Table 3.1. at Envelope R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. As mentioned above.8. 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 .3 Comparison Member Forces The shears developed in Bay DE of Frame 1 are compared in Table 3. The effect of higher modes on the response is again the likely explanation for the noted differences. the ELF and modalresponsespectrum approaches appear to produce similar results. 3.
044ISDS) controls for strength.70 17.99 1.9 36.0 in.4 35.3 31.43 (CS = 0.0 28.128 Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Beam Shear Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.70 1.23] (Cs = SD1/T(R/I) when Eq.57 3.41 1.03 1.09 2.7 27.982 1.5 26.89 2.95 1.7 26.20 2. the Provisions allows displacements to be computed using base shears consistent with Eq.4 42.63 4.43 1.4 mm.8.7 28. For both modalresponsespectrum analysis and modal timehistory analysis. XDirection Drift (in.65 1.4 34.3 3.127 Summary of Results from Various Methods of Analysis: Story Drift Level R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.09 2.3 44. = 25.13 Table 3.6 49.00 2.4 27.) ELF 0.5 45.8 30.1.5 32. and modaltimehistory analyses: 1.1 38. 5.20 2.0 kip = 4. the computed 346 .40 3.9 27.3 31.0 32.1 38.42 [5.87 1.5 43. Beam Shear Force in Bay DE of Frame 1 (kips) ELF 9.1.4. however.54 17.14 4.7 34.92 1.6 TH 17.34 3. 5.75 1.8 30.1. modalresponsespectrum.4.4 A Commentary on the Provisions Requirements for Analysis From the writer’s perspective.7 31.6 26.98 2.14 2.83 2.8 RS 9.82 1.45 kN.70 1.12 1.95 2.67 2.31 2.91 TH 2.FEMA 451.3 36. there are two principal inconsistencies between the requirements for ELF.3 45.02 RS 0.1 37.7 24.0 31.32 2.12 3. In ELF analysis.
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. Fortunately.Chapter 3.. but timehistory analysis results are still scaled to a higher base shear than are modal response spectrum analysis results. The factor of 0.g. As mentioned in the example.5 Which Method Is Best? In this example.] The effect of these inconsistencies is evident in the results shown in Tables 3. but not when scaling timehistory results.1. the elements are properly designed for strength. the analysis only has to be “good enough for design.” If.] 2. The purpose of analysis. [Because the minimum base shear has been revised in the 2003 Provisions. this inconsistency would not affect this example.13. The exception would be if a highly irregular structure were analyzed using the ELF procedure. 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. Also. [In the 2003 Provisions these inconsistencies are partially resolved. the structure will likely survive an earthquake consistent with the maximum considered ground motion. and modaltimehistory analyses. significant improvement is 347 . 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.126 through 3. when computer programs (e. the modal analysis should always be used for final design in lieu of ELF (even if ELF is allowed by the Provisions).1.” However. each analysis has significant shortcomings with respect to providing a reliable prediction of the actual response of the structure during an earthquake. For the structure analyzed in this example. an analysis of an irregular steel moment frame was performed using three different techniques: equivalentlateralforce. 5. the Provisions safeguards against this by requiring threedimensional dynamic analysis for highly irregular structures. SAP2000 and ETABS) that can perform modalresponsespectrum analysis with only marginally increased effort over that required for ELF are available. This might change in the future when “standard” suites of ground motions are developed and are made available to the earthquake engineering community. Hence. The use of timehistory analysis is limited when applied to a linear elastic model of the structure.8. 3.128 and should be addressed prior to finalizing the 2003 edition of the Provisions. 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. the irregularities were probably not so extreme such that the ELF procedure would produce a “bad design. The amount of additional effort required to select and scale the ground motions.85 is allowed when scaling modalresponsespectrum analysis. perform the timehistory analysis. modalresponsespectrum. 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). Structural Analysis shears and displacements must be scaled if the computed base shear falls below the ELF shear computed using Eq. In short. and determine envelope values for use in design is simply not warranted when compared to the effort required for modalresponsespectrum analysis. The minimum base shear has been revised.1. however. scale the results. on the basis of any of the above analyses.
348 . 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.FEMA 451. then why scale at all? Distant earthquakes may have a lower peak acceleration but contain a frequency content that is more significant. If the ground motions satisfy this criteria. The Provisions requires that the selected motions be consistent with the magnitude. This type of analysis is the subject of Example 3. and source mechanism of a maximum considered earthquake expected at the site. but only for very knowledgeable users. The main benefit of timehistory analysis is in the nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures or in the analysis of nonproportionally damped linear systems. distance. for the postprocessing of the huge amounts of information that arise from the analysis. The fact that there is a degree of freedom in the Provisions scaling requirements compensates for this effect. Scaling ground motions used for timehistory analysis is also an issue. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples needed in the software available for the preprocessing and particularly.
the EW girders are connected to the weak axis of the exterior (corner) columns using nonmomentresisting connections.5]. SEATTLE.21 and 3.31]. The lateralloadresisting system consists of steel momentresisting frames on the perimeter of the building. All interior columns are gravity columns and are not intended to resist lateral loads. The analysis will show that the structure falls short of several performance expectations. 5. 4. There are a 5fttall perimeter parapet at the roof and one basement level that extends 15 ft below grade. 3. 2. Linear static analysis. 1.4 [1. it is assumed that the columns of the momentresisting frames are embedded into pilasters formed into the basement wall.0. the building is assigned to Seismic Use Group I. 5. WASHINGTON In this example.2. 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. all of the columns bend about their strong axes. In an attempt to improve performance. sixstory structural steel momentresisting frame is investigated using a variety of analytical techniques. The structure was initially proportioned using a preliminary analysis. Plastic strength analysis (using virtual work). The typical story height is 12 ft6 in.22. The Provisions provides some guidance and requirements for the advanced analysis techniques.3 [1. Only the demand side of the required behavior of these connections is addressed in this example.Chapter 3. viscous fluid dampers are considered for use in the structural system. A few of these 349 .2]. At the exterior bays. Washington. From Provisions Table 1. For the momentresisting frames in the NS direction (Frames A and G). According to the descriptions in Provisions Sec. Structural Analysis 3. It is assumed that these and all other fully welded connections are constructed and inspected according to postNorthridge protocol. 3. For this example. and it is this preliminary design that is investigated. momentresisting connections are used only at the interior columns. Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. the behavior of a simple. and the girders are attached with fully welded momentresisting connections. more detail is provided on the last three analytical techniques.2 SIXSTORY STEEL FRAME BUILDING. with the exception of the first story. Nonlinear static analysis is covered in the Appendix to Chapter 5. the occupancy importance factor (I) is 1.7 [5. Analysis associated with the added dampers is performed in a very preliminary manner. respectively. The following analytical techniques are employed: 1. and analysis of structures with added damping is prescribed in the Appendix to Chapter 13 [new Chapter 15]. hence. For the frames in the EW direction (Frames 1 and 6). and Nonlinear dynamic analysis. Linear dynamic analysis. A plan and elevation of the building are shown in Figures 3. The primary purpose of this example is to highlight some of the more advanced analytical techniques. which has a height of 15 ft. nonlinear dynamic analysis is covered in Sec.1 Description of Structure The structure analyzed for this example is a 6story office building in Seattle.
350 28'0" W E 28'0" 28'0" 28'0" 28'0" . all of the analyses in this example will be for lateral loads acting in the NS direction.21 Plan of structural system.FEMA 451. would be engaged as part of the added damping system described in the last part of this example. however. Analysis for lateral loads acting in the EW direction would be performed in a similar manner. With minor exceptions. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples columns. 1'6" (typical) 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" Moment connection (typical) N S Figure 3.
Detailed calculations for the design are beyond the scope of this example.00 5 W21x147 W27x94 1.1 Table 3. Table 3.00 3 W21x201 W27x94 0. a preliminary design was performed in accordance with the AISC Seismic.) R W21x122 W24x84 1.00 6 W21x122 W24x84 1.00 4 W21x147 W27x94 1. Level 2 is the first level above grade. The top level. The story designation is the same as the designation of the level at the bottom of the story.21 summarizes the members selected for the preliminary design.Chapter 3. is at the roof elevation. All members.22 Elevation of structural system. 1 351 .875 The term Level is used in this example to designate a horizontal plane at the same elevation as the centerline of a girder.21 Member Sizes Used in NS Moment Frames Member Supporting Column Girder Doubler Plate Thickness Level (in.875 2 W21x201 W27x94 0. Story 1 is the lowest story (between Levels 2 and 1) and Story 6 is the uppermost story between Levels R and 6. Hence. A Story represents the distance between adjacent levels. Level R. Structural Analysis 5 at 12'6" = 62'6" 5'0" 15'0" 15'0" Basement wall 5 at 28'0" = 140'0" Figure 3. including miscellaneous plates. Prior to analyzing the structure. were designed using steel with a nominal yield stress of 50 ksi. and Level 1 is at grade.
and R.23. is assumed to act concurrent with seismic forces. The slight difference in loads at Levels R and 2 is due to the parapet and the tall first story. The short period and the 1second mapped spectral 352 . thick are used at each of the interior columns at Levels 2 and 3. The dead weight of the structural floor system is estimated at 70 psf.561 10.549 321 321 2.875 in.752 2. conforms to the drift requirements of the Provisions.5 psf.110 321 642 2. and 1.516 2. a cladding weight of 15 psf.573 15.882 14.561 5.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The sections shown in Table 3.22 Gravity Loads on Seattle Building Dead Load (kips) Reduced Live Load (kips) Story Accumulated Story Accumulated 2.2 Earthquake Loads Although the main analysis in this example is nonlinear. Tributary areas for columns and girders as well as individual element gravity loads used in the analysis are illustrated in Figure 3. A similar reduced live load is used for the roof.671 321 963 2. and the size of the column relative to the girders should ensure that plastic hinges will form in the girders. 3.870 2. respectively.634 2.2. and a live load of 0.1 Gravity Loads It is assumed that the floor system of the building consists of a normal weight composite concrete slab on formed metal deck.792 321 1.870 2. 5.561 7.284 2.926 Level R 6 5 4 3 2 Total Load (kips) Story Accumulated 2. 6.21 meet the widthtothickness requirements for special moment frames. Twentyfive percent of this load.2. the total dead load.549 2.25(50) = 12. as designed. Adding 15 psf for ceiling and mechanical.232 321 1. The structure is situated in Seattle. Washington.2 Loads 3. Doubler plates 0.2. the total dead load at each level is 95 psf. These floor beams have a span of 28 ft and are spaced 10 ft on center.2. The slab is supported by floor beams that span in the NS direction.605 2. Table 3.292 3.882 8.5 psf. or 12.22. and dead plus live load applied to each level are given in Table 3. These are based on a total dead load of 95 psf. 10 psf for partitions at Levels 2 through 6. equivalent static forces are computed in accordance with the Provisions.00 in. thick plates are used at the interior columns at Levels 4. live load.882 11.2. Doubler plates were not used in the exterior columns.398 2.882 5.366 321 1.561 12.894 17. These forces are used in a preliminary static analysis to determine whether the structure. The cladding system is assumed to weigh 15 psf. and 10 psf for roofing at Level R. Based on these loads. A basic live load of 50 psf is used over the full floor.
the maximum considered spectral acceleration parameters are: SMS = FaSS = 1. the structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category D. it is assumed that the structure complies with the requirements for a special moment frame.33 and 3.42].32].2.2. according to Provisions Table 5.494 Based on the above coefficients and on Provisions Tables 4. which.31]. and Ω0 = 3.1. has R = 8. Cd = 5.00(1.1.741 And from Provisions Eq.31 and 3.2.57) = 0.00 Fv = 1.30(0.63 SM1 = FvS1 = 1. Structural Analysis acceleration parameters for the site are: SS = 1.2.2.2.4(b) [Tables 3.1.34].1.32]: Fa = 1.Chapter 3.57 The structure is situated on Site Class C materials. 4.42 [3. From Provisions Tables 4.31 and 3.1.2.2 [4. For the purpose of analysis.30 From Provisions Eq.741 = 0.09 SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)0.1a and 4.63 S1 = 0.51 and Eq. 4.52 [3.0. the design acceleration parameters are: SDS = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)1.5.41 and 4.1b [1.4(a) and 4. 4.1.63) = 1.63 = 1. 353 .2.2.41 and 1.
2R C PB .RC A PB .23 Element loads used in analysis.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 . 354 .2R C R 6 5 (c) Element and nodal loads Figure 3.
2. Using W = 15.52]. Structural Analysis 3.4.12 [5.366) = 745 kips.028(77.044(1)(1. 5.11 [5.12 [5. Cu = 1. 5. 355 . this equation for minimum base shear coefficient has been revised.] Thus.1. CuTa = 1.1. the maximum (constant acceleration region) seismic response coefficient is: CSmax = S DS 1.2.1 [5. 3.2.4.8 for a steel moment frame. When the period is determined from a properly substantiated analysis.27(8 /1) The seismic response coefficient.91) = 1.366 kips. from Provisions Table 5.1. From Provisions Eq.27 sec.09) = 0.1.2. [In the 2003 Provisions.09 = = 0.1 [5. the total seismic shear is: V = CS W where W is the total weight of the structure. 5.4. Using hn (the total building height above grade) = 77.21].91 sec.0480 .23] controls in the constant velocity region: CS = S D1 0.4(0.26] is used to estimate the building period: x Ta = Cr hn where.136 ( R / I ) (8 /1) Provisions Eq. must not be less than that given by Eq.2. from Provisions Table 5.4.494 = = 0.22]. however.2. For the structure under consideration.13 [revised for the 2003 Provisions]: CSmin = 0.4.0485(15. Cr = 0. 5.2.028 and x = 0.1 Approximate Period of Vibration Provisions Eq.4. The results of this example problem would not be affected by the change.4.044 IS DS = 0.4. Ta = 0.5)0. the value from Eq.2 [5.11 [5. 5.23] controls for this building.494).21] (using SD1 = 0.8 = 0. the Provisions requires that the period used for computing base shear not exceed CuTa where.0485 T ( R / I ) 1.2.Chapter 3. V = 0.2 Computation of Base Shear Using Provisions Eq. 5.5 ft.4.
561 65.561 40. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3.4.033 24. 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.5(1.077 57.060.5T = 0. These are the forces acting on the whole building.3 427.1 663.334 5 2.188 140.408 0.75 + 0.4.1 The Computer Program DRAIN2Dx The computer program DRAIN2Dx (henceforth called DRAIN) was used for all of the analyses described in this example.882 0.5 621.6 43.3.2.561 15.321 239.0 426.FEMA 451.129 96.5 253.663 0.27) = 1.0 109.23. Once the linear behavior is understood (and extrapolated to expected nonlinear behavior).133 1. This is the approach employed in this example.561 52.990 R 6 2.75 + 0. DRAIN allows linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of twodimensional (planar) structures only.366 3.1.12 [5.306.4. 5. If more than one type of nonlinear behavior is expected to be of significance. it is advisable to perform a preliminary analysis with each nonlinearity considered separately and then to perform the final analysis with all nonlinearities considered.919 2 2.2 2. 356 .009 0.2. Table 3.8 32.2.725 3 2.7 23.23 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Seattle Building Responding in NS Direction Fx hx Vx Mx wx Level x wxhxk Cvx (kips) (ft) (kips) (kips) (ftkips) 2.094 0. the anticipated nonlinearities are introduced. onehalf of the tabulated values are used.253 188.561 27.1 720.6 15.3.429 4 2.385.210 and 5.549 77.077 0.0 835. 5.3 Preliminaries to Main Structural Analysis Performing a nonlinear analysis of a structure is an incremental process.23] base shear is distributed along the height of the building using Provisions Eq.2.2 [5.000 745. 3.211]: Fx = CvxV and Cvx = wx h k i =1 ∑ wi hi n k where k = 0.5 1.3 Vertical Distribution of Forces The Provisions Eq.2.735 15.8 745.6 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 3.5 8. For analysis of a single frame.3.2 239.1 567.1 and 5.
Hence onehalf of the loads shown in Tables 3. used for preliminary analysis and for verification of the second (more advanced) model. DRAIN models the structure as an assembly of nodes and elements. Type 1 elements were used for modeling Pdelta effects. Type 2 elements were used to model the beams and columns as well as the rigid links associated with the panel zones. in an approximate but reasonably accurate manner. Structural Analysis As with any finite element analysis program. deformations to occur in the beamcolumn joint region. Each beam or column element was modeled using a Type 2 element. The first model. axial deformation was not included. For the girders. Columns were fixed at their base.24. 3. Members were modeled using centerline dimensions without rigid end offsets. The column hinges form through the mechanism provided in DRAIN's Type 2 element. 2. Important characteristics of the model are as follows: 1. inelastic bar (truss) element Type 2. consisted only of Type 2 elements for the main structure and Type 1 elements for modeling Pdelta effects. beamcolumn element Type 4. While a variety of element types is available. For the columns. flexural and shear deformations were included but. Note that this model does not provide any increase in beamcolumn joint stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates.2 Description of Preliminary Model and Summary of Preliminary Results The preliminary DRAIN model is shown in Figure 3. A complete description of the implementation of these elements is provided later. flexural. The lateral degree of freedom at each level of the Pdelta column was slaved to the floor diaphragm at 357 .2. Plastic behavior in girders and in the panel zone region of the structure was considered through the use of Type 4 connection elements. because of diaphragm slaving. For the second more detailed model. the braces in the damped system.24 at the right of the main frame. 4. connection element Two models of the structure were prepared for DRAIN. This column was modeled with an axially rigid Type 1 (truss) element. All analyses carried out using this model were linear.Chapter 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.3. Plastic hinges were allowed to form in all columns. Pdelta effects were activated for this column only (Pdelta effects were turned off for the columns of the main frame). Only a single frame was modeled. 5. only three element types were used: Type 1. Composite action in the floor slab was ignored for all analysis. Pdelta effects were modeled using the leaner column shown in Figure 3. and shear deformations were included. This allows.22 and 3. It was assumed that these elements would remain linear elastic throughout the response. and the dampers in the damped system. axial. 3.23 were applied.
the computed story drift is less than the allowable story drift at each level of the structure. the deflection amplification factor (Cd) equals 5.2]. a special initial load case was created and executed. When Pdelta effects are not included.3 [5. in Story 2. As a preliminary estimate of the importance of Pdelta effects. 5. the allowable story drift would reduce to 3.24 Simple wire frame model used for preliminary analysis.8.10. including Cd = 5. In each table. 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 . story stability coefficients (θ) were computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.3. For this example.2] allows Pdelta effects to be ignored when the stability coefficient is less than 0. and the computed story drift at Levels 3 and 4 would exceed the limit. analyses are performed with and without Pdelta effects.6. and the acceptable story drift (story drift limit) is taken as 1. 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.. At Story 2. If the 1. [In the 2003 Provisions.24 and 3.2 [5.2.25 for the computations excluding and including Pdelta effects.4.45 in.3] which allows such an increase in drift when a nonlinear analysis is performed. 5.1 Results of Preliminary Analysis: Drift and Period of Vibration The results of the preliminary analysis for drift are shown in Tables 3. is 3.5. 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.2.2.7.FEMA 451. the stability coefficient is 0.25 multiplier were not used.4.6.25 times the limit provided by Provisions Table 5. This is in accordance with Provisions Sec. Provisions Sec.2.2. however.2 [5. 3. respectively.6.3. Frame A or G R 6 5 4 3 2 Y X P∆ column Figure 3. When Pdelta effects were included in the analysis.00 in. This increased limit is used here for consistency with the results from the following nonlinear timehistory analysis.5.0839. The largest magnified story drift.3.5. 5.6. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples the matching elevation.
but it remains obvious that the structure is quite flexible.75 2 1.91 3.0264 2.91 0.16 0.15 3.75 3. Structural Analysis analysis (in accordance with Sec.Chapter 3. the period including Pdelta effects is slightly larger than that produced by the analysis without such effects.25 0.50 0.75 5 3.57 3.0548 1.36 3.) (in.26.75 0.0839 0. Recall from previous calculations that this period (Ta) is 0.63 3.66 3.0683 Story 6 5 4 3 2 1 Table 3.14 0.] When Pdelta effects are included. Table 3.75 0.2. When doubler plate effects are included in the analysis.14 4.3) is required.50 2.75 0.31 0.45 3.50 The computed periods for the first three natural modes of vibration are shown in Table 3. 5.68 3.53 2.91) = 1.26].27 seconds. As expected.) Story Drift (in.75 4 2.0706 1. the period will decrease slightly.75 1 0.01 0.48 0.25 Results of Preliminary Analysis Including Pdelta Effects Total Drift Story Drift Magnified Drift Limit Story (in.33 1.53 2.87 3.91 seconds. 2 The story drifts including Pdelta effects can be estimated as the drifts without Pdelta times the quantity 1/(1θ) .) (in.11 [5.75 0.34 1.57 0.97 3.) Story Drift (in. (Hence. 359 .53 0.4.24 Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding Pdelta Effects Total Drift Story Drift Magnified Drift Limit Story Stability (in.4(0.0448 2.35 0.74 3. where θ is the stability coefficient for the story.63 3.81 0.) (in. and the upper limit on computed period CuTa is 1.) (in. the drifts at the lower stories increase by about 10 percent as expected from the previously computed stability ratios. More significant is the fact that the first mode period is considerably longer than that predicted from Provisions Eq. A5.61 3.) 6 3.75 0.2) Recall that this analysis ignored the stiffening effect of doubler plates.54 2.) Ratio 3. the stability ratios provide a useful check.82 3.2.91 4.75 3 1.57 3.77 0.
360 .485 0. This results in slightly conservative ratios.407 0.308 0.211 0.282 0.223 0.3.055 2 0.176 0. For columns.23.175 0.177 0.25. the ratio is similar except that the plastic flexural capacity is estimated to be Zcol(Fy .344 0.255 0.424 0.26 Periods of Vibration From Preliminary Analysis (sec) Mode Pdelta Excluded Pdelta Included 1 1.255 0.485 0.492 0.413 0.133 Level 4 0.452 0.165 Level 3 0.177 0.Pu/Acol) where Pu is the total axial force in the column. not at the face of the column or girder.172 0.492 Figure 3.487 0.2.282 0. Level R 0.420 0. demandtocapacity ratios were computed for each element.434 0.257 0.314 0.25 Demandtocapacity ratios for elements from analysis with Pdelta effects included.308 0.394 0.354 0.281 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. because the columns have a smaller ratio of clear span to total span than do the girders.394 0. For this analysis.430 0.333 0.135 0.280 0.148 Level 5 0. Pdelta effects were included. The ratios were computed at the end of the member.425 0.451 0.679 3 0.066 Level 6 0.361 0.177 0.394 0.333 0.344 0.164 0.367 3.2 Results of Preliminary Analysis: DemandtoCapacity Ratios To determine the likelihood of and possible order of yielding.269 0.274 0.435 0.169 0.309 0.277 0.FEMA 451.474 0.664 0.269 0.985 2.162 Level 2 0.170 0.333 0.340 0.333 0.2. particularly for the columns. The results are shown in Figure 3. For girders.435 0.253 0.182 0. the structure was subjected to full dead load plus 25 percent of live load followed by the equivalent lateral forces of Table 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 3.189 0.269 0.470 0.333 0.
3.0. upper triangular. 361 . from the face of the column.3 Several observations are made regarding the likely inelastic behavior of the frame: 1. the ratios are an approximation of the ductility demand for the individual elements. Columns hinge only at the base. The closeness of the Provisions and triangular load strengths is due to the fact that the verticalloaddistributing parameter (k) was 1. Because of the uniform demandtocapacity ratios in the girders of each level. and Provisions where the Provisions pattern is consistent with the vertical force distribution of Table 3. The fully plastic mechanism for the system is illustrated in Figure 3. 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. Structural Analysis It is very important to note that the ratios shown in Figure 3.2.0 indicates yielding. As expected.0 means that the element is just at yield.0 in. While not shown in the table. the strength under uniform load is significantly greater than under triangular or Provisions load. In the analysis.Chapter 3. which is close to 1. Hence.23 in this volume of design examples. and a ratio greater than 1. 3. 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.Pu/Acol). a value less than 1.2. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. 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. The strength (V) for the total structure is computed from the following relationships (see Figure 3.0 means the element is still elastic. it is assumed that plastic hinges are perfectly plastic.26 by R = 8. particularly at the upper levels.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. The inset to the figure shows how the angle modification term σ was computed.27. The sequence of yielding will progress from the lower level girders to the upper level girders. With the possible exception of the first level.385. the girders should yield before the columns.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. it should be noted that the demandtocapacity ratios for the lower story columns were controlled by the moment at the base of the column. With this modification.25 are based on the inelastic seismic forces (using R = 8). 3. and the plastic moment capacity is assumed to be Zcol(Fy . 2. all the hinges in the girders in a level will form almost simultaneously. Girders hinge at a value ZgirderFy and the hinges form 5. The structure has considerable overstrength.26. a ratio of 1. and this frame is no exception.0 ⎢ i =1 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ i =1 nLevels Three lateral force patterns were used: uniform.
This is reasonably consistent with the demand to capacity ratios shown in Figure 3. 3.FEMA 451. The rigidplastic analysis did not consider the true behavior of the panel zone region of the beamcolumn joint. 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.046 1. If the strength of the column is taken simply as Mp (without the influence of axial force). Table 3.886 1. 2886 kips.443 3. columns.28.4 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. the “error” in total strength is less than 1 percent. The rigidplastic analysis did not include strain hardening.523 Provisions 2. The primary reason for the difference is the need to explicitly represent yielding in the girders. is 0. Yielding in this area can have a significant effect on system strength. 2.23).27 Lateral Strength on Basis of RigidPlastic Mechanism Lateral Strength (kips) Lateral Strength (kips) Lateral Load Pattern Entire Structure Single Frame Uniform 3. 746 kips (see Table 3.26.925 Upper Triangular 3. three important points should be made: 1.25. A detail of a girder and its connection to two interior columns is shown in Figure 3.27.2. The equivalentlateralforce (ELF) base shear. when divided by the Provisions pattern capacity. 362 . Slightly more than 10 percent of the system strength comes from plastic hinges that form in the columns.850 1. The DRAIN model used for the nonlinear analysis is shown in Figure 3. 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. and panel zone region of the beamcolumn joints. Before proceeding.
Chapter 3.26 Plastic mechanism for computing lateral strength.3. See Sec. 3.2 of this example for details. 363 .2.5 (d c )+ 5" e db θ dc (b) (c) σθ σθ eθ e θ' L2e (d) θ 2e θ e Figure 3.27. the column shown to the right of the structure is used to represent Pdelta effects. 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. In Figure 3.
364 15'0" 5 at 12'6" . The development of the numerical properties used for panel zone and girder hinge modeling is not straightforward.2. For this reason. Panel zone panel spring (Typical) Girder plastic hinge Panel zone flange spring (Typical) Figure 3. 3.4. through a simple transformation process.27 Detailed analytical model of 6story frame. These nodes are used to model plastic hinges in girders and. much use is made of compound nodes.28 Model of girder and panel zone region.1 Plastic Hinge Modeling and Compound Nodes In the analysis described below.28 28'0" Typical Figure 3. deformations in the panel zone region of beamcolumn joints.FEMA 451. the following theoretical development is provided before proceeding with the example. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples See Figure 3.
the compound node has four degrees of freedom: an X displacement. The figure also shows the assumed bilinear. a Y displacement. the compound node acts as a momentfree hinge. A typical compound node with a single rotational spring is shown in Figure 3. 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.29 A compound node and attached spring. respectively. Hence. and these springs develop bending moment in resistance to the relative rotation between the two single nodes. If no spring elements are placed between the two single nodes. In most cases.29.θSlave (b) My 1 Κ 1 dθ αΚ My (c) Figure 3. Structural Analysis A compound node typically consists of a pair of single nodes with each node sharing the same point in space. 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). 365 .Chapter 3. and two independent rotations.
illustrated in Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 3. The disadvantage of the approach is that the number of degrees of freedom required to model a structure is significantly increased.210 Krawinkler beamcolumn joint model. Preliminary results indicate that the kinematics error is not significant and that very good results may be obtained by a properly formulated scissors model. 4 366 . (91). the scissors model is not used here.2.2 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. it is generally considered to inadequately represent the kinematics of the problem.4. In this example.4 For this reason. A simpler model. The Krawinkler model assumes that the panel zone area has two resistance mechanisms acting in parallel: 1. 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. often referred to as the scissors model. The scissors model has the advantage of using fewer degrees of freedom. 3. due to its simplicity. also has been developed to represent panel zone behavior.FEMA 451. including doubler plates and 2. yet robust. panel zones are modeled using an approach developed by Krawinkler (1978). Flexural resistance of the flanges of the column. This model. Shear resistance of the web of the column. has the advantage of being conceptually simple. However.210. These two resistance mechanisms are apparent in AISC Seismic Eq.
⎢ db d c t p ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ The equation can be rewritten as: Rv = 0.Chapter 3. Additional terms used in the subsequent discussion are: tbf = girder flange thickness and G = shear modulus of steel. thickness of panel zone region = column web thickness plus doubler plate thickness. Structural Analysis 2 ⎡ 3bcf tcf ⎤ Rv = 0. total depth of column. thickness of column flange. and total depth of girder.6 Fy d c t p + 1. The terms in the equations are defined as follows: Fy dc tp bcf tcf db = = = = = = yield strength of the column and the doubler plate.8VFlanges where the first term is the panel shear resistance and the second term is the plastic flexural resistance of the column flange.6 Fy d c t p ⎢1 + ⎥. width of column flange.8 2 Fy bcf tcf db ≡ VPanel + 1. 367 .
) The second term.6Fy.211(a). is based on experimental observation.8VFlanges. The panel zone shear resistance (VPanel) is simply the effective shear area of the panel dctp multiplied by the yield stress in shear.6 factor is a simplification of the Von Mises yield criterion that gives the yield stress in shear as 1/ 3 = 0. Testing of simple beamcolumn subassemblies show that a “kink” forms in the column flanges as shown in Figure 3. it follows from virtual work (see Figure 3.211 Column flange component of panel zone resistance. (The 0. assumed as 0.FEMA 451.577 times the strength in tension. 1. 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. If it can be assumed that the kink is represented by a plastic hinge with a plastic moment capacity of Mp = FyZ = Fybcftcf2/4.211b) that the equivalent shear strength of the column flanges is: 368 .
369 . γ = V Panel γ = V Panel δ db noting that the displacement δ can be written as: δ= V Panel d b . This multiplier is based on experimental results. 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. γ = δ VPanel Thickness = t p db γ=θ dc Figure 3. Gt p d c V Panel ⎛ V Panel d b ⎞ 1 ⎜ ⎜ Gt d ⎟ d ⎟ ⎝ p c ⎠ b = Gt p d c K Panel .212: K Panel .8 multiplier that appears in the AISC equation. The shear stiffness of the panel is derived as shown in Figure 3.212 Column web component of panel zone resistance. It should be noted that the flange component of strength is small compared to the panel component unless the column has very thick flanges.Chapter 3.
Rotational springs are used at the upper left (point A) and lower right (point D) compound nodes. These are momentresisting connections.FEMA 451. the properties of the rotational spring representing the panel shear component of resistance are: 370 . 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).25 Vflanges. the panel zone strength is VPanel + 0. The rotational spring properties are related to the panel shear resistance mechanisms by a simple transformation. γ 4γy Figure 3.210. 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. This model consists of four rigid links. connected at the corners by compound nodes. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Krawinkler assumes that the column flange component yields at four times the yield deformation of the panel component. at four times this deformation. The finite element model of the joint requires 12 individual nodes: one node each at Points I through L. and two nodes (compound node pairs) at Points A through D. The inelastic forcedeformation behavior of the panel is illustrated in Figure 3.213. The upper right and lower left corners (points B and C) do not have rotational springs and thereby act as real hinges. roof joints (girders on both sides. panel γ Κ γ. flanges γy Shear strain.γ Gd c t p G At this deformation. This figure is applicable also to exterior joints (girder on one side only).213 Forcedeformation behavior of panel zone region. where the panel yield deformation is: γy = 0. the strength is VPanel + VFlanges.6 Fy VPanel = = . The actual Krawinkler model is shown in Figure 3. column below only). K Panel .6 Fy d c t p 0. column below only). The columns and girders frame into the links at right angles at Points I through L. Using this transformation. These springs are used to represent the panel resistance mechanisms described earlier. Shear Total resistance Panel V Panel Shear Κ 1 V Flanges Flanges γ. as shown in Figure 3.
θ = K Panel .8VFlanges d b = 1. It is interesting to note that the shear strength in terms of the rotation spring is simply 0. and the shear stiffness in terms of the rotational spring is equal to G times the panel volume.6 Fy d c db t p K Panel .8Fy bcf tcf 371 . The flange component of strength in terms of the rotational spring is determined in a similar manner: 2 M Flanges = 1.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. Structural Analysis M Panel = VPanel db = 0.214 Transforming shear deformation to rotational deformation in the Krawinkler model.6Fy times the volume of the panel.Chapter 3.
Before continuing. A summary of the properties used for all connections is shown in Table 3.θ ) . one minor adjustment is made to the above derivations. is shown in Figure 3. This trilinear behavior is represented by two elasticperfectly plastic springs at the opposing corners of the joint assemblage.θ G To determine the initial stiffness of the flange spring. the yield rotation of the panel is the same as the yield strain in shear: θy = γ y = M Panel 0.nom − tcf where the nom part of the subscript indicates the property listed as the total depth in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. In this analysis.213. it is assumed that this spring yields at four times the yield deformation of the panel spring.6 Fy = .θ + K Flanges .75Gbcf tcf . Hence: d c ≡ d c . The Krawinkler properties are now computed for a typical interior subassembly of the 6story frame. strainhardening may be added to the system. K Flanges .28. Instead of using the nominal total beam and girder depths in the calculations.θ = 0. 372 . The complete resistance mechanism. the distance between the center of the flanges was used as the effective depth. the strain. Krawinkler suggests using a strainhardening stiffness equal to 3 percent of the initial stiffness of the joint.hardening component was simply added to both the panel and the flange components: K SH .θ = M Flanges 4θ y 2 = 0. K Panel . Hence. in terms of rotational spring properties. If desired. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Because of the equivalence of rotation and shear deformation.03( K Panel .FEMA 451.
998.000 1. Material Properties: Fy = 50. column.θ Kflanges.18 in.06 in.900 D W27x94 W21x147 1.8 50(12.9 kips 26.k/rad) (in.00 = 1.600 F W27x94 W21x201 0. 12. The sample calculations below are for Connection D in Table 3.900 E W27x94 W21x201 – 15.51)(1.000 1.900 11.006 300.875 29.489 148.92 in. and doubler plate) G = 12.k/rad) (in.203 9. 0.91)(1. Structural Analysis Table 3. 1.91 in.489 148.281.117. 0.28 Properties for the Krawinkler BeamColumn Joint Model Kpanel.nom tf db Column: W21x147 dc.079 kips VFlanges = 1.6 Fy d c t p = 0.00 in.nom tw tcf dc bcf 26.k) (in. 26.θ Connection Girder Column (in.745 in.72 in.729.028 102.028 102.51 in.72 + 1. 20.298.Chapter 3.k/rad) (in.822 4.00 28. Total panel zone thickness = tp = 0.) A W24x84 W21x122 – 8.6(50)(20.006 300.72) = 1.00 23.600 Example calculations shown for row in bold type.701 3.000 ksi Girder: W27x94 db.8 2 Fy bcf tcf db = 1.000 1.18 373 . 22.q Doubler Plate Mpanel.000 3.28.000 3.800 B W24x84 W21x122 1.0 ksi (girder.248 11.000 1. VPanel = 0.150 in.θ Mflanges. Doubler plate: 1.152 ) = 56.480.292 6.800 C W27x94 W21x147 – 11.72 in.
000 in. Although the computational results are unaffected.3 Modeling Girders Because this structure is designed in accordance with the strongcolumn/weakbeam principle.582 kips/unit shear strain γ y =θy = 0. together with the panel zones at the ends. 5 374 . The modeling of a typical girder is shown in Figure 3. Unfortunately.000) = 0. The program represents each element as a straight line.kips K Panel . Although DRAIN provides special yielding beam elements (Type 2 elements).γ db = 431. The midspan node is used to enhance the deflected shape of the structure. 298.θ = M Flanges 4γ y = 1.18) = 1.6(50. The secondary stiffness.28. it is anticipated that the girders will yield in flexure. particularly the location of the hinge. The following information is required to model each plastic hinge: 1. 2. more control over behavior is obtained through the use of the Type 4 connection element. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples K Panel .θ = K Panel .kips K Flanges . This figure shows an interior girder. 4.18) = 28. and The location of the hinge with respect to the face of the column.kips/radian M Flanges = VFlanges db = 56. is complicated by the fact that the plastic hinge grows in length during increasing story drift.000 M Panel = VPanel db = 1.5 The compound nodes are used to represent inelastic behavior in the hinging region.kips/radian 4(0.9(26. The effective yield moment. The initial stiffness (moment per unit rotation). Fortunately.000(1. 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. A graphic postprocessor was used to display the deflected shape of the structure.FEMA 451.900 in.582(26. 3. there is no effective way to represent a changing hinge length in DRAIN.γ = Gt p d c = 12.079(26. 489 in.4.0025) 3.91) = 431. 489 = 148.0025 12.72)(20.6 Fy G = 0. a better graphical representation is obtained by subdividing the member. Determination of the above properties. 248 in.18) = 11.2. the behavior of the structure is relatively insensitive to the location of the hinges. so one must make do with a fixed hinge length and location.
Residual stresses due to section rolling were ignored.Chapter 3. strain compatibility (plane sections remain plane) was used to determine fiber strain. it is necessary to perform a momentcurvature analysis of the cross section. a relatively simple stressstrain curve is used to represent the 50 ksi steel in the girders. with the Baushinger effect erasing any trace of the yield plateau. and this.216. which is consistent with the assumption that the section has yielded in previous cycles. This curve does not display a yield plateau.215 Assumed stressstrain curve for modeling girders. ksi 30 20 10 0 0 0. in turn. and it was assumed that local buckling of the flanges or the web would not occur.006 Figure 3. The resulting momentcurvature relationship is shown for the W27x94 girder in Figure 3.004 Strain 0. Structural Analysis To determine the hinge properties. Analysis was performed using a Microsoft Excel worksheet. is a function of the stressstrain curve of the material. 50 40 Stress.215. The forces were then multiplied by the distance to the neutral axis to determine that fiber’s contribution to the section’s resisting moment. For each value of rotation. the momentcurvature relationships are essentially bilinear. In this example. Because of the assumed bilinear stressstrain curve. Fiber stress was obtained from the stressstrain law and stresses were multiplied by fiber area to determine fiber force. 375 . The idealized stressstrain curve is shown in Figure 3. The girder cross section was then subjected to gradually increasing rotation. the girder cross section was divided into 50 horizontal slices. Curves were computed for an assumed strain hardening ratio of 1. The fiber contributions were summed to determine the total resisting moment. To compute the momentcurvature relationship. 3.002 1 Eo 1 ESH 0. and 5 percent of the initial stiffness. with 10 slices in each flange and 30 slices in the web.
This structure represents half of the clear span of the girder supported as a cantilever. radians/in. A similar momentdeflection relationship was determined for the structure shown in Figure 3. The first of these is rigidperfectly plastic and the second is bilinear. If the momentcurvature relationship is idealized as bilinear.217(a).218(b). a separate analysis was performed on the structure shown in Figure 3. Figure 3.000 3 percent strain hardening 1 percent strain hardening 0 0 0.000 20.002 0. ksi 10. The resulting behavior is illustrated in Figure 3.218.FEMA 451. The moment diagram for the member is shown in Figure 3. Two Type4 DRAIN elements were used at each compound node.217(b).001 0. Figure 3. The method is developed in Figure 3.0005 0.000 Stress.000 5 percent strain hardening 5. The girder is loaded to some moment M.216 Moment curvature diagram for W27x94 girder. which consists of a cantilever with a compound node used to represent the inelastic rotation in the plastic hinge.0025 C urvature. it is a straightforward matter to compute the deflections of the structure of Figure 3. At some distance x the moment is equal to the yield moment: x= M yL M 376 . which is greater than the yield moment.000 15. To determine the parameters for the plastic hinge in the DRAIN model.0015 0.217(c).217(a).218(a) is a bilinear momentcurvature diagram. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 25. The purpose of the special analysis was to determine a momentdeflection relationship for the cantilever loaded at the tip with a vertical force V.
218(c). the curvature is the yield curvature (φy). and at the support. The deflection is computed using the momentarea method.d c )/2 Combined End moment (c) Component 1 Component 2 Tip deflection Figure 3. Structural Analysis dc V (a) L/2 V Component 1 (b) Component 2 e L' = (L . 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.Chapter 3.217 Developing momentdeflection diagrams for a typical girder. the curvature ( φM) is the curvature corresponding to the Point M on the momentcurvature diagram.
219(c).219. The compound node has arbitrarily been placed a distance e = 5 in. where the total deflection (∆1+∆2+∆3) is indicated.000 in. Displacements were computed for 11 points on the structure. the simple DRAIN cantilever model of Figure 3. (The analysis is relatively insensitive to the assumed hinge location. The resulting momentdeflection diagram is shown in Figure 3. The inelastic part of the deflection (∆3 only) is shown separately in Figure 3. where the moment axis has been truncated below 12. 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 inelastic part is represented by the two Type4 elements at the compound node of the structure.) 378 .kips. The elastic part of the deflection is handled by the Type2 elements in Figure 3. Part (a) of the figure is the idealized bilinear momentcurvature relationship for 3 percent strain hardening.217(b) is analyzed. Finally.FEMA 451. The development of the momentdeflection relationship for the W27x94 girder is illustrated in Figure 3.219(b). from the face of the support.217(b).
Moment M My Chapter 3. 379 .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.
greater than the yield moment. MS. The tip deflection of the structure of Figure 3.220(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.220(b).FEMA 451. 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. At the location of the plastic hinge. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The moment diagram is shown in Figure 3.
Chapter 3.0 0 0 1 4 . Structural Analysis 2 5 .kips 1 7 .kips 1 5 . in.0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T o tal tip d eflec tio n .0 0 0 2 0 . in.0 0 0 5 0 .219 Momentdeflection curve for W27x94 girder with 3 percent strain hardening.0 0 0 5 . 2 0 .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 1 5 0 .0 0 0 Moment.0 0 0 1 6 .0 0 0 1 8 .0 0 0 End moment.0 0 2 0 0 . ra d ian s/in . in.0 0 0 5 . in .0 0 1 0 0 . 381 .0 0 0 2 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 (a) 1 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 (b ) 1 0 .0 0 0 1 3 .0 0 0 End moment.0 0 2 5 C u rv a tu re.0 0 0 1 5 .kips 1 5 .0 0 0 1 9 . 2 5 .
FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples ∆ I = θ H ( L′ − e ) . This is a trialanderror procedure. and that this moment is roughly equal to the fully plastic moment of the section. The properties for the W24x84 girder are also shown in the table. the development of the hinge properties is greatly facilitated by the fact that one component of the hinge must be rigidplastic. 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. The first part is the elastic deflection and the second part is the inelastic deflection.29. 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. with the second component being bilinear. The resulting “fit” for the W27x94 girder is shown in Figure 3. it is possible to model the main portion of the girder using its nominal moment of inertia. 382 . Note that the first yield of the model will be the yield moment from Component 1. The resulting properties for the model are shown in Table 3.219. For the small values of strain hardening assumed in this analysis. there is little error in assuming that the two deflections are equal. However. however. As ∆E is simply the elastic displacement of a simple cantilever beam. which is difficult to reproduce in this example.
295 12.001) if a zero value is entered in the appropriate data field.kip) 11.29 Girder Properties as Modeled in DRAIN Section Property W24x84 4 Elastic Properties Moment of Inertia (in. ) 2.200 Plastic Moment = ZxFy W27x94 3.270 13.2 13.025 (see note below) Initial Stiffness (in. 0. to input a strain hardening value of 1020 to prevent this from happening.2) 11.0 Inelastic Component 2 Yield Moment (in.0 1.284 Comparative Property Yield Moment = SxFy 9.H. Structural Analysis Table 3.Chapter 3.3 Inelastic Component 1 Yield Moment (in.g.494 450.000 S. It is recommended.196 Initial Stiffness (in.kip) 1.900 In some versions of DRAIN the strain hardening stiffness of the Type4 springs is set to some small value (e.H. Ratio 0. therefore. Ratio 0.538 10E10 0.370 Shear Area (in.kip/radian) 326. 383 . This may cause very large artificial strain hardening moments to develop in the hinge after it yields.800 11.kip/radian) 10E10 S.150 13.192 0.
FEMA 451. 384 .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.
Structural Analysis 3.000 3. Subsequent analysis showed that the columns will yield in the upper portion of the structure as well. The columns were modeled using the builtin yielding functionality of the DRAIN program. the example follows the appendix. some liberties are taken in this example. wherein the yield moment is a function of the axial force in the column. The rules employed by DRAIN to model column yielding are adequate for eventtoevent nonlinear static pushover analysis. The greatest difficulty in the dynamic analysis is adequate treatment of the column when unloading and reloading.221 Yield surface used for modeling columns. but leave much to be desired when dynamic analysis is performed.000 30.221. 30.000 20.000 W21x147 W21x122 10. An assessment of the effect of these potential problems is beyond the scope of this example. 3. Preliminary analysis indicated that columns should not yield. except at the base of the first story. [In the 2003 385 .000 2.000 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. kips 0 10. column yielding had to be activated in all of the Type2 column elements.000 W21x201 20.Chapter 3.000 4. in.2. For this reason. for the most part.2.000 2.4 Modeling Columns All columns in the analysis were modeled as Type2 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.000 Axial force.” For this reason.000 1.4.000 3. however.kips Figure 3. The yield surface used by DRAIN is shown in Figure 3.000 4.000 Moment.
the mathematical model must be adjusted accordingly. However. 5A. the structure was first subjected to the full dead load plus reduced live load followed by the lateral loads. it will be utilized here. in some cases may produce unreliable results (Chopra and Goel. If such fracture is likely.3 [Appendix to Chapter 5] provides a simple methodology for estimating the inelastic deformations but does not provide specific acceptance criteria. These inelastic deformations may then be compared to the deformations that have been deemed acceptable under the ground motion parameters that have been selected. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Provisions. This effect may be easily represented through linearized geometric stiffness.2. In the analysis reported herein. 1996). Additional analysis is required to estimate the amount of inelastic deformation that may occur during an earthquake. provides the location and sequence of expected yielding in a structure.1 [A5. which is the basis of the outrigger column shown in Figure 3.” In this analysis the influence was taken as inclusion of the storylevel Pdelta effect. The loads have been normalized to a value of 15 kips at Level 2. and the results obtained will be compared to those computed using the simple approach.24.1. as the method is still very popular and is incorporated in several commercial computer programs. possibly reflecting the newness of the approach.FEMA 451. largely as a result of work performed by the Applied Technology Council in Project 55. a number of substantive technical changes have been made to the appendix. 5A1. for comparison purposes. Provisions Sec. with such effects excluded.1] discusses modeling requirements for the pushover analysis in relatively vague terms. in itself. 386 . Evaluation and Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures). DRAIN analyses were run with Pdelta effects included and. Consistent 6 The mathematical model does not represent strength loss due to premature fracture of welded connections. The Provisions states that the lateral load pattern should follow the shape of the first mode.6 The pushover curve obtained from a nonlinear static analysis is a function of the way the structure is both modeled and loaded.] Nonlinear static pushover analysis. 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.210.23) Relative values of these load patterns are summarized in Table 3. In this example. 1999). it is felt that the model of the structure described earlier in this example is consistent with the spirit of the Provisions. the results from the TL distribution are not presented. Another wellknown method for determining maximum inelastic displacement is based on the capacity spectrum approach. However. Because of the similarity between the TL and ML distributions. Provisions Sec. 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 method is described in some detail in ATC 40 (Applied Technology Council. The capacity spectrum method is somewhat controversial and.
210 Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Level R 6 5 4 3 2 Uniform Load UL (kips) 15. the only comparison made here will be between the structures with and without doubler plates. Because the behavior of the structure with thin doubler plates was not significantly different from the behavior with the thicker plates. the structure is subjected to gradually increasing lateral loads. the tangent stiffness matrix of the structure has a negative on the diagonal. an analysis may be performed under “load control” or under “displacement control. These structures are referred to as the strong panel (SP) and weak panel (WP) structures. the ML analysis was repeated for a structure with thinner doubler plates and without doubler plates. 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.4 67.0 BSSC Load BL (kips) 150.Chapter 3.0 118.4 80.8 50. the computed response of the structure after strength loss is completely fictitious in the context of a static loading environment.0 88.0 15. Of course. Structural Analysis geometric stiffness. Such effects may be approximated in DRAIN by subdividing columns into several segments and activating the linearized geometric stiffness on a columnbycolumn basis.0 60. the analysis is terminated. the pushover analysis indicated all yielding in the structure occurred in the clear span of the girders and columns.5 40. may not be used directly in DRAIN.0 15. Table 3.” Under load control. This is true for displacement controlled static analysis. however. this procedure needs to be used when recovering base shear from column shear forces. Panel zone hinging did not occur. which may be used to represent the influence of axial forces on the flexural flexibility of individual columns.0 15.0 27.0 15. Using displacement control.7 At any displacement step in the analysis. at any load step. It is for this reason that the poststrengthloss realm of the pushover response is of interest.0 Triangular Load TL (kips) 77. the structure can display loss of strength because the displacement control algorithm adds artificial stiffness along the diagonal to overcome the stability problem. If.0 52. When performing a displacement controlled pushover analysis in DRAIN with PDelta effects included. the true base shear in the system consists of two parts: 7 If Pdelta effects have been included. 387 .3 32. Under a dynamic loading.5 15. loss of strength due to Pdelta effects cannot be tracked.0 15. In this type of analysis.5 65. The analyses were carried out using the DRAIN2Dx computer program. respectively. Using DRAIN. Consequently. force controlled static analysis. structures can display strength loss and be incrementally stable.0 36.0 15.0 As described later. That approach was not used here. and dynamic timehistory analysis.0 Modal Load ML (kips) 88. one must be careful to recover the baseshear forces properly. For this reason.0 15.
For all of the pushover analyses reported for this example. If this limit were used.1.8 [4.223 shows the pushover response of the SP structure to all three lateral load patterns when Pdelta effects are excluded.FEMA 451. in.85R/Cd rather than by 1. 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.2. This value is slightly greater than 1. the maximum displacement at the roof is 42. for an inelastic system. which.224 shows the response curves if Pdelta effects are included. the pushover analysis of this structure would only be run to a total displacement of about 13.5 in. will not generally be proportional to the roof displacement. 3.222 Two base shear components of pushover response. Also shown is the total response. 5A.2. Sec.225.5.2.222 plots two base shear components of the pushover response for the SP structure subjected to the ML loading. Figure 3.3. A5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples V = ∑VC . [In the 2003 Provisions. the Appendix to Chapter 5 of the Provisions requires only that the pushover analysis be run to a maximum displacement of 1.25 factor is taken from Provisions Sec. The Pdelta effects for this structure were included through the use of the outrigger column shown at the right of Figure 3. The drift limit is taken from Provisions Table 5.4.25 times 2 percent of the total height. gravity loads were applied first and then the lateral loads were applied using the displacement control algorithm. In Figure 3.24.0 in. Figure 3.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.3.] As discussed below in Sec. The kink in the line representing Pdelta forces results because these forces are based on firststory displacement.2.5. In each case.6 requires multiplication by 0.51] and the 1.25. Figure 3.1 Pushover Response of Strong Panel Structure Figure 3. 2000 1500 Shear. 3.5 times the expected inelastic displacement.5 times the total drift limit for the structure where the total drift limit is taken as 1. the response of the structure under ML loading with and without 388 .
000 800 600 UL Loading 400 ML Loading 200 0 0 10 20 Roof displacement. Sec.2]). A5. This is particularly interesting in the light of the Provisions.2. in.3.0. While the Provisions allow the analyst to exclude Pdelta effects in an elastic analysis.6. the maximum computed stability ratio was 0.600 1. Pdelta effects are an extremely important aspect of the response of this structure.2 [5.1 requires that Pdelta effects be considered for all pushover analyses.0839 (see Table 3. 389 . this clearly should not be done in the pushover analysis (or in timehistory analysis). 5. the upper limit for the stability ratio is eliminated.10 a special analysis must be performed in accordance with Sec.4.4. Where the calculated θ is greater than 0. 5.Chapter 3. A5. and the influence grows in significance after yielding. For this structure. which ignore Pdelta effects in elastic analysis if the maximum stability ratio is less than 0.400 Base shear.223 Response of strong panel model to three load pattern. Clearly.6.24).2. [In the 2003 Provisions.2. The upper limit is computed according to Provisions Eq. which is less than 0.10 and is also less than the upper limit of 0.000 1.10 (see Provisions Sec.0901.6.800 1.200 1. excluding Pdelta effects. kips 1.22 and is based on the very conservative assumption that β = 1. Structural Analysis Pdelta effects is illustrated. 30 40 50 BL Loading Figure 3.] 2.
000 Excluding PDelta Including PDelta 1. in. 2. with and wthout Pdelta effects. Figure 3.224 Response of strong panel model to three load patterns.200 1.000 Base shear.600 1.400 1. 390 .FEMA 451.225 Response of strong panel model to ML loads. including Pdelta effects. Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1.600 Base shear. in. kips 1. kips 800 600 UL Loading 400 ML Loading BL Loading 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.200 800 400 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.
0 percent) strain hardening ratio used in the development of the model because the entire structure does not yield simultaneously.5..6 kips per in. The structure attains this negative residual stiffness at a displacement of approximately 23 in.03 (3.Chapter 3. Part (a) of the figure shows an elevation of the structure with numbers that indicate the sequence of plastic hinge formation. in.226 Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads. the final stiffness shown in Figure 3. Part (b) of the figure shows a pushover curve with several hinge formation events indicated.1. This plot.227. These events correspond to numbers shown in part (a) of the figure. 391 . Structural Analysis In Figure 3. 3. When Pdelta effects are included. the numeral “1” indicates that this was the first hinge to form. kips/in.226 illustrates. Hence. and with Pdelta effects excluded or included. the first significant yield occurs at a roof displacement of approximately 6. which represents the slope of the pushover curve at each displacement value. a plot of the tangent stiffness versus roof displacement is shown for the SP structure with ML loading. with and without Pdelta effects. the strainhardening stiffness of the structure is 0. compared to an original value of 133 kips/in. the final stiffness is 1. For example.2.5 in.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. The pushover curve only shows selected events because an illustration showing all events would be difficult to read.226 is approximately 10 kips/in. is more effective than the pushover plot in determining when yielding occurs. This is somewhat greater than the 0. 80 Excluding PDelta 60 40 20 0 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. Including PDelta Figure 3.226. 140 120 100 "Tangent stiffness". For the case with Pdelta effects excluded. and that most of the structure’s original stiffness is exhausted by the time the roof drift reaches 10 in. As Figure 3.075 times the initial stiffness.
however. Even though the pattern of hinging is interesting and useful as an evaluation tool.2.). There was no hinging in Levels 6 and R. and Both ends of all the girders at Levels 2 through 5 yielded. and a complete story mechanism was avoided. is intended to prevent the formation of complete story mechanisms.FEMA 451. 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Several important observations are made from Figure 3. not to prevent individual column hinging. 4. The presence of column hinging at Levels 3 and 4 is a bit troublesome because the structure was designed as a strongcolumn/weakbeam system.5. This is done below in Sec. While hinges did form at the bottom of each column in the third story. Hinges formed at the base of all the firststory columns.227: 1. 392 . This design philosophy. the performance of the structure in the context of various acceptance criteria cannot be assessed until the expected inelastic displacement can be determined. 3. It appears the structure is somewhat weak in the middle two stories and is too strong at the upper stories. The doubler plates added to the interior columns prevented panel zone yielding (even at the extreme roof displacement of 42 in. There was no hinging in any of the panel zones. All columns on Story 3 and all the interior columns on Story 4 formed plastic hinges. hinges did not form at the top of these columns. 3. 5.3.
kips 800 4 1 10 17 19 20 23 24 26 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 Drift. 393 .Chapter 3. (b) 25 30 35 40 45 Figure 3.200 16 1. 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. including Pdelta effects.227 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: SP model under ML load.000 8 Total shear. in.
Consistent with the upper bound theorem of plastic analysis.2. Curves for the analyses run with and without Pdelta effects are included. The strength from the case with Pdelta excluded was estimated from the curves shown in Figure 3. The reason for the difference in predicted strengths is related to the pattern of yielding that actually formed in the structure. These values are summarized in Table 3.211 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. the strength from virtual work is significantly greater than that from pushover analysis. compared to that assumed in the rigidplastic analysis. increase the strength by approximately 12 percent and increase the initial stiffness by about 10 percent.211.5. only the modal load pattern d is considered but the analysis is performed with and without Pdelta effects. The pushover curves for the structure under modal loading and with weak panels are shown in Figure 3.2 Pushover Response of Weak Panel Structure Before continuing.230 are more informative because they compare the response of the structures with and without panel zone reinforcement. Figures 3.228 through 3.231 it may be seen that the doubler plates. From Figures 3.FEMA 451.2 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.5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3. Table 3.1. Figure 3. which represent approximately 2. 394 . the structure should be reanalyzed without panel zone reinforcing and the behavior compared with that determined from the analysis described above. For this exercise.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).228.231 shows the tangent stiffness history comparison for the structures with and without doubler plates.229 and 3.0 percent of the volume of the structure.2. In both cases Pdelta effects have been included.
000 800 600 400 Strong Panels 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.600 1.400 1. Structural Analysis 2.000 1.800 1.200 Base shear. excluding Pdelta effects. Excluding PDelta Including PDelta Figure 3.600 1.800 1. Weak Panels Figure 3. kips 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. kips 1. in.400 1.228 Weak panel zone model under ML load.200 Base shear. in.229 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model. 395 .Chapter 3. 1.
200 1.000 Base shear. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1. 120 110 100 "Tangent stiffness". 396 . strong versus weak panels. kips 800 600 400 Strong Panels Weak Panels 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement. Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Roof displacement.231 Tangent stiffness history for structure under ML loads.FEMA 451. Strong Panels Weak Panels Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. in. kips/in. in.230 Comparison of weak panel zone model with strong panel zone model.
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. kips 800 1 600 22 31 36 61 65 69 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 Drift.232 Patterns of plastic hinge formation: weak panel zone model under ML load. (b) 25 30 35 40 45 Figure 3.000 11 Total shear.200 37 39 44 47 49 56 59 1.Chapter 3. in. 397 .
5. 3. The sequence of hinging is illustrated in Figure 3. the only loading pattern considered is the modal load pattern discussed earlier. actual performance cannot be evaluated without predicting the maximum inelastic panel shear strain and assessing the stability of the panel zones under these strains. Details of the calculations are not provided herein. In the Provisions. In the present analysis. the flange component of the panel zone yields. 5A. The relevant modal quantities and the expected inelastic displacements are provided in Table 3.5. (Panel zone yielding is indicated by a numeric sequence label in the corner of the panel zone. Girder and column hinging also occurs.2].3 Predictions of Total Displacement and Story Drift from Pushover Analysis In the following discussion. It should be noted that under very large displacements.2.1.2. 3.1 Expected Inelastic Displacements Computed According to the Provisions The expected inelastic displacement was computed using the procedures of Provisions Sec.2 [A5. This is consistent with the requirements of Provisions Sec.232. but the column hinging appears relatively late in the response. 398 . Of course. and separate analyses are performed including and excluding Pdelta effects.3].5. the roof level first mode displacement is 1.) In fact. Note that only those values associated with the ML lateral load pattern were used.3.0.FEMA 451.2. 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. it appears that the structure without panel zone reinforcement is behaving adequately. the displacement is computed using responsespectrum analysis with only the first mode included. the first yielding in the structure is due to yielding of a panel zone at the second level of the structure.212. It is also significant that the upper two levels of the structure display yielding in several of the panel zones.5 [5. Part (a) of this figure indicates that panel zone yielding occurs early. The structure with both strong and weak panel zones is analyzed. Aside from the relatively marginal loss in stiffness and strength due to removal of the doubler plates. 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.
6 12.) 1st Story Drift (in.10 2.1 12. 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. the slope of the line passing through the small circle is equal to the acceleration divided by the displacement. This value is the same as the square of the circular frequency of the simplified system.102 1. 13.Chapter 3.44 2.31 1168 1.70 1051 1.09 1. an equivalent viscous damping value (ξE) can be computed for the simple structure deformed to Point E.233 shows a bilinear capacity curve. (in.18 Strong Panel with PDelta 2.11 1.015 1.2 Inelastic Displacements Computed According to the Capacity Spectrum Method In the capacity spectrum method.223 through 3.71 2. the sloped line is also a measure of the secant period of the simplified structure. This displacement is often called the target displacement.308 82. The information provided in Figures 3.53 2.33 987 1. 3.28 2.2 of FEMA 356 for details. Figure 3.88 2.950 1.) 2nd Story Drift (in. the pushover curve is transformed to a capacity curve that represents the first mode inelastic response of the full structure.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.315 82.0 in. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.77 2. the modal quantities are only slightly influenced by Pdelta effects and the inclusion or exclusion of doubler plates.34 2. and the line passing from the origin through this point represents the secant stiffness of the simplified system. The horizontal axis of the capacity curve measures the first mode displacement of the simplified system.90 2. for example.02 1. the vertical axis represents the acceleration of the mass of the simple system.84 2. Structural Analysis Table 3.54 2. Thus.3.78 1099 1.) Base Shear Demand (kips) 6th Story Drift (in. It should be noted that FEMA 356.3.028 1.12 1.) 4th Story Drift (in.2.2 13. 399 .73 2.3..18 As the table indicates.8 12.311 82.74 2. The vertical axis is a measure of simplified system strength to system weight. As will be shown later.23 Weak Panel w/o PDelta 2. the expected inelastic displacement of the simplified system. Point E on the horizontal axis is the value of interest.5.73 2. The maximum inelastic displacements are in the range of 12.) Strong Panel w/o PDelta 1.56 2.232 indicates that at a target displacement of.09 Weak Panel with PDelta 2. When multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g). provides a simplified methodology for computing the target displacement that is similar to but somewhat more detailed than the approach illustrated above.2 to 13.) 3rd Story Drift (in. If the values on the vertical axis are multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. The point on the capacity curve directly above Point E is marked with a small circle. 3.3.3 in. See Sec.74 2.) 5th Story Drift (in.305 82.
The capacity spectrum and demand spectrum are shown together in Figure 3. Spectral pseudoacceleration. In this example. Figure 3.233. the displacement computed from the demand spectrum will be the same as the expected inelastic displacement shown in Figure 3. The demand spectrum is drawn for a particular damping value (ξ). There are several ways to determine ξE. is somewhat different from the traditional spectrum that uses period of vibration as the horizontal axis. but ξE is not known a priori and must be determined by the analyst. This spectrum. Using the demand spectrum.233.234 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. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Figure 3. two different methods will be demonstrated: an iterative approach and a semigraphical approach. If the system’s damping is equal to ξE. The demand spectrum is drawn for a damping value exactly equal to ξE. 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.FEMA 451. 3100 . g ξ E 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement.233 A simple capacity spectrum. in. called a demand spectrum.235.
3101 . Figure 3. Structural Analysis Demand spectrum for damping ξ E Spectral pseudoacceleration. g 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement.234 A simple demand spectrum.Chapter 3. g Capacity spectrum for damping ξ E ξ E 2 ωE 1 E Spectral displacement.235 Capacity and demand spectra plotted together. in. Figure 3. in. Demand Spectrum for damping ξ E Spectral pseudoacceleration.
The modal participation factor and the modal displacement must be computed using a consistent normalization of the mode shapes. 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. To obtain spectral displacement. multiply each displacement value in the original pushover curve by the quantity: 1 PF1φ Roof . 2.236 shows a typical capacity spectrum in which the yield point is represented by points aY and dY. For most frametype structures.8 to 0. The displacement and acceleration at the expected inelastic displacement are dE and aE. This step is somewhat subjective in terms of defining the effective yield point. but the results are typically insensitive to different values that could be assumed for the yield point. divide each force value in the pushover curve by the total weight of the structure.4 if the mode shapes are normalized for a maximum value of 1. To obtain spectral pseudoacceleration. and the intercept on the vertical axis is aI. For frame structures. 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.FEMA 451.3 to 1.85.0. Note that α1 is not a function of mode shape normalization. This is done using the following two transformations:8 1. α1 will be in the range of 0. Figure 3. convert the smooth capacity curve into a simple bilinear capacity curve. 8 Expressions in this section are taken from ATC40 but have been modified to conform to the nomenclature used herein.1 where PF1 is the modal participation factor for the fundamental mode and φRoof. After performing the transformation. respectively. 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. The two slopes of the demand spectrum are K1 and K2. the first mode participation factor will be in the range of 1.0 and the modal participation factors are based on a normalization that produces a unit generalized mass matrix. 3102 .
followed by the direct method. This damping value. ξE = 5 + I3. Compute the equivalent viscous damping value at the above displacement. The iterative method will be presented first. may be estimated as: I2. in. 63. 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.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.Chapter 3. 3103 . Structural Analysis a E Spectral pseudoacceleration. the iterative approach is as follows: I1. Guess the expected inelastic displacement dE. At this point the iterative method and the direct method diverge somewhat. dE Figure 3.236 Capacity spectrum showing control points. Given the capacity spectrum. in terms of percent critical.
Table 3. In Table 3.213 are intended for use only for ductile systems without significant strength loss.2. They are also to be used only in the longer period constant velocity region of the response spectrum. the modification factors for systems with higher damping values are obtained from Provisions Table 13. The demand spectrum at this damping value is adapted from the response spectrum given by Provisions Sec.833.0 seconds. The values in Table 3. This will be adequate for our needs because the initial period of vibration of our structure is in the neighborhood of 2.4].213 Damping Modification Factors Effective Damping (% critical) Damping Modification Factor 5 1. the modification factors are shown as multiplying factors instead of dividing factors as is done in the Provisions. This spectrum is based on 5 percent of critical damping.667 30 0. An estimated displacement must now be determined from the demand spectrum. it must be modified for the higher equivalent damping represented by ξE.1 [13.3.1. 4.000 10 0.3.3. therefore.237. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples I4. 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.526 50 or greater 0.588 40 0. During iteration it may be more convenient to use the information from Table 3.213 below.6 [3.31]. A damping value of ξE will be assumed in the development of the spectrum.833 20 0. 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 0.213 in graphic form as shown in Figure 3.213. which is reproduced in a somewhat different form as Table 3.500 3104 . For the example presented here.FEMA 451.
If not.2 0. and perform another cycle.0 Spectral modification factor 0. set the displacement in Step 1 to d E of accuracy is achieved.6 0.237 Damping modification factors. Pdelta effects are excluded.4 0. the modal participation factor and effective modal mass factor for the first mode are: 3105 . % critical 40 50 60 Figure 3.Chapter 3. I6. the iteration is complete. 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. The procedure will now be demonstrated for the strong panel structure subjected to the ML load pattern. Structural Analysis 1.2 1.0 0 10 20 30 Damping. Using the period of vibration computed in Step 3 and the damping computed in Step 4.8 0. For this structure. I5. 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.
K2 = 0. Figure 3. The initial period of the structure (from DRAIN) is 1.59 Actual Simplified 0.25 Spectral pseudoacceleration.05 6. The control values for the bilinear curve are: dY = 6.308 and α1 = 0.20 0.0265 g/in. in.826 The original pushover curve is shown in Figure 3. The same period may be recovered from the demand curve as follows: 3106 .1750 g aI = 0. g 0. 0.10 0.1544 g K1 = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples φ1 = 1. aY = 0.15 0.238 as is a bilinear representation of the capacity curve.175 0.592 in.95 sec. The capacity spectrum version of the curve is shown in Figure 3.00311 g/in.FEMA 451.223.238 Capacity spectrum used in iterative solution.30 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Spectral displacement.
2). This value is 7.5 − 6.82(1.5 = 2. 3.212) from the simplified procedure in the Provisions.19]2 = 7.4 × 0.4 × 0.1808 8. At this displacement.19 sec. This must be multiplied by the modal participation factor. Using a value of SD1 of 0.2. At this acceleration and displacement.2.0 seconds. the spectral acceleration as a function of period T is a = 0.82 in. 1.494/T where a is in terms of the acceleration due to gravity.175 6.2% critical .19 = 0.52 in. 3107 .160 [ 2π / 2. the damping modification factor for ξE = 17.7( aY d E − dY aE ) 63. the updated displacement for the next iteration is: new dE = new g × aE [ 2π / TE ] 2 = 386.160 g . to obtain the actual roof displacement.00311(8.2 percent is 0.494 (see Sec.2.5) = 0.95 sec.237). predicted from the simplified method of the Provisions.1. Assume an initial displacement dE of 8.1 × 0. the updated acceleration is: new aE = 0.1808 × 8.315].308) = 10.5 in. and is somewhat greater than the value of 8.213 of this example.71. where the final displacement from the iteration is 7.5 in. Using this acceleration.175 × 8.6 [3. Since the initial period is nearly 2. At this point the iteration may commence.213 (or Figure 3. The complete iteration is summarized in Table 3. the acceleration will be multiplied by the appropriate value from Table 3.1808) =5+ = 17. Structural Analysis T= 2π g × aY dY = 2π 386.659 ≅ 1. the acceleration aE is: aE = aI + K 2 d E = 0.Chapter 3. The 5percentdamped demand spectrum for this example is based on Provisions Figure 4.2 in. Therefore.214.1808 g . This is the value computed earlier (see Table 3. the equivalent damping is: 63.494) / 2.71(0.5 aE d E The updated secant period of vibration is: ξE = 5 + T= 2π g × aE dE = 2π 386.1544 + 0. the only pertinent part of the spectrum is the part that is inversely proportional to period. 0.592 × 0.7(0. From Table 3. For higher damping values.308.
The steps in the procedure are as follows: D1.82 aE (g) 0.80 7. Develop a bilinear capacity spectrum for the structure.11 2.12 2.179 0.179 0.7 12.88 7.82 7.180 0.71 0.84 7.179 0. 10.4 13. but it is still in SDOF spectrum space.11 2. Convert the target displacement to structural space.70 7.175).179 0.76 0.179 dE (in. 15.19 2.12 2. 25.11 2.6 Damping Mod. and 30 percent of critical. Factor 0. 20.8 14.12 2.77 0. 0.FEMA 451.183 0.161 in iteration 1 is less than 0.0 13.10 2. 20. Draw the demand spectra on the same plot as the capacity spectrum.14 2.) 2.178 0. Table 3.179 0. 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. consequently. Find the points on the capacity spectrum that represent 5.161 0.) 8.179 0.7 13. D6.01 7. Develop demand spectra for damping values of 5.179 0.50 7. D7.173 0.189 0.78 0.178 0. 15. 3108 .9 14. This particular example predicts displacements very close to the yield displacement dY.214 Results of Iteration for Maximum Expected Displacement Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a* (g) 0. Find the point where the curve from Step 7 intersects the capacity spectrum.76 0.77 7.77 0. Draw a curve connecting the points found in Step 6. 10. 25.75 0.08 2.5 13.76 0.76 TE (sec. D8. one for each damping value listed above. 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.52 8. D4. D5. there may be some influence of the choice of aY and dY on the computed displacement.80 0.181 0. D9. D3.6 13. a family of demand spectra are plotted together with the capacity spectrum and the desired displacement is found graphically. D2.176 0.178 0.. This is the target displacement.g. In the direct approach. and 30 percent damping. Draw a series of secant stiffness lines.179 0.81 7.2 11.6 13.76 0.179 0.11 Note: a* is from demand spectrum at period TE.179 Damping (%) 17.
195 3109 . The points on the capacity curve representing βeff values of 5.223.183 25 10.) (g) 5 6.19 rad/sec and the period is 1.175 10 7.215 Points on Capacity Spectrum Corresponding to Chosen Damping Values Effective Damping Displacement dpi Spectral Acceleration api (% critical) (in. 25.1 0. as required. The effective mass in the first mode is 0. or 10.177 15 8. The points are also shown as small diamonds on the capacity spectrum of Figure 3. 20.188 30 13.07 0. therefore. (The main purpose of computing the period from the initial stiffness of the capacity spectrum is to perform an intermediate check on the analysis. 15. and the first mode participation factor is 1.215.7 0. 1.175g.96 seconds. Note that the secant stiffness through this point is mathematically equivalent to the circular frequency squared of the structure.15 0. For this example. This period. the yield displacement (dy) is taken as 6. The resulting capacity curve and its bilinear equivalent are shown in Figure 3. The original pushover curve for this structure is shown in Figure 3. Structural Analysis This procedure is now illustrated for the strong panel structure subjected to the modal load pattern.238.239. and 30 percent critical damping are shown in Table 3. 10.59 in. The secant stiffness through the yield point is 0.308. Table 3.826 times the total mass. 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.2 (rad/sec)2.0263g/in. The secant lines through the points are also shown.59 0. The first mode displacement at the roof of the building is 1. and the corresponding yield strength (ay) is 0. Pdelta effects are excluded.0.180 20 9. is the same as that obtained from DRAIN.Chapter 3.) 23.25 0. For this example. the frequency is 3.
FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 0. g 25% 0.30 0. Figure 3.20 0.50 10% 15% 20% 0. 3110 .40 Spectral pseudoacceleration.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 Spectral displacement. in.60 5% 0.239 Capacity spectrum with equivalent viscous damping points and secant stiffnesses.10 0.
20 0. 68. Structural Analysis 1.40 0. still in spectral space. The demand spectra are based on the short period and 1second period accelerations obtained in Sec.241.8) or 10.308(7. is approximately 7. These values are SDS = 1. The damping modification factors used to obtain the curves were taken directly or by interpolation from Table 3. obtained from the first mode elastic responsespectrum analysis.240 Demand spectra for several equivalent viscous damping values.60 0.2.00 0 5 10 Spectral displacement.213. 3111 . 9.2e.5 in.8 in.2 in. 15 20 25 Figure 3. This is the same as that found from the iterative solution. in. The expected inelastic roof displacement for the actual structure is 1.241.494.00 10% 15% 0.Chapter 3.20 5% 1. 3. The expected inelastic roof displacement. This is 20 percent greater than the value of 8. g 20% 25% 0. which is a closeup of the relevant portion of Figure 3. The final steps of the analysis are facilitated by Figure 3. Plots for these spectra are shown individually in Figure 3.237.09 and SD1 = 0.2.242. 45.80 Spectral pseudoacceleration. The demand spectra are shown on the same plot as the capacity spectrum in Figure 3.
20 0. 15 20 25 Figure 3. in. g 20% 25% 0.80 Spectral pseudoacceleration.FEMA 451. 3112 .241 Capacity and demand spectra on single plot.20 5% 1.40 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1.60 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.00 0 5 10 Spectral displacement.00 10% 15% 0.
0 6.0 7.00 5.15 0.0.10 0. Figure 3.0 9.20 Spectral pseudoacceleration.0 10.242 Closeup view of portion of capacity and demand spectra. 3113 .30 5% 10% 0. g 25% 20% 25% 0.05 0.0 8. Structural Analysis 15% 20% 0.25 15% Chapter 5% 10% 3. in.0 Spectral displacement.
90 0.2 1125 0. 3. however.) 3rd Story Drift (in.06 1. (rad) Max column plastic hinge rot.6 TimeHistory Analysis Because of the many assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the capacity spectrum method.5.2. 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. does eliminate two of the main problems with static pushover analysis: selection of the appropriate lateral load pattern and use of equivalent linear 3114 . (rad) Strong Panel w/o PDelta 10.35 1.00564 0. Table 3.00511 0. A timehistory analysis.19 2.81 1. base shears for the structure with Pdelta effects included were about 8 percent lower than for the structure without Pdelta effects.87 1.) Max beam plastic hinge rot.82 2. as only one structure has been analyzed.) 5th Story Drift (in.4 Summary and Observations from Pushover Analysis 1. 3.2 1033 0.84 1.00524 0.21 2. (rad) Max panel zone hinge rot.00522 0.81 2. Conclusions cannot be drawn from this comparison. the differences between response with and without Pdelta effects would have been much more significant. (in. This is again attributed to the overstrength provided.00437 3.83 0.31 1.78 1. In particular. while by no means perfect. The structure without panel zone reinforcement appears to perform as well as the structure with such reinforcement.0 Strong Panel with PDelta 10.216 Summary of Results from Pushover Analysis Computed Quantity Expected Inelastic Disp. If the maximum expected displacement was larger.00 2.216. All drifts and rotations are consistent with the expected inelastic roof displacement shown at the top of the table.64 0.0 0. The small inelastic deformations are attributed to the considerable overstrength provided when preliminary member sizes were adjusted to satisfy story drift limits.3 1031 0.68 0.55 1. it is reasonable to consider the use of timehistory analysis for the computation of global and local deformation demands.) 2nd Story Drift (in.27 1.4 953 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Results for all the strong and weak panel structures under modal load are summarized in Table 3. 4.0 0.45 2.96 2.) Base Shear Demand (kips) 6th Story Drift (in.0 0.23 2.14 1.) 1st Story Drift (in. 2.29 2.2.0 0.FEMA 451.00421 Weak Panel with PDelta 10.20 1.) 4th Story Drift (in. The simplified approach from the Provisions predicts maximum expected displacements about 8 to 10 percent lower than the much more complicated capacity spectrum method. Pdelta effects had a small but significant effect on the response of the system.0 Weak Panel w/o PDelta 10.
Fortunately. it will generally have the effect of overestimating the hysteretic energy dissipation in the yielding elements. most particularly selection and scaling of ground motions. timehistory analysis does introduce its own problems.24. say 2. Inelastic hysteretic behavior was represented through the use of a bilinear model. 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. If the first and third mode frequencies. 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. for this reason. In Rayleigh proportional damping. the proportionality factors may be computed from the following expression:9 ⎧α ⎫ 2ξ ⎧ω1ω 3 ⎫ ⎨ ⎬= ⎨ ⎬ ⎩ β ⎭ ω1 + ω 3 ⎩ 1 ⎭ 9 See Ray W. However.1 Modeling and Analysis Procedure The DRAIN2Dx program was used for each of the timehistory analyses. and inclusion of inherent (viscous) damping. This model exhibits neither a loss of stiffness nor a loss of strength and. The timehistory analysis of Example 2 is used to estimate the deformation demands for the structure shown in Figures 3. choice of hysteretic model. Second order effects were included through the use of the outrigger element shown to the right of the actual frame in Figure 3. 2nd Edition. Some analysts would use a lower damping.02 radians it is possible for local inelastic buckling to reduce the apparent strength and stiffness.22. The structural model was identical to that used in the static pushover analysis. 3115 . are known.Chapter 3. (Previous analysis has indicated a low likelihood of rotations significantly greater than 0. Analyses included and excluded Pdelta effects. conducted only for the structure with panel zone reinforcement. This was done primarily for consistency with the pushover analysis.02 radians. Dynamics of Structures. which use a baseline damping of 5 percent of critical.6.5 percent. The mass and stiffness proportional damping factors were set to produce 5 percent damping in the first and third modes.2. ω1 and ω3. The analysis. is carried out for a suite of three ground motions specifically prepared for the site. to compensate for the fact that bilinear hysteretic models tend to overestimate energy dissipation in plastic hinges. Clough and Joseph Penzien. 3.02 radians. Rayleigh proportional damping was used to represent viscous energy dissipation in the structure. respectively. Structural Analysis viscous damping in the demand spectrum to represent inelastic hysteretic energy dissipation.21 and 3.) At inelastic rotations greater than 0.
00025 seconds.0. These hinges.) 18. the rotational velocity is significant.120 and is repeated as Table 3. Time steps and other integration parameters were carefully controlled to minimize errors. This artificial viscous moment – the product of the rotational velocity. (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. These large moments transfer to the rest of the structure. the initial rotational stiffness of the hinge.6. In fact.217 for the models analyzed by the timehistory method.2. To increase ξ from 5 percent to 10 percent of critical requires only that α and β be increased by a factor of 2.217 Structural Frequencies and Damping Factors Used in TimeHistory Analysis. and the stiffness proportional damping factor – can be quite large. Before the hinge yields there is virtually no rotational velocity in the hinge. 3. Later analyses used time steps as large as 0.65 18.223 ω3 (Hz. If a stiffness proportional damping factor is used for the hinge. the viscous moment may even exceed the intended plastic capacity of the hinge. followed by ground acceleration. The incremental differential equations of motion were solved in a stepbystep manner using the Newmark constant average acceleration approach.267 0. hence.218. After yielding. effecting the sequence of hinging in the rest of the structure. Table 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Note that α and β are directly proportional to ξ.92 α 0. the plastic moment and the viscous moments are additive.118 3. These viscous moments occur in phase with the plastic rotation. The minium time step used for analysis was 0. The structural frequencies and damping proportionality factors are shown in Table 3. 3116 .) 3.001 seconds. have a very high initial stiffness. The use of stiffness proportional damping in discrete plastic hinges can produce a totally inaccurate analysis result. and produce artificially high base shears.FEMA 451.2 Development of Ground Motion Records The ground motion time histories used in the analysis were developed specifically for the site. particularly those in the girders. a viscous moment will develop in the hinge.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.275 β 0. Basic information for the records was shown previously in Table 3. The structure was subjected to dead load and full reduced live load.00459 0.
443 Lucern (Landers) EW 8192 @ 0. Iran) Dayhook (Tabas.005 seconds 0.02 seconds 0.435 0. Structural Analysis Table 3.005 seconds 4096 @ 0.460 0.Chapter 3.245.005 seconds 0.407 USC Lick (Loma Prieta) USC Lick (Loma Prieta) Dayhook (Tabas.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 1024 @ 0.243 through 3. Iran) Time histories and 5percentdamped response spectra for each of the motions are shown in Figures 3.02 seconds 1024 @ 0. 3117 .218 Seattle Ground Motion Parameters (Unscaled) Number of Points and Peak Ground Source Motion Orientation Time Increment Acceleration (g) NS 8192 @ 0.460 0.
60 0. g 1.40 0.243 Time histories and response spectra for Record A.20 0.01 0.20 0. sec 1.40 Acceleration.FEMA 451.00 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Time.80 0.40 1.40 Acceleration.20 0. g 0.00 0.60 0.60 0. sec 1.60 1. g 0. sec Record A00 1.20 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Record A00 0.00 10.01 Record A90 0.00 10.40 0. sec Record A90 0.40 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Time.00 Figure 3.00 0.40 1.10 Period.20 0.00 0. g Pseudoacceleration.80 0. 3118 .00 0.00 1.20 0.60 1.10 Period.60 0.40 0.20 Pseudoacceleration.20 0.00 0.
Structural Analysis 3119 .Chapter 3.
60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.40 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record B90 0.00 0.20 0.40 Acceleration.20 0.80 0.00 0.10 Period.00 0.01 Record B90 0.40 1. g 0.00 1.00 Figure 3.60 0.FEMA 451.20 0.60 0.40 1.20 0. 3120 . sec 1.00 0.60 1.20 0.10 Period.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.20 0.80 0.01 0. g 1.00 10.40 Acceleration.40 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Record B00 0.60 0.60 1.40 0.00 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record B00 1.20 Pseudoacceleration. sec 1.60 0.40 0.00 0.244 Time histories and response spectra for Record B. g 0.20 1.00 10.
20 0.245 Time histories and response spectra for Record C.01 0.00 10.60 1. Structural Analysis Record C00 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.00 0.20 0. g 0.00 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record C90 0. 3121 .10 Period.01 Record C90 0.40 0.00 1.Chapter 3. sec 1.20 1.00 0.00 0.60 0.20 0. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Record C00 1.00 Figure 3.40 1.40 Acceleration.10 Period. g Pseudoacceleration.20 0.20 Pseudoacceleration.60 0.40 0.40 Acceleration.60 1.20 0.00 0.00 0. sec 1.00 10.60 0.40 0.60 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.80 0.60 0. g 0.40 0.80 0.40 1. g 1.20 0.
only a single component of ground motion is applied at one time.2T. If the Provisions had called for a cutoff of 0. Analysis was run with and without Pdelta effects for all three ground motions. For each pair of motions: a. T1 is the fundamental mode period of vibration of the structure. A complete analysis would require consideration of both sets of ground motions.00) = 3. 3122 .2.1 [5.51 is used. If a scale factor of 1. Assume an initial scale factor for each motion pair (for example.2.6.1 Response of Structure with 5 Percent of Critical Damping 10 2.6. b.26. For the analyses reported herein.51 is probably conservative because it is controlled by the period at 0. the required scale factor would be reduced to 1. only the NS (00) records of each ground motion were utilized. including Pdelta effects).25T instead of the (somewhat arbitrary) value of 0.1] gives the following instructions for scaling: 1. SB. The following parameters were varied to determine the sensitivity of the response to the particular variation: 1. and SC such that the average of the scaled response spectra over the period range 0.5.212. 10. which will clearly be in the higher modes of response of the structure. As with the threedimensional timehistory analysis for the first example in this chapter. and 20 percent damping (Ground Motion A00.2(2.2.FEMA 451.00) = 0.00 seconds is approximately the average of the period of the strong panel model with and without Pdelta effects.1. 3. When analyzing structures in two dimensions. Provisions Sec. 5. These analyses were performed to assess the potential benefit of added viscous fluid damping devices.10 The scale factor of 1. 2.246 indicates that the criteria specified by the Provisions have been met for all periods in the range 0.0 seconds.2T1 to 1. 3. 2.47 seconds. 4.5 T1 is not less than the 5percentdamped spectrum determined in accordance with Provisions Sec. it will be assumed that the scale factors for the three earthquakes are to be the same.5(2. Figure 3. See Table 3. Analysis was run with 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Because only a twodimensional analysis of the structure is performed using DRAIN.3. The 20second cutoff was based on a series of preliminary analyses that used the full duration. 5.3 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. Adjust scale factors SA. Compute the 5percentdamped elastic response spectrum for each component in the pair.40 sec to 1.4. SA for ground motion A00).3.6.2.
=1. Structural Analysis The results from the first series of analyses.6 0.2 2.4 2. in.0 0.6 1.=1.246 Ground motion scaling parameters.8 Period. The first value is the maximum total elastic column story shear. Selected timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3.0 NEHRP Spectrum (a) Comparison of Average of Scaled Spectra and NEHRP Spectrum (S.6 1.8 0. 700 Pseudoacceleration.0 1. the story shears obtained from the two methods should be identical.6 1.8 3.2 2.222./sec 2 600 Average of scaled EQ Windows 500 400 300 200 100 0 0. scaled average/NEHRP 1. including Pdelta effects if applicable.219 and 3. sec 2.6 0.264.219 through 3.0 1.4 1. The second value represents the maximum total inertial force for the structure.0 2.51) Figure 3.4 0.6 2.4 1. which is not necessarily concurrent with the column shears.6 0. For a system with no damping.221 are for the single frame analyzed and should be doubled to obtain the total shear in the structure.8 3. was obtained as sum of the products of the total horizontal accelerations and nodal mass of each joint.4 1. are summarized in Tables 3.51) 1.2 1.8 Period. all run with 5 percent of critical damping.8 1. The inertial base shear. sec 2. The tables of story shear also provide two values for each ground motion. For a system with damping.F.247 through 3.2 1.4 0. the base shear obtained from column forces generally will be less than the shear from inertial forces because the 3123 .8 1. The tabulated shears in Tables 3. Energy time histories are included for each analysis.0 0.0 2.F.6 2.8 Ratio.2 1.4 2.2 0.0 (b) Ratio of Average of Scaled Spectra to NEHRP Spectrum (S.Chapter 3.4 0.
Strong Panels.FEMA 451.75 3.04 Motion C00 11.50 Table 3.75 3.) from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 percent Damping. Table 3.4 1.75 3. columns.75 2.75 3.98 4. Strong Panels.220 summarize the global response of the structure with excluding Pdelta effects.37 3.13 Limit NA 3. Tables 3.219 and 3. Excluding PDelta Effects Level Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G Motion A00 16.255.78 3.88 3. Additionally. The total roof drift and the peak story drifts listed in Tables 3.65 2.7 1.63 2.220 Maximum Story Drifts (in.52 2.41 3. Local quantification of such effects is provided later for the structure responding to Ground Motion A00.219 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed with 5 Percent Damping.82 2.221 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed with 5 Percent Damping.247 through 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples viscous component of column shear is not included.67 2. Timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3. Excluding PDelta Effects Level Column Forces Inertial Forces Motion A00 1559 1307 Motion B00 1567 1370 Motion C00 1636 1464 Table 3.75 4. the force absorbed by the mass proportional component of damping will be lost (as this is not directly recoverable in DRAIN).220 and 3.222 are peak (envelope) values at each story and are not necessarily concurrent.51 3.0 1. Including PDelta Effects Level Column Forces Inertial Forces Motion A00 1426 1282 Motion B00 1449 1354 Motion C00 1474 1441 3124 . Significant yielding occurred in the girders.33 2. Strong Panels. and panel zone regions for each of the ground motions.60 2.15 3.81 Motion B00 13.
47 2.247.264.. while the peak roof displacement from Ground Motion C00 was only 11. 1441 kips.59 2.60 4.7 in.31 3. The reason for the differences in response to the three ground motions is not evident from their ground acceleration timehistory traces (see Figures 3.75 4.98 in. This shear is somewhat less than the shear of 1464 kips which occurs under the same ground motion when Pdelta effects are excluded.256. however.75 Limit NA 3.08 4.266.5 seconds into the earthquake.221 and 3.08 3. are very similar for each of the ground motions and range from 1307 kips to 1464 kips. Responses for the other two ground motions shown in Figures 3. taken from the sum of column forces.222 Maximum Story Drifts (in. the maximum story drift was 4.4 in.66 2.25 that is permitted when nonlinear analysis is performed. There is.75 3.78 3. Structural Analysis Table 3. 3125 .75 3.4 in.265 and 3.50 The peak base shears (for a single frame).81 in. The story drift at the lower level of the structure is 4. Pdelta effects have a significant influence on the response of the structure to each of the ground motions. respectively.249.245).5 in.84 Motion B00 14. which are history traces of roof displacement and base shear.222. Including PDelta Effects Level Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G Motion A00 17.75 3.256 through 3. The firststory drift of 4. for Level 1 and 3.250 and 3. Table 3. A reduction in base shear is to be expected for yielding structures when Pdelta effects are included. in response to Ground Motion A00.78 2.2 1.48 3.221 summarizes the base shear response and indicates that the maximum base shear from the column forces. The larger drifts recorded during Ground Motion A00 are again associated with residual inelastic deformations. for Levels 2 through 6. Table 3.253 do not have a significant residual displacement. exceeds the allowable drift of 4. the larger displacements observed in Ground Motion A00 are due to a permanent inelastic displacement offset that occurs at about 10. Recall that the allowable drift includes a factor of 1.81 in. Responses for analysis with and without Pdelta effects are shown in the same figure.84 in. For Ground Motion A00.31 2.90 3.4 1.50 in. This is illustrated in Figures 3. As shown in Figure 3.11 Motion C00 10.61 2.9 1.) from TimeHistory Analysis with 5 Percent Damping. occurring during ground motion A00. occurs during Ground Motion C00. Similar differences occurred for the firststory displacement. For Ground Motion A00 the roof displacement reached a maximum value of 16. This may be seen clearly in the timehistory trace of roof and firststory displacement shown in Figure 3.89 3. Strong Panels.243 through 3. when Pdelta effects are included and this exceeds the limit of 4. Timehistory traces are shown in Figures 3.222 shows that inclusion of Pdelta effects led to a general increase in displacements with the peak roof displacement of 17. The Pdelta effect is most evident after the structure has yielded.Chapter 3. The response of the structure including Pdelta effects is summarized in Tables 3.75 3. a pronounced difference in the recorded peak displacements. The sharp increase in energy at this time is evident in Figure 3.48 2.
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 3.247 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. in. Ground Motion A00. 3126 .248 Time history of total base shear. kips 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Tim sec e.FEMA 451. excluding Pdelta effects. Ground Motion A00. 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. excluding Pdelta effects. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20 15 Displacement.
Chapter 3. Ground MotionA00. InchKips 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 4 8 Tim e.249 Energy time history. 20 15 Displacement. excluding Pdelta effects. Se conds 12 16 20 S train + Hysteretic + Viscous Total Figure 3.250 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3. in. Ground Motion B00. excluding Pdelta effects. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 3127 . Structural Analysis 45000 S train + Hysteretic 40000 35000 30000 Energy.
sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 3128 . Ground Motion B00.000 10. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.000 5. in. Ground Motion B00.000 40.FEMA 451. 45. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3.000 25.kips 30.000 Energy.000 35.000 15. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 2000 1500 Base shear.252 Energy time history.251 Time history of total base shear. excluding Pdelta effects. excluding Pdelta effects.000 20.
Ground Motion C00. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. Ground Motion C00. excluding Pdelta effects. excluding Pdelta effects. 2000 1500 Base shear. in. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3.Chapter 3. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3.253 Time history of roof and firststory displacement.254 Time history of total base shear. Structural Analysis 20 15 Displacement. 3129 .
255 Energy time history. 20 15 Displacement. Ground Motion A00. 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.FEMA 451. in. InchKips 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 4 8 Tim e.256 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 45000 S train + Hysteretic 40000 35000 30000 Energy. Se conds 12 16 20 S train + Hysteretic + Viscous Total Figure 3. including Pdelta effects. 3130 . excluding Pdelta effects. Ground Motion C00.
kips 30. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3. Ground Motion A00. in. Structural Analysis 2000 1500 Base shear.000 25. including Pdelta effects.257 Time history of total base shear.000 20. Ground Motion A00.000 5.000 35.000 Energy.Chapter 3. 3131 . 45.000 40.000 10.000 15.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. including Pdelta effects. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.258 Energy time history.
Ground Motion B00. including Pdelta effects. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20 15 Displacement.FEMA 451. including Pdelta effects. 3132 . sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3.259 Time history of roof and firststory displacement.260 Time history of total base shear. kips 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 2000 1500 Base shear. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. Ground Motion B00. in.
sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3. Ground Motion B00.kips 30.261 Energy time history.000 15. Ground Motion C00. including Pdelta effects. Structural Analysis 45. 3133 .000 20.000 Energy.000 35. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total (Roof) First Story Figure 3.000 10.000 25.262 Time history of roof and firststory displacement. in.000 40.Chapter 3.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 20 15 Displacement. in.000 5. including Pdelta effects. 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 20. in.0 15.000 40. including Pdelta effects.0 5.0 10.000 25. Ground Motion C00.0 Displacem ent. 45.000 10.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.000 35.000 20.000 Energy.FEMA 451. 3134 .264 Energy time history. including Pdelta effects. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.0 0.263 Time history of total base shear. Ground Motion C00. Seconds 12 14 16 18 20 Roof Level 1 Figure 3.000 15.kips 30.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.0 20.0 5.000 5.0 15. Inches 10.
266 Time history of base shear.265 Timehistory of roof displacement. Ground Motion A00.Chapter 3. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Excluding PDelta Figure 3. Ground Motion A00. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3. with and without Pdelta effects. kips 500 0 500 Including PDelta Excluding PDelta 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear. 3135 . in. 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time. with and without Pdelta effect. Structural Analysis 20 Including PDelta 15 10 Displacement.
it is difficult to explain these differences. 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. yielding does not necessarily occur at all locations simultaneously. 5. including Pdelta effects. It is also very interesting to note that 3136 . max = 0.223.267 shows the pattern of yielding in the structure subjected to Gound Motion A00 including Pdelta effects. The maximum plastic shear strain in the web of the panel zone is identical to the computed hinge rotation in the panel zone spring. but the predicted displacements and story drifts are similar. and panel zones. Circles at the lower right corner of the panel zone represent yielding of the flange component. Due to the highly empirical nature of the ELF approach. 3.3.267 Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to Ground Motion A00. The panels zones at the exterior joints of Levels 2 and 6 also yielded. 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. consequently.267 shows that yielding occurred at both ends of each of the girders at Levels 2. and 6. max = 0.FEMA 451.2 Comparison with Results from Other Analyses Table 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Panel zone.0246 rad Figure 3. girders. The differences shown in the results are quite striking: 1. The nonlinear static pushover analysis predicts base shears and story displacements that are significantly less than those obtained from timehistory analysis. Figure 3. 4. The maximum plastic hinge rotations are shown at the locations they occur for the columns.0102 rad Girder.2. 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. The circles on the figure represent yielding at any time during the response.00121 rad Column. and in the columns at Stories 1 and 5. Figure 3.6. The base shear from nonlinear dynamic analysis is more than four times the value computed from the ELF analysis. Recall that the model analyzed incorporated panel zone reinforcement at the interior beamcolumn joints. max = 0. Yielding patterns for the other ground motions and for analyses run with and without Pdelta effects were similar but are not shown here. Recall that the base shears in the table represent half of the total shear in the building. 3.
223 Summary of All Analyses for Strong Panel Structure.) Girder Hinge Rot.74 3.73 2.224.23 2. the maximum base shear that could be developed in the system would be in the range of 1100 kips.27 1. Figure 3.15 3. Figure 3.08 4.77 2.7 1. for example.) Table 3.268 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. the most significant reason for the difference is the use of the firstmode lateral loading pattern in the nonlinear static pushover response.51 that was required for the timehistory analysis.63 3.60 4. The higher mode effects shown in the Figure 3.87 2.14 NA NA NA NA Static Pushover Provisions Method 1051 12.90 0.31 1.00624 Base Shear (kips) Roof Disp.) Drift 54 (in.Chapter 3.00131 No Yielding No Yielding Nonlinear Dynamic 1474 17.48 3.0065 0.84 0. See. (rad) Column Hinge Rot.) Drift 43 (in.73 2.31 3. Including PDelta Effects Analysis Method Response Quantity Equivalent Lateral Forces 373 18. While part of the difference in the pushover and timehistory response is due to the scale factor of 1. (in.90 3. The differences are quite remarkable.0192 0.78 1.3 0.) Drift R6 (in.) Drift 32 (in.4 1.81 2.0140 0.) Drift 65 (in.02 1.91 3. even at an applied roof displacement of 42 in. Structural Analysis the pushover analysis indicates no yielding in the panel zones.) Drift 21 (in.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. (If the inertial forces were constrained to follow the first mode response.00624 0.23 0.34 2.4 1. (rad) Panel Plastic Shear Strain Note: Shears are for half of total structure. 3137 . (rad) Panel Hinge Rot.00732 0.00130 No Yielding No Yielding Static Pushover CapacitySpectrum 1031 10.
however. Strong Panels. added damping is also a viable approach. In each case. that an increase in damping had little effect on the inertial base shear. an increase in damping from 5 to 10 percent of critical eliminates the drift problem.224 and 3.5% Column Forces Inertial Forces 1354 1440 5% 1284 1426 10% 1250 1520 20% 1150 1421 28% 1132 1872 3138 .224 Maximum Base Shear (kips) in Frame Analyzed Ground Motion A00.6. Including PDelta Effects Damping Ratio Item 2. and Pdelta effects were included. Even greater improvement is obtained by increasing damping to 20 percent of critical. which is the true shear in the system.268 Comparison of inertial force patterns.225.3 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. preliminary analysis was performed by simply increasing the damping ratio from 5 percent to 20 percent of critical in 5percent increments. 3. A summary of the results is shown in Tables 3.5 percent damping. For comparison purposes. To determine the effect of added damping on the behavior of the structure. In is interesting to note. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 19k 209k 75k 640k 590k 288k Time History Analysis First Mode Pattern Figure 3. As may be seen.3.FEMA 451. the panel zones were reinforced. However. the structure was subjected to Ground Motion A00.2. Table 3. 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. an additional analysis was performed for a system with only 2.
additional analysis that treats the individual dampers explicitly would be required.31 3.33 3.72 3. the damping constant for the element is: Cdevice = β device kdevice The damper elastic stiffness should be negligible so set kD = 0.21 20% 12. If a damping constant Cdevice were required.18 If added damping were a viable option. Including PDelta Effects Damping Ratio Level 2. only linear damping is possible in DRAIN. The elastic stiffness of the damper element is simply: kdevice = Adevice Edevice Ldevice As stiffness proportional damping is used. Thus: β device = Cdevice = 1000 Cdevice 0. 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 would be obtained as follows: Let the length of the Type1 damper element be Ldevice.90 3. it could be modeled through the use of a Type1 (truss bar) element.Chapter 3.21 1.00 3.8 1.93 5% 17.90 28% 11. If a linear viscous fluid damping device (Figure 3.001 kips/in. This is easily accomplished in DRAIN by use of the stiffness proportional component of Rayleigh damping.225 Maximum Story Drifts (in.74 2.001 and Adevice = the damper length Ldevice. the author typically sets Edevice = 0.5% Total Roof R6 65 54 43 32 2G 18.77 2. and modulus of elasticity Edevice.4 1.87 3.08 4.43 2.1 1. Strong Panels.) from TimeHistory Analysis Ground Motion A00.86 2.84 10% 15. the cross sectional area Adevice. 3139 .40 2.60 4. In practice.13 2.11 4. however.69 4. Structural Analysis Table 3.001 When modeling added dampers in this manner.37 2.48 3.9 1.269) were to be used in a particular story.71 3.70 4.08 2.81 3.42 2.79 2.4 1.
Different dampers may require different values. The analysis was repeated using Rayleigh damping wherein the above stated modal damping ratios were approximately obtained. between Bays 3 and 4 (see Figure 3. were added in Stories 1 and 2.269 Modeling a simple damper. In order to compare the response of the structure with fictitiously high Rayleigh damping to the response with actual discrete dampers. and in excess of 70 percent of critical damping was obtained in modes three through six. L j i D am per Brace Brace Figure 3. the trend of decreased displacements and increased inertial shears with higher damping is continued. These modal damping values are approximate and may be poor estimates of actual modal damping. Figure 3. 55 percent of critical damping was obtained in the second mode. with true viscous dampers. particularly when there is excessive flexibility in the mechanism that connects the damper to the structure. were added at Stories 5 and 6. and dampers with C = 60 kipsec/in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This value of βdevice is for the added damper element only. has strong panels.21). DRAIN will report a damping value in each mode. the structure is subjected to Ground Motion A00.. Using the modal strain energy approach. As may be observed.270 shows the time history of roof displacements for the structure without added damping. Using these devices. there is a dramatic 3140 . Modeling the dynamic response using Type1 elements is exact within the typical limitations of finite element analysis.224 and 3. As before. Devices with a damping constant (C) of 80 kipsec/in. dampers were added in a chevron configuration along column lines C and D. were added in Stories 3 and 4. The peak shears and displacements obtained from the analysis with Rayleigh damping are shown at the extreme right of Tables 3. a different (global) value of β will be required to model the stiffness proportional component of damping in the remaining nondamper elements. an equivalent viscous damping of approximately 28 percent of critical was obtained in the first mode. The chevron braces used to connect the devices to the main structure had sufficient stiffness to eliminate any loss of efficiency of the devices. and with equivalent Rayleigh damping. devices with C = 70 kipsec/in.225. and has Pdelta effects included. Also. As may be seen.FEMA 451.
and with equivalent viscous damping. 3141 .0 kip = 4. Structural Analysis decrease in roof displacement. It is also clear that the discrete dampers and the equivalent Rayleigh damping produce very similar results. Figure 3. = 25.Chapter 3. the base shears include the horizontal component of the forces in the chevron braces. in. These base shears were obtained from the summation of column forces. 2000 1500 1000 Base shear.45 kN). 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.271 shows the time history of base shears for the structure without added damping. with discrete dampers. sec 12 14 16 18 20 No added damping With discrete added damping With Rayleigh added damping Figure 3.0 in. 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. The peak base shear for the system with equivalent viscous damping is less than the shear in the system without added damping.271 Base shear time histories obtained from column forces (1. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 1Figure 3.270 Response of structure with discrete dampers and with equivalent viscous damping (1. including Pdelta effects. The base shears for the discretely damped system are greater than the shears for the system without added damping. 20 15 Roof displacement.4 mm). For the discrete damper case.
3142 .273.FEMA 451.272. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Discrete damping Rayleigh damping Figure 3. kips 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.258. and should always be used in lieu of the sum of column forces. As might be expected. The reduction in hysteretic energy demand for the system with added damping will reduce the damage in the structure. As may be observed. which is an energy time history for the structure with added discrete damping (which yields equivalent viscous damping of 28 percent of critical). the responses are almost identical. This effect is shown in Figure 3.0 kip = 4. the use of added discrete damping reduces the hysteretic energy demand on the structure. which is the energy history for the structure without added damping. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 2000 1500 1000 Base shear.272 Base shear time histories as obtained from inertial forces (1.45 kN). The inertial forces represent the true base shear in the structure. The inertial base shears in the system with discrete damping and with equivalent viscous damping are shown in Figure 3. This figure should be compared to Figure 3.
and 5 were carried to a point that allowed comparison of results. particular attention was paid to representing possible inelastic behavior in the panelzone regions of the beamcolumn joints. five different analytical approaches were used to estimate the deformation demands in a simple unbraced steel frame structure: 1.Chapter 3.000 30.113 kNm).000 20.000 5.7 Summary and Conclusions In this example. 3.000 10. Structural Analysis 45. 3. a number of substantive technical changes have been made to the appendix. 5. The results obtained from the three different analytical approaches were quite dissimilar. for example.000 40. 11 Improved methods are becoming available for pushover analysis (see.000 15. Chopra and Goel 2001).0 in. 2. 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 1.000 35. 4.273 Energy timehistory for structure with discrete added damping (1.kip = 0. when used alone. 3. in.000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time.2.000 Energy. Because of the influence of the higher mode effects on the response.11 [In the 2003 Provisions. is inadequate.kips 25. 3143 . In modeling the structure. pushover analysis. sec 12 14 16 18 20 Total Strain + Hysteretic + Viscous Strain + Hysteretic Figure 3.
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. Among the most pressing problems is the need for a suitable suite of ground motions. This leaves timehistory analysis as the most viable approach. the author believes that deterministic methods should not be abandoned entirely. significant shortcomings. However. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples largely as a result of work performed in the development of ATC 55.FEMA 451. the suite must include nearfield effects. it is expected that timehistory analysis will eventually play a more dominant role in the seismic analysis of buildings.] Except for preliminary design. What is still lacking is a comprehensive approach for seismicresistant design based on these principles. 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. 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. In the context of performancebased design. 3144 . Given the speed and memory capacity of personal computers. Methods based on explicit quantification of damage should be seriously considered. Bertero and Bertero (2002) have presented valuable discussions in these regards. They have been presented by many academics and practicing engineers. The ideas presented above are certainly not original. Through future research and the efforts of code writing bodies. limitations. 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. While probabilistic methods for dealing with such uncertainties seem like a natural extension of the analytical approach. All ground motions must adequately reflect site conditions and. That report outlines numerous other technical modifications that could be considered in application of nonlinear static analysis methods. where applicable.
are anticipated. 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. P. This chapter illustrates application of the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions to the design of foundation elements. and careful attention to practical considerations of construction.2. the ability to proportion concrete elements correctly. Foundation elements are most commonly constructed of reinforced concrete. 41 . In both cases.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. analysis should not be the primary focus of foundation design. such as those occurring during an earthquake. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions.E. While the general concepts of the changes are described. an understanding of how such elements should be detailed to produce ductile response. Example 4.2 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. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. The forcedisplacement response of soil to loading is highly nonlinear and strongly time dependent. [ ]. Control of settlement is generally the most important aspect of soil response to gravity loads. As compared to design of concrete elements that form the superstructure of a building. Good foundation design for seismic resistance requires familiarity with basic soil behavior and common geotechnical parameters. the strength of the soil may control foundation design where large amplitude transient loads. Annotations within brackets. Although this chapter is based on the 2000 Provisions. Although the application of advanced analysis techniques to foundation design is becoming increasingly common (and is illustrated in this chapter). Example 4. only those portions of the designs necessary to illustrate specific points are included. Another change was made to introduce guidance for the explicit modeling of foundation loaddeformation characteristics. However.4 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Michael Valley. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. additional consideration must be given to concrete foundation elements due to permanent exposure to potentially deleterious materials. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. The most significant change to the foundation chapter in the 2003 Provisions is the addition of a strength design method for foundations. less precise construction tolerances. and even the possibility of unintentional mixing with soil.
ASCE. M. 1987. “Seismic Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and Geotechnical Issues. HarperCollins. and D. A. Salmon. Modeling of Pile Footings and Drilled Shafts for Seismic Design. 11 (November). T. Ensoft. Kramer. Kapuskar. MCEER980018.0 for Windows. and S. 1995. 1993. Pender. 26. Morrison. 2000.K.” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. ASCE. Vol. Brown. CRSI Design Handbook. 1996. J. PoLam. Technical Manual for LPILE Plus 3.. 1996. “Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Group in Sand. Reese. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. Chaudhuri. L. 1988. Reinforced Concrete Design . A. “Cyclic Lateral Loading of a LargeScale Pile Group. C. 1996. Prentice Hall. T. FEMA 356. 1 (March). Foundation Analysis and Design. (November). 1992. E. 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. 11. No. W. C. ASCE. Brown.. L. C..0 for Windows. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Proceedings: Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. D. 1988. Ensoft. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. R. G. J. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Wang. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions and Commentary (referred to herein as Provisions and Commentary). 1999 [2002]. Wang. C. and C. D. No. Vol. Bowles. I. 1998. “Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis. Reese.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE 7 Bowles Brown 1987 Brown 1988 CRSI FEMA 356 GROUP Kramer LPILE Martin Pender PoLam Wang & Salmon 42 .. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Martin.. S.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. C. Wang. 113. O’Neill. 1997. M. C. PoLam. L. and I. G. and S. and M. Manual for GROUP 4.. No.FEMA 451. Reese. 1998 [2002].. McGrawHill. Reese. L. and L. Vol 114.
M. in the analysis of laterally loaded single piles.. LPILE. to determine concrete pile section capacities. RISA: 3D is used to determine the shears and moments in a concrete mat foundation. T. ASCE. Idriss. L.Chapter 4. Several commercially available programs were used to perform the calculations described in this chapter. 2001.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (October).. Foundation Analysis and Design Youd Youd. and et al. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 43 . and PCACOL. I.
punching into the soil is more likely. Refer to that example for more detailed building information and for the design of the superstructure. 5. Table 4. servicelevel loads applied to foundations do not exceed the noted bearing pressure. 44 .11 Typical framing plan. are suitable for shallow foundations. differential and total settlements are expected to be within acceptable limits.2 of this volume of design examples. Where loads are applied over smaller areas. some values may differ slightly between the two chapters.1. LOS ANGELES. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. Settlements are more pronounced where large areas are loaded.1 Basic Information 4. consisting of medium dense sands. because Chapter 4 was completed after Chapter 5. 4.1. Note the distinction made between bearing pressure and bearing capacity. If the longterm. 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.FEMA 451.11 shows the gravityloadresisting system for a representative level of the building. The site soils. 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.1 Description The framing plan in Figure 4.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR A SEVENSTORY OFFICE BUILDING.1. so the bearing pressure limits are a function of the size of the loaded area. 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.
lateral. 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.7 for vertical. [The 2003 Provisions discuss the settlement and strength limit states in Sec. 7.11 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.46 Passive.2.2.3 Atrest. the value is set at 0.1 of this volume of design examples. Resistance factor.2.1.] 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 = 4.1. The following parameters.6 [In the 2003 Provisions. The recommended values are consistent with these expectations. lateral.65 Resistance factor. KA = 0.0 45 . K0 = 0.000 psi fy = 60.7 for vertical.3 “Ultimate” friction coefficient at base of footing = 0. Site Class = D SDS = 1.2 Provisions Parameters The complete set of parameters used in applying the Provisions to design of the superstructure is described in Sec.] Table 4. KP = 3. φ = 0. the value is set at 0.8 [In the 2003 Provisions. φ = 0. are duplicated here.000 psi 4.Chapter 4. the φ factor for cohesionless soil is explicitly defined.] Earth pressure coefficients Active. 5. and rocking resistance. the φ factor for cohesionless soil is explicitly defined.2 using slightly different nomenclature. which are used during foundation design. B is the footing width and B' is an average width for the compressed area. and rocking resistance.2. 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.
E. Where foundations will be subjected to shortterm loads and inelastic 46 . Provision of the minimum reinforcement assures that the strength of the cracked section is not less than that of the corresponding unreinforced concrete section.1. Chapter 15 provides direction for the calculation of demands and includes detailing requirements. The thickness of footings is selected for ease of construction and to provide adequate shear capacity for the concrete section.” Sec. When a preliminary footing size that satisfies serviceability criteria has been selected. 4. which are usually of more concern than are total settlements. Settlement control should be addressed first. 10.1 Selecting Footing Size and Reinforcement Most foundation failures are related to excessive movement rather than loss of loadcarrying capacity. 10. Sec. consideration of bearing capacity may become important.12. Chapter 21 provides the minimum requirements for concrete foundations in Seismic Design Categories D. which is uncommon in shallow foundations. If the structure is expected to remain elastic when subjected to shortterm eccentric loads (as for wind loading).1.5. ACI 318 Sec. 7. bearing capacity can be checked.1. Once service loads have been calculated. Figure 4. In recognition of this fact.4 also imposes limits on the maximum spacing of bars.4 defines how flexural reinforcement is to be distributed for footings of various shapes. these critical section definitions become less meaningful and other approaches (e. For elements that are very thick with respect to the plan dimensions (as at the pile caps). brittle failures.4 relaxes the minimum reinforcement requirement for footings of uniform thickness.3.g.1.2 Additional Considerations for Eccentric Loads The design of eccentrically loaded footings follows the approach outlined above with one significant addition – consideration of overturning stability. uplift over a portion of the footing is acceptable to most designers. which are similar to those provided in prior editions of the Provisions. Sec. Design requirements for concrete footings are found in Chapters 15 and 21 of ACI 318.5 of ACI 318 prescribes the minimum reinforcement for flexural members where tensile reinforcement is required by analysis.. 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.1. It would be rare for bearing capacity to govern the size of footings subjected to sustained loads. where large transient loads are anticipated.1. thus preventing sudden. 15. Such elements need only satisfy the shrinkage reinforcement requirements of Sec.3 Design Approach 4. foundation plan dimensions should be selected to limit bearing pressures to those that are expected to provide adequate settlement performance. For shallow foundations. Section capacities are calculated in accordance with Chapters 10 (for flexure) and 11 (for shear). Stability calculations are sensitive to the characterization of soil behavior. The common design approach is to increase footing thickness as necessary to avoid the need for shear reinforcement. 10. strutandtie modeling) should be employed. However. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Seismic Design Category = D 4.12 illustrates the critical sections (dashed lines) and areas (hatched) over which loads are tributary to the critical sections.3.5. Less reinforcement may be used as long as “the area of tensile reinforcement provided is at least onethird greater than that required by analysis. For sustained eccentric loads a linear distribution of elastic soil stresses is generally assumed and uplift is usually avoided. settlement control should be the first issue addressed. and F. reinforcement is designed to satisfy flexural demands.FEMA 451.
c. Figure 4.12 Critical sections for isolated footings. Chapter 4 of FEMA 356 provides a useful discussion of foundation compliance. Practical consideration of the case shown in part e would require modeling with inelastic elements. that approach simplifies the calculations at the expense of increased conservatism. plastic soil stresses may be considered. after uplift d (e) Some plastification (c) Critical section for twoway shear (f) Plastic limit d/2 (all sides) Figure 4.2 Design for Gravity Loads 47 . but offers no advantage over direct consideration of the plastic limit. no uplift extent of footing (typical) (c) Elastic.) 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. Foundation Analysis and Design response is acceptable (as for earthquake loading). finite element models of those conditions are easy to develop.Chapter 4. Most textbooks on foundation design provide simple equations to describe the conditions shown in parts b. 4. It is most common to consider stability effects on the basis of statically applied loads even where the loading is actually dynamic. rocking. Simple hand calculations can be performed for the case shown in part f.13 illustrates the distribution of soil stresses for the various assumptions. at uplift (b) Critical section for oneway shear (d) 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.1. and d of the figure. and other advanced considerations. For the interested reader. Figure 4.
4.1. Considering the load combinations for strength design defined in Sec.] 4.2.3.1.2(387 kips) + 1.6L.2. 5. perimeter.000 lb/4000 psf = 121. As indicated in Table 4. it is provided in this section for two reasons. 2. the alternate strength reduction factors found in ACI 318 Appendix C must be used. Because ASCE 7 load combinations are employed.2 of this volume of design examples. a complete gravity design is needed to make the cost comparisons shown in Sec. and corner) for gravity load design and the maximum computed reactions are applied to all members of the group. The service load on a typical interior footing is calculated as: P = D + L = 387 kips + 98 kips = 485 kips. [The 2003 Provisions refer to ACI 31802. 4.5.000 lb = 484 kips .2D + 1. the bearing capacity (qc) is 2000 B = 2000 × 11 = 22000 psf = 22 ksf. in which the basic resistance factors have been revised to be consistent with the load combinations in ASCE 7. the allowable bearing pressure (see Table 4. These new resistance factors (not those found in the ACI 318 Appendix) are used for seismic design.FEMA 451.5 below meaningful.25 ft2. The strength demand is: Pu = 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Although most of the examples in the volume do not provide detailed design for gravity loads.1.11. Detailed calculations are shown for a typical interior footing. Since the footing dimensions will be less than 20 ft. 4. Check a footing that is 11'0" by 11'0": Pallow = 11 ft(11 ft)(4000 psf) = 484. The results for all three footing types are summarized in Sec. the controlling gravity load combination is 1. 485 kips (demand).1 Demands Dead and live load reactions are determined as part of the threedimensional analysis described in Sec. most of the calculation procedures used in designing shallow foundations for seismic loads are identical to those used for gravity design. First.2. Although there are slight variations in the calculated reactions. the foundations are lumped into three groups (interior. the required footing area is 487.6(98 kips) = 621 kips. This change would affect slightly the results of the example calculations in this chapter .11) is 4000 psf.2 Footing Size The preliminary size of the footing is determined considering settlement. 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 of ASCE 7. Therefore.1. OK 48 . Second.
For use in subsequent calculations.1. The following calculations treat flexure first because it usually controls: ⎛ 11 − 16 ⎞ 1 12 M u = (11) ⎜ ⎟ ( 5.1. 2 2 2 OK 49 .(3 + 1.3 Footing Thickness OK Once the plan dimensions of the footing are selected. 12 2 1 φVn = φVc = ( 0.5 ) ( 1000 ) = 612 kips > 571 kips.1.5(1)) = 21.13) = 571kips . the thickness is determined such that the section satisfies the oneway and twoway shear demands without the addition of shear reinforcement.5 ⎞ 12 Vu = 11⎜ − ⎟ ( 5. 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.6(22 ksf)(11 ft)2 = 1597 kips o 621 kips.1.75 ) 2 4000 (11 × 12 )( 21.79)(60) = 474 kips. ⎣ ⎦ OK 4.Chapter 4.4 Footing Reinforcement Footing reinforcement is selected considering both flexural demands and minimum reinforcement requirements. Check a footing that is 26 in. T = As fy = 10(0.06 in.2. Foundation Analysis and Design The design capacity for the foundation is: φPn = φqcB2 = 0.cover . OK Twoway shear: Vu = 621 − ( 16 + 21.06 ) ( 12 ) = 663ftkips > 659 ftkips.12) that depend on the footing thickness. The distance from the extreme compression fiber to the center of the top layer of reinforcement.5 ) ( 1000 ) = 269 kips > 172 kips. d = 26 .13) = 659 ftkips . 1 φ M n = φ T ( d − a ) = 0. Accounting for cover and expected bar sizes. Noting that C = T and solving the expression C = 0.5 in. Because the demands are calculated at critical sections (see Figure 4.75 ) 4 4000 ⎡ 4 × (16 + 21.5 − 1.13) = 172kips . d = t .3 . iteration is required. the factored bearing pressure qu = 621 kips/(11 ft)2 = 5.5db = 26 .5 ) ⎤ ( 21.13 ksf.80 ( 474 ) ( 21. 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 1 φVn = φVc = ( 0.5(1) = 21.2. thick: For the W14 columns used in this building. 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ Try 10 #8 bars each way. 4.5 in.5 ) ( 5. Oneway shear: ⎛ 11 − 16 21.85 f'c b a for a produces a = 1.
7.3 ftkip Vu = 141 kip Vu = 41. or 18 = 18 in.2.FEMA 451.5)] = 0.5 kip [Use of the new resistance factors in ACI 31802 would change these results.1 kip Vu = 289 kip φVn = 302 kip Mu = 222 ftkip φMn = 230 ftkip φVn = 64. The distance between bars spaced uniformly across the width of the footing s = [(11)(12)2(3+0.9 in. and the maximum spacing is the lesser of 3 × 26 in. According to ACI 318 Sec.12.00278. > 13.14 depicts the resulting foundation plan.2 ftkip Mu = 73.12 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.2.00278.1.5 Design Results The calculations performed in Sec.] 410 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The ratio of reinforcement provided ρ = 10(0. 4.2 through 4. Table 4.9 kip φVn = 184 kip φMn = 80.2. The footing design for gravity loads is summarized in Table 4.4 are repeated for typical perimeter and corner footings.12. the minimum reinforcement ratio = 0.1. 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. 4.5)]/(101) = 13.0018 < 0.79)/[(11)(12)(21. Figure 4.1.9 in.
4.2 of this volume of design examples includes a perimeter moment resisting frame as the seismicforceresisting system.Chapter 4. A framing plan for the system is shown in Figure 4.1. settlement checks and design of concrete sections would be similar to the calculations shown 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.3. 4. 4.1. 4.14 Foundation plan for gravityloadresisting system.15. 411 . The results for all footing types are summarized in Sec. 5. Foundation Analysis and Design Corner: 6'x6'x1'2" thick Perimeter: 8'x8'x1'6" thick Interior: 11'x11'x2'2" thick Figure 4.1.2.3 Design for MomentResisting Frame System Framing Alternate A in Sec.
13 Demands from MomentResisting Frame System Load Rx Ry Rz Mxx D 203.8 53. both for a combined foundation for columns at Grids A5 and A6: the downward case (1. Sec.8 47. 5.5 of this volume of design examples outlines the design load combinations.5 85.1 3. including appropriately amplified counterclockwise accidental torsion.5L + 0. The detailed calculations presented here are limited to two primary conditions.1 A6 246.2. Load Ey is for loads applied toward the north.9 13.5 D 103.1 Demands A threedimensional analysis of the superstructure. which include the redundancy factor as appropriate.1 8.6 Ey 0. including appropriately amplified clockwise accidental torsion.3 1011.7 Ey 0.8 Ex 13.2 281. 4.1 21.4D + 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7 at 25'0" 5 at 25'0" N Figure 4.4 Note: Units are kips and feet.15 Framing plan for moment resisting frame system.7 51.3 Ex 14.0 Location A5 Myy 243.8 L 43.8 4.11Ey) and the upward case 412 .8 68. is performed using the RAMFRAME program. Load Ex is for loads applied toward the east.3.FEMA 451.6 3. Table 4.5 L 22.32Ex + 1. Considering two senses of accidental torsion for loading in each direction and including orthogonal effects results in a large number of load cases.13.0 891.3. in accordance with the requirements for the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure.1. Foundation reactions at selected grids are reported in Table 4.
8 . (The resulting eccentricity is small enough to neglect here. = 0. Reversing the direction of the seismic load results in P = 1173 kips and Mxx = 3490 ftkips.32)(3.8 . for footings that resist significant overturning.7D + 0.32(243.75 and all other load effects will remain unreduced.3.1 68. If the seismicforceresisting system consists of isolated shear walls.5) + [1. 413 .32(13.8) + 0. assume that the top of the footing is 2 ft below grade (the overlying soil contributes to the resisting moment).11Ey) In order to perform the overturning checks a footing size must be assumed. attention must be given to Provisions Sec.8) + 0.Chapter 4. 5.11(85. Mf.1.6 + 47.2SDSD modifier for vertical accelerations is used for the dead loads applied to the foundation but not for the weight of the foundation and soil.32Ex + 1.) 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 = 1.3)](12. in this example column axial loads (Rz) from load cases Ex and Ey will be multiplied by 0.7) + 1.11(1011.5L + 0.5 kips.891.5(43. and it is not common practice to include the vertical acceleration on the weight of the footing and the overburden.4(203.5(22.125)] = 714 kips.4D + 0. = direct moments + moment due to eccentricity of applied axial loads Mxx = 0.8) = 7. the factors in these load combinations would change.11(21.1) + 1.32(4. Furthermore.11)(21. (In these calculations the 0.2) = 167.8) + 1.7) + 1.32(3.8 + 51. which simplifies the problem considerably.4) Myy = 133 ftkips.11)(281)](12. This is the author’s interpretation of the Provisions.32(53. .5) = 7258 ftkips.32Ex + 1.5 + 0. the shear wall overturning moment at the base best fits that description. That section permits “foundations of structures .8) + 0. 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.) Vx = 0. judgment must be used in determining which design actions may be reduced.5) + 0.4(103. most of the global overturning resistance is related to axial loads in columns.8 .] Before loads can be computed.5(43.1 + 13.75[0. Check overturning for a footing that is 10 ft wide by 40 ft long by 5 ft thick.22. 4.11(0.1 .15) + 10(40)(2)(0.5 [5.” Because the overturning moment in question is the global overturning moment for the system.4.3) + 0.75(0.5 .6 + 3. [Because the redundancy factor is changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions.5) + 0. The footing and soil overburden are not subject to the same potential for dynamic amplification as the dead load of the superstructure.103. this issue makes a significant difference in design.2. Foundation Analysis and Design (0.1.11(8.75(1.8) + 0. Preliminary checks (not shown here) confirmed that isolated footings under single columns were untenable.0) + [1.32)(51. to be designed for threefourths of the foundation overturning design moment.11Ey). . For a perimeter momentresisting frame.246. Therefore.75(0. Note that the above load combination does not yield the maximum downward load.2 Downward Case (1.3) +0.5].9) + 1. Further.75(1.14.2[10(40)(5)(0.4(203.49 kips.3 + 281)] . Vy = 0.
uplift occurs and the maximum bearing pressure is: qmax = 2P 2(714) = = 4.84ksf ⎛L ⎞ ⎛ 40 ⎞ 3B ⎜ − e ⎟ 3(10) ⎜ − 10. as e approaches L/2. 4.17 ft. however. compression is positive for the soil calculations.0 ft.1.7D + 0. a solution to the overturning problem exists. (L'/2 is used as an adjustment to account for the gradient in the bearing pressure in that dimension.0 ⎟ = 6.000 psf = 30 ksf.3 Upward Case (0.) The design bearing capacity φqc = 0.84 ksf.3. will control the sliding check.17 ⎟ ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ and the length of the footing in contact with the soil is: ⎛ L ⎞ ⎛ 40 ⎞ L′ = 3 ⎜ − e ⎟ = 3⎜ − 10. OK The foundation satisfies overturning and bearing capacity checks.0 ⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ and the length of the footing in contact with the soil is: ⎛ 40 ⎞ L′ = 3 ⎜ − 18.11Ey) For the upward case the loads are: P = 346 kips Mxx = 6240 ftkips Myy = 133 ftkips (negligible) Vx = 7. ⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ The bearing capacity qc = 3000 B' = 3000 × min(B. so uplift occurs and the maximum bearing pressure is: qmax = 2(346) = 11.5ft . e is greater than L/6. ⎝ 2 ⎠ 414 .32Ex + 1. L'/2) = 3000 × min(10. which follows. Where e is less than L/2.5/2) = 30. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The soil calculations that follow use a different sign convention than that in the analysis results noted above.5ksf ⎛ 40 ⎞ 3(10) ⎜ − 18. The eccentricity is: e = M/P = 7258/714 = 10.17 ⎟ = 29.5 kips Vy = 167 kips The eccentricity is: e = M/P = 6240/346 = 18.FEMA 451.0ft .6(30 ksf) = 18 ksf > 4. Since e is greater than L/6 = 40/6 = 6. The upward case. 29. the bearing pressures increase without bound.67 ft. Again.
65)(346 kips) = 180 kips > 167.16 shows the results.1. the foundation satisfies overturning and bearing capacity checks. 4. even in that case. 4. The design sliding resistance is: φVc = φ × friction coefficient × P = 0. 346 kips.5 ksf.000 psf = 9.39) = 13. the most convenient calculation is iterative. using a plastic distribution of soil pressures.2 ksf) = 7. 4. The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(10. initially consider base traction only. the length of contact area L' = 4. OK If base traction alone had been insufficient. 6240 ftkip.92 ksf.Chapter 4. Because the bearing capacity used in this example is a function of the contact area and the value of P changes with the size.49) 2 + (−167) 2 = 167. resistance due to passive pressure on the leading face could be included. The design bearing capacity φqc = 0.2.1. the total compression force at the bottom of the foundation is 346 kips. Using a plastic distribution of soil stresses defines the upper limit of static loads for which the foundation remains stable.2.6(13. the foundation fails the bearing capacity check (although stability is satisfied). 415 .4 ksf < 11.4. Sec. Foundation Analysis and Design The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(10.39 ft. the difference is rounded off.39)(10) = 348 kips . The resisting moment. MR = P (L/2L'/2) = 346 (40/2 . OK Therefore. Try the plastic distribution. (No adjustment to L' is needed as the pressure is uniform. As calculated previously.3. Figure 4.3 are repeated for combined footings at middle and side locations.2 and 4.0 ksf) = 5. The sliding demand is: V = Vx2 + Vy2 = (−7.3. For the sliding check.170 psf = 13. NG Using an elastic distribution of soil pressures.4 Design Results The calculations performed in Sec.0 ksf. (7.2 ksf. 6/2) = 9.3. By iteration.92)(4.39/2) = 6160 ftkip .2 kips. Using this approach. In order to satisfy vertical equilibrium.2 below illustrates passive pressure calculations for a pile cap. the strength demands on the concrete section will not exceed those computed on the basis of the plastic distribution. 4. the contact area times the design bearing capacity must equal the applied vertical load P. but the extreme concentration of soil bearing tends to drive up shear and flexural demands on the concrete section.8(0.1.6(9.2 kips . It should be noted that the foundation may remain stable for larger loads if they are applied dynamically.) The design bearing capacity φqc = 0. the bearing pressure over the entire contact area is assumed to be equal to the design bearing capacity. so equilibrium is satisfied. The calculation of demands on concrete sections for strength checks should use the same soil stress distribution as the overturning check.
4 Design for Concentrically Braced Frame System 416 . Figure 4.17 Framing plan for concentrically braced frame system. This is satisfactory for the design assumption. which is needed because the steel frame design was based upon flexural restraint at the base of the columns.16 Foundation plan for momentresisting frame system. 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 4.1. 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. 4. One last check of interest is to compare the flexural stiffness of the footing with that of the steel column.FEMA 451.
1.9 ksf. The controlling load combination for overturning has minimum vertical loads (which help to resist overturning). In both cases the computed uplift is significant. A framing plan for the system is shown in Figure 4. NG 417 . 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. 4.1/2) = 16. 11.9 ksf.0 ksf < 16. depending on the soil distribution assumed.17.650 psf = 16.2 of this volume of design examples employs a concentrically braced frame system at a central core to provide resistance to seismic loads.1 ft and the maximum soil pressure is 16.7 ksf.6(16. The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(95. Foundation Analysis and Design Framing Alternate B in Sec. Assume mat dimensions of 45 ft by 95 ft by 7 ft thick with the top of the mat 3'6" below grade.849 kips Mxx = 148.1 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. 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). The design bearing capacity φqc = 0.4.Chapter 4.670 kips Figure 4. In Part a of the figure the contact area is shaded. 5.439 ftkips Myy = 42.18 shows the soil pressures that result from application in this controlling case. primary overturning effects (Mxx) due to loads applied parallel to the short side of the core.544 ftkips Vx = 765 kips Vy = 2.7 ksf) = 10. For the elastic solution the average width of the contact area is 11. and smaller moments about a perpendicular axis (Myy) due to orthogonal effects.
for use in determining the bearing capacity. the checks of stability and bearing capacity are satisfied.439 ftkips.849 kips. 7. Given the above constraints. The resisting moment. confirming equilibrium for vertical loads. the contact area shown in Figure 4.46 + 9. 42. is (4. 418 OK . The mat dimensions are shown in Figure 4.46 ft at the left side and 9.3.544 ftkips. M R . xx = P y = 7849(18. Again the calculations are iterative. The bearing pressure over the entire contact area is assumed to be equal to the design bearing capacity.3 ksf.42) = 42.78)(95) = 7.974ftkips >148. (12.6(20. the contact area times the design bearing capacity must equal the applied vertical load P.10 ft at the right side.42 ft y = 18.18 Soil pressures for controlling bidirectional case. confirming equilibrium for offaxis moment.858 kips .10)/2 = 6. The average contact length.2)(6.1.542 ftkips . The design bearing capacity φqc = 0. The shape of the contact area is determined by satisfying equilibrium for the offaxis moment.98) = 148.19.78) = 20. 6.3 above.18 is determined. The length of the contact area is 4. The distances from the center of the mat to the centroid of the contact area are x = 5. try the plastic distribution. (7.2 ksf. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 12. 4. The present solution has an additional complication as the offaxis moment is not negligible. In order to satisfy vertical equilibrium. So.78 ft. As was done in Sec.340 psf = 20.849)(5.98 ft The bearing capacity qc = 3000 × min(95.3 ksf) = 12.2 ksf ~ (a) Plastic solution 16 12 8 4 0 (b) Elastic solution pressures (ksf) Figure 4.FEMA 451.
4. The amount of 419 .12 of ACI 318 may be provided near one face. Using a bar spacing of 10 in. 4.Chapter 4. Rather than provide such calculations here.2 ksf).5 of ACI 318 were discussed in Sec. 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.] Concrete mats often have multiple layers of reinforcement in each direction at the top and bottom of their thickness. Use of a uniform spacing for the reinforcement provided in a given direction greatly increases the ease of construction. for this 7ftthick mat and assuming one or two layers of bars.2 Design Mat for Strength Demands As was previously discussed.1. The same analysis used to determine elastic bearing pressures yields the corresponding section demands directly.9 ksf. [Note that Sec. the section capacities indicate in Table 4. Because dozens of load combinations were considered and “hand calculations” were used for the plastic distribution checks. 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. This example does not illustrate such calculations. we are designing the concrete for a peak soil pressure of 16. Although all of the reinforcement provided to satisfy Sec. 7. design of the concrete section will proceed using the results of the elastic analysis. 10. 4. even though the plastic solution gives 12. Foundation Analysis and Design Mat: 45'x95'x7'0" with top of mat 3'6" below grade Figure 4.1.3 of the 2003 Provisions requires consideration of parametric variation for soil properties where foundations are modeled explicitly.3 above. 7.14 (presented in order of decreasing strength) may be precomputed for use in design. 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. 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.1.19 Foundation plan for concentrically braced frame system. The minimum reinforcement requirements defined in Sec. the effort required would be considerable.2.
o. Table 4. and D are less than the basic minimum for flexural members. o.FEMA 451.c. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples reinforcement provided for marks B. 2 layers of #8 bars at 10 in. 7. demands are compared to 3/4 of φMn as permitted in Sec.05 2.5.40 1.95 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. o. 2 layers of #9 bars at 10 in.5. As (in.14 Mat Foundation Section Capacities Mark A B C D Reinforcement 2 layers of #10 bars at 10 in. the flexural and shear demands computed for the various load combinations are enveloped. 10. The amount of steel provided for Mark D is the minimum that satisfies ACI 318 Sec. Then the enveloped results are presented (see Figure 4.c.c.110) using contours that correspond to the capacities shown for the reinforcement patterns noted in Table 4. To facilitate rapid design the analysis results are processed in two additional ways.90 0. C.3. o. 10. #8 bars at 10 in. 420 . so the demands should not exceed threequarters of the design strength where those reinforcement patterns are used.14.12.2 per ft) 3. First.c.1.
The reinforcement provided within a contour for a given mark must be that indicated for the next higher mark. averaging of demands over short areas is appropriate.111. all areas within Contour B must have two layers of #10 bars. Using the noted contours permits direct selection of reinforcement. the selected reinforcement is superimposed on the demand contours. 421 .110 Envelope of mat foundation flexural demands. Figure 4.Chapter 4. For instance. Note that the reinforcement provided will be symmetric about the centerline of the mat in both directions. 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. In Figure 4. Where the results of finite element analysis are used in the design of reinforced concrete elements.
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. 422 .FEMA 451.111 Mat foundation flexural reinforcement.
primarily due to the torsion in the seismic loads and the orthogonal combination. reinforcement for punching or beam shear is not required. In the hatched areas the shear stress exceeds φ 4 f c′ and in the shaded areas it exceeds φ 2 f c′ . Because the perimeter of the hatched area is substantially smaller than the perimeter of the critical section for punching shear. 4. the design requirements of ACI 318 are satisfied. At the columns on Gridline D. when the shears are averaged over a width equal to the effective depth (d).Chapter 4. the demands are less than the design strength.1.113 presents the envelope of shear demands. The critical sections for twoway shear (as discussed in Sec. 423 .112 Section of mat foundation. The contours used correspond to the design strengths computed assuming Vs = 0 for oneway and twoway shear. 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: . In this design. The distribution of bending moments and shears is not uniform across the width (or breadth) of the mat. so closer inspection is needed. However. Oneway shears at the edges of the mat exceed the φ 2 f c′ criterion. Figure 4. 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. Note that the high shear stresses are not produced by loads that create high bearing pressures at the edge. It is also influenced by the doubled spring stiffnesses used to model the soil condition.3 also are shown. If shear reinforcement cannot be avoided.1. the hatched area falls outside the critical section. Foundation Analysis and Design 8" 3" clear (typical) 8" Figure 4. Rather they are produced by loads that created large bending stresses parallel to the edge.
113 Critical sections for shear and envelope of mat foundation shear demands.1. First. Second. which produces shorter periods and higher design forces. This condition occurs for two reasons. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (a) V x Critical section (typical) (b) Vy Figure 4.5 COST COMPARISON Table 4. braced frame systems are stiffer. The gravityonly condition does not represent a realistic case because design for wind loads would require changes to the foundations. braced frame systems tend to concentrate spatially the demands on the 424 . 4. it is also worth noting that braced frame systems usually have substantially more expensive foundation systems than do moment frame systems. It is obvious that design for lateral loads adds cost as compared to a design that neglects such loads.FEMA 451. it is provided here for discussion. However.15 provides a summary of the material quantities used for all of the foundations required for the various conditions considered. Corresponding preliminary costs are assigned.
950 Braced frame 233 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4. In this case the added cost amounts to about $0.000 1895 cy at $15/cy = $28.610 $262.19) = $34. Table 4.650 537 cy at $180/cy = $96.660 1108 cy at $180/cy = $199.815 425 .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 = $4.150 Gravity only 310 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4. which is an increase of perhaps 4 or 5 percent to the cost of the structural system. Foundation Analysis and Design foundations.950 $143.440 800 cy at $15/cy = $12.14) = $46.80/ft2.Chapter 4.16) = $34.500 Moment frame 233 cy at $150/cy (see Figure 4.425 Total Cost $ 51.
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. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4.21 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.21 shows the basic design condition considered in this example. 426 .1 Description Figure 4. 4.1 Basic Information 4. Geotechnical parameters for the two sites are given in Table 4.21.FEMA 451. Figure 4.2.1.2.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS FOR A 12STORY BUILDING.
φ factors for cohesive and cohesionless soils are explicitly defined.8 for the clay layer and 0. Foundation Analysis and Design Table 4. Safety factor for settlement checks = 2.Chapter 4.9 Seismic Design Category = D (for both conditions) 427 .2. ultimate passive pressure 575 pcf. k = 50 pci skin friction (ksf)* = 0.75.03/ft # 2 end bearing (ksf)* = 65 + 0.3 + 0.] Resistance factor for capacity checks (φ) = 0.21 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.5.5/ft # 100 Pile cap resistance 300 pcf. *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.) The structural material properties assumed for this example are as follows: f'c = 3. ultimate passive pressure [In the 2003 Provisions.000 psi fy = 60.1. for vertical. lateral and rocking resistance.3 neglect end bearing 30 to 100 ft Medium dense sand skin friction (ksf)* = 0.9 + 0. 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.025/ft # 2 end bearing (ksf)* = 40 + 0. ε50 = 0. k = 25 pci strain at 50 percent of maximum stress. k = 125 pci γ = 120 pcf angle of internal friction = 36 deg soil modulus parameter.2 Provisions Parameters Site Class = C and E (both conditions considered in this example) SDS = 0. (The values noted assume a minimum pile length of 20 ft.7 for the sand layers.01 skin friction (ksf) = 0.000 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.6/ft # 150 γ = 130 pcf angle of internal friction = 42 deg soil modulus parameter.
3ATx.38D + 0. 1. they typically are modeled independently.4 70. and including accidental torsion. Load Vy is for loads applied toward the north.4 18.0 163.6 46.4 31.3ATy) 0. E as defined in Provisions Sec.2.4 Design Approach For typical deep foundation systems resistance to lateral loads is provided by both piles and pile cap. ATx is the corresponding accidental torsion case.4 4. considering orthogonal effects as required for Seismic Design Category D.72D ± 1.3Vx ± 1. Although the behavior of foundation and superstructure are closely related.8 1.1.8 489.18D and taking ρ = 1.7 [4. 1.0ATx.2SDSD = 0. 428 .1 0. but often both effects are significant.1. skin friction.3Vy ± max(1.9 2. The relative contributions of these piles and pile cap depend on the particular design conditions.5 59.22.5L ± 1.0Vx ± 0.2. or both.8 276. it is expected that this system would still satisfy the conditions needed for ρ = 1.22 shows a simple idealization of this condition.3Vy ± max(1.0 142. Load Vx is for loads applied toward the east.9 33. A similar substructure technique is usually applied to the foundation system itself.0).6 12.9 8.0 7.0 12.5 305. Table 4.22 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 4.3ATx.0ATy) 0. Figure 4.0Vy ± max(0.3 3.2 439.8 0.0 36.0 27.3 Demands The unfactored demands from the moment frame system are shown in Table 4. [Although the redundancy factor is changed substantially in the 2003 Provisions.0ATy) 4.1 0.3 3.5L ± 0.2 3.4 40.0 31.5 567.6 6. 5.0 Mxx Myy Note: Units are kips and feet. Then the support reactions are seen as demands on the foundation system.0ATx.1 0.2] (with 0.3 8.2. ATy is the corresponding accidental torsion case. which is assumed to have fixed supports.0Vy ± max(0.38D + 0.7 0.7 22.0. so these load combinations would not change.0Vx ± 0.72D ± 0.3ATy) 1.0 72. 0.3Vx ± 1. Using ASCE 7 Load Combinations 5 and 7.FEMA 451.6 6. 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.9 702.] 1.2.2 3.5 1. the following 32 load conditions must be considered. whereby the behavior of pile cap and piles are considered separately. 0.6 80. Earthquake loads are applied to a model of the superstructure.7 Rx Ry Rz 351.4 0. This section describes that typical approach.
1.2. demands on individual piles as a result of loads applied to the group may be determined as follows: and M = V × R. where s is the pile spacing.Chapter 4. Foundation Analysis and Design Pile cap Passive resistance (see Figure 4. . where R is a characteristic length determined from analysis of a 4 laterally loaded single pile. h is the height of the pile cap.23 Pile cap free body diagram. 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 4.4. 4. 429 .24) Figure 4.22 Schematic model of deep foundation system.23.1 Pile Group Mechanics With reference to the free body diagram (of a 2×2 pile group) shown in Figure 4.25) Pile py springs (see Figure 4. 2s and hp is the height of Vpassive above Point O.
Pile response to lateral loads. is usually computed using computer programs like LPILE. The stiffness of the soil changes by an order of magnitude for the expected range of displacements (the vertical axis uses a logarithmic scale).2.3 0.2. Like the py response of piles. the passive pressure resistance of the cap is nonlinear. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. 4.000 10. The py response is sensitive to pile size (an effect not apparent is the figure which is based on a single pile size). depth = 30 ft Site Class C.8 0.25 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). 430 . like the py curves on which the calculations are based.24 Representative py curves (note that a logarithmic scale is used on the vertical axis).4. soil type and properties.5 0. depth = 10 ft 1 0.4.2 Contribution of Piles The response of individual piles to lateral loads is highly nonlinear.24. Figure 4. 100.1 0. vertical stress. depth = 30 ft Site Class E. diameter pile) are shown in Figure 4.9 1. researchers have developed empirical relationships for the nonlinear py response of piles that are suitable for use in design. In recent years it has become increasingly common to consider that nonlinearity directly.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. which can significantly reduce displacements for a given applied lateral load.000 Soil resistance. depth = 10 ft Site Class E. p (lb/in.0 0. in the case of sands.1. which increases with depth.) 0. Representative py curves (computed for a 22 in. Based on extensive testing of fullscale specimens and smallscale models for a wide variety of soil conditions.7 0.1.4 Pile deflection.FEMA 451. and.0 Figure 4.) 1.2 0. y (in.6 0.000 100 10 Site Class C.
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.4 0.0 0.06 Figure 4.25 Passive pressure mobilization curve (after FEMA 356).02 0. 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. . 431 . . 0. . there is no common consensus on the approach for group effects. . (Group effect factors for axial loading of very closely spaced piles may also be developed.7 for the front.) A useful discussion of this “group effect” may be found in PoLam Sec. and other publications] . 4. .04 0.6. . Brown 1988. .0 0 0. 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.9 0.1 0.4. .. (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.01 0. respectively. At present.03 δ/H 0. For such multipliers. [The experimental research reported in Brown 1987.7 0.e.8 0. 2.3 0. All referenced researchers recommended to modify the single pile py curves by adjusting the resistance value on the single pile py curves (i.2.5 0. the group stiffness efficiency would be about 95% and group effects would be practically negligible. The experiments reported by McVay also included data for pile centertocenter spacing of 5D which showed pmultipliers of 1. middle and back row piles. Foundation Analysis and Design 1. Fullsize and model tests by a number of authors show that in general. 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. and 0.. .0.85.4.1.05 0.6 P/Pult 0. but are beyond the scope of the present discussion. pmultiplier).Chapter 4.2 0.
a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency.2579 for 1 ≤ s < 3.0.5791⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ 0. In the equation for each efficiency factor. D ⎛s⎞ = 0. D For piles that are inline with respect to the applied load.0 when j = i (as this is a single pile condition). In that case. where s/D equals or exceeds the noted upper limit.0.FEMA 451. a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency (βs) may be calculated as: 2 β s = β a cos 2 θ + β b2 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. the preduction factor for any given pile i is f mi = ∏ β ji . the group effect factor is calculated as: β11 = 1.37 . the average efficiency factor is commonly used for all members of a group in the analysis of any given member. the effect of each pile on each other pile must be considered.28 . For piles that are side by side with respect to the applied load. the corresponding value of β is 1. 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. In these expressions.5659 for 1 ≤ s < 3. 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. D is the pile diameter and s is the centertocenter spacing between the piles in question. the average preduction factor is: fm = 1 n n ∑∏ β ji . n i =1 j =1 3 1 For a 2×2 pile group thus 4 2 with s = 3D. a factor to reflect the reduction in efficiency (βb) may be calculated as follows: ⎛s⎞ Leading piles: β bL = 0. D For piles that are skewed (neither in line nor side by side) with respect to the applied load.37 . βa. 432 .3251 for 1 ≤ s < 5. may be calculated as: ⎛s⎞ β a = 0.5292 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ 0. If a group contains more than two piles.7309 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ Trailing piles: β bT 0. If the effect of pile j on pile i is called βji and it is noted that βji = 1.
fm3 = 0.21 assuming a 433 .2 Pile Analysis. castinplace piles arranged in 2×2 pile groups with piles spaced at 66 inches centertocenter.7309 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝1⎠ = 0.diameter.8 Group effect factor 0. 22in. fm2 = 0.79 + 0.00)(0. Foundation Analysis and Design ⎛ 3⎞ β 21 = β a β b = 0.0 = 0.0) = 1.2579 ⎛3⎞ β 31 = β a β b = 1.79.2. Thus.0 s=4D s=3D 0.79 = 0.96 + 0. And finally.Chapter 4.5 D 0.0)(1.985 .96 + 0. 1.96.5292 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝1⎠ 0.24). f m = 0.0 is used to analyze single piles for both soil conditions shown in Table 4.79.6 s=2D 0.00) = 0. and Detailing 4. 0. The computer program LPILE Plus 3. and β41 = βa βb = (1.4 s = 1.985)(0. and fm4 = 0.2 0. 0.955 .0 (because s/D = 4. 4.0 1 2 3 Group size (piles per side) 4 5 Figure 4.2. 4 Figure 4.2.26 Calculated group effect factors.1 Pile Analysis For this design example it is assumed that all piles will be fixedhead.0 × 0. Design.26 shows the group effect factors that are calculated for square pile groups of various sizes with piles at several different spacings. fm1 = β11 × β21 × β31 × β41 = (1.87 .96.970)(1. By similar calculations.5659 × 1.970 .
kips) Figure 4. Because a fixedhead condition is assumed.1. and 4.27 Results of pile analysis – shear versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips). but in this case the lateral displacements. The trends in the figures are those that should be expected. M (in. the plots in this section are for zero axial load. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples length of 50 ft. Figures 4. The response to lateral loads is affected to some degree by the coincident axial load.28. V (kip) 10 15 25 Site Class C Site Class E 30 1000 500 0 500 Moment. The shear and displacement are maxima at the pile head. and shears were not strongly affected. moment. 4. 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. 4.27.87 for group effects (as computed at the end of Sec. The full range of expected axial loads was considered in developing this example. A pmultiplier of 0.28 Results of pile analysis – moment versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips). piles shorter than those lengths would have reduced lateral resistance.2. Moments and displacements are larger for the soft soil condition than for the firm soil condition.29 show the variation of shear. 434 . 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.FEMA 451. moments. Figure 4. moments are also largest at the top of the pile.4) is used in all cases. Pile flexural stiffness is modeled using onehalf of the gross moment of inertia because of expected flexural cracking. 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.
27 through 4. It may be seen from Figure 4.211 show how the moment and displacement at the head of the pile are related to the applied lateral load.0 0.210 and 4. Doing so produces the following: R = 46 in. this is a key observation.29 are repeated for different levels of applied lateral load. the slope of the line may be taken as a characteristic length that relates head moment to applied load.1 0. for the Class E site 435 .29 Results of pile analysis – displacement versus depth (applied lateral load is 15 kips) The analyses performed to develop Figures 4.) 0. for the Class C site R = 70 in.3 Figure 4.2 0.1 Displacement (in. Based on the results shown.210 that the head moment is related to the applied lateral load in a nearly linear manner. Foundation Analysis and Design 0 5 10 Depth (ft) 15 20 25 Site Class C Site Class E 30 0.Chapter 4. Figures 4.
∆ (inch) 0. A similar examination of Figure 4. of the ultimate passive pressure: ⎛ 18 48 ⎞ ⎛ 48 ⎞⎛ 110 ⎞ 1 V passive.2. the demands on the group are: P = 1097 kip Myy = 93 ftkips Vx = 10 kips Myy = 659 ftkips Vy = 69 kips From preliminary checks.2.3. The loaddisplacement response of the pile in Site Class C soil is essentially linear.0 kips ⎝ 12 2(12) ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠⎝ 12 ⎠ and ⎛ 18 48 ⎞ ⎛ 48 ⎞⎛ 110 ⎞ 1 V passive.210 Results of pile analysis – applied lateral load versus head moment. 4. for the Class C site k = 40 kip/in. but for most of the range of response a linear approximation is reasonable (and useful). respectively. the effective stiffness of each individual pile is: k = 175 kip/in.30(575) ⎜ + ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ( 1000 ) = 22.FEMA 451.211 leads to another meaningful insight.15(575) ⎜ + ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ( 1000 ) = 11.1.1. Thus. V (kip) 0 0.0 0. x = 0.23.2 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. Figure 4. M (inkip) 1200 Applied lateral load.8 Figure 4.2. for the Class E site 4. The response of the pile in Site Class E soil is somewhat nonlinear.4 for each of the 32 load combinations discussed in Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 30 1600 Head moment.2.211 Results of pile analysis – head displacement versus applied lateral load. 4. y = 0. assume that the displacements in the x and y directions are sufficient to mobilize 15 percent and 30 percent.4 0.6 Head displacement.1kips ⎝ 12 2(12) ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠⎝ 12 ⎠ 436 . 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. 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. Check the Maximum Compression Case under a Side Column in Site Class C Using the sign convention shown in Figure 4.2 0.
passive resistance alone is sufficient for this case in the x direction.x to 4 kips and assign a shear of 1.7 + 98. 4.14% of the pile cap height (h).1 = 11.2. The expected displacement in the y direction is computed as: δ = V/k = 11..kips for xdirection loading and M = 11. 4 The corresponding pile moments are: M = 1.2. Also plotted are the φPφM design strengths for the 22in.067 in. 4.7 kips 2(66) and for ydirection loading (determined similarly) Pot = 98.7/175 = 0.7 kips . However.212 and 4. In these figures.5(46) = 69 in. reduce Vpassive.25 with δ/H = 0. Since Vpassive.34. Therefore the maximum load effects on the most heavily loaded pile are: Pu = 13.7(46) = 538 in.213.24. which is 0.2.kips for ydirection loading.kips .diameter pile sections with various amounts of reinforcement (as noted in the legends).0014. Foundation Analysis and Design and conservatively take hp = h/3 = 16 in. The appropriate reinforcement pattern for each design condition may be selected by noting the innermost capacity curve that envelops the corresponding demand points. The maximum axial load due to overturning for xdirection loading is: Pot = 10(48) + 93(12) + 4(69) − 16(4) = 13.3 Design of Pile Section The calculations shown in Sec. following calculation of the required pile length.x > Vx. P/Pult .6 kips. in order to illustrate the full complexity of the calculations. Reading Figure 4.2 are repeated for each of the 32 load combinations under each of the four design conditions. 0.5 kips to each pile in the x direction. 437 . circles indicate demands on piles under side columns and squares indicate demands on piles under corner columns. so the assumption that 30 percent of Pult would be mobilized was reasonable. The required reinforcement is summarized in Table 4.6 + 274 = 386 kips M u = (69) 2 + (538) 2 = 542in. In the y direction the shear in each pile is: V= 69 − 22.2.Chapter 4. The axial load due to direct loading is Pp = 1097/4 = 274 kips. The results are shown in Figures 4.
212 PM interaction diagram for Site Class C. M (inkip) 8#6 6#6 6#5 Side Corner Figure 4.213 PM interaction diagram for Site Class E. P (kip) 2500 Moment. P (kip) 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Moment.FEMA 451. M (inkip) Figure 4. 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. 438 .
the pile cap depth is ignored – effectively assuming that piles begin at the ground surface.4. (In these calculations.1 Length for Settlement Service loads per pile are calculated as P = (PD + PL)/4. Pend = [40 + 13(0. Pskin = average friction capacity × pile perimeter × pile length for friction = 0. 390 kips.Chapter 4.5[0. Pskin = [friction capacity in first layer + average friction capacity in second layer] × pile perimeter = [27(0.025])]π(22/12) = 126 kips.9 + 0.4 Pile Length for Axial Loads For the calculations that follow.F.1.5[0. 4.3) must be considered. Pend = end bearing capacity at depth × end bearing area = [65 + 44(0. = (243 + 241)/2. Pskin = 0. the maximum compression demand for this condition is Pu = 340 kips. the results are slightly conservative.2. assuming L = 64 ft: As seen in Figure 4.03)]π(22/12)(44) = 243 kips.3 + 0.5)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 123 kips.5 = 100 kips > 97 kips. the maximum compression demand for this condition is Pu = 390 kips. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C. assuming L = 47 ft: P = (702 + 72)/4 = 194 kips. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E.3 + 0.2. Because the soil capacity increases with depth and the resulting pile lengths are applied below the bottom of the pile cap.9 + 13[0.2.2. Pend = [65 + 47(0. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C.6)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 246 kips.2. assuming L = 50 ft: As seen in Figure 4.3 + 47(0. OK OK φPn = φ(Pskin + Pend) = 0. Foundation Analysis and Design 4. 4.3) + (13/2)(0. recall that skin friction and end bearing are neglected for the top three feet in this example. Pallow = (Pskin + Pend)/S. Pallow = (126 + 123)/2. OK 439 .) 4.75(272 + 246) = 389 kips .213.5 = 194 kips = 194 kips (demand).6)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 241 kips.2.112.2.03)]π(22/12)(47) = 272 kips.3 + 44(0. assuming L = 43 ft: P = (351 + 36)/4 = 97 kips.4.2 Length for Compression Capacity All of the strengthlevel load combinations (discussed in Sec.
3) must be considered.4. all of the strengthlevel load combinations (discussed in Sec.9 + 22[0. OK φPn = φ(Pskin) = 0. the adequacy of the soilpile interface to resist applied loads is checked once a pile length is assumed. However.75(3. the maximum tension demand for this condition is Pu = 1. Pskin = [27(0.5[0.213.9 + 34[0.FEMA 451. 4. Check pile group under corner column in Site Class E.214 and 4. Check pile group under side column in Site Class C.9 + 0. φPn = φ(Pskin + Pend) = 0. OK φPn = φ(Pskin) = 0. 440 .4 Graphical Method of Selecting Pile Length OK In the calculations shown above.9 kips.3 + 0. assuming L = 5 ft: As seen in Figure 4.03)]π(22/12)(2) = 3.9 kips > 1. 4.212.025])]π(22/12) = 306 kips. 4.9 kips.75(196) = 147 kips > 144 kips.2. 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.215. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Pskin = [27(0. Pend = [40 + 34(0.4.2.3) + (34/2)(0. assuming L = 52 ft.3 Length for Uplift Capacity Again. Pskin = 0.9 + 0.75(306 + 150) = 342 kips > 340 kips.8) = 2.2.3 + 2(0.8 kips.2. 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. This method lends itself to graphical expression as shown in Figures 4.025])]π(22/12) = 196 kips.5)](π/4)(22/12)2 = 150 kips.3) + (22/2)(0.2. As seen in Figure 4.1. the maximum tension demand for this condition is Pu = 144 kips.
2.215 Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class E.2. 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 4.4.214 Pile axial capacity as a function of length for Site Class C.5 Results of Pile Length Calculations 441 . 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.Chapter 4.
Although the specifics are affected by the soil properties and assigned site class. diameter by 71 ft long 6#6 bars 4. longitudinal and transverse reinforcement must satisfy specific requirements related to minimum amount and maximum spacing. 7.4. Table 4. respectively.10.2. the detailing of the piles designed in this example focuses on consideration of the following fundamental items: 1.9 kip 194 kip 400 kip 14.2.8. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Detailed calculations for the required pile lengths are provided above for two of the design conditions.2]).5. Continuous longitudinal reinforcement must be provided over the entire length resisting design tension forces (ACI 318 Sec. diameter by 50 ft long 6#5 bars 22 in. Table 4. 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.2. 7. 3. 2.4. 21. those general requirements and the specific requirements for uncased concrete piles that apply to this example are discussed.23 summarizes the lengths required to satisfy strength and serviceability requirements for all four design conditions.4.5 Design Results The design results for all four pile conditions are shown in Table 4.7 kip 194 kip Min Length 50 ft 5 ft 47 ft 71 ft 14 ft 67 ft 4.24 Summary of Pile Size. All pile reinforcement must be developed in the pile cap (Provisions Sec. In this section.4. diameter by 43 ft long 8#6 bars 22 in.FEMA 451.23 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 areas of the pile where yielding might be expected or demands are large.2.2 [21. diameter by 64 ft long 8#7 bars Piles Under Side Column 22 in.6 Pile Detailing Provisions Sec.4).4. contain special pile requirements for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C or higher and D or higher.24.4 and 7. and Longitudinal Reinforcement Piles Under Corner Column Site Class C Site Class E 22 in. Length. Table 4. 442 .
443 .5.4). For both site classes considered in this example. 7.216 and 4.217. while it may require a thicker pile cap. 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. 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. Foundation Analysis and Design The discussion that follows refers to the detailing shown in Figures 4.4.2. the development length is the full development length for compression (Provisions Sec. 7. Where the design relies on head fixity or where resistance to uplift forces is required (both of which are true in this example). but is not a requirement of the Provisions. 7.2.Chapter 4.1 Development at the Pile Cap Where neither uplift nor flexural restraint are required. By avoiding lap splices to fieldplaced dowels where yielding is expected near the pile head (although such would be permitted by Provisions Sec. Note that embedment of the entire pile in the pile cap facilitates direct transfer of shear from pile cap to pile.4. Straight development. In addition to satisfying the requirements of the Provisions. permits easier placement of the pile cap’s bottom reinforcement followed by the addition of the spiral reinforcement within the pile cap. 4. this approach offers two advantages.6. more desirable inelastic performance would be expected.4).4).
NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4" pile embedment (6) #5 #4 spiral at 4. 444 .216 Pile detailing for Site Class C (under side column).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.FEMA 451.
Chapter 4. Foundation Analysis and Design 4" pile embedment (8) #7 #5 spiral at 3.5 inch pitch 12'4" Section A A (6) #7 #5 spiral at 3.5 inch pitch 20'0" Section B B (4) #7 #4 spiral at 9 inch pitch 32'0" Section C C Figure 4.217 Pile detailing for Site Class E (under corner column). 445 .
the Provisions does not indicate the extent of such detailing into the firmer material. so a #4 spiral at 3.216).4. (106) [105]. In order to provide a reinforcement ratio of 0.5.02 for this pile section.3 Continuous Longitudinal Reinforcement for Tension Table 4. a #5 spiral must have a pitch of no more than 3. onehalf of the pile length governs.3) exceeds the calculated flexural demand at that point. 7.1 of the 2003 Provisions makes it clear that the longitudinal reinforcement must be developed beyond this point.5 in.4. or 6db = 5. 21.FEMA 451. F.5 in. the minimum volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is onehalf that determined using ACI 318 Eq. For the Site Class C condition under a side column (Figure 4.7 in.75 in.01 for this pile section. 21. or liquefiable) and the requirements of Sec.25 in. Taking into account the soil layering shown in Table 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. . 21.] For the piles used in this example. (106) [105].2. For the piles shown in Figures 4. which is consistent with the expected location of yielding. for #7 longitudinal bars). the full amount of reinforcement indicated in ACI 318 Sec.4. or 12 in.5 in. Because the piles designed in this example are larger than 20 in. 21.2.005) must be provided over the largest region defined as follows: the top onehalf of the pile length. 9. [A change made in Sec. 22/2 = 11 in.4.6. the top 10 ft below the ground. .5 in.4.216 being unreinforced would satisfy the Provisions requirements.21 and the pile cap depth and thickness.. 21. but the maximum spacing permitted by Sec. For the Class E site. Using that interpretation. design tension due to uplift extends only about 5 ft below the bottom of the pile cap.1(a) of ACI 318 (since the site is not Class E.) Transverse reinforcement must be provided over the same length for which minimum longitudinal reinforcement requirements apply. a #4 spiral must have a pitch of no more than 4. yielding can be expected within three diameters of the bottom of the pile cap (3D = 3 × 22 = 66 in.4. even more stringent detailing is required. diameter. The flexural length is taken as the length of pile from the cap to the lowest point where 0.2 is 22/4 = 5. For the Class C site.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.1(a) refers to Eq.216 and 4.1 must be provided. but the author has decided to extend very light longitudinal and nominal transverse reinforcement for the full length of the pile.8 in. 4.4. In order to provide a reinforcement ratio of 0.4. Where yielding may be expected. so a #5 spiral at 3.217 the spacing of the transverse reinforcement in the top half of the pile length may not exceed the least of: 12db (7.4..75 in.4. the transverse reinforcement may not be smaller than 0. longitudinal reinforcement must resist tension for at least the top 52 ft (being developed at that point).4 times the concrete section cracking moment (see ACI 318 Sec. (Note that “providing” a given reinforcement ratio means that the reinforcement in question must be developed at that point.2. the tightly spaced transverse reinforcement shown in Figure 4. Bar development and cutoff are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of this volume of design examples. 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). Note that Sec. In this case.).2.2. Spiral reinforcement in that region must not be less than onehalf of that required in ASCE 318 Sec.4. in diameter. For uncased concrete piles in Seismic Design Category D at least four longitudinal bars (with a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.6. a design with Section C of Figure 4.23 shows the pile lengths required for resistance to uplift demands.4.4.2 and 21. Because the site is Class E. pitch is used.5 in.4. For the Site Class E condition under a corner column (Figure 4. pitch is used.3 must be satisfied. The author interprets “within seven diameters of .4.4. which often will govern. or 6db = 3.2 is 22/4 = 5.. Therefore.5. The maximum spacing permitted by Sec. for #5 longitudinal bars and 10. 21.217). or the flexural length of the pile. 7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. the interface” as applying in the direction into the softer material. 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.4). 446 ..5 in.
2]. Such ties are often grade beams. 21.3. 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.218 Foundation tie section.65)[0. the smallest crosssectional dimension of the tie beam must not be less than the clear spacing between pile caps divided by 20 = (32'0" .3.2 Liquefaction For Seismic Design Categories C. B.5.1 Foundation Tie Design and Detailing Provisions Sec.7 in. and reduction in foundation soilbearing capacity) and discuss mitigation measures.5. The design strength for five # 6 bars is φAs fy = 0.90)/10 = 101 kips.85(3)(16)(14) + 60(5)(0. Sec.3 requires that individual pile caps be connected by ties.4. increases in lateral pressures on retaining walls. the design strength of the tie beam concentrically loaded in compression is: φPn = 0. Provisions Sec. OK According to ACI 318 Sec.2 also requires that the geotechnical report describe lateral loads on foundations. ACI 318 Sec.44)(60) = 106 kips > 101 kips.1 and 7. [In the 2003 Provisions.8. Assuming that the surrounding soil provides restraint against buckling. deep.2] further require that the geotechnical report describe the likelihood and potential consequences of liquefaction and soil strength loss (including estimates of differential settlement.2.3. or C) provide equivalent restraint. 7. the tie is designed as follows. E and F.8φ[0.3 Other Considerations 4. Use a tie beam that is 14 in.4.2] further indicates that closed ties must be provided at a spacing of not more than onehalf the minimum dimension = 14/2 = 7 in. D. lateral movement. 7. Provisions Sec.1 requires that the geotechnical report address potential hazards due to liquefaction. 7. a tie beam between the pile caps under a corner column and a side column will be designed.3. and given Pgroup = 1121 kips under a side column and Pgroup = 812 kips under a corner column.218. As indicated in Provisions Sec.3. wide and 16 in.3.2.4.10. For pile caps with an assumed centertocenter spacing of 32 ft in each direction.85f'c(Ag .2.c.2 [21. For this example.8(0. (3) #6 bottom bars 3" clear at top and bottom Figure 4. E and F.3 [7.2 [21.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(0.44)] = 366 kips > 101 kips.8.3.8(5)(0.5. The resulting section is shown in Figure 4. OK 2" clear at sides (2) #6 top bars #4 ties at 7" o.Chapter 4. 7.5.10. and flotation of embedded 447 . Foundation Analysis and Design 4. 7. 4.1 and 7.9'2")/20 = 13. For Seismic Design Categories D. 21.5.
The third sentence of Provisions Sec.3. 7. or F. when piles are located inside the critical sections d (for oneway action) 448 . 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. Where such a judgmentbased approach is used.1 of the 2003 Commentary has been updated to reflect Youd and other recent references. Although it is rarely done in practice.” Wang & Salmon indicates that “pile caps frequently must be designed for shear considering the member as a deep beam. but less rigorous. E. 3. but readers should refer to Youd for an update of the methods described in the Commentary. The geotechnical consultant performs appropriate kinematic interaction analyses considering freefield ground motions and the stiffness of the piles to be used in design. which defines a specific instance in which this second method is to be employed to define areas requiring additional transverse reinforcement. which generally are greatest at the interface between stiff and soft strata. helps to make an argument for general application of this practical approach. 4.2.] During the design of the structure.4.3 Kinematic Interaction Piles are subjected to curvature demands as a result of two different types of behavior: inertial interaction and kinematic interaction. Kramer discusses kinematic and inertial interaction and the methods of analysis employed in consideration of those effects.1 contains a calculation procedure that can be used to evaluate the liquefaction hazard.2.4 require consideration of kinematic interaction for foundations of structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D.5.4. In other words. The resulting pile demands. CRSI notes that “most pile caps are designed in practice by various shortcut ruleofthumb procedures using what are hoped to be conservative allowable stresses.” One approach that would satisfy the requirements of the Provisions would be as follows: 1. A more practical. the first two sentences of Provisions Sec. 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.3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples structures. and selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements [and forces in the 2003 Provisions]) must be considered.5. are reported to the structural engineer. 7.FEMA 451. 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. selection of appropriate foundation type and depths.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. [Sec. such measures (which can include ground stabilization. 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.4. 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. Commentary Section 7. The structural engineer designs piles for the sum of the demands imposed by the vibrating superstructure and the demands imposed by soil movement. 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.] 4. The term kinematic interaction is used to describe the manner in which the stiffness of the foundation system impedes development of freefield ground motion. 7. 2.
6]) is “permitted” but not required.2.3. the shear cannot be neglected. the result is spectral accelerations that increase as the structural period approaches the site period. Strutandtie models (as described in Appendix A of the 2002 edition of ACI 318) may be employed. Therefore. 5.1). While Commentary Sec. caused by foundation flexibility.3.1]indicates that structural stability was considered in arriving at the “consensus judgment” reflected in the drift limits. Foundation Analysis and Design or d/2 (for twoway action) from the face of column.5.2. For sites with a fairly long predominant period..3.4.4. not damage control or postearthquake occupancy. In point of fact. for periods larger than T0. 5.1 and 4.8 [5. so mandatory performance checks are often resisted by the user community. Earthquakeinduced instability of buildings has been exceedingly rare.” 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. an increase in displacements. application of the Provisions is intended to satisfy performance objectives related to life safety and collapse prevention. Site resonance can result in significant amplification of ground motion in the period range of interest. Such fixedbase models can lead to erroneous results. accelerations remain the same or decrease with increasing period. Sitespecific spectra may reflect longperiod siteresonance effects.8 [4.3. but the procedure is developed for pile caps subjected to concentric vertical loads only (without applied overturning moments or pile head moments).” They go on to note that “there is no agreement about the proper procedure to use. Although foundation flexibility can affect structural performance significantly. 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. There are two obvious exceptions to that assumption: soft soil siteresonance conditions (e. The engineering framework established in FEMA 356 is more conducive to explicit use of performance measures. but the use of such spectra is required only for Class F sites. the shape of the general design spectrum used in the Provisions does not capture that effect. Nothing in the Provisions prohibits that common practice. as in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake) and excessive damage or even instability due to increased displacement response. Clearly.2. the consideration of soilstructure interaction effects (Provisions Sec.g.Chapter 4.5 Foundation Flexibility and Its Impact on Performance 4. For most buildings. 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 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. CRSI provides a detailed outline of a design procedure and tabulated solutions.3. but engineers have long assumed that the errors are usually conservative.1 Discussion Most engineers routinely use fixedbase models. 4. control of structural ductility demands). static behavior cannot be used to predict instability of an inelastic system subjected to dynamic loading. The analysis and acceptance criteria in the Provisions are not adequate to the task of predicting real stability problems. the use of fixedbased structural models is prohibited for “buildings being rehabilitated for the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level that are 449 . 4. does change the performance of a structure and its contents – raising concerns regarding both stability and damage.5. the values selected for the drift limits were selected considering damage to nonstructural systems (and. such considerations were qualitative. perhaps in some cases. However. increased system period (as a result of foundation flexibility) always leads to lower design forces where the general design spectrum is used. Explicit consideration of performance measures also tends to increase engineering effort substantially. In that document (Sec. calculations based on linear.2.
1 = 2.1. The effects of foundation flexibility become more pronounced as foundation period and structural period approach the same value. the stiffness of each pile is 40 kip/in. The period of the combined system is T = 2π M = 2π K [(0. Calculations of the effect of foundation flexibility on the dynamic response of a structure should reflect the overall stiffness of the structure (e. 4. the combined system would have forces that are 10 percent smaller and displacements that are 11 percent larger.2.462 kips. In the context of earthquake engineering. Neglecting both the stiffness contribution from passive pressure resistance and the flexibility of the beamslab system that ties the pile caps.0)(4000)] 441 386. with respect to the fixedbased model. T2 2. that associated with the fundamental mode of vibration). those differences are not significant. and Table 64 indicates that 80.2. Table 65 shows that the calculated period of the fixedbase structure is 2.5..FEMA 451. 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. Because the foundation stiffness is more than 10 times the structural stiffness.2.802)36. Therefore. the effective stiffness of the structure is: K= 2 4π 2 M 4π ( (0. one may compare the dynamic characteristics of a fixedbase model to those of a model in which foundation effects are included.502 Foundation Stiffness. As shown in Sec.1) = = 478 kip/in.1 and consider the northsouth response of the concrete moment frame building located in Berkeley (Sec. To confirm this expectation the period of the combined system is computed. 462) + (1. 6. accelerations (and thus forces) are a function of 1/T and relative displacements are a function of T.2 Example Calculations To assess the significance of foundation flexibility.802)(36. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples sensitive to base rotations or other types of foundation movement. Stiffness of the Structure. Using the equation for the undamped period of vibration of a singledegreeoffreedom oscillator. 4. the stiffness of each pile group is 4 × 40 = 160 kip/in. 4. 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.g.78 sec which is an 11percent increase over that predicted by the fixedbase model.2 percent of the mass participates in that mode. For this portion of the example.2. Table 62 shows that the total weight of the structure is 36. As seen in Figure 61 there are 36 moment frame columns. 450 .” In this case the focus is on damage control rather than structural stability.2. use the Site Class E pile design results from Sec. Effect of Foundation Flexibility. period elongation is expected to be minimal.50 seconds. rather than the stiffness of any particular story. Assume that a 2×2 pile group supports each column. For systems responding in the constantvelocity portion of the spectrum. and the stiffness of the entire foundation system is 36 × 160 = 5760 kip/in.3. 462 386.2) as representative for this building.
All structures are analyzed using threedimensional static or dynamic methods. Concentrically braced frames.E.. member proportioning.. P. 4.D.6.5 STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN James R. P. 1997 ) is used in Examples 5. The examples only cover design for seismic forces in combination with gravity. the following documents are referenced: AISC LRFD American Institute of Steel Construction.D. A multistory office building in Los Angeles. Berkeley.3. Ph. Rutz. design of concentric and eccentric bracing. Oregon. and the RAMFRAME Analysis Program (RAM International. Special moment frames. For determining the strength of steel members and connections.1. Intermediate moment frames. drift calculations. California.. 5. v.E. lateral force analysis.D. 5. published by the American Institute of Steel Construction. Carlsbad. is used throughout. The three examples include: 1. In addition. v. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. 2. The SAP2000 Building Analysis Program (Computers & Structures. and they are presented to illustrate only specific aspects of seismic analysis and design such as.11. design of moment resisting frames. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions. 2. and detailing. Ph. Inc.. and 3. The discussion examines the following types of structural framing for resisting horizontal forces: 1. the requirements of the 1997 [2002] AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings are followed where applicable. 3. This chapter illustrates how the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (hereafter the Provisions) is applied to the design of steel framed buildings. An industrial warehouse structure in Astoria. the 1993 [1999] Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.04...2 and 5. 1999. P. 1997) is used in Example 5. and Teymour Manzouri. California. A lowrise hospital facility in the San Francisco Bay area of California. Ph. 51 . California. Harris. A dual system consisting of moment frames and concentrically braced frames. and Eccentrically braced frames. Frederick R.E.
due to the difficulty in crossreferencing. Load and Resistance Factor Design. American Institute of Steel Construction. Therefore. Steel Deck Institute. but the organization and format are significantly different. 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. Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel MomentFrame Buildings. The most significant change to the steel chapter in the 2003 Provisions is the addition of two new lateral systems. the above referenced documents. buckling restrained braced frames and steel plate shear walls. the references to FEMA 350 sections. 2000 International Building Code. tables. 1990. it is annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. Although the these design examples are based on the 2000 Provisions. The design provisions incorporated into AISC Seismic are similar in substance to FEMA 350. 2000.FEMA 451. AISC Steel Design Guide Series 4. and equations in this chapter have not been annotated. changes to Seismic Design Category classification for short period structures and revisions to the redundancy requirements. 2000. [2002] Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.S. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. Customary U. Larry D. AISC Seismic IBC FEMA 350 AISC SDGS4 SDI The symbols used in this chapter are from Chapter 2 of the Provisions. in particular AISC Seismic. SAC Joint Venture. While the general concepts of the changes are described. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. Inc. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. units are used. Updates to the reference documents. 52 . 1997. 1990. new Simplified Design Procedure would not be applicable to the examples in this chapter. or are as defined in the text. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Manual American Institute of Steel Construction. have some effects on the calculations illustrated herein. 2000. 2. Some general technical changes in the 2003 Provisions that relate to the calculations and/or design in this chapter include updated seismic hazard maps. Manual of Steel Construction. [ ]. 1981. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. Luttrell. Other changes are generally related to maintaining compatibility between the Provisions and the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic. including Supplement No. Annotations within brackets. The design professional is encouraged to review AISC Seismic for updated moment frame design provisions related to the examples in this chapter. 2001. International Code Council. neither of which are covered in this set of design examples. However. 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. Extended EndPlate Moment Connections. 3rd Edition.
11. Structural Steel Design 5. Columns are supported on spread footings. 4. Seismic design parameters. Check of compactness and brace spacing for moment 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. ASTORIA. Spaced at 20 ft o. The following features of seismic design of steel buildings are illustrated: 1. the serviceability limits do affect the seismic design. The mezzanine floor at the east end of the building is designed to accommodate a live load of 125 psf. These serviceability limits are not considered to control any aspect of the seismicresistant design.5 in. 40ftwide mezzanine area at the east end of the building.1.1 INDUSTRIAL HIGHCLEARANCE BUILDING. many aspects of seismic design are driven by actual capacities so. (which did not control). Drift check. The building is enclosed by nonstructural insulated concrete wall panels and is roofed with steel decking covered with insulation and roofing. The framing consists of a steel roof deck supported by joists between transverse gable frames. 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.c.Chapter 5. 2. and Proportioning of concentric diagonal bracing. therefore. 53 . Threedimension (3D) modal analysis.12. 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. OREGON This example features a transverse steel moment frame and a longitudinal steel braced frame. Longitudinal struts at the eaves and the mezzanine level run the full length of the building and. Because the frames resist lateral loading at each frame position. 7. and lateral sway due to wind was limited to 2 in. Equivalent lateral force analysis. The elevation and transverse sections of the structure are shown in Figure 5. Moment frame connection design. these frames are braced in the longitudinal (EW) direction in two bays at the east end. 5. The roof and mezzanine framing plans are shown in Figure 5. The structure consists of 10 gable frames spanning 90 ft in the transverse (NS) direction. Its structural system is composed of a concrete slab over steel decking supported by floor beams spaced 10 ft o. The member sizes in the main frame are controlled by serviceability considerations. 5. However. 6. It includes a 12fthigh. in that sense. 3. Vertical deflections due to snow were limited to 3.1 Building Description This industrial building has plan dimensions of 180 ft by 90 ft and a clear height of approximately 30 ft.
4 mm. (a) 3'9" Concrete slab on grade (b) 30'6" Momentresisting steel frame. More likely. 54 9'0" 32'0" 34'3" 3'0" 35'0" Eave strut Eave . thus. and the building would tend to act as a shear wall building. Mezzanine Ceiling (c) Figure 5. medium dense sands). These slender. if this were a real building. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples West Ridge Braces East Collector Siding: 6" concrete insulated sandwich panels. the concrete panels would be connected directly to the steel frame.) The building is supported on spread footings based on moderately deep alluvial deposits (i. = 25. (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.11 Framing elevation and sections (1. The foundation plan is shown in Figure 5. 1.13. The design of footings and columns in the braced bays requires consideration of combined seismic loadings. Grade beams carrying the enclosing panels serve as ties in the longitudinal direction as well as across the end walls. 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.. Earthquake rather than wind governs the lateral design due to the mass of the insulated concrete panels. The design of foundations is not included here. The panels are attached with long pins perpendicular to the concrete surface.0 ft = 0. But for this example. This was done to cause the steel frame to resist lateral forces and.e.0 in. shearwall action of the panels does not influence the frames. flexible pins avoid shear resistance by the panels. 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.FEMA 451.3048 m).
= 25. 9 bays at 20'0"=180'0" 20'0" (typical) 40'0" Mezzanine 90'0" 6" concrete slab with 6x6W1. 55 .3048 m).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.4x W1. 90'0" W14x43 N Figure 5.13 Foundation plan (1.4 mm.0 in.0 in.0 ft = 0.0 ft = 0. 1. 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. 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 5.12 Roof framing and mezzanine framing plan (1. = 25.Chapter 5.c. tie rod (or equal) at each frame.3048 m). 1.
31]) SS = 0.51 [3.FEMA 451.4]) [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps.2.32]) SM1 = FvS1 = 1.1 [4.31]) = 3 (Provisions Table 5. The same singlestory height and weight limits apply. the limitations on intermediate momentresisting frames in Seismic Design Category D have been revised.2.1.5 (Provisions Table 5. 4.5 in this direction. The building in this example seems to fit these criteria.32]) Fv = 1.1.5 (Provisions Table 4.6 (Provisions Map 10 [Figure 3.2.31]) Cd Ω0 EW direction: Braced frame system R = ordinary steel concentrically braced frame (Provisions Table 5. due to Provisions Sec.52 [3. these frames are permitted only in singlestory structures up to 65 feet in height.] Note that Provisions Table 5.2 [4. 5. this R factor would change to 3. 4.] NS direction: Momentresisting frame system R = intermediate steel moment frame = 4.2 [4.1.3.31]) Fa = 1.2.6 (Provisions Eq.31]) = 4 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4.1[3. which states that if the value of R in either direction is less than 5.5 (Provisions Table 5.5 (Provisions Map 9 [Figure 3. Similarly.33]) SDS = 2/3 SMS = 0.2.3 [1.2.2.9 (Provisions Eq.42 [3.5.4a [3.31] 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. If the ordinary steel moment frame were chosen for the NS direction.31])1 = 2 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4. but the intermediate steel moment frame with stiffened bolted end plates is chosen to illustrate the connection design issues.32]) S1 = 1. and roof dead load not exceeding 20 psf.2.2]. Refer to 2003 Provisions Table 4.2.2.2]) Seismic Design Category = D (Provisions Sec.2.31]) Cd Ω0 R must be taken as 4.2. This building would fall within that restriction. 1 56 .2 [4.2 [4. 4.1 Provisions Parameters Site Class = D (Provisions Sec.1.2 Design Parameters 5.31]) = 5 (Provisions Table 5.2 [4.1.31]) SMS = FaSS = 0.31. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.41 [3.34]) SD1 = 2/3 SM1 Seismic Use Group = I (Provisions Sec.1. with fieldbolted end plate moment connections. but the presence of the mezzanine could be questionable.2.1.1. the smaller value of R must be used in both directions.1.5 (Provisions Eq.2 [4.0 (Provisions Eq. 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).2.2. 1.31]) = 4.2.5]) = 1. 4.2.0 (Provisions Table 4.2. 4.1 [1.2. In Seismic Design Category D. [The height and tributary weight limitations for ordinary momentresisting frames have been revised in the 2003 Provisions.2.1. footnote h.4b [3. 4. but the type of connection is not limited.
5. Grade 50 ASTM A36 ASTM A325 5. 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. there are (2 adjacent columns)/(2 x 9 bays) so: rmaxx = 0.25(125) = 100 psf. Grade 60 ASTM A992. use ρ = 1. Therefore. and the Provisions exempts roofs from weight irregularities. insulation. 57 . purlins.3 Structural Design Criteria 5.2.57 < 1.3]).0 ksi ASTM A615.3.2. However. the building might be considered vertically irregular (Provisions Sec.2.2 Loads Roof live load (L). and that portion of the main frames that is tributary to the roof under lateral load.00.1.00 .3.1.2]).1. For determination of the seismic weights.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. 5.1 Building Configuration Because there is a mezzanine at one end. 5.) Therefore. the upper level is a roof.2 Redundancy For a structure in Seismic Design Category D. There also are plan irregularities in this building in the transverse direction. snow Roof dead load (D) Mezzanine live load.11 and ρ =0.2.3.3 [5. again because of the mezzanine (Provisions Sec.3.1.4.Chapter 5.2. To checking ρ in an approximate manner. the weight of the mezzanine will include the dead load plus 25 percent of the storage load (125 psf) in accordance with Provisions Sec. mechanical and electrical equipment. 5.3.1]. 5.3 [4. Structural Steel Design 5.3 Materials Concrete for footings Slabsongrade Mezzanine concreteon metal deck Reinforcing bars Structural steel (wide flange sections) Plates Bolts fc' = 2.1. Provisions Eq.2.2. In the NS (transverse) direction.200 sq ft.3.2 [4.5 ksi fc' = 3. metal roof deck.5 ksi fc' = 4.2. the mezzanine seismic weight is 69 + 0. 5.
4. x Thus. 5.3. Footnote b in Provisions Table 5.0L + 0.8 [4.1. and ∆α = 10.4.9D + ρQE 0.3 for further discussion. Recall that SDS = 1. the redundancy factor would have to be investigated in both directions based on the new criteria in the 2003 Provisions.60 in.3.0L +ρQE + 0.0L is for the storage load on the mezzanine.2S + E = 1.9D + E = 0.8 [4.0 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. At the roof ridge. partitions.. For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D.51]) is: ∆a = 0.3 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.4 Structural Component Load Effects The effect of seismic load (Provisions Eq. hsx = 34 ft3 in. The reliability factor applies only to the determination of forces.5 for many common live loads: 0.00 in the transverse direction and 1.22.71 and 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In the EW (longitudinal) direction.3 and 4. 5. the reliability multiplier is 1. and ∆a = 9.2.37 .1. etc. hsx = 12 ft and ∆a = 3.21 and 4.1.3 and 5. that have been designed to accommodate the story drifts.5.2. respectively]).2SDSD.2D +1. 5. The seismic load is combined with the gravity loads as follows: 1. 5.2.2.72 [4.2. the braces are equally loaded (ignoring accidental torsion).FEMA 451.51.2D = 0. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions.4D + 1.15 in.0 for this example.] 5. respectively]) is: E = ρQE ± 0.5 Drift Limits For a building in Seismic Use Group I.2. not to deflection calculations. the allowable story drift (Provisions 5.2D + 1.3. The main frame of the building can be considered to be a onestory 58 .2S +ρQE. See Sec.2. Therefore. the coefficient on L is 0.28 in.025 hsx.1.37 in the longitudinal direction. footnote c] permits unlimited drift for singlestory buildings with interior walls. At the mezzanine floor. hsx = 30 ft6 in. 5.0L + 0.5.2. At the hip (columnroof intersection). ρ = 1.7D + ρQE.2.25 and ρ = 1.4.2 [4.2D = 1. so there is (1 brace)/(4 braces) so rmax = 0.2.2. Note 1.
28) = 0.2.102 kips The weight associated with the main frames accounts for only the main columns.4)(0.4 Analysis Base shear will be determined using an equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis.02)(34.015)(90)(180) = Panels at sides = (2)(0.Chapter 5.54 seconds.47) = 0.3.028)(34.5.1.4)(0.2 [5. (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. 59 . 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 1.4. 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.11 [5.2.) 5.7 [5.250. 5. 5.1.1.66 sec.075)(35)(90)/2 = Mezzanine slab = (0. 5.26]): Ta = Crhnx = (0.4. given that there are no interior partitions except below the mezzanine. 5.28 sec In accordance with Provisions Sec.47 sec and Tmax = CuTa = (1. a modal analysis then will examine the torsional irregularity of the building.26]: Ta = Crhnx = (0. The subsequent 3D modal analysis finds the computed period to be 0. In the transverse direction where stiffness is provided by momentresisting frames (Provisions Eq.7]). Structural Steel Design building for this purpose.3.4.11 [5.39 sec. because the weight associated with the remainder of the main frames is included in roof dead load above. the computed period of the structure must not exceed: Tmax = CuTa = (1.250.4.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure In the longitudinal direction where stiffness is provided only by the diagonal bracing.2].75) = 0. this mezzanine is less than onethird the footprint of the building.8) = 0. 5.6 Seismic Weight The weights that contribute to seismic forces are: Roof D and L = (0. 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.075)(32)(180)/2 = Panels at ends = (2)(0. 5.2.
The seismic base shear in the transverse direction is: V = CsW = (0. 5.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]) computed as: Cs = 0. 5.222 R I 4.23. If the ELF method was used exclusively.37)(197) = 270 kips 510 . In the longitudinal direction: Cs = SDS 1. In the transverse direction (Provisions Eq. 5.4. In both directions the value of Cs exceeds the minimum value (Provisions Eq.0) = 0. it is applicable in the determination of required strengths.6 = = 0.044I SDS = (0.4.2.1.1].222 for the longitudinal direction.044)(1)(1. respectively]): Cs = SDS 1.11 and 5.1.5/1) Therefore.1 [5.202)(1.202 T ( R / I ) (0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Also note that the dynamic analysis found a computed period of 1.222)889 kips) = 197 kips.] The seismic base shear in the longitudinal direction (Provisions Eq. 5. the seismic base shear in the longitudinal direction would be increased by ρ now: V = ρ (197) V = (1.0 = = 0. which is not applicable to this example.5/1) Therefore. use Cs = 0. The seismic force must be increased by the reliability factor as indicated previously. Although this is not applicable to the determination of deflections.102 kips) = 223 kips.5 1 but need not exceed S 0.4.5 1 but need not exceed Cs = SD1 0.4.222 R I 4. In its place is a minimum Cs value for longperiod structures.66)(4.1 [5.21]) is: V = CsW = (0.1. use Cs = 0.202 for the transverse direction.6 Cs = D1 = = 0.342 T (R / I ) (0.044 [This minimum Cs value has been removed in the 2003 Provisions. The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.1.FEMA 451.03 seconds.4.39)(4.0 = = 0. The reliability multiplier ( ρ) will enter the calculation later as the modal analysis is developed.12 [5.22 and 5.1.
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 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.83 0. it is clearly a twolevel structure. If one were to assume that the roof were a flexible diaphragm while the mezzanine were rigid. The mezzanine diaphragm is modeled using planar shell elements with their inplane rigidity being based on actual properties and dimensions of the slab.66 sec.6 kips End frame at roof = 20.3] prescribes the vertical distribution of lateral force in a multilevel structure. 2. The analytical model includes elements with onetenth the stiffness of a plane plate of 22 gauge steel. 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.3. For this example.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.2 for discussion of the changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions. a 3D model was created in SAP 2000.3. it would be necessary to compute the stiffness for each of the two types of frames and for the braced frames. 4. Using the data in Sec. 12 ft.] Provisions Sec. and the diaphragm chord members are explicitly modeled using 3D beamcolumn elements. the moment frames supporting the mezzanine. the following forces would be applied to the frames: Typical frame at roof (tributary basis) = 185 kips / 9 bays = 20. the tension bracing. SDI’s Diaphragm Design Manual is used for guidance in assessing the stiffness of the roof deck. The gabled moment frames. The roof diaphragm also is modeled using planar shell elements.2.4.6/2 = 10. 5. Even though the building is considered to be one story for some purposes.5 ft. 5.6 of this example and interpolating the exponent k as 1.7 kips If one were to assume the roof were rigid.1.11.1. Structural Steel Design [See Sec. 5. 3. and The significance of braced frames in controlling torsion due to NS ground motions. the distribution of forces for the NS analysis is shown in Table 5.4. The significance of the different centers of mass for the roof and the mezzanine. 5.11 ELF Vertical Distribution for NS Analysis Level Roof Mezzanine Total Weight (wx) 707 kips 395 kips 1102 kips Height (hx) 30. The relative stiffness of the roof deck with respect to the gable frames. The significance of differing stiffness of the gable frames with and without the mezzanine level.08 for the period of 0.Chapter 5.2 ThreeDimension Static and Modal Response Spectrum Analyses The 3D analysis is performed for this example to account for: 1. Table 5. 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. wxhxk 28340 5780 34120 Cvx 0.1. The collector at the hip level is included as are those at the mezzanine level in the two east bays.3 [5.3 kips Mezzanine frame at mezzanine = 38 kips/3 frames = 12.
77 38.29 4. 4.3.FEMA 451.] 512 .57 12.13 15.31. [Although it has no affect on this example.86 2.18 in.67 10.3] using the SAP 2000 program.42 The average of the extreme displacements is 3.41] then requires that the seismic force analysis be any one of several types of dynamic analysis.2 limit given in Provisions Table 5.35 23.5.50 17.” Provisions Table 5.36 184.82 3. Thus. The simplest of these is the modal response spectrum (MRS) analysis.12.1 [4. The MRS is an easy next step once the 3D model has been assembled. whereas the average frame displacement is about 20 times that. the behavior is as a rigid diaphragm. 4.2.24 19.5 [5.6 [3. The displacement at the centroid of the roof is 3. which exceeds the 1.08 3.56 4.14.60 2. The design response spectrum is based on Provisions Sec. the applied forces and the resulting displacements are shown in Table 5.76 7.12 ELF Analysis in NS Direction Grid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals Roof Force.61 21.21 2. A 3D dynamic design response spectrum analysis is performed per Provisions Sec. See the discussion in Chapter 3 of this volume of design examples. in.19 25.01 Mezzanine Force. Clearly then.49 in.99 14. kips 13.1.2 [4. Table 5. the deviation of the diaphragm from a straight line is 0. The ratio of maximum to average displacement is 1. the design response spectrum has been changed for long periods in the 2003 Provisions. Using grid locations numbered from west to east. kips Roof Displacement. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples center of the mezzanine.45 4.67 in.87 18.3.98 22.53 3. 5.2.2.4] and is shown in Figure 5.32] and places the structure in the category “torsionally irregular.
With this model.545 0.) Figure 5.4 0.133 0.132 5.9 1.4 0.12 S a= S D1 T 0.0 Period.070 1.8 2.3 1.5.8 SD1= 0. The first 24 modes accounted for approximately 98 percent of the total mass of the 513 .367 4.8 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.13. 5.578 3.095 Csm (ft/sec2) 2.121 0.766 4.111 0.190 0.33]) is Csm = Sam R I .0 ft = 0.6 0.1 1. The third mode period was 0.54 seconds with a predominantly longitudinal participation.857 0.6 0. Table 5.666 0.03 seconds with predominantly transverse participation.900 3.6 1.2 0 0 0. Sa (g) S DS= 1.429 Csm = S am (R / I ) R = 4.0 0.12 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.500 0.862 7.9 1.3048 m.6 0.43 [5.155 7.4 Sa (g) Sam = Sa (g) 0.299 3.2 0.0 1.293 3. Structural Steel Design Spectral response acceleration.4 1.089 0. The modal seismic response coefficient (Provisions Eq.750 0.222 0.222 0.600 0.167 0.461 0.Chapter 5.5 0. The first mode had a period of vibration of 1. the first 24 periods of vibration and mode shapes of the structure were computed using the SAP2000 program. The design response spectra expressed in units of g and ft/sec2 are shown in Table 5.148 0.155 6. T (sec.102 0.14 Design response spectrum.13 Design Response Spectra T (sec) 0.7 0.0 1.
0)(1.2 [5. and floor deflections.3. δye = 2. design response spectra as increased by the modification factors above) from the second analysis are: EW deflection NS deflection δxe = 0.38)(1.3)(NS direction spectrum) (0.05)(xdirection spectrum) (1.0)(EW direction spectrum) + (0. 5.0)(1.0)(1.5.99 in. the factors on the basic spectrum for the load combinations become: EW NS (1.37)(EW direction spectrum) + (0. a factor to bring the modal base shear up to this comparison ELF value must be applied to the modal story shears. the design response spectra for the 3D modal analysis is again revised by increasing the EW direction response by the reliability factor.3.7 [5.1 [5.310]: Modification factor = 0.37.5 kips Transverse Vt = 137. The response spectra for the 3D modal analysis are combined to meet the orthogonality requirement of Provisions Sec.37)(EW direction spectrum) + (1.3)(EW direction spectrum) + (1.85)(197 kips/159. the deflections should be checked as discussed in Sec.2. both of which are is greater than the 90 percent requirement of Provisions Sec.7]. at the first frame in from the west end where δxe and δye are deflections determined by the elastic modal analysis.e. 5.2].4.2 kips In accordance with Provisions Sec. which accounts for coupling of closely spaced modes.3)(1.00)(NS direction spectrum) 514 .84 in. 5. Those frames closer to the mezzanine had smaller NS lateral deflections in much the same fashion as was shown for the ELF analysis.85(V/Vt) = (0.05)(1.FEMA 451.85 (V/Vt) EW modification factor = 0.38 The response spectra for the 3D modal analysis is then revised by the above modification factors: EW NS (1.5.05)(1. The SAP 2000 program uses the complete quadratic combination (CQC) of the modal values.2 kips) = 1. In the absence of damping.5.1.5. Base shears thus obtained are: Longitudinal Vt = 159. moments. Thus. 5.5 kips) = 1.38)(1.3)(1.3 below. If the design value for modal base shear is less than 85 percent of the ELF base shear calculated using a period of CuTa. compare the design values of modal base shear to the base shear determined by the ELF method. The design value for modal base shear (Vt) is determined by combining the modal values for base shear.85)(223 kips/137. Note that ρ is equal to unity in the NS direction.2a [4.2.38)(ydirection spectrum) The model is then run again. The maximum lateral displacements at the ridge due to seismic loads (i..05 NS modification factor = 0. Before going further.3]: EW NS (1. ρ = 1. According to Provisions Eq. drifts.85(V/Vt) = (0. the CQC is simply the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of each modal value. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples structure in the transverse direction and approximately 93 percent in the longitudinal direction.0)(1.0)(NS direction spectrum) Finally.7.4. 5.2.00)(NS direction spectrum) (0.
(The heavy wall panels were selected to make an interesting example problem. As such.5 Force Summary The maximum moments and axial forces caused by dead. there is no story drift limit for singlestory structures with interior wall.1 [4.2. From this third analysis.4. The authors suggest adjusting by a ratio of R factors. Recall that the deflection computations do not consider the reliability factor. 5.1.1. not seismic loads. The size of the members is controlled by gravity loads. but this is for use when design is based upon R = 5.99) = = 12.15.Chapter 5. for this example.0 I This exceeds the limit of 10. The moment diagram for the combined load condition is shown in Figure 5. However.1. and the high transverse drift is a consequence of this.3 Drift The lateral deflection cited previously must be multiplied by Cd = 4 to find the transverse drift: δx = Cdδ xe 4. and moments. and exterior wall systems that have been designed to accommodate the story drifts.15. 5. This was investigated by a 3D Pdelta analysis.1. the final design base shears are obtained.5. ceilings. Pdelta was considered to be insignificant and was not investigated further.28 in.4D + L + 0. 515 . unless specifically noted otherwise. Structural Steel Design and the model is run once again to obtain the final result for design forces.5. which determined that secondary Pdelta effect on the frame in the transverse direction was less than 1 percent of the primary demand.85 x 197 kips) = 167.1.2. 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. Applying the ρ factor (1.0 in.13. (Pdelta may be significant for a different structure.4. Pdelta should always be investigated for unbraced frames. the lateral deflection was much smaller and obviously is within the limits. 5. have heavy wall panels and would be expected to have high seismic drifts.3.4.2]. Special attention to detailing the connections of such features is necessary.4 Pdelta The AISC LRFD Specification requires Pdelta analyses for frames.0(2. computed previously. This value must be multiplied by a Cd factor to find the transverse drift.2S + ρ QE. such as refrigerated warehouses. 5. which is used throughout the remainder of calculations in this section. The tabulated value of Cd is 4.) 5. and earthquake loads on the gable frames are listed in Tables 5. live.5 of this chapter.5 kips to 230 kips. The load combination is 1. Some real buildings. The design of connections will be controlled by the seismic loads.) In the longitudinal direction. shears.37) is equivalent to increasing the EW base shear from (0.14 and the axial forces are given in Table 5. partitions. The Provisions does not give guidance for Cd when the system R factor is overridden by the limitation of Provisions Sec. say one with higher mass at the roof. The moments are given in Table 5. Forces in and design of the braces are discussed in Sec.12 and 5. 1.
8 7.Mezzanine 4.5 4.3048 m.25 + ρ Q E 0.0 ft = 0.Mezzanine 4.Ridge 2. 1.Ridge 2. 1.Knee 3.kips 447 ft . combined load values are maximum for any frame.0 26 26 Combined* (ftkips) 39 37 127 127 * Combined Load = 1.0 kip = 1.1.ρ Q E Figure 5.3048 m.0 ftkip = 1.4D + L + 0.2S + ρQE (or 1.0 ft = 0. 1.36 kNm.15 Axial Forces in Gable Frames Members Location 1.kips 1. Table 5. combined load values are maximum for any frame. 1.0 kip = 1.FEMA 451.Base D (ftkips) 14 16 39 39 L (ftkips) 3.kips 53 ft .4D + L + 0.kips  40 ft .2D + 1.36 kNm). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.7D .36 kNm.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. Individual maximums are not necessarily on the same frame.kips 104 ft .5 39 39 S (ftkips) 25 27 23 23 ρQE (ftkips) 0.kips 53 ft .14 Moments in Gable Frame Members Location 1. Individual maximums are not necessarily on the same frame.6S). 447 ft .5 Proportioning and Details 516 .2S + ρQE.15 Moment diagram for seismic load combinations (1.Knee 3.4D + 0. 5.
Structural Steel Design The gable frame is shown schematically in Figure 5. and F must be designed and detailed (with a few exceptions) per AISC Seismic.0 in. steel structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D. also shown in Figure 5. Section 1. shown in Figure 5. Section 10 of AISC Seismic itemizes a few exceptions from AISC LRFD for intermediate moment frames. 5.1.12 and 5. at base to 36 in. Tapered roof beam Tapered column 30'6" Mezzanine (2 end bays) Figure 5. 8. at knee.16 Gable frame schematic: Column tapers from 12 in.4+ mm).1. 12'0" 517 .” stipulates that those requirements are to be applied in conjunction with AISC LRFD. Using load combinations presented in Sec. roof beam tapers from 36 in. The diagonal bracing.4 [8. For an intermediate moment frame (IMF).1 Frame Compactness and Brace Spacing According to Provisions Sec. but otherwise the intermediate moment frames are to be designed per the AISC LRFD Specification.16.4 and the loads from Tables 5. at knee to 18 in. Terminology for momentresisting frames varies among the several standards.11.2].13.Chapter 5. is proportioned using tension forces determined from the 3D modal analysis. plate sizes are given in Figure 5. The mezzanine framing. Part I.11 at the east end of the building.5.3. at ridge. AISC Seismic Part I.2. E. the proportions of the frame are checked at the roof beams and the variabledepth columns (at the knee). Table 5. = 25. was proportioned similarly. “Scope.16 is intended to assist the reader in keeping track of the terminology. 5.18 (1.
) The tapered members are approximated as short prismatic segments.076 ⎜ ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ −488 ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 29.16.000 ⎞ ⎟⎥ ⎜ ⎟ (1.9 in. IMF = intermediate moment frame.04 0. and 4. so the moment gradient at design conditions will be used to compute the maximum spacing of bracing. > 48 in.1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.02 Not defined Plastic Rotation 0.12 + 0.1. (If the frame were an SMF. the terminology is unchanged from the 2000 Provisions. Therefore. [The terminology in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic is the same as Supplement No.FEMA 451. ⎝ 659 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 50 ⎠ OK 518 . Lateral bracing is provided by the roof joists and wall girts. All PM ratios (combined compression and flexure) were less than 1.0 ft away the moment is 427 ft. will be used for our IMF example. The spacing of lateral bracing is illustrated for the high moment area of the tapered beam near the knee.01* Minimal AISC Seismic (1997) SMF IMF OMF Not used FEMA 350 SMF Not used OMF Not used AISC Seismic (Supplement No. the adjustments of AISC LRFD Specification for webtapered members will not affect the results of the 3D SAP 2000 analysis.16 Comparison of Standards Total Rotation (story drift angle) 0. The moment at the face of the column is 659 ft. the widththickness ratios of AISC LRFD. SMF = special moment frame. F117): Lpd = ⎢0. then AISC Seismic would impose more restrictive requirements. The maximum moment at the face of the column under factored load combinations is less than the plastic moment.03 0.03 0. OMF = ordinary moment frame. This is based on proper spacing of lateral bracing.12 + 0. 2 to the 1997 edition as listed in Table 5. For this example. so the sign on the ratio in the design equation is negative (AISC LRFD Eq.00.kip. At that point the moment gradient will be higher than under the design load combinations (the shear will be higher).kip.] Because AISC Seismic does not impose more restrictive widththickness ratios for IMF. thus.02 0.076 ⎜ ⎣ ⎡ ⎛ M 1 ⎞⎤ ⎛ E ⎞ ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ry ⎝ M 2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ Fy ⎠ Lpd ⎢0. 2) SMF Not used IMF OMF Provisions SMF Not used IMF OMF *This is called “limited inelastic deformations” in AISC Seismic.35) = 49. The member is in single curvature here. Table B5. but under the design seismic ground motion the plastic moment will be reached. IMF per the Provisions corresponds to IMF per AISC Seismic. All widththickness ratios are less than the limiting λp from AISC LRFD Table B5.
0 in. per AISC LRFD Eq.17 Arrangement at knee (1. 118" dia.17). A325 (typical) L3 x3 Gusset plate Section "A" 2x2 Xbrace MC8 girt Elevation Filler pad L3x3 Section "B" Figure 5. Structural Steel Design Also. = 25. lateral bracing is necessary on the bottom flange of the beams and inside the flanges of the columns (Figure 5.35) / 50 = 57 in.Chapter 5. 519 . OK At the negative moment regions near the knee.4 mm). F14: L p = 300ry / Fyf Lp = (300)(1. > 48 in.
5 Varies 12" to 36" Weld per AWS D1.18 Bolted stiffened connection at knee (1. The beam to column connection requires special consideration.17 and 5.1 Detail "1" 3 4" Detail "1" 3 4" Figure 5. which has a tapered column and a tapered beam is not one of the specific details per FEMA 350.0 ft = 0. The vertical plate shown near the upper left corner in Figure 5. FEMA 350 is used as a guide for this example because it is the closest design method developed to date for such a connection.2 Knee of the Frame The knee detail is shown in Figures 5.5. stiffened end plate connections is used for a design guide here. 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= 37.4 mm.17 is a gusset providing connection for Xbracing in the longitudinal direction. 1.0 in.1.25" d 1= 30.) Refer to Figure 5.18. The method of FEMA 350 for bolted. AISC SDGS4 is also useful. 520 18" to 36" . A490 g = 4" t p= 1 2" 8" Typical 2" Varies 1 3 4" 16" 2" 3 4" 2" 2" Tapered column 8" 1 2.18 for configuration. (FEMA 350 has design criteria for specific connection details. = 25. However.75" 1 2" Tapered beam Bolts: 1" dia.3048 m). Highlights from this method are shown for this portion of the example Refer to FEMA 350 for a discussion of the entire procedure. The connection for our moment frame.FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.
which will reduce l and usually increase Vp. the moment at the column centerline is found: 521 . Per FEMA 350 Eq. The probable maximum moment (Mpr) at the plastic hinge is computed (FEMA 350 Eq.407 ftkips.3 at d/2 from the end plate (the plastic hinge location) Fy = 50 ksi Therefore. = 1.8)(1. which drives the connection design. Where the gravity moments are a large fraction of the section capacity.5) = 1491 ftkips In a like manner.1)(267)(50) = 16.15 2Fu (2)(50) . That is not the circumstance for this frame. 32: Cpr = Fy + Fu (50+ 65) = = 1. is determined from FEMA 350 Figure 34 as: Mf = Mpr + Vpx where Vp = Shear at location of plastic hinge. 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. less the column depth and distance to the hinge at each end.5 ft Thus. Mpr = (1. AISC Seismic Table I61 indicates: Ry = 1. the depth will be slightly less than 36 inches at the location of the hinge. With the taper of the section. Mf .15)(1. but that reduction will be ignored here. one near each column. = 1. which will be in positive moment. may be away from the column face. The location of the plastic hinge is distance x from the face of the column.888 in. assuming the frame has formed two hinges.52 klf) ⎜ = 55. Vp = wg l Mpr1 + Mpr 2 ⎛ 81 ft ⎞ 1407 + 1407 ftk + = (0. forcing the plastic hinge to occur away from the welds at the end of beam/face of column.kips. The moment at the column flange. The end plate stiffeners at the top and bottom flanges increase the local moment of inertia of the beam. the second hinge to form. 31) as follows: Mpr = CprRyZeFy. The stiffeners should be long enough to force the plastic hinge to at least d/2 away from the end of the beam.8 kips ⎟+ 2 l 81ft ⎝ 2 ⎠ l = 81 ft comes from the 90 ft outtoout dimension of the frame. The steps in FEMA 350 for bolted stiffened end plates follow: Step 1. x = db /2 = 18 in.1 Ze = 267 in. Mf = 1407 + (55.Chapter 5.
591 F fu 2.FEMA 451.583 t p 0. bp = width of end plate = 9 in.44)0. 522 . Determine the minimum end plate thickness necessary to preclude flexural yielding by comparing the thickness determined above against FEMA 350 Eq.thick end plate is acceptable.5 kips Therefore. tp = end plate thickness = 2 in. 334: tp ≥ 0.6 (504)0. Find bolt size for end plates.9 dbt 0.7 OK tp ≥ 2 in.75 in.583 + 64 (2)0.9 (0.) 77. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples dc ⎞ = 1407 + 55.7 kips > 87.909 (0. Step 3.7 kips Tub ≥ (0.25 in.1 Tub = 113 Ab = (113)(0. FEMA 350 Eq. Step 4. > 1. Now confirm that Tub satisfies FEMA 350 Eq.44)0.4 Tub(do + di) (1491)(12) < 3.7 (0.38 < Tub 77. Check the bolt size to preclude shear failure.5)0.895 d bt1.44 in.2 < Ab Use 1 in.5) = 1574 ftkips 2⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Step 2.327 b p 0.909 t s 0. This step is skipped here because 16 bolts will obviously carry the shear for our example.5 + 1. 332: Tub ≥ 0.9 g 0.5 in. Tb = bolt pretension per AISC LRFD Table J3.27 in.6 F fu 0.1 (9)0.785) = 88.9 (1)0.8(1.685 in. ts = thickness of stiffener plate = 0.895 (1)1.00609)(1.5)0. (Trial tp) dbt = bolt diameter = 1 in.00002305)(1.00609 p f 0.38 < 113 Ab (for A490 bolts) 0.327 (9)0.4 Tub(37.9 (4)0. a 2in.591 (504) 2.9ts 0. + 30.1b p 0.965 OK Tub = 88. For a connection with two rows of two bolts inside and outside the flange.00002305 p f 0. 331 indicates: Mc = Mpr + Vp ⎜ x + ⎛ Mf < 3.965 + Tb where: pf = dimension from top of flange to top of first bolt = 1. Diameter A490 bolts.
00413)(1. 335: tp ≥ 0. For onesided connections. Step 6.9 Fyc (3. For this column.5 pb + c) g 4 1 C3 = − dbt − k1 = − − 0. 340: twc = Mf (1491)(12) = = 1.75) + (2)(2) + (0.3 OK tp ≥ 2 in.5 in.44) ⎟ (1) 0.44)0.5)](50) twc reqd = 1. Structural Steel Design and against FEMA 350 Eq. Because continuity plates are required.7 (0. > 1. (db − t fb )(6k + 2t p + t fb )Fyc (36 − 0. tcf must be at least as thick as the end plate thickness tp.9)(50)[(3. (0. use a 2in.95 in.25 g 0.95 in.25 (4)0.75 in.00413 p f 0.19 α m = Ca ⎜ ⎟ 1 ⎜ (35)(0. This is a check on web crippling using FEMA 350 Eq. 2 2 4 (For purposes of this example.48) ⎛ (2)(8)(0.7 ts 0.5(tbf + tbf) = 0.15b p 0.5)] 1 1 tcf > Minimum tcf = 0.5) ⎞ 3 1 = 1. Therefore.15 (9)0.44 in.15 F fu dbt 0. fillet weld for a total of 0.25 ⎝ Aw ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ( d bt ) 4 (1.5)(3) + (3.00) = 0. tcf = 2 in. 0.00 in.Chapter 5. the 2in.3.19)(504)(1. but this will be revised in Step 7. 3.5 in.5 in. = twc OK Therefore. Step 7. > 0. Check column web thickness for adequacy for beam flange compression.1 for continuity plate sizing.5)0.3 (0. Step 5.75 = 1. See FEMA 350 Sec. 337: tcf > where α m F fu C3 0. k1 is taken to be the thickness of the column web.66 in.). 338: ⎛ A f ⎞ 3 C 3 = (1. a continuity plate is needed at the compression flange. Using FEMA 350 Eq.44 in. and an assumed 0.25 in.5)[(6)(0.15 (504) (1)0. Determine the minimum column flange thickness required to resist beam flange tension using FEMA 350 Eq.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 . the necessary thickness of the continuity plate is 0. Therefore.3.thick end plate.
1.31 in.FEMA 451. Step 8.71)(1574 x 12) ⎜ ⎛ 366 − 41. Sec.3 Frame at the Ridge The ridge joint detail is shown in Figure 5. An unstiffened bolted connection plate is selected.50 in. down from the bottom of the beam.5 + 3 + 1..5 = 41.75in. < 0. tcw ≥ (0.5 in.2. = tcw 5. flange is continued 36 in.5) tcw required = 0. Lateral seismic force produces no moment at the ridge until yielding takes place at one of the knees. 3.9)(0. Some judgment is necessary here.3.71 Zbe ⎛ 267 ⎞ Cpr 1.thick flange.5. This is an AISC LRFD designed connection. Vertical accelerations on the dead load do produce a 524 . For this case. the 2in.6)(50)(1. 34: Cy = 1 1 = = 0. 37: Cy M c ⎜ ⎛ h − db ⎞ ⎟ ⎝ h ⎠ t≥ (0.6Fy )Rycdc (db − t fb ) where.1)(36)(36 − 0. Check the panel zone shear in accordance with FEMA 350. OK 1 12 Tappered roof beam Unstiffened bolted end plate Figure 5. For purposes of this check. according to FEMA 350 Eq.5 + 1. This weld needs to be carefully detailed. where it is welded to the 0.3.15⎜ ⎟ Sb ⎝ 218 ⎠ (0.9)(0.19. not a FEMA 350 designed connection because there should not be a plastic hinge forming in this vicinity. use db = 35.31 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples portion of the column knee area. Per FEMA 350 Eq.5 ⎞ 366 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ = 0.19 End plate connection at ridge.
A typical beamcolumn connection at the mezzanine level is provided in Figure 5. The design of the mezzanine framing is largely conventional as seismic loads do not predominate.5 Braced Frame Diagonal Bracing 525 . 20gauge steel deck of the mezzanine floor is supported on steel beams spaced at 10 ft and spanning 20 ft (Figure 5. Those lateral forces that are received by the mezzanine are distributed to the frames and diagonal bracing via the floor diaphragm.1. = 25. The design of the end plate connection is similar to that at the knee.11). but simpler because the beam is horizontal and not tapered..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. 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.12).2S as the load for this scenario. further lateral displacement produces some positive moment at the ridge. If one uses 1. the value is small compared to all other moments and does not appear to be a concern.7 (b) Figure 5. however. 5.4 mm). The girder spans are approximately 30 ft each. coincidentally close to the design moment for the factored gravity loads.2D + 0. Structural Steel Design moment at this point. 5. The concrete filled 3in.Chapter 5.5. The steel beams rest on threespan girders connected at each end to the portal frames and supported on two intermediate columns (Figure 5.110 Mezzanine framing (1. leaving a net positive moment of 278 ftkip.110. the static moment is 406 ftkip and the reduction for the thrust is 128 ftkip. Once lateral seismic loads produce yielding at one knee. Under the condition on which the FEMA 350 design is based (a full plastic moment is produced at each knee).0 in. L3x3 strut 3" concrete slab 3" embossed 20 ga.5.1. deck W14x43 Split W27x84 W21x62 MC8x18.
With the Ω0 factor.2 > 4. 14.2 (November 2000 Supplement) for requirements on braces for OCBFs. respectively] requires that the design seismic force on components sensitive to overstrength shall be defined by: E = Ω0QE ± 0. 41. 5.2) = 269 kips.1).98 in. 14. However.FEMA 451.2.5)(36 ksi)(4. 4.2S + 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.2 φ Fy (0.2S + Ω0QE Recall that a 1.5L + 0. Using A36 steel for angles: Tn = φFyAg Ag = P 132 n = = 4. part of the braced frame. the load combination for design of the brace members reduces to: 1.23 and 4. For the case discussed here. Ω0 = 2. the required strength becomes 132 kips. Also be sure to check the eave strut at the roof.11 and 2 [4.0 factor is applied to L when the live load is greater than 100 psf (AISC Seismic Sec.7. For the braced design.] From analysis using this load combination.7. All braces will have the same design. See AISC Seismic Sec.2 requires the design strength of the brace connections to be based on the expected tensile strength: RyFyAg = (1.24 should be used in conjunction with the load combinations in ASCE 7 as is done here.49) = 4. 14.4D + 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). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Although the force in the diagonal X braces can be either tension or compression. including the columns in this area but excluding the brace connections.2. 1.24.07 in.2 does not apply because this is not a V or an inverted V 526 . 5.2 OK AISC Seismic Sec.2D + 0. 2003 Provisions Eq. Thus. only the tensile value is considered because it is assumed that the diagonal braces are capable of resisting only tensile forces. the “tension only” brace does not carry any live load so the load factor does not matter. Provisions Sec.98 in.1. shall be based on AISC Seismic Eq.5L + 0. 4.2SDSD Given that the Provisions is being following.07 in. The kl/r requirement of AISC Seismic Sec. the AISC Seismic equation will be used but E will be substituted for QE. The strength of the members and connections. has to carry compression and that compression is determined using the overstrength factor. Eq.9)(36) Try (2) L4 ×3 × 3/8: Ag = (2)(2. The eave strut.” Therefore.23 and 4.
which yields (191. 527 . This is a shear lag effect. 5.2) with 83 percent or 191 kips at the roof. In the EW direction.111 shows the inplane shear force in the roof deck diaphragm for both seismic loading conditions. There are deviations from simple approximations in both directions. Structural Steel Design configuration. = 530 plf.5.000/2)/180 ft. The shear at the braced bays is lower than observed for the EW motion. the shear is generally highest in the bay between the mezzanine frame and the first frame without the mezzanine.1.6 Roof Deck Diaphragm Figure 5. In the NS direction. The shear is also high at the longitudinal braced bays because they tend to resist the horizontal torsion. 5. 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.Chapter 5. however. the base shear is 230 kips ( Sec. There does not appear to be any particularly good simple approximation to estimate the shear here without a 3D model.4. the eave strut in the 3D model is a HSS 6x6x1/4. This might be expected given the significant change in stiffness.1. The plot shows that the shear in the edge of the diaphragm is significantly higher in the two braced bays.
Roof diaphragm shear.59 N/M). pound per foot. pound per foot.FEMA 451. NorthSouth motion. Figure 5. /ft. upper diagram is for EW motion and lower is for NS motion (1.0 lb.111 Shear force in roof deck diaphragm. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Roof diaphragm shear. 528 . EastWest motion. = 14.
but are arranged to accommodate elevator door openings. 5. high. 4 in. Floors consist of 31/4 in. F. 2. and 4E and 4F in the EW direction and between columns 3C and 4C. above grade.21). H. The penthouse extends 16 ft above the roof level of the building and covers the area bounded by gridlines C.2. 5. and a dual system with a momentresisting frame at the perimeter and a concentrically braced frame at the core area – as follows: 1. and 3F and 4F in the NS direction (Figure 5. 3.2 Alternatives This example features three alternatives – a steel momentresisting frame.1. and 5 in Figure 5. 4C and 4D.2. 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. Alternative A – Seismic force resistance is provided by special moment frames located on the perimeter of the building (on lines A.Chapter 5. It extends a total of 118 ft.1. The braced frames in an X configuration are designed for both diagonals being effective in tension and compression. concentrically braced frame. 3E and 4E.3 Scope The example covers: 1. Alternative B – Seismic force resistance is provided by four special concentrically braced frames in each direction.22).2. It is framed in structural steel with 25ft bays in each direction. wide in the NS direction (Figure 5. LOS ANGELES. long in the EW direction and 127 ft.22 and the braced frames are shown in Figure 5. 3. 3D and 4D. 4 in. 2. The story height is 13 ft. Structural Steel Design 5. also illustrated in Figure 5. 4 in.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 . 5. except for the first story which is 22 ft. 3E and 3F.2 SEVENSTORY OFFICE BUILDING.23.1 Building Description 5. 4 in. 2. The moment frames are shown in Figure 5. They are located in the elevator core walls between columns 3C and 3D. 5. The building has a penthouse.21).21. 4 in. 4. lightweight concrete placed on composite metal deck.2. Braced frame elevations are shown in Figure 5. The building is planned for heavy filing systems (350 psf) covering approximately four bays on each floor. and 6 in Figure 5.21. 6.1 General Description This sevenstory office building of rectangular plan configuration is 177 ft. 1.1. The braced frames are not identical. The elevators and stairs are located in the central three bays. CALIFORNIA Three alternative framing arrangements for a sevenstory office building are illustrated.
= 25.4 mm. 530 22'4" . 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.FEMA 451.0 ft = 0.0 in. 1.21 Typical floor framing plan and building section (1.3048 m).
0 in.3048 m).0 in. 1. 22'4" 102'4" 531 .23 Concentrically braced frame elevations (1.4 mm.0 ft = 0.0 ft = 0. = 25. Structural Steel Design 7 at 25'0" 5 at 25'0" N Figure 5.4 mm.3048 m).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. = 25.22 Framing plan for special moment frame (1. 1.
1. normal weight (NW) fc' = 3 ksi.2. fireproofing.5 5. beams.2.1.31]) (Provisions Eq.FEMA 451.33]) (Provisions Map 10 [Figure 3.4b [3.2. ceiling. deck beams.5 psf R .42 [3.32]) (Provisions Eq. partitions) Floor L reductions per the IBC 5. fireproofing.1 [3.6 Seismic Use Group = I Seismic Design Category = D (Provisions Sec.31]) (Provisions Table 4. M&E) Exterior wall cladding Penthouse floor D Floor L Floor D (deck.4]) Alternative A. 4. Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (Provisions Table 5.1.1.31]) =8 Ω0 = 2.2.31]) Ω0 = 2 Cd = 5 R =6 Alternative C. insulation.1. lightweight (LW) = 25 psf = 25 psf = 25 psf of wall = 55 psf = 25 psf of wall = 65 psf = 50 psf = 62.2.51 [3. 4.33]) (Provisions Eq.34]) (Provisions Sec. M&E. girders.3 Materials Concrete for drilled piers Concrete for floors 532 fc' = 5 ksi.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5.2. Special Steel Moment Frame (Provisions Table 5.2.1 [1. 4.5 SMS = FaSS = 1.3 [1.2.2.2.1.2 [4.2 Basic Requirements 5.2.5 Cd = 6.2 [4.32]) (Provisions Eq.6 Fa = 1.1. 4.41 [3.2.2.0 SD1 = 2/3 SM1 = 0.0 Fv = 1.31]) R =8 Ω0 = 3 Cd = 5.4a [3. 4.34]) (Provisions Table 4.1. Dual System of Special Steel Moment Frame Combined with Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame (Provisions Table 5.5 Alternative B.1 Provisions Parameters Site Class = D SS = 1.9 SDS = 2/3 SMS = 1.2. 4.5 S1 =0.2 Loads Roof live load (L) Penthouse roof dead load (D) Exterior walls of penthouse Roof DL (roofing.5]) (Provisions Map 9 [Figure 3.2.2.2]) (Provisions Sec. girders.52 [3.2 [4.2. ceiling.5 SM1 = FvS1 = 0.
5.2.0. it is permitted to use ρ = 1.1.2.2. 5. Per 2003 Provisions Sec.Chapter 5. the floor area.579 ft.3. 5.3. Alternatively. NW ASTM A992.0.3.1 Building Configuration The building is considered vertically regular despite the relatively tall height of the first story. 4. Grade 50 ASTM A500. the reliability factor.3 Structural Design Criteria 5. The exception of Provisions Sec. special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D must be configured such that the structure satisfies the criteria for ρ = 1.4.0 for Alternative A because it has a perimeter moment frame and is regular.] 5.2. (ρ) for a Seismic Design Category D structure is: ρ =2− 20 r max x Ax In a typical story. Preliminary ρ factors will be determined for use as multipliers on design force effects. 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. 5.3. For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D. In the 3D analysis. Because the building is symmetrical in plan.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.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.3 [4.2. ρ = 1. 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. Ax = 22.2 Redundancy According to Provisions Sec. Structural Steel Design All other concrete Structural steel Wide flange sections HSS Plates fc' = 4 ksi. 4.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].3. Based on the preliminary design.2. There are no reductions in the redundancy factor for dual systems.1 Alternative A (moment frame) 533 . it will be shown that the first story drift ratio is less than 130 percent of the story above. These preliminary ρ factors will be verified by subsequent analyses. ρ = 1. Grade B ASTM A36 5.2.2.2.3. Analysis reveals that Alternatives B and C are torsionally irregular.2.3.3.4. which is not uncommon for corebraced buildings.4.3. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions. plan irregularities would not be expected.3]is taken in which the drift ratio of adjacent stories are compared rather than the stiffness of the stories.2.
046)/2]Vx = 0.11 and 1. the deflection at H is proportional to 0. These torsional effects are illustrated in Figure 5.0875Vx = 0.24. As will be seen for this momentresisting frame.2. which was done here. is completed.4. the deflection at A can be seen to be proportional to 0. Vt = 0.1625Vx.2 requires that the configuration be such that ρ shall not exceed 1.3.50 in the design.05)(175)(Vx) = 8. not to displacements.4.2 Alternative B (concentrically braced frame) Again. As the torsional deflections will be proportional to the shears and extrapolating to Grids A and H.3 [5. which will include the effects of accidental torsion.08 in the NS and EW directions. 5.3375Vx. the combined shear at Grid C is 0.5) ⎡(2)(37. Assuming all frame rigidity factors (K) are equal: Vt = Mta (37.25Vx . the following preliminary analysis must be refined by the final calculation.0 in the 2003 Provisions] (There is no limit for other structures. See Sec. we will know the total shear in each story and the shear being carried by each column at every story.250Vx.3. A method for a preliminary estimate is explained in Alternative B. drift.4.4. 534 . The final calculation of ρ will be deferred until the building frame analysis.75 Vx) = 0.0875Vx.01)(8. Without dynamic amplification of torsion.)(87.25 for special moment frames.5)2 + (6)(12. Thus. Note that ρ is a multiplier that applies only to the force effects (strength of the members and connections).01Mta Vt = (0.5/37.2.454 + 0. Likewise.4.2.5) = 0. [1.0. there are four bracedbay braces subject to shear at each story. and the combined shear at Grid F is 0. rmax x is taken as the maximum of the sum of the shears in any two adjacent columns divided by the total story shear. For the braced frame system.2.3]. although ρ need not be taken larger than 1.75Vx. The torsional force applied to either grid line C or F is Vt = MtaKd / ΣKd2. The average deflection is thus proportional to [(0.) Therefore. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For a momentresisting frame.(0.0875Vx)(87. and not strength. At that point.1.2.0875Vx The amplification of torsional shear (Ax) must be considered in accordance with Provisions Sec. The effects of accidental torsion will be estimated as: The torsional moment Mta = (0.0875Vx = 0.250Vx + (0.0875 Vx.250Vx .046Vx.5)2 ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ = 0. respectively.5/37.1.FEMA 451. so the direct shear on each line of braces is equal to Vx/4. In this case. Provisions Sec. 5.5) = 0. 5. 5. ρ was found to be 1. will govern the design. it is a good idea to make a preliminary estimate of ρ. the direct shear applied to each line of braces is Vx/4 and the torsional shear.25Vx + 0.454Vx.
450Vx As there are two braces in each braced bay (one in tension and the other in compression): rmax x = 0.225) 22.0 in.41 (0.046 0.250 = δ average 0. From the above estimation of deflections.4.3.163 0.4.29 ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ ⎝ (1.2 δ avg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ 0. the torsional amplification can be determined per Provisions Eq.05 L x Lx Figure 5.2)(0.1 [5.0875)]Vx = 0.Chapter 5.225 2 and ρ = 2− 20 20 = 2− = 1. Structural Steel Design 0.250) ⎟ ⎠ ⎠ 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 = [0.29)(0.454 ⎞ = 2.24 Approximate effect of accidental of torsion (1.213] as: ⎛ δ Ax = ⎜ max ⎜ 1.450 = 0.579 r max Ax x 0. 5.250 + (2.338 535 .1.4 mm). = 25.454 = δmax 0.
11)QE ± (0. if necessary. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Therefore.2.5L + 0.71 [4.0.2)D E = (1. Thus. The reason for this decision is that.2. the ρ factor for the EW direction is determined to be ρ = 1.0E + 1.41 for the NS direction.3.2.41)QE ± (0.2 [4. we expect the final value to fall below 1. These preliminary values will be verified by the final calculations.2.08)QE ± (0. 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.FEMA 451. C NS direction EW direction E = (1.4.2. In a like manner.5. 5.0E + 0. so torsional amplification will be low. This will be verified by analysis later.2. For Alternative A NS direction EW direction Alternative B NS direction EW direction Alternative.4.2.2.2.2)D E = (1.2)D 5.9D + 1.05.2D + 1.21] as: E = ρ Q E + 0. Provisions Sec.3 and 5. with the dual system.2]).2)D E = (1.05)QE ± (0.2S and 0.4 Structural Component Load Effects The effect of seismic load is be defined by Provisions Eq. the preliminary value for ρ is taken as 1. ρ values are preliminary estimates to be checked and. 5. Finally.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] calls for taking only 80 percent of the calculated ρ value when a dual system is used.2 S DS D Recall that SDS = 1.5 Load Combinations Load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1.3.0.5. 5.3. 5.0.2)D E = (1.3 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. for which we will take ρ = 1.00)QE ± (0. refined later.2)D E = (1.6H 536 . use ρ = 1.2. 5.00)QE ± (0. 5.3 Alternative C (dual system) For the dual system.3. the moment frame will substantially reduce the torsion at any story.2. As stated above.2.0.
2.5L and 0.5L and 0. substitute E as determined above.56 in. 5.05QE +0.33)(177.025)(8)(300) Columns = (0.33 ft)(12 in.2.7D + 1. (102 ft4 in.025)(609)(6. Remember to adjust calculated story drifts by the appropriate Cd factor from Sec. The allowable story drift for the first floor is ∆a = (0.33) .02hsx.7D + 1.7 Basic Gravity Loads Penthouse roof Roof slab = (0. Consider that the maximum story drifts summed to the roof of the sevenstory building.5L and 0. showing the maximum additive and minimum negative.1.20 in.4D + 1./ft) = 5.3.2.7D + QE 1.08QE +0.745 kips 537 .02)(13.4D + 1.33 ft)(12 in.7D + QE 1. 5.065)(75)(75) Walls = 60 + (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 = 1.4D + QE +0.025)(75)(75) Walls = (0. Recall that QE acts both east and west (or north and south): Alternative A NS EW Alternative B NS EW Alternative C NS EW 1.7D + 1.170)(6.36 in.08QE 5.2.11QE 1.4D + 1. Structural Steel Design To each of these load combinations.(75)2] Penthouse floor = (0.5L and 0.67) Columns = 14 + (0.110)(8)(16) Total Lower roof Roof slab = (0. The allowable story drift for a typical story is ∆a = (0.5L and 0.8 [4.41QE +0.6 Drift Limits The allowable story drift per Provisions Sec.055)[(127.5L and 0.41QE 1.05QE 1.4D + QE +0.Chapter 5.2.02)(22.4D + 1.7D + 1. 5.51] is ∆a = 0./ft) = 3.11QE +0.3. main roof/penthouse floor) is 24.
1.4. is conservatively taken as 102.1 ELF Analysis for Alternative A.3 ft.066. Provisions Eq.22] as: CS = S DS 1 = = 0. (This was done to add seismic mass to this example thereby making it more interesting. use Cs = 0.745 + 6(2.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] is: Cs = 0.50)(4)(25 x 25)(350) Total Total weight of building = 215 + 1.12 [5.044 Therefore.33)(177. Use 50 percent of this weight as effective seismic mass. Moment Frame First determine the building period (T) per Provisions Eq. 5. 538 .0625)(127.6 = = 0.285)(13.1.14(8/1) and the minimum value for Cs per Provisions Eq. The height of the penthouse (the penthouse having a smaller contribution to seismic mass than the main roof or the floors) will be neglected.370 kips Note that this office building has heavy storage in the central bays of 280 psf over five bays. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Typical floor Floor = (0.4.1.2. the height to the main roof.044)(1)(1) = 0.14 sec where hn. The seismic response coefficient (Cs.4.4 Analysis 5.33)(48) Heavy storage = (0.33) Columns = (0. 5.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0.2.33) Walls = (0.FEMA 451.3) 0. 5.066 T (R / I ) 1.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis The equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure will be used for each alternative building system.412 kips = 203 kips = 182 kips = 438 kips = 2.11 [5.1.8 = 1.4.2.235) = 1.4.125 R / I (8/1) However.) is determined from Provisions Eq. The seismic base shear will be determined for each alternative in the following sections.235 kips = 15.) 5.025)(609)(13. It is not meant to imply that the authors believe such a step is necessary for ordinary office buildings. 5.4. 5.11 [5.028)(102.044ISDS = (0.2.23] indicates that the value for Cs need not exceed: CS = S D1 0.
use Cs = 0.4.2.370) = 1014 kips 5.370) = 2.02)(102. 5. 5. 5.117 T (R / I ) (0.3 ELF Analysis for Alternative C.75 = 0. 5.2. Seismic base shear is computed using Provisions Eq.1.26]): Ta = C r hnx = (0.11 [5. the value for Cs need not exceed (Provisions Eq.1.21] as: V = CSW = (0.156. Provisions Eq.066)(15.3) 0.02)(102.3)0. 5. 5. 5.156 T (R / I ) (0. 5.23] indicates that the value for Cs need not exceed: CS = S D1 0.1 [5.11 [5.044 Therefore.64)(8/1) and the minimum value for Cs is (Provisions Eq.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0.1.156)(15.64 sec The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is determined as (Provisions Eq.4.22] as: CS = S DS 1 = = 0.2.044)(1)(1) = 0.4.64)(6/1) and the minimum value for Cs per Provisions Eq.1 [5.75 = 0.13 [not applicable in 2003 Provisions] is: Cs = 0. Braced Frame As above.044 ISDS = (0.64 sec The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is determined from Provisions Eq.11 [5.Chapter 5. first find the building period (T) using Provisions Eq.4.6 = = 0.1.1.4.044ISDS = (0.1.4.12 [5.12 [5.4. 5.4. Dual System The building period (T) is the same as for the braced frame (Provisions Eq.11 [5.4.044 Use Cs = 0.21] as: V = CSW = (0.4.23]): CS = S D1 0.2 ELF Analysis for Alternative B.1.4.2. 5.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]): Cs = 0. 539 .1.044)(1)(1) = 0.125 (8/1) However. Structural Steel Design Seismic base shear is computed per Provisions Eq.117.398 kips 5.22]): CS = S DS R/ I = 1 = 0.4.6 = = 0.167 R / I (6/1) However.
14 secs. 5. 5. 5.22.370) = 1.64 sec.3] provides the procedure for determining the portion of the total seismic load that goes to each floor level.4.210] as: Fx = CvxV where (Provisions Eq.32 [5.4.07 Using Provisions Eq. 5.2.13.211]) Cvx = n k wxhx i =1 ∑ whik i For Alternative A T = 1.212]. thus k = 1.2 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces Provisions Sec.21]): V = CsW = (0.4. 5. thus k = 1. 540 .3 [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.5 [5.4.798 kips 5. 5.1 [5.32 For Alternatives B and C T = 0. and 5.21. The floor force Fx is calculated using Provisions Eq.117)(15.FEMA 451.4.214]: M x = Σ Fi (hi − hx ) i=x n The application of these equations for the three alternative building frames is shown in Tables 5.31 [5. 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Seismic base shear is computed as (Provisions Eq.4.2.4 [5.4.
700 380.67 22.500 675.720 124.00 35.14 0.3048 m.200 522.0 kip = 4.33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 117.0 ft = 0.33 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 1.500 246.041 1.03 0.33 49.Chapter 5.21 0.19 0.235 2.45 kN.200 134.33 89.00 75.200 785.070 8.235 2.830 54.010 41.014 Vx (kips) 32 247 476 661 805 909 977 1.67 62.0 kip = 4.900 272.745 2.014 Mx (ftkips) 514 3.500 250.235 2.67 22.33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 35.470 1. Structural Steel Design Table 5.235 2.130 22.18 0. 1.400 62.15 0. 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 1.500 Cvx 0.235 2.21 Alternative A.07 0.0 ft = 0.03 0.00 35.281 2.05 1.398 Mx (ftkips) 1.710 41.235 2.04 1.000 1.745 2.200 836.235 2.980 29.235 15.08 0.67 62.870 93.370 hx (ft) 118.33 89.370 hx (ft) 118.22 Alternative B.800 3.520 1. Table 5.235 15.11 0.18 0.620 65.870 77.398 Vx (kips) 67 530 1.23 0.702. 541 .235 2.819 2.160 18.00 75.720 1.089 2.21 0.000 143.45 kN. 1.278.235 2.33 102.235 2.10 0.160 177.33 102.810 10.000 Cvx 0.800 102.3048 m.300 228.900 186.00 Fx (kips) 67 463 511 430 349 270 192 116 2.00 Fx (kips) 32 215 229 185 143 104 69 37 1.
relative strengths of columns and beams.45 kN.18 0.3 [5.0 kip = 4.4. (This is illustrated in Figure 9.2.800 102. 3.) 5.0 ft = 0.3048 m.2. 9.235 2.370 hx (ft) 118.745 2. FEMA 350 Sec.3.798 Vx (kips) 50 397 781 1.711 1.235 15.3. 3.33 102.220 49.235 2.4.FEMA 451.3.100 16.000 1.1]) (Provisions Sec.8 [5.2) (Provisions Sec.3]) (AISC Seismic Sec.500 246. 2.350 228.2. 5. which includes the lower half of the wall above that level and the upper half of the wall below that level.365 1. The most significant criteria for the design are drift limits.6) (AISC Seismic Sec.19 0.00 75. Be sure to note that the seismic mass at any given level.4.000 143. 4. Check strength (Provisions Sec.900 186.67 62. Note that the story overturning moment is applied to the level below the level that receives the story shear. Select preliminary member sizes Check deflection and drift Check torsional amplification Check the columnbeam moment ratio rule Check shear requirement at panelzone 6. 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. Resisting the overturning moment is the weight of the building above that level combined with the moment resistance of the framing at that level. and the panelzone shear.23 Alternative C.235 2. Special Moment Frame: 1.567 1.2 [5.67 22.235 2.500 31.33 49. Alternative A.3. The method for each alternative is summarized below.000 Cvx 0.15 0.386 62.4.3 Size Members At this point we are ready to select the sizes of the framing members.00 35.103 1.33 Wxhxk (ftkips) 35.1.400 70. 9. 5.00 Fx (kips) 50 347 383 322 262 202 144 87 1.4. 542 .03 0.290 93.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.270 1.08 0.11 0.900 272.24 in the masonry examples. produces the shear applied at that level and that shear produces the moment which is applied at the top of the next level down.798 Mx (ftkips) 800 6.120 133.4.3]) Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check. 5.05 1.278.33 89.235 2.21 0. 1. Check redundancy 7. 5.
4. 5.Chapter 5.125.8 [4.3]) (Provisions Sec.4.2 [4.1. Moment Frame 1.4b [I81] requires that when the column moment strength to beam moment strength ratio is less than or equal to 2.1.1 [5. 2.2. 5. but Table I81 in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic has also been expanded to include more elements than in the 1997 edition.2.2.3. 5. the more stringent λp requirements apply for b/t.3]) Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check. (FEMA 350 Sec. has been added as a variable.3.1) and beam web stability in accordance with AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81]. For Grade 50. 4.) Beam flange slenderness ratios are limited to 52 / Fy and beam web heighttothickness ratios are limited to 418 / Fy .4.3.2.2.is more restrictive for cases with low Pu /φbPy. 5. 543 . 5. [The terminology for local stability has been revised in the 2002 edition of AISC Seismic. 6.1]) (Provisions Sec. Structural Steel Design Alternative B.3]) Reproportion member sizes as necessary after each check. 4.35.1]) (Provisions Sec.0.4.2.4.1]) (Provisions Sec. 3.1.4.1 [4.1 Size Members for Alternative A. 5. 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.2.4.2.25 and in the Y direction (5 bays) in Figure 5. the more stringent h/t requirements apply.3.] 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. In addition. Check Local Stability – Check beam flange stability in accordance with AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81] (same as FEMA 350 Sec.26. 3. 5. 5. Further note that for columns in special steel moment frames such as this example. Dual System: 1.3. 5.2. Alternative C.5.3]) (Provisions Sec.5. Both of these changes are essentially editorial.3.1 [5. 5. Es. AISC Seismic 9.4.2 [4. Special Concentrically Braced Frame: 1. the formulas appear different because the elastic modulus.8 [4.4. 2. The most significant criteria for this design is torsional amplification. Select preliminary member sizes Check strength Check drift Check torsional amplification Check redundancy (Provisions Sec. b/t is limited to 7.3. 3.2. such as in this example. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – The preliminary member sizes are shown for the moment frame in the Xdirection (7 bays) in Figure 5. and when Pu/φbPy is less than or equal to 0. The limiting slenderness ratios in AISC Seismic use the notation λps (“seismically compact”) to differentiate them from λp in AISC LRFD.
5. 5.24.2. ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 268 in.5.020hsx per Provisions Sec.1].17 in.2. Pdelta effects are included.3. As indicated below. Displacements at the building centroid are used here because the building is not torsionally irregular (see the next paragraph regarding torsional amplification).3]): Cd ∆x story 2 Cd ∆x story 3 ⎛ 5.2.14 in.3. Calculated story drifts and Cd amplification factors are summarized in Table 5. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.2.6 of this chapter. 544 . The building was modeled in 3D using RAMFRAME. 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. All story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0.1] and Sec.3 [4.30 ⎛ 3. there is no vertical irregularity. ⎠ Therefore. ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 160 in.25 SMRF frame in EW direction (penthouse not shown).8 [4.5.8 [4. ⎠ =⎝ = 0.2. 5. the first story drift ratio is less than 130 percent of the story above (Provisions Sec.3.FEMA 451. 5. 2.98 < 1.
77 3.14 2.08 1.) 5.24 Alternative A (Moment Frame) Story Drifts under Seismic Loads Total Displacement at Building Centroid (86.94 ∆NS (in.20 3.0 in.) 2.4 mm.48 0.14 5.36 1.51 0.Chapter 5.65 2.53 0.20 3. 545 .57 0.5 5.5 5.64 3.) 0.92 3.20 5. Table 5.76 3.) ∆NS (in.14 5.5 5.58 0.58 0.5.24 3.94 δNS (in.5 5.47 0.93 ∆EW (in. 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 5.14 3.5) Story Drift from 3D Elastic Analysis at Building Centroid Cd (Cd ) x (Elastic Story Drift) Allowable Story Drift δEW (in.) 0.08 1.19 3.) Roof Floor 7 Floor 6 Floor 5 Floor 4 Floor 3 Floor 2 4.19 2.57 0.93 5.57 0.) 4.97 3.26 SMRF frame in NS direction (penthouse not shown).12 ∆ (in.14 3. 62.20 3.19 2.19 2.58 0.19 3.50 0.59 3.5 ∆EW (in.20 3.24 3.54 0.57 0.17 3.66 2.57 0.5 5.5 5.20 3.5 2. = 25.
1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 3. 4.08 1. 546 . 9. In sizing columns (and beams) for strength we will satisfy the most severe value from interaction equations.) δNS max (in.08 Member Design Considerations – Because Pu/φPn is typically less than 0. torsional amplification of forces is not necessary for the moment frame alternative.2.98 (125. combinations involving Ω0 factors do not come into play for the special steel moment frames.57 0. Check Torsional Amplification – The torsional amplification factor per Provisions Eq. = 25.4 for the columns (re: AISC Seismic Sec.85 2. Because none of the ratios for δEW Roof Story 7 Story 6 Story 5 Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 1.00 1. It is readily seen that if the ratio of δmax/δavg is less that 1.6.04 1.27. then torsional amplification need not be considered.07 1.0) 4.07 1.5db from the face or the column in accordance with FEMA 350 for WUFW connections (see below for description of these connections). max (in.39 3. For purposes of this check.04 1.25 Alternative A Torsional Analysis Torsion Checks The 3D analysis provided the story deflections listed in Table 5. Check the ColumnBeam Moment Ratio – Check the columnbeam moment ratio per AISC Seismic Sec.89 3. then torsional amplification will not be necessary.04 1. However.4.3]).04 3.04 1.2δ avg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 If Ax < 1.FEMA 451. the plastic hinge was taken to occur at 0. we will check the columnbeam moment ratio and the panel zone shear.54 4.25.0 in.4.31 [5.0. 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. this frame is controlled by drift.62 1. For the columns.75 2.) δEW /δEW max avg δNS / δNS max avg (175.6.07 1.0) 4.30 2.42 2.2 [8. 9. with both strength and drift requirements satisfied.16 1.04 1. So.07 1. 8.213] is: ⎛ δ Ax = ⎜ max ⎜ 1. the moments at the location of the beam flanges is projected to the columnbeam intersection as shown in Figure 5.07 1.23 1.2.4 mm. Table 5.03 1. 5. δmax/δavg exceed 1.04 1.28. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
35 + 128.kips Mv = VpSh Sh = Distance from column centerline to plastic hinge = dc/2 + db/2 = 25. at gridline G (W14×370 column and W33×141 beam).1 for Grade 50 steel Mp = Fy Z = (50) (514) = 25. 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. or (268 + 160)/ (251.44) = 1. Level 2. ΣM * = Σ (1.700 in. Vp = Shear at plastic hinge location 547 . Therefore.0 ft = 0.3 ⎜ 50 ksi − pc ⎟ = 66.4 mm. For the beams.3048 m). The columnbeam strength ratio calculation is illustrated for the lower level in the EW direction.27 Projection of expected moment strength of beam (1. 1.0 in. ΣM*pc = (1.Chapter 5.1R y M p + M v ) pb where Ry = 1.300 ftkips.2 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ Adjust this by the ratio of average story height to average clear height between beams.13. = 25.850) = 75.61 in.850 ftkips 109 in.13)(66. For the columns: ⎛ P ⎞ ΣM * = ΣZ c ⎜ Fyc − uc ⎟ pc ⎜ Ag ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 500 kips ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ ΣM * = 2 ⎢736 in.
1)(25.5L = 1.5(0.700) + ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ 12 ⎠ = 221.406) (248. ΣM*pb = Σ(1.1RyMp + Mv) = 2[(1. hs Mp Vp W Mp L' Plastic hinges where L′ = Distance between plastic hinges = 248.61) = 5.8)2 ⎞ (2)(25.8 and Mv = VpSh = (221.FEMA 451. 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 5.4(0. w = Factored uniform gravity load along beam w = 1.500 in.5 ft) + 0. 2M p + wL ′ 2 L′ 2 Vp Figure 5. The ratio of column moment strengths to beam moment strengths is computed as: 548 .700) + 5.406 klf Therefore.8 in.5 ft) = 1.665] = 73.050 ksf)(12.0625 ksf)(12. Vp = ⎛ (1.2)(25.kips.1)(1.2 kips = 248.29 Free body diagram bounded by plastic hinges.28 Story height and clear height.kips Finally.665 in.29) is computed as: Vp = [2M p + (wL′ 2 /2] / L′ Figure 5.4D + 0.
04 1.36 1. the one with the larger beam size will govern. 549 .400 50. 1.900 75. Structural Steel Design Ratio = ΣM * 76.800 73.kip = 0. the one with the larger beam size will govern.0 73.000 40.700 48.500 ColumnBeam Ratio 1.900 74.300 42. Check Panel Zone – The Provisions defers to AISC Seismic for the panel zone shear calculation.000 53.kips) 27. only these are shown. All cases are acceptable because the columnbeam moment ratios are all greater than 1.25 for the NS direction (fivebay) frame.0 in.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.0 in.113 kNm.11 1.700 53.17 1. Table 5.00.05 > 1.02 For levels with the same size column. Because the two methods for calculating panel zone shear (AISC Seismic and FEMA 350) differ. Table 5. 5.16 For levels with the same size column.100 ColumnBeam Ratio 1.kips) 29.500 ΣM * pb OK The columnbeam strength ratio for all the other stories is determined in a similar manner. only these are shown.15 1.900 pc = = 1.Chapter 5.600 48.300 ΣM*pb (in.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.900 ΣM*pb (in. both are illustrated below.100 85. They are summarized in Table 5.kip = 0.kips) 21.113 kNm.kips) 29.24 for the EW direction (sevenbay) frame and in Table 5.06 1. 1.700 63.
3. 550 .FEMA 451. 9. 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. This depends on the style of connection. The factored shear Ru is determined from the flexural strength of the beams connected to the column. FEMA 350 methods for panel zone shear. 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 5.210 Illustration of AISC Seismic vs. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples AISC Seismic Method Check the shear requirement at the panel zone in accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.
1 ⎥ = 64. 537.1)(50)(514) ⎢ ⎡ ⎤ 282. 551 . there is no moment because the beams are pinconnected to the corner columns.981 . and 5). For W33×141 beams framing into each side of a W14×370 column (such as Level 2 at Grid F): ΣM f = (2)(1.6)(50)(17. Thus the frame Ru = 1. the above relationship needs to be modified accordingly.55) ⎦ Ru = 64.6t p + 315 The required total (web plus doubler plate) thickness is determined by: Rv = φRu Therefore.660)2 ⎤ ⎥ (33. at Grids A and H.981 kips 33. 3. E.92)(t p ) ⎥ ⎦ Rv = 537. only one beam frames into the column. The panel zone shear calculation for Story 2 of the frame in the EW direction at Grid F (column: W14×370.kips ⎣ 282.26 in. D. For all these cases. F. the distance x is different on one side.586 ⎤ ⎥ tp ⎥ ⎦ Rv = 537. the effect of gravity loads offset.0)(1883) and tp = 2. beam: W33×141) is from AISC Seismic Eq. 056 = 1.30 − 0.Chapter 5. For Grids 1 and 6.655 in.6tp + 315 = (1. 4. and ΣM f = 2Ry Fy Zx ⎢ ⎡ lc ⎤ lc − 2x ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where lc = the clear span and x = distance from column face to plastic hinge location.475)(2. the required doubler plate thickness is 1.1 − (2)(16.96 The shear transmitted to the joint from the story above opposes the direction of Ru and may be used to reduce the demand.91 in.6t p ⎢1 + 0. 91: Rv = 0. at Grids B and G.98 = 1. Use a plate thickness of 11/4 in. Structural Steel Design For a column with equal beams of equal spans framing into opposite faces (such as on Grids C. From analysis.30)(17. Because the column web thickness is 1..883 kips. 2.6Fy dct p ⎢1 + ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ 2 3bcf tcf ⎤ ⎥ dbd ct p ⎥ ⎦ Rv = (0. this is 98 kips at this location.056 in.92)(t p ) ⎢1 + ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ (3)(16.
3.210.4) and is computed from FEMA 350 Eq.7) and is computed from FEMA 350 Eq. 34: ⎡h − d ⎤ Cy = 1 Z Cpr be Sb Cpr. its omission from FEMA 350 Eq. “Panel Zone Strength. 92 as doubler plate buckling would be a greater concern.2. 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. For such cases. 92. Also.38 +12.6) F ⎡ h − db ⎤ ⎢ h ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ R yc d c ( d b − t fb ) yc (Please note the Σ. a factor accounting for the peak connection strength. the doubler plate may be plugwelded to the column web as indicated by AISC Seismic Commentary Figure C9.6) = 0.2. whereas AISC Seismic uses the expected beam moment projected to the face of the column flange. 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). among others (see FEMA 350 Sec. For this case. buckling also must be checked using AISC Seismic Eq.” to determine the required total panel zone thickness (t): CyM c t= ∑ (0. In the case of thick doubler plates.2. two doubler plates (each of half the required thickness) may be used. 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. 3. values for the variables are: 552 . includes the effects of strain hardening and local restraint. 3.3.2. plug welding of the doubler plate to the column web is not necessary. FEMA 350 Method For the FEMA 350 method. see FEMA 350 Sec.FEMA 451. the minimum individual thickness as limited by local buckling is: t ≥ (d z + wz )/90 t≥ (31. to avoid thick welds. where h is the average story height. one on each side of the column web.9)(0.. 37 is an inadvertent typographical error. 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. (This b difference is illustrated in Figure 5.) The term Mc refers to the expected beam moment projected to the centerline of the column.) The term ⎢ is an adjustment similar to reducing Ru ⎣ h ⎥ ⎦ by the direct shear in the column. If necessary. 90 Because both the column web thickness and the doubler plate thicknesses are greater than 0.3.49 in.49 in.
Check Redundancy – Return to the calculation of rx for the moment frame.61 in. In accordance with Provisions Sec. = 1.266)(20.73)2 ⎞⎤ ⎢(2)(33. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ (214) − (33.tcw = 2.2) Cpr 448 Sb Therefore. by FEMA 350 is close to the thickness of 1. Structural Steel Design Distance from column centerline to plastic hinge.1)(514)(50) = 33.73 514 Zbe (1.30 − 0.93 in.30/2 = 25. 6. Figure 34) ⎡ ⎛ wL′ 2 ⎞ ⎤ 2 M pr + ⎜ ⎢ ⎟⎥ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ Vp = ⎣ L' ⎡ ⎛ (1. the doubler plate thickness for 1.kips (FEMA 350.73 ft Mpr = CprRyZeFy (FEMA 350 Figure 34) Mpr = (1.655 in.2(25.924 + (273)(17.211 and 5. Span between plastic hinges.73)(40.Chapter 5.26 by AISC Seismic.9)(0.92/2 + 25.212).kips Cy = 1 1 = = 0. Sh = dc/2 + db/2 = 17. Thus.1.92)(33.30) ⎤ (0.27 in.)/12 = 20.924 in. . 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.2.92/2 + 33. 553 .61 in.916) ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ (214) ⎣ ⎦ ⎥ t = 2⎢ ⎢ (0.6)(50)(1.96) ⎥ = 2.2)(1. 70 percent of the shear in that column may be used in the column shear summation (Figures 5.916 in. L′ = 25 ft .73)(12) = 273 kips Mc = Mpr + Vp(x + dc/2) (FEMA 350 Figure 34) Mc = 33.1)(17.27 in. ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ The required doubler plate thickness is equal to t . For columns common to two bays with moment resisting connections on opposite sides of the column at the level under consideration.4.93 in.924) + ⎜ ⎟⎥ (12)(2) ⎢ ⎝ ⎠⎥ ⎣ ⎦ Vp = (20.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].61/2) = 40. 5.
15.014 rx = (1.1) + (0.7)(110.160.1 kips 113.3) + (0. Selected results are illustrated in the figures.2.0)(56.0)(14.4.1 kips 70.7 kips 76. For this example.7 kips 76.139 r x = (1. rx was computed for every column pair at every level in both directions. (If ρ > 1.1 kips 113. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 14.1 kips 110. The shear carried by each column comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.4.7)(70.063 1.1 kips Figure 5. which includes the effect of accidental torsion.FEMA 451. then the framing would have to be reconfigured until ρ < 1.7 kips 14.1 kips rx = (0.7)(113. Level 3) (1.875 ft2 ρ = 2− Because 1.160 21. 5.7)(76.5.1) = 0.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].3 kips 56.45 kN).7 kips 70.15 0.014 Figure 5.45 kN).3 kips 110.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: ρ = 2− 20 rmaxx Ax 20 = 1.160 977 56.25 for special moment frames per the exception in the Provisions Sec.212 Column shears for NS direction (partial elevation.3) = 0. use ρ =1.0 kip = 4.) 554 . Level 2) (1.1) 977 r x = (0.7)(113.2) = 0.0 kip = 4. The maximum value of rmax x in the NS direction is 0.7) = 0.25.7) + (0. + (0.15 is less than the limit of 1.2 kips 76.211 Column shears for EW direction (partial elevation.2. and ρ is now determined using Provisions Eq.105 1.25.2 kips 76.7)(76.
rmax x = 0.1 for this application is reviewed below.00. Figure 5. not the AISC Seismic method. (However.) The connection. remember that the quality assurance requirements are a vital part of the total requirements and must be enforced. The procedure outlined above for the FEMA 350 method for panel zone shear is repeated here to determine Sh.2 notes that the WUFW connection can perform reliably provided all the limitations are met and the quality assurance requirements are satisfied. which is less than 1.213 Forces at beam/column connection.5.3.00.) 7. Connection Design – One beamtocolumn connection for the momentresisting frame is now designed to illustrate the FEMA 350 method for a prequalified connection. (Of course.1: tcf < 0. All other beamtocolumn connections in the moment frame will be similar. Drift and deflections are not subject to the ρ factor. First review FEMA 350 Table 33 for prequalification data.Chapter 5.105 and ρ = 0.5. drift controls the design in this example.213 illustrates the forces at the beamtocolumn connection. Cy and the required panel zone thickness. Vp.2.3.214. moment) obtained from analysis must be increased by the ρ factors. FEMA 350 Sec. shear. 3. 3. is based on the general design shown in FEMA 350 Figure 38. Our case of a W36×135 beam connected to a W14×398 column meets all of these.4 1.71.8bf t f FybRyb FycRyc 555 . 3. 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. Mc . Sh Sh M pr Vp M pr Vp Figure 5. Mpr. Continuity plates are required in accordance with FEMA 350 Sec. here the panel zone strength requirement is from FEMA 350. The design procedure outlined in FEMA 350 Sec. shown in Figure 5. While the discussion of the design procedure below considers design requirements. so use ρ = 1. All design force effects (axial force. Structural Steel Design In the EW direction.
214 WUFW connection.215 Figure 5. 1 2" R See Figure 5. required (50)(1. Second level. continuity plates are not necessary at this connection because the column flange is so thick.790) (50)(1.8)(11. Provide continuity plates of 7/8 in. = 25. NSdirection (1. But we will provide them anyway to illustrate continuity plates in the example. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples tcf < 0. > actual OK Therefore.65 in.845 in.0 in.4 mm). continuity plates should be at least as thick as the beam flanges.950)(0.FEMA 451. which is thicker than the beam flange of 0.1) = 1.79 in.1) tcf = 2.4 (1. At a minimum. thickness. 556 .
4 mm).875 in. > 3.9: b t Width of stiffener + cw ≥ bf 2 3 1. > 0. = 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" .79 2 OK 0.950 ⎛ ⎜5 + ⎟ = 5.98 in.215 WUFW weld detail (1. = 25.395 in.Chapter 5. = 2 ⎠ 3 ⎝ OK tstiffener ≥ bf 2 0.0 in. 557 .88 in.77 ⎞ 11.8" 6 Erection bolt PP 4 Shear tab: 5 " x 3" 8 Figure 5. Structural Steel Design Check AISC LRFD K1.
The arrangement is dictated by architectural considerations regarding doorways into the stairwells.217.37 in.3. Weld size shall be equal to thickness of shear tab minus 1/16 in.214 and 5. 2.2. so kl/r is assumed to be acceptable and is not examined in this example. 2.215 conform to the requirements of FEMA 350 for a WUFW connection in a special moment frame.875 in. > 0. Fillet weld shear tab to beam web.2 Size Members for Alternative B. Flanges must satisfy: b 52 52 ≤ = = 7. 4. Check Strength – First. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – The preliminary member sizes are shown for the braced frame in the EW direction (seven bays) in Figure 5. made with backing bar.125. CJP groove weld at top and bottom flanges. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. Notes for Figure 5. Grind end of weld smooth at weld access holes. These are shop welds of shear tab to column. 5. Braced Frame 1. Wide flange members and channels must comply with the widthtothickness ratios contained in AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81]. 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. 13. Then fillet weld from near side. which is the case in this example) must satisfy: 558 .216 and in the NS direction (five bays) in Figure 5. 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 < 0.2. 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 0. bracing members must satisfy kl 1000 1000 ≤ = = 141 r Fy 50 The columns are all relatively heavy shapes. CJP groove weld full length between weld access holes. Provide nonfusible weld tabs. = (5) ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 50 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ 95 ⎠ OK The details shown in Figures 5. See also FEMA 350 Figure 38 for more elaboration on the welds. 6. which shall be removed after welding. Full depth partial penetration weld from far side. Remove backing bar. backgouge.215 (indicated by circles in the figure) are: 1. check slenderness and widthtothickness ratios – the geometrical requirements for local stability. and add fillet weld.FEMA 451.4. 3.
216 Braced frame in EW direction.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. hc 520 ⎡ Pu ⎤ ≤ ⎢1 − 1.54 ⎥ tw φb Py ⎥ Fy ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ Rectangular HSS members must satisfy: b 110 110 ≤ = = 16. Structural Steel Design PH W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 PH W14x38 W14x34 W14x38 R W14x109 HS 14 S4x 4x 4x 1 S4x 4 HS W14x34 x x8 S8 HS HS S8 x8 x1 2 HS 14 S4x 4x 4x 1 S4x 4 HS W14x34 HS S8 x8 x1 x x8 S8 HS 2 R W14x109 HS 1 x4 S4x 4x4 4x 1 SS 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 S10 x 8 x10 x10 x5 S10 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 S10 x 8 x10 x10 x5 S10 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 8 S12 12x x12 12x x5 SS 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 8 S12 12x x12 12x x5 SS 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 8 HS S12 12x x12 12x x5 SS H 8 W14x38 HS 2 W14x61 HS 8 W14x61 2 5 HS x 8 S12 x12 x12 S12 x5 HS 8 W14x38 HS 2x 5 HS W14x665 W14x665 W14x665 W14x665 S1 2x1 W14x665 2x x1 12 S HS 5 8 HS S1 2x 12 x5 8 2x x1 12 S HS 5 8 HS S1 2x 12 x5 8 Figure 5.217 Braced frame in NS direction.Chapter 5.
581 OK Also note that t for the HSS is actual.4 = = 16. Pdelta effects are included. Use of the displacements at the centroid as the average displacements is valid for a symmetrical building. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.35 W14×34: b/2t = 7.33 × 12 ⎞ (1) ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ ⎠ = 36. Maximum displacements at the building corners are used here because the building is torsionally irregular. The building was modeled in 3D using RAMFRAME. but is acceptable for this example.40 in. 560 .4 > 7.8 [4. Calculated story displacements are used to determine Ax.2 t 0. which is barely significant for this braced frame. The corner radius of HSS varies somewhat.2.FEMA 451. depends on a corner radius slightly larger than 2t. The value of b used here.8 < 141 4. 9. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Selected members are checked below: W14×38: b/2t = 6. 3. This is summarized in Table 5.17 < 16. OK HSS12×12×5/8: kl = r ⎛ 28.62 OK b 9. which affects the dimension b. the torsional amplification factor. Note that the W14×34 is at the penthouse roof.6 < 7.35.5].26. 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. and it would have to be specified for this tube to meet the b/t limit. 5.. not nominal.
79 1.60 EW 7.67 1.89 NS 15.03 2.04 1. Item 1a]).20 7. Check Torsional Amplification – A second RAMFRAME 3D analysis was made.71 7. Structural Steel Design Table 5.75 1.25 1.34 1.86 0.18 1.2 1.23 2 Amplified Eccentricity = Ax(0.95 0.27 0.65 1.26 Alternative B Amplification of Accidental Torsion Average Elastic Displacement = Displacement at Building Centroid (in.39 NS 2.2δ avg ⎠ EW 1.34 EW 3.80 7.Chapter 5.) δ max ** δ avg Torsional Amplification Factor = ⎛ δ ⎞ Ax = ⎜ max ⎟ ⎝ 1.59 0.5. Accidental torsion is not amplified here.1 [4.93 1.26 NS 1.41 17.29 1.0 in.53 NS 3.3048 m. Provisions Table 5. These will be used in the next round of analysis.2. using the amplified eccentricity for accidental torsion instead of merely 0.32.99 2.13 1.33 1. The Provisions does not require an arbitrary offset for center of mass in dynamic analysis nor is it common practice to do so.44 1.2 (Provisions Table 5.69 1. 1. The building is torsionally irregular in plan.2.06 2.16 0. given rigid diaphragms and symmetry about both axes.27.96 1. ** Amplification of accidental torsion is required because this term is greater than 1.) Maximum Elastic Displacement at Building Corner* (in. would reduce the overall seismic demand. = 25.62 1.52 7.47 1.82 1.38 2. See Sec.08 1.88 1.28 1.30 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.3.05L for accidental torsion.79 EW 1.35 NS 1.15 1.05 in the EW and NS directions are multiplied by Ax to determine the amplified eccentricities.23 1. 9. 1.72 1. in turn.70 1.0 ft = 0. 561 .57 * These values are taken directly from the analysis.37 7.37 2.86 17.14 2.2 and 9.95 16.08 7.32 1.64 1.41] indicates that an ELF analysis is “not permitted” for torsionally irregular structures. The results are summarized in Table 5. One reason for this is that the computed period of vibration would lengthen. which. *** The initial eccentricities of 0.70 19.30 1.05 L)*** (ft) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 2.93 2. 4.4 mm.15 1.2 Item 1a [4.48 1.03 0.62 2. However.89 0.3 of this volume of design examples for a more detailed examination of this issue.41 16.66 0.99 18.
5. Per Provisions Sec.07 2. Displacement (at corners) (in.72 2.3.223 below Level 7 in the NSdirection. The lateral component carried by each brace element comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.4 mm All story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0.95 3. Elastic Displacement at Building Corners (in.38 0.32 2.55 ∆NS 0.4.50 3. At the corner with accidental torsion = 3.20 3.218).93 4.05 1.75 ∆NS 2.49 0.20 5.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].19 3.77 1.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: 562 .64 0.24 1. the elastic displacements at the main roof are: At the centroid = 2. which includes the effect of amplified accidental torsion.2. 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 5.64 0. = 25.46 2. 5.20 3.2. At the corner with amplified accidental torsion = 4.89 2. The reliability factor (ρ) is now determined using Provisions Eq.4.14 2.45 0. The sizes of members were increased substantially to bring the drift within the limits (note how close the NS direction drifts are).27 Alternative B Story Drifts under Seismic Load Max.23 1.50 in.) Allowable Story Drift (in.93 0. The two effects of torsional irregularity (in this case.55 NS 4.68 2.18 3.6 above.25 1. Even though many braced frames are controlled by strength. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 5.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 3.10 2. 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.) ∆EW 0.16 3.FEMA 451.59 0. Selected results are illustrated in the figures.45 0.20 3.85 Elastic Story Drift at Location of Max.08 in.020hsx in accordance with Provisions Sec.20 3. 5.75 3.32 0.43 0.) ∆ 3.27 2. This a good point to reflect on the impact of accidental torsion and its amplification on the design of this corebraced structure. Check Redundancy – Now return to the calculation of rx for the braced frame.8 [4.61 0. 5. this is an example of how the Provisions places significant stiffness demands on some braced structures.63 0. The maximum rx was found to be 0.0 in. A value for rx was determined for every brace element at every level in both directions.2.98 1.36 ∆EW 2. For the final structure.51] and the allowable deflections for this building from Sec.20 3. 5.2.40 0.42 0.55 0.37 in.85 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cd (Cd) × (Elastic Story Drift) (in.
2]). as is the predominant case here.2.216 is a minor penthouse that is not considered to be a story.45 kN).0 kip = 4. factors. When Pu/φPn is greater than 0. all design force effects (axial forces.216). shears. Moments are generally small for the braced frame so load combinations with Ω0 can control column size for strength considerations but. Structural Steel Design ρ = 2− 20 r max x A x = 2− 20 0. drift controls because of amplified accidental torsion. 5. 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 should be checked although. the required axial strength needs to be determined from AISC Seismic Eq.223 21.2 kips 7 530 kips = story shear rx = 118. 4. for this building. 13.39 In the NS direction. 13. Note in particular AISC Seismic Sec. Note that ρ is not used where Ω0 is used (see Provisions Sec. Braced Frame Member Design Considerations – The design of members in the special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) needs to satisfy AISC Seismic Sec. These equations are for load combinations that include the Ω0.192 and 1. V and inverted V (chevron) configurations are an exception to this.2c.1). (The level above in Figure 5. The load combination for the beam is modified using a Qb factor defined in AISC Seismic Sec. for the EWdirection. 5.] 118. respectively.7 [4. Beams in many configurations of braced frames have small moments and forces. 41 and 42 [Provisions Eq. although Ω0 factors do not apply to braces in a SCBF. 8.218 Lateral force component in braces for NS direction – partial elevation. (However drift controls the design for this problem.2 = 0. The requirements of AISC Seismic Sec. in this case.) If the chevron bay were not at the top story.3.39.Chapter 5.2 also stipulates a kl/r limitation and local buckling (widththickness) ratio limits.2. 13 and columns also need to satisfy AISC Seismic Sec.) [See Sec. 13. Level 7 (1. AISC Seismic Sec. Similarly. 13. Basically.23 and 4.24]. rmax x and ρ are found to be 0. Bracing members have special requirements as well.2. which is the case here.2. There is a panel of chevron bracing at the top story of one of the braced frames (Figure 5.875 ft 2 = 1.223 530 Figure 5. or overstrength. moments) obtained from analysis must be increased by the ρ factor of 1. Drift and deflection are not subject to the ρ factor. the size of the braces must be known in order to design the beam.2 for a discussion of the significant changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions. 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 5.4. 6.4a.26.
First. 1. tic as Pl ng hi ez e on = 2t 12 x 5 8 564 .3048 m).219 Bracing connection detail (1. = 25. 2t x5 HS S 10 x 10 30° .0 in. The bracing members satisfy these checks. check the slenderness and widthtothickness ratios (see above). Connection Design – Figure 5. The prescribed load effect is to use 0.4 mm.FEMA 451.) 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. 7.0 ft = 0..e.219 illustrates a typical connection design at a column per AISC Seismic Sec.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. 13. 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. but the tension brace has not yet yielded).
13. " 37 " 12 For tension yielding of the gusset plate: φTn = φFyAg = (0.639 kips For fracture in the net section: OK φTn = φFuAn = (0.0 in. 1.993 kips > 1.3a: Pn = RyFyAg = (1.220 Whitmore section (1.4 in.125 in. Structural Steel Design Next. See Figure 5.75)(58 ksi )(1.639 kips Since 1.4 mm.90)(36 ksi)(1. OK 565 . × 54. yielding (ductile behavior) governs over fracture.639 kips The area of the gusset is determined using the plate thickness and the Whitmore section for effective width.220 for the determination of this dimension.933 kips is less than 2. For an HSS12×12×5/8. the nominal axial tensile strength is computed using AISC Seismic Sec.7 in.Chapter 5. design the connections.677 kips > 1.677 kips.0 ft = 0.125 in.2) = 1.) = 1.7 in.5 30 30° HS W14x211 x 12 2x S1 5 8 Figure 5. = 25. The required strength of the connection is to be the nominal axial tensile strength of the bracing member. 54 3 4" 30 ° " . × 54.3048 m).) = 2.3)(46 ksi)(27.
658λc ) Fy = (0.151 kips Now.000 Since λc < 1. determine the nominal compressive strength of the brace member.151 kips.125 in.5 is: φFw = φ(0.) = 21. For the brace being considered. Therefore.60)π 29. The effective brace length (Leff) is the distance between the plastic hinges on the gusset plates at each end of the brace member. The gusset plate must be permitted to flex about this hinge. determine the buckling capacity of the gusset plate using the Whitmore section method.5 ksi) In accordance with the exception of AISC Seismic Sec. use AISC LRFD Eq. Try a plate thickness of 1.0 ksi 2 Pcr = AgFcr = (27. 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. unrestrained by any other structural member.220.217 )(46) = 42.6Fexx) = (0. The connection design strength must be at least equal to the nominal compressive strength of the brace.5. E22: Fcr = (0.707)(0. there will be alternating cycles of compression to tension in a single bracing member and its connections.5 ksi For a 1/2 in. See also AISC Seismic C13.04 kips/in.× 1.466 (4.7 in.75)(0. there will be four welds.3c. the design of brace connections need not consider flexure if the connections meet the following criteria: a. The demand in each weld will be 1.639 kips/4 = 410 kips. First.0) = 1.7 ksi 566 . the compression brace may buckle outofplane when the tension braces are loaded. and the nominal compressive strength is determined using AISC LRFD Eq. illustrated by Figure 5. By this method. Proper detailing is imperative so that tears or fractures in the steel do not initiate during the cyclic loading. the required length of weld is determined to be: Lw = 410 kips = 37 in. 13.04 kips/(1 in. (0.)(31. Leff = 169 in.6)(70 ksi) = 31. E24: λc = kl rπ Fy E = (1)(169) 46 = 0. With such a plastic hinge.FEMA 451. fillet weld. the connection will be designed in accordance with these criteria.151 kips/54.) = 18. The design strength for a fillet weld per AISC LRFD Table J2.3c.4)(42. Remember that during the earthquake.25 in. b.5 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For a tube slotted to fit over a connection plate. the compressive force per unit length of gusset plate is (1. fa = P/A = 21. using a design compressive load from the brace of 1.6580.
3 ksi 2 φFcr = (0.662 kips > 1.9375 in.25 × 2) = 1.4 ksi φFcr = 27. the compression length is much less.639 kips).231 kips. For this case. The effective length for buckling of this plate will be k[12" + (2)(2t + weld length)].2) = 1.2. Again.639 kips For fracture in the net section: OK φTn = φFyAg = (0.) = 2.2) = 1.7 in.1.406 = 1. the effective width is shown in Figure 5. 567 .75 x 1.45 in.) = 1.221.75)(58 ksi)(0.5) 36 = 0. Structural Steel Design The gusset plate is modeled as a 1 in. OK For compression loads. wide slot for the gusset plate (at the column).Chapter 5.25 in.2 in. but this is clearly impossible.45) = 24.7 in. However. even if the net area equaled the gross area. and the Whitmore section is the same. The effective length factor (k) for this “column” is 0. For tension yielding of the gusset plate: φTn = φFyAg = (0.182 kips Fracture = FuAn =(58 ksi)(24.8)(30.000 Since λc < 1. so a thinner plate may be adequate. Next.406 kips OK OK AISC Seismic 13.231 kips > 1. Per AISC LRFD Eq.54)π 29.8.639 kips Since 1.5. Try a 15/16 in.3b could be used to require design fracture strength (0. E24: λc = kl rπ Fy E = (0.51 (0.65[12 + (2)(2 × 15/16 + 5/16)] = 9. and the net section.9375 in. wide by 1. the effective length is 0.658λc ) Fy = (0.25 in. deep rectangular section. check the reduced section of thetube. Compression in the plate over this effective length is acceptable by inspection and will not be computed here. The gusset plate will experience the same tension force as the plate above.2 Compare yield in the gross section with fracture in the net section: Yield = FyAg =(46 ksi)(25.7 in.7 ksi OK Now consider the bracetobrace connection shown in Figure 5.055 kips) to exceed probable tensile yield (1.7 . pinned at one end (the plastic hinge) and fixed at the other end where welded to column (see Whitmore section diagram).220. E22: Fcr = (0. the plate must be detailed to develop a plastic hinge over a distance of 2t from the end of the brace. use AISC LRFD Eq.125 in. × 54.90)(36 ksi)(0. plate. yielding (ductile behavior) governs over fracture.662 kips is less than 2. × 54.581 × 1.3) = 27. Anet = (25.4 ksi > 18.257 )(36) = 32.6580. which has a 1 1/4 in. The reduction in HSS12×12×5/8 section due to the slot is (0. This design is considered satisfactory.85)(32.
3 Size Members for Alternative C. doubler plates will still be necessary.2 [4. however.31].4 mm). Dual System 1.2.82 . for the members used in this example. 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.4. a dual system consisting of special moment frames at the perimeter and special concentrically braced frames at the core will be used. The sequence of column sizes that is shown is W 14×132 . This is a good place to start a design. 5.3. 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. The methodology for the analysis and these checks is covered in Sec.223. 5. 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. columnbeam moment ratio.2.1.222 and 5. 2. 5. In accordance with the building systems listed in Provisions Table 5. Preliminary sizes for the perimeter moment frames are shown in Figures 5. = 25. so they will not be repeated here. and redundancy) and all must be checked.FEMA 451.3.1 [4. However. panel zone shear.221 Bracetobrace connection (1.4. The increase in column size to avoid doubler plates is substantial.2. it may be prudent to defer some of the checks until the design has progressed a bit further.2. It is designed for strength using 25 percent of the design lateral forces.0 in.68 568 . All the design requirements for special moment frames still apply (flange and web widthtothickness ratios.3. but feasible. Select Preliminary Member Sizes – A dual system is a combination of a momentresisting frame with either a shear wall or a braced frame.2.1]). drift.
211 . except in the upper few stories.223 are controlled by strength because drift is not a criterion. Because of the presence of the moment frame.4. This last requirement causes a significant increase in column sizes. 8.2 [8.233 . The beams in Figures 5. Structural Steel Design 53 and would become W14×257 . followed by analysis of the entire dual system. this should help to realize significant savings in the braced frame member sizes. 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. All members need to be checked for widththickness ratios and the braces need to be checked for slenderness. Note that Pu /φPn > 0. 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 5.4 for a few of the columns when analyzed without the braced frame so the overstrength requirements of AISC Seismic Sec. 569 .3] apply to these columns. the accidental torsion on the building will be reduced as compared to a building with only a braced core. Note that columns in the braced frame will need to satisfy the overstrength requirements of AISC Seismic Sec.176 to avoid doubler plates. the sizes are not controlled by the check using Ω0E.3] because Pu/φPn > 0. 3.Chapter 5. In combination with the larger R factor (smaller design forces). 8.2 [8.222 and 5. Check the Strength of the Braced Frames – The next step is to select the member sizes for the braced frame.
Use of the displacements at the centroid as the average displacements is valid for a symmetrical building.28).223 Moment frame of dual system in NS direction.2. The building was modeled in three dimensions using RAMFRAME.FEMA 451. 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. 4. 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. the torsional amplification factor (Table 5. 570 . Check Torsional Amplification – Calculated story drifts are used to determine Ax.8 [4.5]. 5. 5. Maximum displacements at the building corners are used here because the building is torsionally irregular. Pdelta effects are included. Check Drift – Check drift in accordance with Provisions Sec.
These will be used in the next round of analysis.33 1.27 1.05 L)*** (ft.40 EW 1. The results are summarized in Table 5.29 1.Chapter 5. = 25.13 7.75 0.14 7.20 NS 1.07 7.28 1.50 11.77 2.63 2.15 1.38 1.46 10.14 1. Accidental torsion is not amplified here. After a few iterations.05L accidental eccentricity in order to validate the amplifiers used in design.13 1.10 1.) Maximum Elastic Displacement at Building Corner* (in.0 in.13 1.3. The amplifier increased for the EW direction but decreased for the NS direction.0 ft = 0.3048 m.28 1.32 NS 1. That structure was then checked for its response using the standard 0.225.01 1.14 1.29.81 0.28 1.29 1.2. That design was revised by increasing various brace and column sizes and then reanalyzing using the amplified eccentricity instead of merely 0.51 1. Item 1a [4.09 1.00 2. even without amplifying the accidental torsion.) δ max δ avg ** Torsional Amplification Factor = ⎛ δ ⎞ Ax = ⎜ max ⎟ ⎝ 1. which was the controlling direction for torsion. a design that satisfied the drift limits was achieved.11 0.22 0.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. *** The initial eccentricities of 0. 1.64 1.16 1.57 3.52 NS 9. ** Amplification of accidental torsion is required because this term is greater than 1.15 2.32.43 NS 2. Item 1a).41 EW 3. 571 .8 11.2 (Provisions Table 5.37 2 Amplified Eccentricity = Ax(0.05 0.05L in the EW and NS directions are multiplied by Ax to determine the amplified eccentricities.69 2.25 1. Structural Steel Design Table 5.6.19 7.31 1.05L for accidental torsion.4 mm.37 3.08 7.01 10. The building is torsionally irregular in plan.2.03 0.28 1.35 1.15 11. See discussion in footnote ** of Table 5.224 and 5.98 * These values are directly from the analysis.56 1. These member sizes are shown in Figures 5.91 1.34 1.50 1.50 2.23 1.28 does not quite satisfy the drift limits.45 2. The design that yielded the displacements shown in Table 5.2δ avg ⎠ EW 1.14 1.05 1.31 1.54 10. 1.57 NS 3.57 EW 7.20 1.28 Alternative C Amplification of Accidental Torsion Average Elastic Displacement = Displacement at Building Centroid (in.2.28 1.25 7.
FEMA 451. 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 . 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 1 x2 7x7 H HS S7x 7x 1 5 W14x48 4 W14x311 W14x48 W14x311 W14x311 W14x48 W14x311 S HS 4 W14x311 8x 5 8x 8 1 x2 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 8x 8x SS H 1 2 HS S8 x8 x1 Figure 5. Figure 5.225 Braced frame of dual system in NS direction.224 Braced frame of dual system in EWdirection.
2. which includes the effect of amplified accidental torsion.47 0.41 0.5 6.5 6. In the EW direction.4 mm The story drifts are within the allowable story drift limit of 0.11 0.4. 5.8 ⎢ r max A x ⎥ ⎢ 0.37 0.30 in.39 0.42 3. Elastic Displacement at Building Corners (in. therefore. Displacement (at corners) (in. In accordance with Provisions Sec.4.0 for this example.54 ∆NS 0. = 25.2 for a discussion of the significant changes to the redundancy requirements in the 2003 Provisions.58 2.0 for both directions.55 3.48 0.17 3.36 1.54 NS 3.45 0.020hsx as per Provisions Sec.46 0.2. 5. ρ = 1.09 3.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].42 3.45 0.5 6.93 0.93 2.64 6. rmax is less. ρ will be less. [See Sec.51 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.01 4.5 ∆EW 2.20 3.20 3. This is illustrated in Figure 5.05 3. ρ is now determined to be (see Sec.2.) Cd (Cd ) x (Elastic Story Drift) (in.4.37 0.24 1. Level 5 has a drift of 3.66 2.29 Alternative C Story Drifts under Seismic Load Max.30 3.) ∆EW 0. The lateral component carried by each brace element comes from the RAMFRAME analysis.45 0.79 1.5 6.17 ∆ 3.89 2. rx was determined for every brace element at every level in both directions.69 2.5 6.20 3.8 ⎢ 2 − ρ = 0.06 2.20 3. > 3.Chapter 5.2 ⎣ x ⎣ ⎦ ⎤ ⎥ = 0. Thus.986 ⎥ ⎦ The 0.43 2.20 in. For this design.0 in.20 3.2): ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 20 20 ⎢2 − ⎥ = 0.1762 at the base level in the NS direction.1762 21. is considered close enough for this example. 5. so use ρ = 1.1].8 factor comes from Provisions Sec.94 2.34 0.8 [4. 6.0.) EW R 7 6 5 4 3 2 3.) Allowable Story Drift (in.2.64 Elastic Story Drift at Location of Max.52 ∆NS 2. 5.58 1.05 2. but the difference of only 0. 5.1 in.] 573 .875 ft.09 1. As ρ is less than 1.5 6.5.218 for Alternative B.2.3.49 0.20 5. The maximum value was found to be 0.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]. Check Redundancy – Now return to the calculation of rx for the braced frame. Structural Steel Design Table 5.
Torsional amplification and drift limitations both increased the weight of steel in the bracing.2.1 and 5. but do not include an allowance for plates and bolts at connections.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.FEMA 451. Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Alternative C. 574 .5 Cost Comparison Material takeoffs were made for the three alternatives. The takeoffs are based on all members.3. where resistance to torsion is poor.4. Special Steel Moment Resisting Frame Alternative B. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7. The result of the material takeoffs are: Alternative A. 5. 5.3.4. In each case. the total structural steel was estimated. The weight of the momentresisting frame is controlled by drift and the strong column rule.2. Connection Design – Connections for both the moment frame and braced frames may be designed in accordance with the methods illustrated in Sec.2.
0 ft = 0. OAKLAND. 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 bay spacing is 20 ft each way.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. 120 ft by 140 ft in plan.31. 1. The lateralforceresisting system for Stories 1 and 2 consists of EBFs on Gridlines 1.3048 m). The foundation soils are deep stable deposits of sands.0 in. is shown in Figure 5. The building is founded on a thick mat. = 25. gravels.1 Building Description This twostory hospital.3 TWOSTORY BUILDING.Chapter 5. 575 . Structural Steel Design 5. The beams and girders on the column lines are tied to the slabs with stud connectors. Analysis of eccentrically braced frames 2.3. The following items of seismic design of steelframed buildings are illustrated: 1. Design of bracing members 3. 8. Floor beams are spaced three to a bay. B. Brace connections 5. The building has a basement and two floors.31 Main floor framing plan (1. and stiff clays overlying rock. It has an unusually high roof load because of a plaza with heavy planters on the roof. CALIFORNIA This example features an eccentrically braced frame (EBF) building.
However.2 Method The method for determining basic parameters is similar to that for other examples. 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 [4.2 [4. 576 .2. Therefore. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples shown in Figure 5.8 [4. The braced frames are designed for 100 percent of lateral load and their share of vertical loads. Keep in mind that the load path is from the floor diaphragm to the beam to the braces. Compute the inelastic displacement as the product of Cd times δe. 5.32].0 ft = 0.34 Figure 5. = 25. This has a similarity to the irregularity Type 4 “outofplane offsets” defined in Provisions Table 5.1.3048 m).32 Section on Grid F (1. 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.2. 3.3. It will not be repeated here. These EBFs transfer lateral loads to the main floor diaphragm. splice requirements.0 in. although either is permitted. 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. This affects widththickness ratios.3] for definition) of the building is the first floor. 2.32. Select member preliminary sizes.51]. A summary of the method is as follows: 1. Roof 2nd floor 1st floor 12'8" 12'8" Figure 5. but because it is below the base that classification does not apply. and so on. A typical bracing elevation is shown in Figure 5. Yielding in shear is more efficient than yielding in flexure. 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). Compute elastic drift (δe) and forces in the members.FEMA 451. Column design for an EBF is illustrated later in this example. overstrength checks. 1.3.4 mm. The fundamental concept behind the eccentric braced frame is that seismic energy is absorbed by yielding of the link. 3'0" 15'6" Basement The structure illustrates a common situation for lowrise buildings with basements. The inelastic displacement must be within the allowable story drift from Provisions Table 5. EBFs have been selected for this building because they provide high stiffness and a high degree of ductility while permitting limited storytostory height. not the foundation. Perform an elastic analysis of the building frame.31.
5 ftkips Brace 1.3. they will not be presented here. (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. There are explicit requirements for the connection from a link to a column. the inelastic deformations are confined to the link.31]. The force from the braces coming down from the roof level has a direct pass to the braces below without affecting the link.08 radians. An ELF analysis was used. Therefore.3 ftkips 120. Structural Steel Design 4. determined from computer analysis.02 radians for yielding dominated by flexure in the link. Should the moment become high enough to govern over shear yielding.3 Analysis Because the determination of basic provisions and analysis are so similar to those of other examples. The braces and building columns are to remain elastic.9 ftkips 121. 1. and Ω0 =2. The axial load in the link at Level 2 may be computed directly from the secondfloor forces. Therefore from Provisions Table 5.6 kips 577 .02 radians instead of 0. are summarized in Table 5. but the more efficient approach is to increase the link length. it is the authors’ interpretation that an ordinary moment resisting frame connection will be adequate). without further detail.36 kNm.7 kips 85. For this case. only the link portion of the beam yields. (See Figure 5.3. To meet the link rotation angle requirement.2 kips 127.31 Summary of Critical Member Design Forces Member Link Force Designation Plink Vlink Mleft Mright Pbrace Mtop Mbot Magnitude 5.45 kN. 5.0 kip = 4.0 kips 15. it may be necessary to modify member sizes.2. The portions of the beam outside the link are to remain elastic.Chapter 5. 7. R = 8. then α will have to be limited to 0.2 [4. The EBF system will not impose large rotational demands on a beam to column connection.08 radians for yielding dominated by shear in the link or 0.3. 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. 5.1 Member Design Forces The critical forces for the design of individual structural elements.34 for illustration of α). Cd = 4.0 ftkip = 1. The criteria is based on the relationship between Mp and Vp as related to the length of the link.) 6.5 ftkips 9. (The tradeoff to increasing the link length is that the moment in the link will increase.31. there are momentresisting connections at the columns. Table 5.
9 kips Secondstory shear per brace = 133.99 in.6/2 = 267.0 kips Secondstory shear per braced line = 267.8 kips/140 ft = 1. For now.9/2 = 66.95 (15. As can be seen in Figure 5.8 kips Secondstory shear per linear foot = 267.FEMA 451.08 radians (AISC Seismic Sec. we will assume that shear yielding of the link governs and will verify this later. thus creating a link subject to high shear.34.67 ft)(12) ⎠ The design is satisfactory if we assume that shear yielding governs because the maximum permissible rotation is 0. e = 3 ft as follows: α = ⎜ ⎟θ = ⎜ ⎟ = 0.3. 15.7 kips 5. The link rotation angle is computed for a span length.91 klf)(3 ft) = 5.99 in.8/2 = 133. two eccentric braces located in one story of the same bay intersect the upper beam a short distance apart. the elastic drift was determined to be 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Secondstory shear per braced line = 535. ⎛L⎞ ⎛ 20 ft ⎞ ⎛ 0.2 Drift From the linear computer analysis.247) = 0.2g [15. 578 . ⎞ 5.2]).25 ft/8.4 Design of Eccentric Bracing Eccentric bracing adds two elements to the frame: braces and links. L = 20 ft. 15. In a severe earthquake. shown in Figures 5. energy is dissipated through shear yielding of the links while diagonal braces and columns remain essentially elastic.247 inches. further calculations deal with the braced frames on Line F.33 and 5.33.3. The total inelastic drift is computed as: Cdδc = (4)(0. All section sizes and connection details are made similar for all braced bays. and a link length. The criteria for the design of eccentric bracing are given in AISC Seismic Sec.5 ft) = 120.043 radians ⎟⎜ ⎝e⎠ ⎝ 3 ft ⎠ ⎝ (12. 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.95 kips Axial force per brace = 66.91 klf Axial force in link = (1.8 kips Secondstory shear per individual EBF = 267.3.
3.0 ft = 0.0 in. Structural Steel Design Figure 5. The shear force and end moments in the link (W16x57 beam section) are listed in Table 5. 1.Chapter 5.3 ftkips " 579 .1 Link Design The firststory eccentric braced frame (identified in Figure 5.2 kips Mleft = 127.34 Typical eccentric braced frame (1.3048 m).9 ftkips Mright = 121.31 and repeated below: Plink = 5. Drift 8'6" 3'0" 8'6" α 12'8" θ 15 '3 Figure 5.33 Diagram of eccentric braced frames on Grid F.32) is examined first.34 Roof 2nd floor 1st floor Basement Figure 5.7 kips Vlink = 85. = 25.4.4 mm. 5.
60Fy)(d2tf)tw and 2 Mp e For the W16×57 section selected for the preliminary design: Vp = (0.FEMA 451. 15.2d [15. check the beam flange widththickness ratio.8 × 50) It is less than 0.715)](0.5 kips and Mp = φMn = 0.3. For the selected section.2a [15. The level of axial stress is determined as: Pu 5.8 = = 0.kips 2 Mp (2)(4725) = = 262.(2)(0.9)(50)(105) = 4725 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 5. 15. which is less than the permitted b/t ratio of : 52 Fy = 52 50 = 7. therefore. The nominal shear strength of the link is defined as the lesser of: Vp = (0.008 φb Py (0.5 kips e (3 × 12) 580 .1.430) = 193.125.9)(16.35 OK The permitted web slenderness is dependent on the level of axial stress.7 OK 5.2].9Fy Zx = (0.43 .2 kips and Vn is the nominal shear strength of link. That section specifies that the required shear strength of the link (Vu) must not exceed the design shear strength φVn. the ratio tw/hc = 33.60)(50)[16. where Vu = Vlink = 85. which refers to AISC Seismic Table I91 [I81].2].98.1. b/t = 4.2 Link Shear Strength The forces Vlink.4.4. Mleft. First.3.0 for the selected section is less than the limiting widthtothickness ratio computed as: 253 Fy = 253 50 = 35.1 WidthThickness Ratio The links are first verified to conform to AISC Seismic Sec. and Mright must not exceed member strength computed from AISC Seismic Sec.
requirement and also fits nicely within the link length of 36 in.3.1.15Py of the link = (0.16.3].6 in. use a stiffener spacing of 12 in.1 in. because Pu < Py. 5.16. Structural Steel Design Therefore. 15.43/5) = 19. full depth stiffeners must be provided on both sides of the link. and the stiffeners must be sized as follows: 581 .08 radians: Spacing = (30tw .6)(4725)/(193.1 [15.2e [15.08 radians.08 radians for links 1. Further.4 in. intermediate stiffeners are necessary in accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. the link rotation angle is permitted up to 0. From Sec. 15.6Mp/Vp.3] requires fulldepth web stiffeners on both sides of the link web at the diagonal brace ends of the link.d/5) = (30 × 0.2 ftkips > 85.3. is less than 1.Chapter 5. the link rotation angle.3.15)(840) = 126 kips OK Since the axial demand of 5.430 . the effect of axial force on the link design shear strength need not be considered. because it conforms to the 15.5 Link Stiffeners AISC Seismic Sec. the link axial strength is examined: Py of the link = FyAg = (50 ksi)(16. 5. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.43/5) = 9.2g [15.3. 15.d/5) = (52 × 0.4.1.7 kips is less than 126 kips. 5.4 Link Rotation Angle In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec. the maximum link length is determined as: 1. the link rotation angle is not permitted to exceed 0.6Mp/Vp = (1.4 in. the additional requirements of AISC Seismic Sec.2].043 radians.8 in) = 840 kips 0. Therefore.1 in.043 radians. and interpolation results in a spacing requirement of 15. These serve to transfer the link shear forces to the reacting elements (the braces) as well as restrain the link web against buckling. 15. Therefore. Since the link length (e) of 36 in.3b. For our case the link rotation angle is 0. Interpolation of the stiffener spacing based on the two equations presented in AISC Seismic Sec.f [15. Because the link length (e) is less than 1.3a [15.3b [15.9)(193.3a [5. which is acceptable.3 Link Axial Strength In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.2] do not need to be invoked.4.5) = 174.2 kips 5.3]. For a link rotation angle of 0.2]. 15.6Mp/Vp. 15.4.02 radians: Spacing = (52tw .1.6Mp/Vp long or less.3] will be necessary. Vn = 193. For link rotation angle of 0. was determined to be 0.5 kips φVn = (0. 15.3.5) = 39. α.2.430 .
582 . the length is 15.96π 29. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Combined width at least (bf . Figure 5.1. which specifies a maximum unbraced length of: Lpd = [3.60) 50 = 182 in.35 shows angle braces attached to the lower flange of the link.200(121.6] 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.FEMA 451.9 r 2.715) = 16. Accordingly.0. In accordance with AISC Seismic Sec.600 + 2.120)(0.4.26 in.2 × 0. Use 3. see Chapter E.25 in. Taking the length of the brace conservatively as the distance between panel points.600 + 2.3/127.2 Brace Design For the design equations used below. The slenderness ratio is kl (1)(15.6a [15.3.75tw or 3/8 in.6580.2tw) = (7.4)(34.8 ksi The design strength of the brace as an axial compression element is: Pbr = φc AgFcr = (0.25.96 (k has been conservatively taken as 1. of the AISC LRFD Specification.8 kips While shear studs on the top flange are expected to accommodate the transfer of this load into the concrete deck.3. 15.8) = 514 kips AISC Seismic Sec.120 . The braces. the brace at the bottom flange will need to be designed for this condition.06RyFybftf = (0.8 kips tension or compression.200(M1 / M2 )]ry Fy = [3.000 E 2 2 Fcr = (0. tubes with Fy = 46 ksi in the preliminary design. the end lateral supports must have a design strength computed as: 0.26 feet.4.31).06)(1.26 × 12) 50 = = 0.430) = 6. Use 3/8 in.5.6 Lateral Support of Link The spacing of the lateral bracing of the link must not exceed the requirement of AISC LRFD Eq.9)](1. determined to be 8×8×5/8 in.26)(12) = = 61. each. are subjected to a calculated axial seismic load of 120 kips (from elastic analysis in Table 5. lateral bracing of beams with one brace at each end of the link (which is required for the link design per AISC Seismic Sec. 15. 5.5) is sufficient.658λc ) Fy = (0. Thickness at least 0.85)(17.) Using AISC LRFD E24 for Fy = 46 ksi: λc = kl rπ Fy (1)(15. but is actually lower because of restraint at the ends. 5.1)(50)(7.817 2. F117. 15.817 )(46) = 34. Such angles will need to be designed for 16.
25) = 266 kips. per AISC LRFD C12: B1 = Cm ≥ 1. Structural Steel Design Thus.6 − 0. For a braced frame only two stories high and having several bays. 514 kips.4 ftkips as determined above and. Therefore.5) = 29. the brace must also be checked for combined axial and flexure using AISC LRFD Chapter H. the increase is 266/85. determined from elastic analysis.2 kips.4 ⎠ ⎝ M2 ⎠ Therefore. the factored Vn is equal to (193.20.4)(46) = 1. Thus.12.36 ⎝ 48. Mu.0 1 − Pu Pe Pe = Ag Fy λc2 = (17.5 kips)(1.199 kips (0. axial and flexure interaction is governed by AISC LRFD H11a: ⎛ Mu ⎞ + 8⎜ ≤ 1. The shear in the link. is 85. the required flexural strength in the brace to resist lateral translation of the frame only (Mlt) is negligible.12)(9.Chapter 5. so the brace is adequate for axial loading.4 ⎜ 1 ⎟ = 0. exceeds the design demand of 374 kips.5) = 48.6 ⎞ Cm = 0.4 ⎜ ⎟ = 0. However. 583 .6 ftkips The design strength of the brace.2 = 3.0 φ Pn 9 ⎝ φ bMn ⎟ ⎠ Pu where Pu = 374 kips Pn = 514 kips Mn = ZFy = (105)(50) = 5250 in.12)(15.817)2 ⎛M ⎞ ⎛ 29.1)(1.kips The flexural demand.4 ftkips Design Mbot = (3.6 − 0. is computed in accordance with AISC LRFD Chapter C and must account for second order effects. the required flexural strength is computed from AISC LRFD C11 as: M u = B1 M nt where Mnt = 48. For axial demandtocapacity ratio greater than 0.12)(120) = 374 kips Design Mtop = (3. 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.
The beam. to add another stiffener to the beam opposite the flange on the gusset.3 Brace Connections at Top of Brace AISC Seismic Sec. 15.36)(48. It also should be remembered that the axial force in the brace may be either tension or compression reflecting the reversal in seismic motions.3)(12) ⎞ Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 374 = 0.9)(4. In such a case.830) ⎟ ⎠ OK The design of the brace is satisfactory.35. link.35. 5. it may be required. and brace centerlines intersect at a common work point.4.6 requires that.3.FEMA 451. the connections must also be designed as a fully restrained moment connection. 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. 584 . 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. and no part of this connection shall extend over the link length.4) = 25.92 < 1. the connection of the brace to the girder be designed to remain elastic at yield of the link. like the brace itself. All of these calculations are conventional and need no explanation here.00 + ⎜ + 8⎜ ⎟= φ Pn 9 ⎝ φb M n ⎠ (0. The required strength of the bracetobeam connection must be at least as much as the required strength of the brace.) Adding a similar flange on the other side of the brace will keep the joint compact. (Such a flange is shown ine Figure 5. Because there is a moment at the top of the brace. In addition to the design of the gusset and the connecting welds.4) = = (0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples M u = B1 M nt = Cm M nt (0. Details of the link and adjacent upper brace connection are shown in Figure 5.52)(48.3 ftkips P 374 1− u 1− Pe 1. or at least desirable.85)(514) 9 ⎝ (0.199 and ⎛ (25. 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 right beam in Figure 5. 585 .4 Brace Connections at Bottom of Brace These braces are concentric at their lower end.3.3048 m). = 25. framing into the columngirder intersection in a conventional manner. Details of a lower brace connection are shown in Figure 5. moment connections are required at the ends of the link beams (at the roof and second floor levels). 1. but are not required.0 ft = 0. If so.P.P. 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.4 mm. 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.36) or at the bottom of the brace at the first floor (e.Chapter 5.. The beam on the left in Figure 5.0 in. the left beam in Figure 5. as well as beam vertical loads.35 Link and upper brace connection (1. 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.36. Moment connections could be used. Gussets shall not influence link in this zone Figure 5..36 if it is at the first floor level) . The design of the gusset plate and welds is conventional. outside of the EBF (e.g. In order to be able to use R = 8.4.36 could be a collector. 5.g.
Floor beam with pinned connection Beam framing to column web (not shown) Figure 5.6 for design of the beam outside the link and AISC Seismic Sec.4.5 Beam and Column Design Refer to AISC Seismic Sec.. W16x57 5. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples TS 8x8x5 8" CJP 2nd floor or 1st floor (not shown) 1" Gusset plate W.0 in.4 mm).36 Lower brace connections (1. 15. The philosophy is very similar to that illustrated for the brace: the demand becomes the forces associated with expected yield of the link. = 25.FEMA 451. 586 . Although the moment and shear are less in the beam than in the link.8 for design of the columns. 15.P.3. the axial load is substantially higher.
At the Berkeley location. as described later. in section. The girders are not haunched on exterior Gridlines 1 and 8. has 12 stories above grade and one basement level. in Honolulu. 4. Hawaii. the frames have five 20ft bays with constant depth girders. the structural walls are not necessary so EW seismic resistance is supplied by the moment frames along Gridlines 1 through 8. NW concrete also is used for the first (ground) floor framing and. 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. the frames of the Honolulu building are detailed as intermediate momentresisting frames. Due to the lower seismicity and lower demand for system ductility. and for the moderate loading. The main gravity framing system consists of seven continuous 30ft spans of pan joists.. For both locations.g. P. and the 40ft spans have been divided into two equal parts forming a total of five spans of 20 ft. The interior frames differ from the exterior frames only in the end bays where the girders are of reduced depth. The girders along all spans of Gridlines A and D are of constant depth. The girders in each span are of variable depth as described earlier. these frames are detailed as special momentresisting frames. Due to fire code requirements.6 REINFORCED CONCRETE Finley A. on center and have an average web thickness of 6 in. giving the joists a total depth of 20 in. and a depth below slab of 16 in. 5 and 6. Frame 1 is located on 61 . but along Gridlines B and C. Along Gridlines 2 and 7.D.. Along Gridlines 1 and 8. The girders are haunched to accommodate mechanicalelectrical systems. for the lower levels of the structural walls in the Berkeley building. These joists are spaced 36 in. Ph. 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. Charney. In the EW direction. 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). the frames consist of two exterior 40ft bays and one 20ft interior bay. it is assumed that the structure will be located in Berkeley. At Gridlines 3. Normal weight (NW) concrete walls are located around the entire perimeter of the basement level. to be constructed primarily from sandlightweight (LW) aggregate concrete. In this chapter.thick floor slab is used. Hereafter. frames are referred to by their gridline designation (e. 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 interior bay has been filled with a shear panel and the exterior bays consist of 40ftlong haunched girders.E. a 12story reinforced concrete office building with some retail shops on the first floor is designed for both high and moderate seismic loadings. California. For the more extreme loading. the depth of the end bay girders has been reduced to allow for the passage of mechanical systems. For the Honolulu building. a 4in. the seismicforceresisting system in the NS direction consists of four 7bay momentresisting frames. Figure 61 shows the basic structural configuration for each location in plan view and Figure 62. The building.
0 ft = 0. 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). 62 .FEMA 451. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Gridline 1).3048 m). The Honolulu building is similar but without structural walls (1. ' ' 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.
the Honolulu building is similar but without structural walls (1. Section at Wall ' 20'0" B.Chapter 6. Story 1 G 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 A. 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 .0 ft = 0.3048 m).
. Portland Cement Association.A. the Provisions) and to assist the reader in developing a better understanding of the principles behind the Provisions. 1997. Design of structural members including typical girder in Frame 1. American Society of Civil Engineers. portions of the calculations are presented in parallel. 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). In addition to the Provisions. Rabbat. 1999 [2002]. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. and M. etc. D.FEMA 451. 2. In this context. Munshi. Munshi. Other recent works related to earthquake resistant design of reinforced concrete buildings include: ACI 318 ASCE 7 Fanella American Concrete Institute. Editors. 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. Hence.g. Instead of providing one full set of calculations for the Berkeley building and then another for the Honolulu building.. boundary elements of structural wall (Berkeley building only) and panel of structural wall (Berkeley building only). typical beamcolumn joint in Frame 3. the Provisions may require that a modal response spectrum analysis or time history analysis be used. 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. The full design then is given for the Berkeley building followed by the design of the Honolulu building. typical girder in Frame 3. 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. Cases where requirements of the Provisions and ACI 318 differ are pointed out as they occur. 64 . Except for very minor exceptions. ASCE 7 is cited when discussions involve live load reduction.. Skokie.) is followed by discussion. ACI 318 Notes Fanella. Fanella.A. For final design. typical exterior column in Frame 3. A. Development and computation of seismic forces. typical beamcolumn joint in Frame 1. 3. Each major section (development of forces. Illinois. Illinois. G. Portland Cement Association. typical interior column in Frame 1. D. The ELF analysis is useful even if the final design is based on a more sophisticated analysis (e. two different sets of calculations are required. J. For example. the preliminary design based on an ELF analysis is a natural place to start. ACI 318 is the other main reference in this example. 1998 [2002]. the development of seismic forces for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are presented before structural design is considered for either building. and B. and load combinations. structural design. wind load. Notes on ACI 31899 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete with Design Applications. Design of LowRise Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Forces. Skokie. Because a single building configuration is designed for both high and moderate levels of seismicity. the following portions of the design process are presented in varying amounts of detail for each structure: 1. 1999. 2nd Edition. the seismicforceresisting system design requirements of ACI 318 have been adopted in their entirety by the Provisions. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Structural analysis and interpretation of structural behavior.
. N. 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. Note that these examples illustrate comparisons between seismic and wind loading for illustrative purposes. Some general technical changes in the 2003 Provisions that relate to the calculations and/or design in this chapter include updated seismic hazard maps.. Editor. Portland Cement Association. [ ]. Wind load calculations are based on ASCE 798 as referenced in the 2000 Provisions. A. Ω0. Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake and Wind Forces. also developed by Computers and Structures. ACI SP127. Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. K. Most of the largescale structural analysis for this chapter was carried out using the ETABS Building Analysis Program developed by Computers and Structures. Column capacity and design curves were computed using Microsoft Excel. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted. Detroit. John Wiley & Sons. 2nd Edition. EarthquakeResistant Concrete Structures Inelastic Response and Design. and revisions several of the system factors (R. Inc. Ghosh. Priestley. and M. Skokie. New York. revisions to the redundancy requirements. 65 . revisions to the minimum base shear equation. Annotations within brackets. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. The notes are based on the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials) instead of the Provisions. J.. 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.Chapter 6. W. California. other significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Illinois. Domel. The other publications cited above provide additional background for the design of earthquakeresistant reinforced concrete structures. 1995. 1992. However. S. A. Cd) for dual systems. Other chances to Chapter 9 are related to precast concrete (as discussed in Chapter 7 of this volume of design examples). Berkeley. Portions of the 2000 Provisions have been removed because they were incorporated into ACI 31802. and D. with some verification using the PCACOL program created and developed by the Portland Cement Association. and there have not been any comparisons or annotations related to ASCE 702. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions. T. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Fanella. 1991. Michigan. Reinforced Concrete ACI SP127 Ghosh Paulay Ghosh. Paulay. K. While the general concepts of the changes are described. S. 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. American Concrete Institute.. Smaller portions of the structure were modeled using the SAP2000 Finite Element Analysis Program.
1.61 and 0.42 [3.1 [3. from Provisions Table 4.1. respectively.178 = 0. The maximum considered spectral response acceleration parameters for the Honolulu building are: SMS = FaSS = 1.32] gives a velocity based site coefficient Fv of 1.589 The transition period (Ts) for the Berkeley response spectrum is: Ts = S D1 0.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.1.1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC LOADS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 6.32].535 sec S DS 1. For S1 > 0.65 = 1.2. 4. Provisions Maps 19 and 20 [Figure 3. Interpolating from Provisions Table 4.52 [3.3 x 0.1 Seismicity Using Provisions Maps 7 and 8 [Figures 3.288 = 0.65 and Site Class C. 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.5 and Site Class C.1.51 and 4.4b [3.1.31].2.2.33 and 3.68.1. Provisions Table 4.2.2a [3. 4.0 x 1.4.] For the very dense soil conditions.708 = 0.1].65 SM1 = FvS1 = 1.31] lists a short period site coefficient Fa of 1.708 SM1 = FvS1 = 1.62. the site is classified as Site Class C.178. Using Provisions Eq. the maximum considered spectral response acceleration parameters for the Berkeley building are: SMS = FaSS = 1.16 and. Provisions Table 4. For the very dense soil/firm rock site condition.0. the shortperiod site coefficient (Fa) is 1.2.884 The design spectral response acceleration parameters are given by Provisions Eq.10 SD1 = (2/3) SM1 = (2/3) 0. the short period and onesecond period spectral response acceleration parameters SS and S1 are 1.1.10 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.34]: SDS = (2/3) SMS = (2/3) 1. respectively.34] for Berkeley. [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps.2.62 x 0.4b [3.310] give the shortperiod and 1sec period spectral response acceleration parameters of 0. Using SS = 1.41 and 4.31 and 3.192 The transition period (Ts) for the Honolulu response spectrum is: 66 .288 and the design spectral response acceleration parameters are: SDS = (2/3) SMS = (2/3) 0.65 = 1.61 = 0.32]. Site Class C is appropriate as described in Provisions Sec.472 SD1 = (2/3) SM1 = (2/3) 0.2.65 and 0.68 = 0.33 and 3.1.16 x 0. the interpolated longperiod site coefficient (Fv) is 1.3. 4.FEMA 451. For Honolulu.884 = 0.4a [3.1.5. California. It is used later in this example as a parameter in determining the type of analysis that is required for final design.589 = = 0.
2.3] (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. it is important to note that R = 5. 1. According to Provisions Table 5.5 3 3 Cd 5. Provisions Table 1. Overstrength. Provisions Sec. EW loading is resisted by a dual framewall system in the Berkeley building and by a set of momentresisting frames in the Honolulu building.1.2.5.42]. 9.41 and 1.31].0 to all Seismic Use Group I buildings.2.625 times the value for the special frame.5 4. this requires that a separate analysis of a frameonly system be carried out for loading in the EW direction.2. The values determined for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are summarized in Table 61. 9.3] allows the use of intermediate moment frames. the system over strength factor (Ω0).5 4.5 [For a dual system consisting of a special moment frame and special reinforced concrete shear walls. Table 61 Response Modification.3 [1.2.2 [4.2 Structural Design Requirements According to Provisions Sec. 9.2].3] assigns an occupancy importance factor (I) of 1.1.] For the Berkeley building dual system.2. For the Honolulu building assigned to Seismic Design Category C.1.1. This indicates that intermediate frames can be expected to deliver lower ductility than that supplied by the more stringently detailed special moment frames.192 = = 0.1. Provisions Sec. As discussed below.1.3] requires the structural walls to be detailed as special reinforced concrete shear walls. Provisions Sec.1b [Tables 1. With regard to the response modification coefficients for the special and intermediate moment frames.2. the Provisions requires that the frame portion of the system be able to carry 25 percent of the total seismic force.1a and 4. Ω0 = 2. both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings are classified as Seismic Use Group I. 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. the Berkeley building is classified as Seismic Design Category D. According to Provisions Tables 4. The seismicforceresisting systems for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings consist of momentresisting frames in the NS direction.1.2.31.2 [4.5 6.472 6. Reinforced Concrete Ts = S D1 0. 67 .3 [9. neither of these structures violate height restrictions.31] provides values for the response modification coefficient (R).1. Provisions Table 5. For the Berkeley building. R = 7.4 [1.5 in 2003 Provisions Table 4. Similarly.3 [9. The Honolulu building is classified as Seismic Design Category C because of the lower intensity ground motion.1.407 sec S DS 0.3 [9.2.Chapter 6. and the deflection amplification factor (Cd) for each structural system type.2. and Cd = 5. assigned to Seismic Design Category D.1.0 for the intermediate frame is 0.
2 [4.1.044SDSI Note that the above limit will apply when the structural period is greater than SD1/0. it appears unlikely for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings because the lateralforceresisting elements of both buildings are distributed evenly over the floor.1) = 1. the first story is suspect. While the actual presence of such an irregularity cannot be determined without analysis.5ft height of the story above. [The minimum Cs value is simply 0.4. the response coefficient must not be less than that given by Eq.13 [changed in the 2003 Provisions]: CS = 0.] 68 .1. The upper limit on CS is given by Provisions Eq. 5. the short period and long period response accelerations.4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For the Berkeley system. because its height of 18 ft is well in excess of the 12.2.01in the 2003 Provisions.22]: CS = S DS R/I For intermediate response periods.2 DETERMINATION OF SEISMIC FORCES The determination of seismic forces requires knowledge of the magnitude and distribution of structural mass. As with the torsional irregularity. 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. 6.4. 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.044RSDS.33].472) = 1. and the system response modification factor (R). This limit is (0. Eq. As for the vertical irregularities listed in Provisions Table 5.3.85 sec for the Honolulu building. it is assumed (but verified later) that a vertical irregularity does not exist.044 x 8 x 1.52 sec for the Berkeley building and (0. however.1.192)/(0.11 [5.23] controls: CS = S D1 T (R / I ) However. the only possibility of a plan irregularity is a torsional irregularity (Provisions Table 5. In this case. 5.1 [5.12 [5.1. which would not be applicable to this example as discussed below.32]) of Type 1a or 1b.044 x 5 x 0.3 Structural Configuration Based on the plan view of the building shown in Figure 61. 5. 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. the presence of a soft or weak story cannot be determined without calculations based on an existing design. For the purpose of this example. the dynamic properties of the system.FEMA 451.589)/(0. 5. Using Provisions Eq.3.21].2.3 [4. it is assumed (but verified later) that torsional irregularities do not exist. 6.
23 sec. With SD1 > 0. Cr = 0. the Ta = 1. This is particularly true for buildings located in regions of lower seismicity.22].5 sec period computed above for concrete moment frames is applicable in both the NS and EW direction.2. the EW period Ta = 0.5) = 2.26] could be used: x Ta = Cr hn Because this formula is based on lower bound regression analysis of measured building response in California. For the NS direction of the Berkeley building. limitations on beamcolumn joint shear and reinforcement development length usually control.88 sec. however. 6.52(1.40 for the Berkeley building.016 and x = 0.Chapter 6.2. from Provisions Table 5. 5.2. Before this can be done. ACI 318 Sec. 69 . The upper limit on the analytical period is (1.4.4.1 limits the vertical steel reinforcing ratio to 6 percent for special moment frame columns. If the accurate analysis produces periods less than CuTa but greater than Ta.26]. 6.26].88 = 1.4.11 [5. With hn = 155. For Honolulu.4. If an accurate analysis provides periods greater than CuTa.2]. however.2 [5. Cu can be taken as 1.4.2.4. more conservative for use in predicting base shear) than those computed from a more rigorous mathematical model.2 Building Mass Before the building mass can be determined. all of the other terms in previous equations have been defined and/or computed earlier in this chapter. The period to be used in the ELF analysis will be in the range of Ta to CuTa. it will generally result in periods that are lower (hence.5 ft. For special moment frames.50 sec. Reinforced Concrete In each of the above equations. the structure is a framewall system with Cr = 0.2. the approximate size of the different members of the seismicforceresisting system must be established. Consequently.3. 5.5) = 2.2 [5. Using Provisions Table 5. 4 percent vertical steel is a more practical limit.21].020 and x =0. the structure is a reinforced concrete momentresisting frame and the approximate period is calculated according to Provisions Eq.4(1.2.75. the importance factor (I) is taken as 1. With the exception of the period of vibration (T).4)0. the resulting period may be too high due to a variety of possible modeling errors. the approximate period (Ta) computed in accordance with Provisions Eq. 5. the period from the analysis should be used.1 [5.21]. The upper limit on the analytical period is T = 1.4. SD1 is 0. the Provisions places an upper limit on the period that can be used for design. Substituting the appropriate values in Provisions Eq.192g and. Ta may be used.1 sec. Cu = 1.4 and the upper limit on the analytical period is T = 1. For the preliminary design using the ELF procedure.52.2.4. Later in this chapter.9. For EW seismic activity in Berkeley. if the accurate analysis produces periods less than Ta.1 Approximate Period of Vibration Requirements for the computation of building period are given in Provisions Sec. CuTa should be used. Finally.11 [5.0. The upper limit is T = CuTa where Cu is provided in Provisions Table 5. 21. the more accurate periods will be computed using a finite element analysis program. 5. For the Honolulu building.2 [5. the building mass must be determined. This is particularly true when lightweight (LW) concrete is used.11 [5. An additional consideration is the amount of vertical reinforcement in the columns. If a more rigorous analysis is carried out (using a computer).28 sec. Ta = 1.
000 psi for LW concrete in areas of high seismicity. the masses computed from the above member sizes are on the conservative (heavy) side. by 30 in.0 pcf. it is assumed that all columns and structural wall boundary elements are 30 in. As discussed below. These masses were used for both the Berkeley and the Honolulu buildings.4 [21.2. 11. the maximum compressive strength for LW concrete has been increased to 5. the term f c′ appears. 21. 21.4.c. 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.2 allows a maximum compressive strength of 4. LW aggregate reinforced concrete has a lower toughness or ductility than NW reinforced concrete and the higher the strength. deep.2). and Moments of Inertia Story Level Weight (kips) Mass (kipssec2/in.thick slab. ACI 318 Sec. it should be multiplied by 0.4. are 20 in.6. [Note that in ACI 31802 Sec.85 as specified in ACI 318 Chapter 11.7.2 pcf.2. wide by 32 in.5. 21. these member sizes probably are close to the final sizes.3. Finally. and mass moments of inertia are listed in Table 62. In this example. girders are 22.000 psi. there are some disadvantages to the use of LW concrete. It is also interesting to note that the average density of this building is 11. It has already been established that pan joists are spaced 36 in. A normal weight (NW) concrete building of the same configuration would have a density of approximately 14. In the equations. the mass and mass moments of inertia are required for the determination of modal properties using the ETABS program. 21.5 in. 610 .kipsec2/rad) 1 ACI 318 Sec. the individual story weights. 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.2. including a 4in.75 when allLW concrete is used and by 0. ACI 318 Sec. For the Honolulu building (which has no structural wall and ultimately ends up with slightly smaller elements).85 when sandLW concrete is used. Note from Table 62 that the roof and lowest floor have masses slightly different from the typical floors. the larger the reduction in available ductility. and. the required tension development lengths for bars embedded in LW concrete are significantly greater than those required for NW concrete...4] gives equations for the shear strength of the panels of structural walls. masses. In general. Table 62 Story Weights. This primarily affects the sizing of beamcolumn joints (ACI 318 Sec.1 For girders.2 states that wherever the term f c′ appears in association with shear strength. but there is no explicit requirement to reduce the shear strength of the concrete when LW aggregate is used.FEMA 451. which utilizes sandLW concrete. thick. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Based on a series of preliminary calculations (not shown here). deep. have an average web thickness of 6 in. For the Berkeley building. 21. However. 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.2) but also has an effect on the amount of shear reinforcement required in the panels of structural walls.4.) Mass Moment of Inertia (in. However.. For this reason and also the absence of pertinent test results. Masses.5. In addition to the building structural weight. and the panel of the structural wall is 16 in. the shear strength of the concrete will be multiplied by 0. o.] A further penalty placed on LW concrete is the reduction of shear strength.
Each member was assumed to be uncracked. The structural analysis also provides other useful information (e. flexural. 3.000 5.000 5.126. For the haunched girders.000 5. = 25. (The effect of cracking is considered in a simplified manner.896 7. The computed periods of vibration are addressed in this section and the other results are presented and discussed later. columns.202 7.45 kN.051 3.462 7.051 3.0 kip = 4.896 7. and structural wall boundary members were represented by twodimensional frame elements.896 7.783 3.051 3.051 3.051 3.000 5.896 7.126. 5.000 5.324.051 3.3 Structural Analysis Structural analysis is used primarily to determine the forces in the elements for design purposes.000 5.126. Axial. and assess the significance of Pdelta effects. an equivalent depth of stem was used. Beamcolumn joints are modeled as 50 percent rigid. and shear deformations were included for all members.896 7.051 3.0 in.. accurate periods of vibration and computational checks on plan and vertical irregularities).000 1. Except for the slab portion of the joists which contributed to Tbeam stiffness of the girders.201 4.000 5. and properties were based on gross area for the columns and boundary elements and on effective Tbeam shapes for the girders.4 mm.896 7.051 3.000 5. The structure was modeled with 12 levels above grade and one level below grade.051 3.896 8.Chapter 6. The ETABS program was used for the analysis of both the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings.000 5. the flexural stiffness of the joists was ignored. As automatically provided by the ETABS program. 4.675. The perimeter basement walls were modeled as shear panels as were the main structural walls.896 7. 1.126.000 5.876 7. all floor diaphragms were assumed to be infinitely rigid in plane and infinitely flexible outofplane.000 5.051 3. Reinforced Concrete Roof 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total 2.2. It was assumed that the walls were "fixed" at their base.126. Those aspects of the model that should be noted are: 1. 6.126.896 7.126. 8.10.126. Beams. 2. The structural walls of the Berkeley building are modeled as a combination of boundary elements and shear panels. 611 .126. 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.169 36.126. This provides effective stiffness for beamcolumn joints halfway between a model with fully rigid joints (clear span analysis) and fully flexible joints (centerline analysis).g. compute story drift.) The width of the flanges for the Tbeams is based on the definition of Tbeams in ACI 318 Sec.
88 sec and CuTa = 1. For preliminary design.28 sec can be used for both the NS and EW directions in Honolulu. In this case.4 sec to 1.50 sec.FEMA 451. The NS period is virtually the same as for the Berkeley building because there are no walls in the NS direction of either building. For the Berkeley building. If cracked section properties were used. the approximate period (Ta) for the Honolulu building is 1. Provisions Sec. the cracked periods would be approximately 1. 5. An evaluation of the accuracy of this assumption is provided later in this example. Pdelta effects are ignored. the cracked NS and EW periods are 1. Ta = 1. Both of these cracked periods are greater than CuTa. the increase in period from 1. for Berkeley.40 sec. However.5 sec.87 sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.3. the computed period is 1.23 sec.28 sec.2] requires that a dynamic analysis must include at least 90 percent of the actual mass in each of the two orthogonal directions. the accumulated modal mass in each direction is more than 90 percent of the total mass. A summary of the approximate and computed periods is given in Table 65.2 [5. the computed period values for the Berkeley building would be somewhat greater.98 sec.77) = 2.4) = 1.0) times the uncracked periods. and 1. Both of the computed periods fall within these bounds.78 and 1. 612 .414(1. 90 percent of the total mass was developed in just eight modes. With 11 modes. respectively. Hence. it is reasonable to assume that each member has a cracked moment of inertia equal to onehalf of the gross uncracked moment of inertia. This is between the approximate period. therefore. Table 64 provides the computed modal properties for the Honolulu building.1 sec. which is greater than both Ta = 0. respectively. a period of 2. and CuTa = 2. so CuTa can be used in the ELF analysis. and the assumption that flexural behavior dominates.64 sec in the EW direction.87 sec indicates a significant reduction in stiffness due to the loss of the walls in the Honolulu building. In the EW direction.77 sec. For the Honolulu building. In the EW direction. and CuTa is 2.4 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. For the purpose of computing ELF forces. Based on this assumption. For both the EW and the NS directions. the computed NS period of vibration is 1.5. 6.5 sec. the computed periods would be 2. if cracked section properties were used.414 (the square root of 2.414(1.52 sec in the NS direction and 2.2. the uncracked periods in the NS and EW directions are 1.
3) 0.6) 0.00 (90.5) 0.2) 0. 6. 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 (88.5) 0.87 2.40 1.5) 0.79 (88.28 1.89 (91.584 0. Accumulated mass in parentheses.00 (85.365 0.8) 0.337 0.6) 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.5) 0.78 1.40 1.3) 0.04 (88.87 (91.00 (88.0 (80.2) 0.7) 8.00 (71.345 0.98 NS 1.00 (0. Accumulated mass in parentheses.38 0.2) 0.231 % of Effective Mass Represented by Mode** NS 79.00 (80.6) EW 0.235 0.210 0. 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 0.4) 0.610 0.8) EW 00.00 (90.00 (90.135 % of Effective Mass Represented by Mode** NS 80.00 (90.5) 0.27 (90.00 (91.23 (90.00 (79.6) 0.04 (88.40 (91.7 (79.00 (91.23 1.27 0.00 (85.64 NS 1.2) 0.260 0.0 (80.00 (71.00 (0.88 1.50 2.2) 8.7) 0.5) 0.5) 2.25 (80.28 1.7) 0.50 Values in italics should be used in the ELF analysis.50 2.7) 0.3) 2.Chapter 6.00 (79.7) 0.5) 14.4) 0.78 2.48 (71.394 0.50 2.581 0.336 0.4) 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.5) 0.6) 0.00 (71.00 (88.24 (90.452 0.7) 0.77 1.00) 80.171 0.17 (85.00 (85.10 * 1.23 (80.00 (88.00 (91.3) 0.5 Seismic Design Base Shear 613 .6) 4.6) 0.00 (80.5) 0.2) 8.88 (91. 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) 1.230 0.3) 2.52 EW 1.3) 0.00) 71.87 1.77 2.95 (90.00 (88.5) 0.2.00 (88.00 (85.
180 kips For the Honolulu building. With W = 36.13 [5. the minimum Cs value is 0.min = 0. CS = 0. and CS = S D1 0.12 [5.min are as before.589.044(1.472 = = 0.4.044(0.0168 T ( R / I ) 2. T = 1.23(8 /1) In this case. and T = 2. Note that Provisions Sec. SD1 = 0. SDS = 1. SDS = 0. 6. Table 66 Comparison of Periods.max and CS. 5. CS.1.0598 controls and V = 0. Seismic Shears Coefficients. I = 1.474.0) = 0.10(8 /1) CS .min above).472)(1.765 kips.28(5 /1) CS .0484 controls.10 sec: CS . a base shear computed according to Provisions Eq.462) = 1.0207 controls and V = 0.23 sec.01 in the 2003 Provisions. R = 5.max = S DS 1. and T = 2.] CS.192.28 sec: CS .192 = = 0.min = 0.462) = 755 kips A summary of the Berkeley and Honolulu seismic design parameters are provided in Table 66.0484 (36.1.044 S DS I = 0.max = CS = S DS 0.23] (used to compute CS above) may be used in lieu of the shear computed using Provisions Eq. R = 8. 5.2.0944 R/I 5 /1 S D1 0. I = 1.10 = = 0.24] (used to compute CS.1375 R / I 8 /1 CS = S D1 0.0351 T ( R / I ) 2.044 S DS I = 0.2.min = 0.0207 CS = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The seismic design base shear for the Berkeley is computed below.FEMA 451.10. and Base Shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu Buildings Location 614 Response Direction Building Frame Type T (sec) Cs V (kips) . In the NS direction with W = 36.589 = = 0.1] states that for the purpose of computing drift.6.0598 (36.0598 T ( R / I ) 1. base shears are computed in a similar manner and are the same for the NS and the EW directions.462 kips (see Table 62).0207 (36.462) = 2.6 [5.4. and the design base shear in the NS direction is V = 0.462 kips. SD1 = 0.589 = = 0.0484 [As noted previously in Sec.4.1)(1) = 0. In the stiffer EW direction. 5.
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.0 for T < 0.6 Development of Equivalent Lateral Forces The vertical distribution of lateral forces is computed from Provisions Eq.0 kip = 4.210 and 5. The results of these computations are shown in Tables 67a and 67b for the Berkeley buildings and in Table 68 for the Honolulu building. it is just the simplest approach. 615 .28 2.45 kN. the seismic story forces.5T for 1.5 sec k = 0. Reinforced Concrete Berkeley NS EW Special moment frame Dual system incorporating special moment frame and structural wall Intermediate moment frame Intermediate moment frame 2. some of the sums are not exact due to truncation error. 5.4.180 755 755 Honolulu 1.5 sec Based on the equations above. shears.32 [5.0 for T > 2.28 0.0207 1.75 + 0.0207 0.0 < T < 2.0598 0.765 2.2.10 1. A note at the bottom of each table gives the calculated vertical force distribution factor (k).4. NS EW 6.31 and 5.Chapter 6.211]: Fx = CvxV Cvx = where wx h x k ∑w h i i= 1 n k i k = 1. and overturning moments are easily computed using an Excel spreadsheet. Also.23 2.5 sec k = 2.0485 0.
0 130.5 124.758 323.2 66.780 4.1 sec and k = 1.123.051 3.046 0.088 10.5 43.049 25.154 19.081 0.051 3.0 ftkip = 1.36 kNm.051 3.0 Weight W (kips) 2.159 2.161 0.497 41.682 128.5 18.104 0.128.869 16.260 1.0 ft = 0.242 59.714 1.0 105.051 3.987 130.8.051 3.669.0 2180.762.3 94.579 967.361.051 3.982.757.45 kN. 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) 155.180 4.118 2.129 Wh /Σ 0.365.051 3.676 1.0 130.5 118.821.053.019 0.010 1.0 80.0 80.833 1.226 133.7 180.730.658.36 kNm.645.783 3.6 342.462 Whk 24.3 1. 1.432. 1.FEMA 451.0 1.737.6 220.9 19.9 311.483.8 1.260 207.613 53.783 3.051 3.5 156.125 0.051 3.5 93.000 Force Fx (kips) 350.0 kip = 4.136 12.5 1.8 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 330.253 246.0 ft = 0.3 190.5 143.452.051 3.500 Table based on T = 1.169 36.5 118.408 2.821 16.030 0.056 6.612.150 0. 616 .0 kip = 4. 1.764.947 Table based on T = 2.8 4.526.169 36.8 56.8 35.032 0.170 23.9 81.5 263.308.051 3.5 68.45 kN.139 0.051 3.486 1.087 0.8 302.051 3.067 23.658.7 1.1 1.051 3.879 8.5 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 351 693 996 1.5 143.187 0.0 30.5 43.208.051 3.063 0.043 0.788 575.975 163.5 93.051 3.051 3.0 55.5 18. 1.051 3.575 Whk/Σ 0.0 ftkip = 1.004 0.8 110.783 2.219 177.663 112.220.9 642.0 1.4 143.563.121 0.701.020 0.3 7.066.3048 m.051 3. 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) 155.816 80.9 264.157 0.0 55.072 0.6 21.051 3.5 41.8 907.8 1764.177 0.2 1.814 1.799 1.788 180.375.218. 1.771 103.498 155.0 30.057 0.393 2.051 2.7 226.957 1.503 517.23 sec and k = 1.462 Whk 2.909 2.753 13.957 2.382 13.181 208.356.4 1.0 Weight W (kips) 2.123 91.5 68.0 105.011 0.146 153. 1.870 733.512 37.102 0.998 k Force Fx (kips) 330.970 72.3048 m.
108 76. wind controls the strength demands and.218.801 67.8 76.8 730.019 0.45 kN.5 43.341.152 0.028 8.126 0.5 93.8 14.807 747.539 31.799 16.36 kNm The computed seismic story shears for the Berkeley and Honolulu buildings are shown graphically in Figures 63 and 64.051 3.061 0.136.85) to bring them up to the ultimate seismic loading limit state represented by the Provisions.6 94.0 80.9 754. a 3sec gust of 85 mph was used and.176 20.869.393 39.051 3.193 0.655 3.075 25.181 0.0 ftkip = 1. 1.2 114.5 118.822 48. for Honolulu. in the upper levels.4 22.0 ft = 0.783 3.051 3. In each case.1 7.9 628.010 0.044 0.) With regards to detailing the Honolulu building. respectively.508 90.0 33.948.348 36.6 281.002 k Force Fx (kips) 145. For the Honolulu building. (A somewhat more detailed comparison is given later when the Honolulu building is designed.3048 m.5 491.4 46.89.102 0.5 68.9 396.0 30.5 143.169 36.5 744.6 136.2 567.440 23.210.0 130.051 3. an Exposure B classification was assumed.051 3.115 200. The wind shears have been factored by a value of 1.36 (load factor of 1.28 sec and k = 1. 1.626.041. 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) 155.192 6.5 18. the NS seismic shears are significantly greater than the corresponding wind shears.Chapter 6.030 0.3 674.6 times directionality factor 0. 1. but the EW seismic and wind shears are closer.260 30. For Berkeley. all of the elements must be detailed for inelastic deformation capacity as required by ACI 318 rules for intermediate moment frames. 617 .093 Table based on T = 2.820 5.299 16.051 3.004 1.839 12. seismic forces control the strength demands.7 Story Overturning Shear Vx Moment (kips) Mx (ftk) 145.8 754. In the lower stories of the building.027.343 10.0 105. a 3sec gust of 105 mph.729. As can be seen from the figures.7 60.405.462 Whk 38.8 1.3 2.080 0.6 751. 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.197 Wh /Σ 0.051 3.143.0 kip = 4.051 3.903 1.051 3.051 3.669 57. Also shown in the figures are the story shears produced by ASCE 7 wind loads.0 Weight W (kips) 2.0 55.3 707.
500 Figure 63 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Berkeley building (1. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1.000 2. kips 1.3048 m.45 kN).0 ft = 0. 618 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 EW seismic 140 NS seismic EW wind NS wind 120 100 Height. 1.FEMA 451.000 Shear.500 2.0 kip = 4.
the story drift limit for this Seismic Use Group I building is 0.1] and 5. This adjusts for the use of Provisions Eq. respectively. 1. 5.1 Direct Drift and PDelta Check for the Berkeley Building Drift and Pdelta effects are checked according to Provisions Sec.2. Quantitative results of the drift analysis for the NS and EW directions are shown in Tables 69a and 69b.2.6.3.3048 m. which governed for base shear. In Table 69b. Reinforced Concrete 160 Seismic 140 EW wind NS wind 120 100 Height.4.6. 5.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].1. kips 800 1.0484=0. respectively. With regards to the values shown in Table 69a . it must be noted that cracked section properties were used in the structural analysis and that 0.8 [4.Chapter 6.4.0351/0.2].0 kip = 4.725 times the story forces shown in Table 67a were applied. According to Provisions Table 5.000 1. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 Shear.2.3 DRIFT AND PDELTA EFFECTS 6.45 kN).0 ft = 0.020hsx where hsx is the height of story x.2.200 Figure 64 Comparison of wind and seismic story shears for the Honolulu building (1.8 [5. This limit may be thought of as 2 percent of the story height. 6.6 [5.51]. was not used in computing drift. cracked section 619 .
812 in.613 in.410 in.402)/1.1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples properties were also used.0 40. = 25.5(0.1. Deflection amplification factor.0 ft = 0.0 = 2. Magnified drift ratio = ∆5/h5 = (2. A plot of the total drift resulting from both the NS and EW equivalent lateral seismic forces is shown in Figure 65. Note that the relevant row is highlighted in Table 69b.4 mm). ft 80 60 40 EW* 6. Story drift = ∆5e = δ5e . in.FEMA 451. Deflection at bottom of story = δ4e = 1. 1. In neither case does the computed drift ratio (magnified story drift/hsx) exceed 2 percent of the story height. An example calculation for drift in Story 5 loaded in the EW direction is given below.742% < 2.5 x EW NS* 5.812 .0 10.0% 160 OK 140 120 100 Height.0 5.402 in. Deflection at top of story = δ5e = 1.δ4e = 1.01742 = 1. 620 .12 [5.5 x NS 2% limit 0.0 in.23] controlled in this direction. Therefore.0 20.0 Magnified story drift = ∆5 = Cd ∆5e/I = 6.0 20 0 Total drift.5 Importance factor.410 = 0.0 15. but the modifying factor does not apply because Provisions Eq.3048 m. Cd = 6.613/150) = 0.0 35.4. * Elasticlly computed under codeprescribed seismic forces Figure 65 Drift profile for Berkeley building (1. I = 1.0 30. 5. the story drift requirement is satisfied.0 25.
613 2.354 0.223 1.532 0.400 0.353 Drift Ratio (%) 1.) 0.2. or 2 in Table 5.768 1.473 1.386 0. 1.573 Cd = 5.363 0.0 in.203 0.4 mm.232 0.618 Story Drift (in.089 Cd = 6.950 2.812 1. = 25.697 2.402 0.914 2.2.3 [4. for Level 2.3 [4.) 0.509 2.276 1.060 3. total drift is at top of story.059 1. 5.408 0.742 1. 1. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.Chapter 6.3. Provisions Sec.534 1.652 2.348 0.) 1.220 1.999 0.3.744 0. The story drift ratios of the top two stories of the structure are not required to be evaluated.673 1.851 1.276 1.515 1.478 0.914 1. 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. 1b.362 Story Drift × Cd * (in. story height = 150 in.362 Story Drift (in.5 for loading in this direction.3] lists an exception: Structural irregularities of Types 1a.364 0.) 4.308 0.640 3.2.145 0.3.711 1.0 in.410 1.2.720 3. However.210 2.348 0. .533 3. 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.) 0.381 0.097 3.5 for loading in this direction.620 2. for Level 2.798 1. total drift is at top of story.305 0.360 0.393 2. = 25.340 0.600 2. story height = 150 in.560 1.5.205 2.675 1.380 3.473 1.300 1.32] 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.117 1.020 2.334 0.397 Drift Ratio (%) 0.301 2.600 2. When a soft story exists in a Seismic Design Category D building.340 2.400 0.335 1.002 2. .010 1.670 0.) 3. Provisions Table 5.276 0.41] requires that a modal analysis be used.087 0.002 2.618 Story Drift × Cd * (in.733 1.973 2.733 1.276 1.210 2.117 1.024 0.360 4. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.334 1.4 mm.408 3.319 0.340 0. . 621 .300 0.398 1.1 [4.834 1.
82. 5.5 = 0.091.1. An example Pdelta calculation for the Level 5 under EW loading is shown below. 5.0)5. 5. As can be seen in the last column of each table. Pdelta effects can be neglected for both drift and strength computed limits according to Provisions Sec.613/6. a modal analysis is not required and the equivalent static forces from Tables 67a and 67b may be used for design. 5.500 kips Story height = hs5= 150 in. and story shears are adjusted as necessary for use of Provisions Eq. However.2.0.2. Cd = 6.5 = 0.573/1.13 [5. For EW response.10 at all levels.0)6.957 kips Accumulated story weight P5 = 27.6.500(2.398 = 1.22 [changed in the 2003 Provisions] as: θ max = 0.3. [In the 2003 Provisions. The upper limit on the allowable story stability ratio is given by Provisions Eq. A5.089/1.613 in.5/(1.10 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.0 (see Provisions Sec.” Therefore.] 622 .0377 < 0.5/(1. The importance factor. the maximum limit on the stability coefficient has been replaced by a requirement that the stability coefficient is permitted to exceed 0. Moreover. 5.16.6. the stability ratio (θ) does not exceed the maximum allowable value computed above.1)(150) = 0.2 [5. I.FEMA 451.5 ≤ 0.13.077. Note that the relevant row is highlighted in Table 610b. and for the EW direction the limit is 0. Magnified story drift = ∆5 = 2.077 OK [Note that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions. 5.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples For the building responding in the NS direction.4. the ratio of first story to second story drift ratios is 1. which is less than 1.335 = 0.4.50 β Cd Taking β as 1. the ratio is 1. Pdelta effects shall be included in the analysis. the stability ratio limit for the NS direction is 0.3. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq.5)/(1957. The Pdelta analysis for each direction of loading is shown in Tables 610a and 610b.4.2].3. this does not affect this example because I = 1. in this example. since the values are less than 0.2 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]).] For this Pdelta analysis a (reduced) story live load of 20 psf was included in the total story weight calculations.6. Deflections are based on cracked sections.216. which also is less than 1.4.6. Story shear = V5 = 1. Therefore. the stability coefficient should be evaluated directly using 2003 Provisions Eq.5 θ = (P5 (∆5/Cd)) /(V5hs5) = 27.23].
914 2.9 1259.6 1233.0319 1.675 1.1.0928 Story shears in Table 67a factored by 0.276 1.1.600 2.0396 0.834 1.0357 0.9 1957.0259 0.0 kip = 4.3 1192.45 kN.8 2159. 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 0.950 2.5 * 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.45 kN.Chapter 6.6 693.210 2.3.2 [5.0389 0.7 1052.4. 623 .) (kips) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1.0535 0.725.8 1259.0361 0. See Sec.210 2.509 2. 6.2.600 2.9 1133.6 1485.914 1.4 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.0471 0.2 Test for Torsional Irregularity for Berkeley Building In Sec.4.117 1.2]. 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 0.3.0218 0.0 657. 1.478 0.0231 0. = 25.515 1.798 1. This test is required per Provisions Sec.397 239.0582 0.8 817.0209 0. Analysis was performed using the ETABS program.3 2117.2 [4.4 mm.340 2. 1.0757 0.0331 0.0377 0. = 25. 5.3.8 1279.0384 0.0 in.3 995.2.0077 0.3.652 2.0257 0.353 350.9 1676.1 2051.002 2. 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.097 3.4 1832.4 mm. Table 610b PDelta Computations for the Berkeley Building Loaded in the EW Direction Story Drift Story Shear Level (in.2]).0138 0.0 in.0327 0. 6.0307 0. 6. 1.002 2.301 2.613 2.8 1273. 5.9 948.4.4 2180.) (kips) 0.0183 0.3 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.2.9 466.0663 0.0 kip = 4.
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.000648 radians Maximum displacement at corner of floor plate = dmax = 4.4.000189(102.51]).000189 radians Maximum displacement at corner of floor plate = dmax = 3.360 = 1.2 [4.] These tables. Ratio dmax/davg = 5.000648(216)(12)/2 = 5. As with the Berkeley building.200 in.8 [4. The torsional flexibility of the building arises from the fact that the walls exist only on interior Gridlines 3.3.5) = 5.1. is very close to being torsionally irregular (irregularity Type 1a of Provisions Table 5. Even though it is not pertinent for Seismic Design Category C buildings. The applied seismic forces.2.32]). so no torsional irregularity exists.640 = 1. 6. when loaded in the EW direction. and 6. 5. Ratio δmax/δavg = 3.5)(12)/2 = 3. so no torsional irregularity exists.640 in.3. (see Table 69b) Rotation at center of mass = 0.125 ft for forces in the NS direction and 0.756 in. 5.05(216) = 10. show that the story drift at each level is less than the allowable interstory drift of 0.3. shown previously in Table 63b were multiplied by the ratio 0.0207 = 0. [As noted previously in Sec. It is interesting that this building. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The eccentricity is 0. For forces acting in the NS direction: Total displacement at center of mass = δavg = 3.05(102.200/4.19 < 1. the analysis used cracked section properties.640 + 0.FEMA 451.020hsx (Provisions Table 5.8 ft in the EW direction. the minimum Cs value has been removed in the 2003 Provisions. 624 .20.360 in. as well as Figure 66.2.20.756/3.13. even though the building is extremely regular in plan.360 + 0.0168/0. (see Table 69a) Rotation at center of mass = 0. 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. For forces acting in the EW direction: Total displacement at center of mass = δavg = 4. 6.808 to adjust for the use of Provisions Eq.2. 4.03 < 1.
0 ft = 0.4 mm).3048 m.5 x EW NS* 5. = 25.5 x NS 2% limit 0. 1. 625 .0 10.0 35. * Elasticlly computed under codeprescribed seismic forces Figure 66 Drift profile for the Honolulu building (1.0 40. ft 80 60 40 EW* 6.0 in. Reinforced Concrete 160 140 120 100 Height.0 5.0 25. in.0 20 0 Total drift.0 30.0 20.Chapter 6.0 15.
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.658 0.157 0.121 0.069 0.089 in.705 0.0% 626 OK .0 Magnified story drift = ∆5 = Cd ∆5e/I = 4.5 for loading in this direction.720 0.184 0.677 Cd = 4.412 0.176 0.δ4e = 1. for Level 2.191 0.349 0.462 Drift Ratio (%) 0.656 1.836 0.756 0.559 1.354 0. A sample calculation for Level 5 of Table 611b (highlighted in the table) is as follows: Deflection at top of story = δ5e =1.553 0. Deflection at bottom of story = δ4e = 0. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in.558% < 2.0 = 0.137 0.829 0.470 0.) 0.734 1.291 0.572 0.00558 = 0.297 Story Drift (in.4 mm. Cd = 4.482 0.766 1.325 Story Drift × Cd * (in.997 0.197 0.184 0.0890.514 0.531 0.887 1.306 1.116 0.850 1. 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.436 0.182 0.160 0.669 0.338 Drift Ratio (%) 0.061 0.4 mm.407 0.836 in.5 Importance factor.611 0.558 0.597 1.FEMA 451.441 1.186)/1. story height = 150 in.0 in.186 0.) 2.772 0.089 0.090 0.858 0. Deflectiom amplification factor.504 0.157 0.168 0.) 0.446 0.407 0.191 0.903 0.829 1.208 0.903 in. story height = 150 in.807 0.269 1.325 Story Drift (in.097 0. Story drift = ∆5e = δ5e .5 for loading in this direction.171 0.619 * Cd = 4.572 0.941 1.771 0.136 0. for Levels 3 through roof and 216 in. = 25.793 0. 1.618 0.040 0.514 0.713 0.591 0.271 0.538 0.297 Story Drift × Cd * (in.179 0.836/150) = 0.) 1.522 0.480 0.118 0. total drift is at top of story.0903 = 0.) 0. 1.313 0.0 in.5(0.440 1. I = 1. = 25.528 0. for Level 2.858 0.726 1.276 0.149 0. total drift is at top of story.002 1.) 0.524 0.171 0.186 in. Magnified drift ratio = ∆5 / h5 = (0.
Calculations for Pdelta effects are shown in Tables 612a and 612b for NS and EW loading.Chapter 6.9 507.0766 0.) (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.9 590.0470 0. I.5 θ = [P5 (∆5/Cd)]/(V5hs5) = 27500(0. Story shear = V5 = 571.0 in.0337 0. Because the stability ratio is less than 0. = 25.0596 [Note that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions.771 0. Reinforced Concrete Therefore. Cd = 4.829 1.9 = kips Accumulated story weight P5 = 27500 kips Story height = hs5 = 150 in.0539 0.4 396.7 227.182 0. story drift satisfies the drift requirements. The importance factor.5/4.7 320.0136 0.836 in.111) are satisfied.2.0672 0.10 at all floors.338 117.0 kip = 4.6 607. 5.) Table 612a PDelta Computations for the Honolulu Building Loaded in the NS Direction Story Drift Story Shear * Level (in.0205 0.0937 0.3 601. Pdelta effects need not be considered (Provisions Sec. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq.669 0.7 544.6.9 458.6. 6.0073 0. this does not affect this example because I = 1.5)/(571.216. See Sec.0599 0.720 0.3. respectively. 1.9 571.2 [5.4. (The value of 0.808.0401 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 0.3.313 0.756 0.793 0. The stability ratio at the 5th story from Table 612b is computed: Magnified story drift = ∆5 = 0.531 0.5/Cd = 0.2]).5 = 0.836/4. However.4 mm. 5.611 0.0.45 kN. 1.8 Story shears in Table 68 factored by 0.436 0.6 609.1023 in the first story for the EW direction is considered by the author to be close enough to the criterion.9)(150) = 0.] The requirements for maximum stability ratio (0.0270 0. 627 .
All reinforcement has a specified yield strength of 60 ksi.1 Material Properties For the Berkeley building. E. however.6 609.4. 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. do not exist in the Honolulu building.0314 0.000 psi strength is used everywhere except for the lower two stories of the structural walls where 6.0820 0. which draw the torsional resistance towards the center of the Berkeley building.0111 0.524 0.4 396.8 * 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. See Sec.4. Where applicable.5.72 [4.000 psi NW concrete is used.9 590.) (kips) 0.462 117. 6.9 571.0177 0.1] and Eq. except that the earthquake load effect.FEMA 451.618 0.0463 0.25.6 607.0389 0. This reinforcement must conform to ASTM A706.4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE BERKELEY BUILDING 6. 5.2.705 0. it is clear that a torsional irregularity will not occur for the Honolulu building if the Berkeley building is not irregular.45 kN.0 kip = 4.2.3.213] was not used because the building has no significant plan irregularities.0246 0. 5. 21. 6. sandLW aggregate concrete of 4.836 0.2. 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 1.4 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.71 and 5.3 601.3.22] require combination of load effects be developed on the basis of ASCE 7. 5. 6.887 1. 5.0 in.772 0. = 25.3].21 and 4.4.0728 0.4.2.4.0527 0. except for the panel of the structural walls which contains 40 ksi reinforcement. 6.808.5.2 [5.7 [4.2]. The torsional magnification factor (Ax) given by Provisions Eq.3.7 544. the structure was analyzed for the equivalent lateral loads shown in Tables 67a and 67b.0667 0. 1.4.858 0.858 0.2.2. For strength analysis. However. Provisions Sec. 1.9 507.0596 0.807 0.31 [5.4.7 320. orthogonal loading effects were included per Provisions Sec. This will be the case because the walls. the loads were applied at a 5 percent eccentricity as required for accidental torsion by Provisions Sec.7 227.276 0. 5.407 0.2. be defined as: 628 .2.2 Combination of Load Effects Using the ETABS program.9 458.4.4 mm.2. 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. According to ACI 318 Sec.2.1023 Story shears in Table 68 factored by 0.3 [4.
2. Reinforced Concrete E = ρ QE + 0.7Vint + Vext ) 0.5 × 216 = 22.6. For the structure loaded in the NS direction.72 [4. (See Provisions Sec. there are four identical frames. For two adjacent interior columns: rix = 0.) The reliability factor (ρ) in Eq.0357V. 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.25.5.0525 V V For one interior and one exterior column: rix = (0.140 square ft: ρx = 2 − 20 = −0. In the NS direction.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. For interior columns that have girders framing into both sides.0179V.7(0. 5.23 and 4.2.0375V ) + 0.24] do not apply to the Berkeley building because there are no discontinuous elements supporting stiffer elements above them.71 and 5.7(0.4.72 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] should be taken as the maximum value of ρx defined by Provisions Eq.25 (1/14) V = 0.25 (2/14) V = 0.140 629 .0.0441 V V The larger of these values will produce the largest value of ρx.7(Vint + Vint ) 0. 5.0375V + 0. but need not exceed 1.2S DS D when gravity and seismic load effects are additive and E = ρ QE − 0. 9.2. Hence.2 [9.Chapter 6.4.0375V ) = = 0. for a floor diaphragm area Ax equal to 102.2. the shear in an interior column will be Vinterior = 0.0179V ) = = 0. the shear in an exterior column will be Vexterior= 0.56 0. Special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D are an exception and must be proportioned such that ρ is not greater than 1. 5.71 and 5.1]. The computed value for ρ must be greater than or equal to 1. The special load combinations given by Provisions Eq.2S DS D when the effects of seismic load counteract gravity. Each of these frames has eight columns. the structural system consists of special moment frames.0525 22. Similarly.2. Using the portal frame idealization. only 70 percent of the individual column shear need be included in this sum.
the walls carry significant shear. Per 2003 Provisions Sec.5L + E 1. substituting 1.42D + 0.0.0.0 (shear wall system) would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity.9D ± 1. ρ = 1.E Finally.25V (10 / 20) = 0.0.2 + 0. Alternatively.0 in the NS direction. The term lw represents the plan length of the wall in feet.2 SDS)D + E (0.140 ⎟ ⎠ 20 and as with the NS direction. ρ = 1.] For the Berkeley structure.5L . it is permitted to use. it will be assumed that they take all the shear. the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: 1.5L ± 1.2 + 0.125 22. 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.740 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples As this value is less than 1. as this will clearly not control.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. Thus.6L 1.5L + E (1.E (0.0E 0.0.0. Note that ρ need not be computed for the columns of the frames in the dual system.2SDS)D + 0.0.0. ρ will be taken as 1.0E The ASCE 7 load combination including only 1.9 . There are no reductions in the redundancy factor for dual systems. ρ may be taken as 1. the following load combinations must be used for earthquake: (1.125 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.10 for SDS.9 .2D + 1. and for the purposes of computing ρ.2SDS)D . For a building assigned to Seismic Design Category D.2D + 0. 4.4 times dead load will not control for any condition in this building.1. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed in the 2003 Provisions.3 special moment frames in Seismic Design Category D must be configured such that the structure satisfies the criteria for ρ = 1. Hence. ρ = 1.4. for one wall: rmaxx = rix = 0.E 630 . Based on the preliminary design. in the EW direction ρ x = 0. rix for walls is taken as the shear in the wall multiplied by 10/lw and divided by the story shear.2SDS)D + 0.FEMA 451.42D + 0.3.8 ⎜ 2 − ⎜ ⎝ ⎛ ⎞ ⎟ = 0. with ρ taken as 1. Substituting E from the Provisions.0 for because the structure has a perimeter moment frame and is regular. According to the Provisions. For seismic forces acting in the EW direction. the basic ASCE 7 load combinations that must be considered are: 1.5L .
9. using tied columns φ = 0.75 Shear if shear strength is not based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0. with some modification. This allows for a uniformity in the design of the girders. 2 631 .55 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0.68D + E 0.3 are: Flexure without axial load φ = 0. The eccentricity and orthogonal load were included in the analysis carried out for member design. For frames containing structural walls (Frames 3 through 6).2 This figure shows the response of Frames 1.68D .65 (transitions to 0. Reinforced Concrete 0. and 3 only. The actual distribution of story forces developed in the different frames of the structure is shown in Figure 67. Frame 7 is similar to Frame 2.60 Shear in beamcolumn joints φ = 0. 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. For frames without walls (Frames 1. This behavior is beneficial to the design of the structure because: 1. 7. 7.Chapter 6.9 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based o nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.80 Axial compression.85] 6.4. using tied columns φ = 0. 2.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 = 0.8 at low axial loads) Shear if shear strength is based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0. Frames 4 and 5 have a response that is virtually identical to that of Frames 3 and 6.80 [The strength reduction factors in ACI 31802 have been revised to be consistent with the ASCE 7 load combinations.9 (tensioncontrolled sections) Axial compression. and 8).75 Shear if shear strength is not based on nominal axialflexural capacity φ = 0.65 (transitions to 0. 3. Frame 8 is similar to Frame 1. By symmetry. and Frame 6 is similar to Frame 3. a large reverse force acts at the top of Frame 3 which contains a structural wall. 2. and 8). the shears developed in the girders (except for the first story) do not differ greatly from story to story. 2.3 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. the 40ftlong girders act as outriggers further reducing the overturning moment resisted by the structural walls. the factors that were in Appendix C of ACI 31899 are now in Chapter 9 of ACI 31802. 2. the overturning moments in the structural walls are reduced significantly as a result of interaction with the remaining frames (Frames 1. For the frames containing structural walls. The strength reduction factors relevant to this example as contained in ACI 31802 Sec. This happens because the structural wall pulls back on (supports) the top of Frame 1. As may be observed from Figure 67. Thus.
45 kN).29 52.56 1.31]). 611. 5.68 8. kips 1 114.18 30. and 612.9 Story force.98 15. 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 5.3.77 31.67 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 120.4 Analysis of FrameOnly Structure for 25 Percent of Lateral Load When designing a dual system. 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. 5.56 21.2 [4.74 9.58 18.88 8.37 34. 4.7 12 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. and 6) would be analyzed in a rational way.88 66. 6. A plot of the story shears in Frames 1. [Note that R = 7 per 2003 Provisions Table 4. As can be seen.79 91.4.18 20.64 255.14 45.26 34.96 Story force.48 19. The boundary elements of the walls were retained in the model so that behavior of the interior frames (Frames 3.28 8.FEMA 451. 2. 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. The reversal of moment at the top of Frame 3 is a typical response characteristic of framewall interaction. the 25 percent rule controls only at the lower level of the building.8 Frame 3 (includes wall) 12 77.26 0.1] requires the frames (without walls) to resist at least 25 percent of the total base shear.14 39.96 13.0 kip = 4. The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 610. Provisions Sec.2.96 Frame 2 107.12 26.1 29. In these figures.2. and 3 is shown in Figure 68.88 36. kips Figure 67 Story forces in the EW direction (1.76 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.72 8.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (frame alone).71 61. 632 .] 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.31.62 6. Frame 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 8.4 Story force.1. kips 1 58.1 [4.
1. 160 Frame 1 140 Frame 2 Frame 3 120 100 Height. ft 80 60 40 20 0 10. ft 80 60 40 20 0 200 100 0 100 200 Shear.0 ft = 0.0 ftkip = 1.000 20.000 0 10.3048 m.000 40. 1.3048 m.45 kN). 633 .36 kNm).0 ft = 0. Reinforced Concrete 160 Frame 1 140 Frame 2 Frame 3 120 100 Height.000 30.Chapter 6.000 Bending moment.000 50. ftkips Figure 69 Story overturning moments in the EW direction (1. kips 300 400 500 600 Figure 68 Story shears in the EW direction (1.0 kip = 4.
FEMA 451.0 kip = 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 25% V analysis for Frame 1 140 Frame 1 120 100 Height. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear. Frame 1 EW direction (1. 634 . 1.3048 m. kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 610 25 percent story shears.45 kN).0 ft = 0.
0 kip = 4. Reinforced Concrete 160 25% V analysis for Frame 2 Frame 2 140 120 100 80 Height. kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 611 25 percent story shears. 1.45 kN).Chapter 6.3048 m. 635 .0 ft = 0. ft 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear. Frame 2 EW direction (1.
5 in.45 kN). In order to consider the beamcolumn joints “confined” per ACI 318 Sec. the moment is designated as a negative moment. this means negative moments are plotted on the top and positive moments are plotted on the bottom.. when the steel at the top of a beam section is in tension. and columns would be 30 in.5 Design of Frame Members for the Berkeley Building A sign convention for bending moments is required in flexural design.. kips 200 250 300 350 Figure 612 25 percent story shear.5 in. the moment is designated as a positive moment.4. moments are drawn on the tension side of the member. by 30 in.FEMA 451.3048 m. All moment diagrams are drawn using the reinforced concrete or tensionside convention. which is 75 percent of the column width. it was necessary to set the beam width to 22. For columns. in an overall sense. Frame 3 EW direction (1. it is necessary to estimate the size and placement of the reinforcement that will be used. For beams. 21. Since this structure has beams spanning in 636 . is assumed.5. 6. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 Shear.5. In this example.0 ft = 0. it is assumed that #8 bars will be used for longitudinal reinforcement and that hoops and stirrups will be constructed from #3 deformed bars. In order to determine the effective depth used for the design of the beams. When the steel at the bottom is in tension. it is useful to establish. 6.0 kip = 4. clear cover of 1. The preliminary design established that beams would have a maximum depth of 32 in. In all cases.1 Initial Calculations Before the quantity and placement of reinforcement is determined.4. 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 160 25% V analysis for Frame 3 140 Frame 3 (without panels) 120 100 Height. In establishing this depth. how the reinforcement will be distributed.
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.min = 200bw d 200(22.5 . 8.5 + 20(12)/12 = 42. Reinforced Concrete two orthogonal directions.00/2 = 28.5 . 21.0 in = 25. B.1. d = 32 .375 .5)29.6 = = 2. (slab thickness) b = 22. it is necessary to layer the flexural reinforcement as shown in Figure 613.375 .4 mm).0.5 in. 1.5 + [6(4)] = 46.3.1. d = 32 .0 ft = 0.Chapter 6.0.5" 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. Beams spanning in the NS direction. For positive moment. (span length) b = 22. the effective width is 22. For negative moment bending.0 . Given Figure 613.5 + 2[8(4)] = 86.22 in. The minimum reinforcement to be provided at the top and bottom of any section is: As .5 in.1.6 in.5 in.10. for all beams. and D b = 22. the slab is in compression and the effective Tbeam width varies according to ACI 318 Sec.6 in.2 controls the longitudinal reinforcement requirements for beams. 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.2 fy 60.1. C. 1.00/2 = 29.5 in.1. (slab thickness) ACI 318 Sec.000 2'8" 637 .3048 m. compute the effective depth for both positive and negative moment as: Beams spanning in the EW direction.
5 51.50 . 7.750 0.FEMA 451.5 = 28. 216.5 34. 7. 12.5.4 mm.37 in.1 81. column cores and plastic hinge regions with confining reinforcement). From Eq. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This amount of reinforcement can be supplied by three #8 bars with As = 2. ACI 318 Eq.2 20. 216 of ACI 318 Sec.5. or 8db.410 ldh hook (in.128 1.0 63.9 48..5 58. Development length requirements for hooked and straight bars are summarized in Table 613. of cover and #4 ties.0 18. Table 613 Tension Development Length Requirements for Hooked Bars and Straight Bars in 4.6.) 31.1 11.6 23. With this amount of available length.2 25. ACI 318 Sec. = 25.875 1. For straight “top” bars. For bars hooked into 30in. For LW concrete.500 0.1.7 ld top (in. there will be no problem developing hooked bars in the columns.8 28.) 22. the minimum length is the larger of 1. 21. db (in. For development of bars outside of joint regions.) 9.7 72.. Table 613 is applicable to bars anchored in joint regions only.000 psi LW Concrete Bar Size #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 1.5 in.270 1.0 ld bottom (in.0.5ldh. As required by ACI 318 Sec.3 40.5ldh and for straight bottom bars. the available development length is 30 . Where hooked bars are used. reinforcement required for strength will include these #8 bars.0 in. or 10db. Before getting too far into member design.0 in.0 64.2 90.4.1.2 638 . ld = 2.9 39.2 requires that #3 through #8 bars have a 6db bend diameter and #9 through #11 bars have a 8db diameter.0 45. These values are applicable only when the bars are anchored in well confined concrete (e. The development length for the portion of the bar extending into unconfined concrete must be increased by a factor of 1.4 13. the hook must be 90 degrees and be located within the confined core of the column or boundary element.5 in.g.25 times that given by ACI 318 Eq. ld = 3. the required development length is: ldh = f y db 65 f c′ For NW concrete. 216 controls for #3 through #11 bars.) 0.2 Since the three #8 bars will be provided continuously top and bottom. hooked bars have a 12db extension beyond the bend.000 1. 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. the computed length should not be less than 6 in. ACI 318 Chapter 12 should be used.7 16.000 psi LW concrete. For fc' = 4.square columns with 1.0 56.625 0.
00 fy φ = 1. This is a valid design assumption because reinforcement ratios are quite low. three different flexural strengths were used for the beams.4. The design of a corner column will be presented later. The eccentricities were applied in such a manner as to maximize torsional response and produce the largest shears in Frame 1.00 fy φ = 1. the column flexural reinforcement. In computing flexural capacities.07 to 0. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1. the equivalent lateral forces of Table 67b were applied at an eccentricity of 10.5 ft together with 30 percent of the forces of Table 67a applied at an eccentricity of 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. 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 614.0 ft.0.5 in. Before continuing with the example. and the column shear reinforcement.2 Design of Members of Frame 1 for EW Loading For the design of the members of Frame 1. and the effective widths for positive and negative bending are 42. yielding a depth to the neutral axis similar to the depth of the compression reinforcement (d'/d is about 0.08. 639 .6 in. and a width of 22.8.5 and 22.. 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. respectively. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1. tensile stress in reinforcement at 1. In carrying out the design calculations. the design and detailing of all five beams and one interior column of Level 5 are presented in varying amounts of detail.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. 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. beams in ductile frames will always have top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement throughout their length. Reinforced Concrete 6. 1984). 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.0. the size and spacing of beam shear reinforcement.0inch flange thickness. This assumes the stress block in compression is less than the 4.5 in.3 The preliminary design of the girders of Frame 1 was based on members with a depth of 32 in. The effective depth for positive and negative bending is 29. the crosssectional characteristics of the column. while the neutral axis depth at ultimate ranges from 0.15 times the depth) . The percentage and placement of beam flexural reinforcement governs the flexural rebar cutoff locations. For this part of the example.5. only the tension steel will be considered.Chapter 6.
37 in.0 ft = 0. Negative moment at the supports is controlled by the 1.kips) 4.149 4.708 3.42D + 0.028 834 4. 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.5.midspan 0.0 in. 1.kips Try two #9 bars in addition to the three #8 bars required for minimum steel: As = 2(1.225 5.2. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of the Support Mu = 1.453 4.515 (a) Span layout and loading 4. 6.2D + 1.5L + E 1. Midspan positive moments are based on the load combination 1.0(4515) = 5.515 715 492 (c) Unfactored DL moment (in.113 kNm).0) + 3(0.42D + 0.641 5.761 5.457 4.kip = 0.68D .641 in. ' 17'6" 20'0" 20'0" 20'0" 4.635 715 715 (b) Earthquake moment (in. The design process is illustrated below starting with Span BC.68D .5L + 1.FEMA 451.79) = 4.kips) 1.1 Span BC 1.988 492 562 152 173 5.kips) (e) Required strength envelopes (in.0E.2D+1. Factored bending moment envelopes for all five spans are shown in Figure 614.122 3.5(221) + 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples using the coefficient method of ACI 318 Chapter 8.2 fc' = 4.6L .028 Figure 614 Bending moments for Frame 1 (1. and positive moment at the support is controlled by 0.1.000 psi fy = 60 ksi 640 .3048 m.232 5.4.222 834 4.641 951 4.kips) (d) Unfactored LL moment (in.E 492 221 221 221 152 5.6L.0E load combination.834 242 221 152 786 715 4.42(715) + 0.
641 in.635)] = 4.2.68(715)] + [1.kips) will work as shown for Span BC.222 in.Chapter 6. 2.028 in.kips > 4.149 in.515)] = 4. 3.945 in.60)] + [3(0.761 in.kips) works as shown for Span BC.a/2) φMn = 0.2 Span A'B 1. 641 .57 in.kips Try two #7 bars in addition to the three #8 bars already provided as minimum steel: As = [2(0. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support Mu = [0.5 in.8(3. φMn = 0.2(492)] + [1. d = 29.5] = 1. 2 Width b for positive moment = 42.8(4. This positive moment reinforcement will also work for Spans A'B and AA'.5. φMn = φAsfy(d .0(4.834 in.5 in.1.849 in. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support B' Mu = [0.85 (4) 22.57(60)]/[0.48 in.43 in.6 in.42(715)] + [0. a = [3.0(4.028 in. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = [0. d = 29.37 (60)/[0. Positive Moment at Midspan Mu = [1.kips As before. Depth of compression block.42(715)] + [0.kips 2.48/2) = 4.37)60(29.kips As before.57) 60(29.5(221)] + [1.kips Three #8 bars plus two #7 bars (capacity = 4. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A' Mu = [1.43/2) = 5.6 .kips 3.6 in. use three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.5(221)] + [1.85fc'b a = 4. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support B Mu = [1.85(4)42.6 in.945 in. a = Asfy/.849 in.3.0(4.kips > 5.4. Reinforced Concrete Width b for negative moment = 22.79)] = 3. use three #8 bars plus two #9 bars.0(4.6(152)] = 833. Design strength. 4. 6.kips OK OK Minimum reinforcement (three #8 bars) controls by inspection.68(715)] + [1.708)] = 5.68(715)] + [1.635)] = 5.0(4708)] = 4.5] = 3.kips Three #8 bars plus two #9 bars (capacity = 5.6 .
respectively.42(492)] + [0.318 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.85(4)22.kips 2.68(786)] + [1. a = [3.0(4.988)] = 3.3 Span AA' 1.kips > 5.3.232 in.kips Three #8 bars plus two #7 bars will be sufficient.6 .kips Use three #8 bars plus two #9 bars as required for Support B of Span A'B. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A Mu = [1.3. d = 29.0(3.5.232 in.kips As before.4. the final layout of reinforcing steel also must satisfy the following from ACI 318 Sec.10 in. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = [0.5] = 3. 4.25 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 615.95(60)/[0.457)] = 5.5 in.68(492)] + [1.0(4. Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A Mu = [0.5.5(152)] + [1.4 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'.988)] = 5. 21.2 Width b for negative moment = 22.2. φMn =[0. but it allows 642 . Similarly.453 in.79 = 3.42(786)] + [0.10/2) = 5. 6.457)] = 4.122 in.2.4.6 in.kips Try three #8 bars plus two #8 bars: As = 5 × 0.2: 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. In addition to the computed strength requirements and minimum reinforcement ratios cited above.0(3. Design for Negative Moment at the Face of Support A' Mu = [1. 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.8(3.95)60] (29. six #8 bars are used at the bottom of Span BC. The use of six #8 bars is somewhat awkward for placing steel.95 in. 3. use three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.5(242)] + [1.225 in.FEMA 451.
However.849 8.945 7.Chapter 6. Reinforced Concrete for the use of three #8 continuous top and bottom at all spans. consider the case of six #8 top bars: As = 6(0.697 six #8 6.kips) Reinforcement Positive Moment Design Strength (in.25)60/[0.74(1.999 B six #8 6.697 six #8 6.945 7. ' (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 (1.510 10.25fy)(d .318 8.048 m).5] = 4.25fy)/0.677 4.0As(1. the use of two #9 bars (ρ = 0. later phases of the frame design will require computation of the design strength and the maximum probable strength at each support. 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.318 8.113 kNm.a/2) 643 .5 in.85fc'b a = 4.100 9. Table 614 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 Location Item Reinforcement Negative Moment Design Strength (in.65 in. Depth of compression block.945 7. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 614.74 in.kips) 1.6 in.945 7.kips) Probable Strength (in.999 three #8 + two #7 4.195 A' three #8 + two #9 5.kips) Probable Strength (in. Mpr = 1.849 8.0 in. a = As(1. As mentioned above.0033.510 10.085 C six #8 7.085 C' three #8 + two #9 5.2 Width b for negative moment = 22. A five #8 5. d = 29.kip = 0.311 9.79) = 4.00303) does not meet the minimum reinforcement requirement ρmin = 0.0 ft = 03.655 D five #8 5.195 three #8 + two #7 4.677 three #8 + three #8 + two #7 two #7 4.85(4)22.677 As an example of computation of probable strength.
21. The option of increasing concrete strength is not viable for this example because it is already at the maximum (4.6 in.085 in.65/2) = 9.9(10. gravity loads are not included in this computation. An isolated subassemblage from the frame is shown in Figure 616b. Therefore.5.74 in.085)/(240 . NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Mpr = 1.6 . compute the earthquake shear in Span BC: VE = (Mpr.50) = 2Vc(12.46 in.2(9. the largest shear that theoretically can be developed in the column above Level 5 is 150. The design of the beamcolumn joint is based on the requirements of ACI 318 Sec. or increasing the beam depth. a = 4.999)/(240 .2 and 90.25(60)(29.74)1.5 in.25)60/(0. The forces in the beam reinforcement for negative moment are based on six #8 bars at 1.25(60)[(6(0.4 kips With equal spans.0(4. d = 29.5 Adequacy of Flexural Reinforcement in Relation to the Design of the BeamColumn Joint Prior to this point in the design process.9 kips With the earthquake shear of 94. the only remedies are increasing the concrete strength. which shows how plastic moments are developed in the various spans for equivalent lateral forces acting to the east. The determination of the forces in the joint of the column on Gridline C of Frame 1 is based on Figure 616a.25 fy: T = C = 1. This is computed from equilibrium as shown at the bottom of Figure 616: 94.4.000 psi) allowed for LW concrete.74)1. however.5/2) Vc = 150.697 in.085 + 8. 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. For forces acting from west to east.2 Width b for positive moment = 42. except at the end column.2.6 . If absolutely necessary. If the computed joint stresses are too high.kips 6.2 kips For Span CC': VE = (10.FEMA 451.4. NW concrete with a strength greater than 4.5.83) + 90.74(1. The beam shears shown in Figure 616c are based on the probable moment strengths shown in Table 614.697 + 10. increasing the column area.5 kips 644 .0(4. gravity loads do not produce significant column shears.kips For the case of six #8 bottom bars: As = 6(0.5 kips.000 psi may be used for the columns and beamcolumn joint region while the LW concrete is used for the joists and beams.5 ) = 2.2. Mpr = 1.79) = 4.25(60)(29. where the seismic shear is much less.79)] = 355.85 × 4 × 42.30) = 94. changing the reinforcement layout.3.30) = 90.46/2) = 10.+ Mpr+ )/lclear = (9.9 kips being developed in the beams.
5 + 355.4 Figure 616 Diagram for computing column shears (1. As illustrated in Figure 617.085 10'6" 20'0" 150.113 kNm). the joint shear force Vj is computed as: Vj = T + C .kips) in spans BC and CC' 10. 1.0 ft = 0.45kN. assuming C = T.2 (c) Girder and column shears (kips) 90.4 = 560.5 . For positive moment.5 kips.Chapter 6.0 kip = 4.VE = 355. 1.3048 m.6 kips The joint shear stress is: vj = Vj d c2 = 560.4 94. Reinforced Concrete ' ' + + + +  (a) Plastic mechanism ' 9.0 in.085 9'10" 20'0" 10.999 (b) Plastic moments (in.697 8. six #8 bars also are used.150.9 150.kip = 0.5 = 623 psi 30 2 645 . C = 355.
.75)(15 4. Because the combined area of top and bottom reinforcement used at Columns A.5 = 560. For now we will proceed with the larger column. A'.3 controls the amount of reinforcement required in the joint. on center. Given that the joint stress is acceptable. ACI 318 Sec. φ = 0. Using φ = 0. the allowable shear stress for LW concrete is based on ACI 318 Sec. Joint stresses would be checked for the other columns in a similar manner.4.5 kips C = 355.5 kips C = 355. the joint is overstressed. this reinforcement consists of fourleg #4 hoops at 4 in.5 kips Vg = 2(355.5 kips T = 355.5)150.4. The six #8 bottom bars at Columns B and C could be reduced to three #8 bars plus two #7 bars.FEMA 451. Another remedy would be to increase the size of the column. 21.5 kips T = 355. the final solution will be to rearrange the bars to three #8 plus two #7. It is left to the reader to verify that the joint shear stress would be acceptable under these circumstances.2 for discussion. allowable = 0.75 as a modifier for LW concrete: v j .3 as referenced by the 2003 Provisions. 646 .80 for joints (from ACI Appendix C) and a factor of 0.45kN). Since the joint is not confined on all four sides by a beam. the new joint shear stress is: vj = Vj d c2 = 560. For joints confined on three faces or on two opposite faces.4 will be placed within the depth of the joint. these joints will not be overstressed. 21. by 32 in. 21. One remedy to the situation would be to reduce the quantity of positive moment reinforcement.85 per ACI 31802 Sec 9. If the column is increased in size to 32 in.] Since the actual joint stress (623 psi) exceeds the allowable stress (569 psi). and D is less than that for Columns B and C. C'. but as discussed later. the total amount of transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318 Sec.80(0. As shown later.000) = 569 psi [Note that for joints.5. This would require a somewhat different arrangement of bars than shown in Figure 615.2.3.0 kip = 4. See Sec 6.5 kips Figure 617 Computing joint shear stress (1.5.5 = 547psi < 569 psi 322 which is also acceptable. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Vc = 150.
kips in the continuous #8 bars summing moments about Point A in Figure 619a: 6. these bars are cut off in Spans A'B and CC'.7 in. refer to Figure 619a. C' and D.kips) is the negative moment capacity for the section with six #8 bars.kips for positive moment and 3.8). For positive moment cutoffs. To determine where bars should be cut off in each span.311 + 0.261 in.121 (kips/in. 12.261 in. Note that this is exactly at the midspan of the member. Using calculations similar to those above. Since the goal is to develop a negative moment capacity of 3.10.261 in. Solving the quadratic equation results in x = 42. Consequently.311 in. The free body diagram produces an equilibrium equation as: 6. An additional three #8 bars are placed top and bottom in the center span. extension beyond the face of the column could be used. shorter bars are used to make up the additional reinforcement required for strength.9 in. For negative moment cutoff locations. 73. Sample cutoff calculations are given first for Span BC. and 3.3 kips is the end shear. Loading diagrams for determining cut off locations are shown in Figure 618.kips for negative moment. Reinforced Concrete Because the arrangement of steel is acceptable from a joint strength perspective. effective depth.311 (in. A'.6 in. 6.6 = 105.0 + 29. see Figure 614 and Figure 619b.6 = 72. For positive moment cutoff. the required extension beyond the face of the support is 76. At Supports A.kips is the design strength of the section with three #8 bars.68 times the dead load forces. which is a free body diagram of the west end of the member.42 times dead load plus 0.7 x = 3.311 2 where the distance x is computed to be 75. ACI 318 Sec. the total length of the bar beyond the face of the support is 42. and a 6 ft1 in. the cutoff locations of the various bars may be determined (see Figure 615 for a schematic of the arrangement of reinforcement). it has been determined that the design flexural strength supplied by a section with only three #8 bars is 3.Chapter 6. the loading is taken as earthquake plus 1.9 + 29.6 x = 3.) is 0. 647 .3 requires an additional length equal to the effective depth of the member or 12 bar diameters (whichever is larger). 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.261 2 In the above equation.121x 2 − 73.281x 2 − 31.3 in.5 times live load. 0.510 − 0. Cutoff locations are based on the members developing their design flexural capacities (fy = 60 ksi and φ = 0.68 times the uniform dead load.5 in. it is assumed that theoretical cutoff locations correspond to the point where the continuous top and bottom bars develop their design flexural strength. Adding the 29. it is assumed that the member is subjected to earthquake plus 0. To determine the cutoff location for negative moment. or 8 ft9 in.
311 3.121 kip/in.7 kips 1.kips) 3. 1.6 kN/m.261 E E +0.42D+0.281 kip/in.68D E +1. 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. From Table 613.0 in. Recall that this arrangement of reinforcement will satisfy joint shear requirements. the short bottom bars shown in Figure 615 are impractical.kip = 0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples WL = 0.14 klf Face of support 17'6" 6.45kN.kips 0. Instead. As shown in Figure 620.510 in.68 WD= 0.0 klf = 14.510 Figure 618 Loading for determination of rebar cutoffs (1. and the columns may remain at 30 in. 1. The confined length in which the bar is developed is shown in Figure 620 and consists of 648 . by 30 in.311 X X+ 6.0 in.0 ft = 0.FEMA 451. 6.0 kip = 4.42D+0. Clearly. A (a) X73.113 kNm). the required development length of the #9 top bars in tension is 72. 1.kips (b) X+ 31.6 kN/m. if the bar is anchored in a confined joint region.311 in.68L Bending moment (in. A 6. the bottom steel will be rearranged to consist of three #8 plus two #7 bars continuous.6 kips Figure 619 Free body diagrams (1.0 klf = 14.66 klf WD= 2. 1.1 in.5L = 0.113 kNm).3048 m.kip = 0.
This length is 30 + 32 + 32 = 94 in.3048 m. γ = 1.5 in.3.1 in. taking c as the cover (1.2. From ACI 318 Sec.50 in. the development length for one #9 bar is: ld = 3 ⎛ 60.0 in = 25. the entire region of the splice must be confined by closed hoops spaced no closer than d/4 or 4 in. According to ACI 318 Sec. The splice length = 1. 12. which is greater than the 72. 21.1" #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 (1.000 ⎞ 1 × 1 × 1. Required length = 3.3 (1. β =1.3. Therefore. The bottom bars are spliced at the center of Spans A'B and CC' as shown in Figure 621.Chapter 6.50 in.) plus 1/2 bar diameter (0.4 mm). 1.5 + 0 ⎞ ⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 1.0) = 37.0 ft = 0.000 ⎟ ⎛ 2.3 and 21.4. the strength at the supports must be recomputed. Reinforced Concrete the column depth plus twice the depth of the girder. The results are shown in Table 615.5 l dh = 72.2.5 in. ⎜ ⎟ 40 ⎜ 4.3.0 in. Due to the different arrangement of bottom steel. λ = 1. 12. 21.0 (bottom bar). the splice length is 1..) plus the tie dimension (0.) = 2.3 times the development length.0 ⎠ ' Must also check for force F.4.2.0 (uncoated). use a 48in.1 in. The final bar placement and cutoff locations for all five spans are shown in Figure 621.0 = 48. The splice length is taken as the bottom bar Class B splice length for #8 bars..3 × 37. required.0 × 1.3 (LW concrete). the development length (ld) is computed from: ld 3 fy αβγλ = ' ⎛c+K ⎞ db 40 f 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. 649 d b = 2'8" .0 (#9 bar). and using Ktr = 0. According to ACI 318 Sec. contact splice.15.
21.113 kNm. BC.0 ft = 0.CC'.999 B six #8 6.0 and the flexural reinforcement reaches a tensile stress of 1.5" Typical spans A'B.318 8.4 mm). 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'.kips) Probable moment (in. the shear strength demand is computed as the sum of the factored gravity shear plus the maximum probable earthquake shear.677 4.677 D five #8 5.FEMA 451.999 three #8 + two #7 4.25fy. 650 .849 8.696 C six #8 6.677 6.677 4.944 7.kips) Probable moment (in.3 (minimum reinforcement) and 21.3048 m.696 C' three #8 + two #9 5.318 8. 1.6 Transverse Reinforcement Transverse reinforcement requirements are covered in ACI 318 Sec.944 7. Table 615 Design and Maximum Probable Flexural Strength For Beams in Frame 1 (Revised) Location Item Reinforcement Negative Moment Design Moment (in.195 three #8 + two #7 4.944 7. A five #8 5.0 in.677 three #8 + three #8 + three #8 + three #8 two #7 two #7 two #7 + two #7 4.944 7.311 9.kip = 0. 15 at 5.3. The maximum probable earthquake shear is based on the assumption that φ = 1.kips) 1. C'D (4) #3 leg 1 at 2".311 9. (4) #3 leg 1 at 2".5".944 7. 19 at 5.5. To avoid nonductile shear failures. The probable moment strength at each support is shown in Table 615.0 in = 25.195 A' three #8 + two #9 5.kips) Reinforcement Positive Moment Design Moment (in.2.4 (shear strength).677 4.3.849 8.944 7.4. 6 at 4" Figure 621 Final bar arrangement (1.
7 kips. For Span AB.4 kips. and BC. the values shown in the figure are: VE = − + M pr + M pr lclear where lclear = 17 ft6 in. = 210 in. For forces acting to the west.Chapter 6. VE = (9696 + 7677) / 210 = 82. For forces acting to the east. the maximum probable earthquake moments are shown for seismic forces acting to the east (solid lines) and to the west (dashed lines). In Figure 622a. The earthquake shears produced by the maximum probable moments are shown in Figure 622b. 651 . VE = (8999 + 7677) / 210 = 79. Reinforced Concrete Figure 622 illustrates the development of the design shear strength envelopes for Spans AA'. A'B. Note that the earthquake shears act in different directions depending on the direction of load. The moments shown occur at the face of the supports.
5 29.9 112.2 53.677 7. 1.45kN.9 49.2 53.2 (d) Design shear seismic + gravity 46.0 kip = 4.6 79.4 mm.kips 7.42D + 0.677 15" 210" 240" 15" 79.7 29.FEMA 451.7 82.5 (c) Gravity shear (1.113 kNm).696 9.5 29.999 9. 1.0 in.kip = 0.2 112. 652 .5L) positive kips 29.5 29.9 53.2 positive kips Figure 622 Shear forces for transverse reinforcement (1.677 7.2 112.0 in = 25.5 108.1 108.677 7.9 49.4 82. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Loading ' 8.1 105.5 29.696 (a) Seismic moment (tension side) in.195 8.7 (b) Seismic shear positive kips 75.4 82.
0 in = 25.3" Figure 623 Detailed shear force envelope in Span BC (1. fv = 60 ksi and d = 29.2 for discussion.2 .] Compute the shear at d = 29.4" 41. say 5.6/103.5 = 112. the design shear strength of the concrete must be taken as zero when the axial force is small (Pu/Agf!c < 0. the spacing of reinforcement required is computed as described below.2).45kN).8) = 29..2: 653 .7 kips s = 7" 112. Compute the required spacing: s = 0.75.4. which indicates that the maximum design shears is 82.(29.5 kips s = 6" φ V s = 94.2 + 53. a shear of 82.7 kips.14 × 17. The strength envelope for Span BC is shown in detail in Figure 623.42Vdead + 0.66 × 17.5Vlive Vdead = 2.Chapter 6. [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 0.0 kip = 4.8 kips VG = 1.4 mm. from the face of the support: Vu = φVs = 112. While this shear acts at one end. In designing shear reinforcement.7/112.2) = 103.2 kips 53.7 + 29. However. From Figure 622. Using the ASCE 7 compatible φ for shear = 0..5/2 = 18. Check maximum spacing per ACI 318 Sec.2 . At midspan. 1.73.5 in. the shear strength can consist of contributions from concrete and from steel hoops or stirrups.7) = 7.65 in.53.7 . See Sec 6.5 = 53. according to ACI 318 Sec. 21.08 in.9) = 5.2 kips 9.3.11)](60)(29.5(5.29.6 in.2 kips acts at the opposite end of the member..6/210)(112.5.3. the design shear Vu = (112.6/82.5 kips Total design shears for each span are shown in Figure 622d.6 in.2 kips 53.7 kips Vlive = 0.9 kips Vs = Avfyd/s Assuming four #3 vertical legs (Av = 0.6 kips s = 5" 112.3.4. say 7.44 in.5/2 = 5. 21. compute the required spacing: s = φAvfyd/Vu = 0.42(18.11)](60)(29.2 = 0.0 in. φ Vs = 132. Reinforced Concrete The gravity shears shown in Figure 622c are: Factored gravity shear = VG = 1.3" 54. so concrete shear strength must be taken as zero.2)/2 = 82.7) + 0.75[4(0.3. this ratio is VE/Vu = 82.2.2 kips φ Vs = 110.75[4(0.2 kips.
5 in. 30 percent of the NS force. however. a spacing of 5.10. 7. Due to the relatively flat shear force gradient. clear from such a supported bar. Because no beams frame into this column along Gridline A'. at the support and 7. at midspan. The spacing must vary between 5.0 in. stirrups will not be used. will be used for the full length of the beam.5. the bottom flexural reinforcement is spliced and hoops must be placed over the splice region at d/4 or a maximum of 4 in. Using simple tributary area calculations (not shown). 6. Where hoops are required (first 64 in.0 in. 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. and 60 ksi transverse reinforcement. This is being done because the earthquake shear is a large portion of the total shear. 21. The column. This arrangement of hoops will be used for Spans AA'.6/4 = 7. The ETABS analysis indicates that the maximum axial earthquake force is 84 kips.3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples d/4 = 29.4 in. 654 . and the hoops will be used along the entire member length. the column supports an unfactored axial dead load of 528 kips and an unfactored axial live load of 54 kips. stirrups may be used. ACI 318 Sec.1 states that closed hoops are required over a distance of twice the member depth from the face of the support. the column is designed for axial force plus uniaxial bending. on center. Details of the transverse reinforcement layout for all spans of Level 5 of Frame 1 are shown in Figure 621. 8db = 8(1. An isolated view of the column is shown in Figure 624. 24dh = 24(3/8) = 9.3 Design of a Typical Interior Column of Frame 1 This section illustrates the design of a typical interior column on Gridline A'. and the economic premium is negligible. and accidental torsion.3. longitudinal reinforcing bars should be supported as specified in ACI 318 Sec. The load combination used to compute this force consists of full earthquake force in the EW direction. the girder is relatively short.5. In Spans A'B and CC'.000 psi LW concrete.0 in. From that point on. from face of support). the column bending moment for NS forces can be neglected. The first hoop must be placed 2 in. For the girders of Frame 1.0) = 8. BC. The flexural reinforcement in the beams framing into the column is shown in Figure 621. which supports Level 5 of Frame 1.3. is 30 in.4.FEMA 451. tension or compression. and C'D. 60 ksi longitudinal reinforcement. square and is constructed from 4. Hence. from the face of the support.5 in.
21.000 psi concrete and reinforcement consisting of 12 #8.311 in.1fc'Ag = 0. computed with a 655 .0(84) = 275 kips (compression) The maximum axial compression force of 861 kips is greater than 0.68D .1(4)(302) = 360 kips. 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. 6.4. according to ACI 318 Sec.0 in = 25.095 in.3048 m. a column with adequate capacity must be selected.849/0. the nominal column flexural strength must be at least 6/5 of the nominal flexural strength of the beams framing into the column. by 30 in. These curves.kips. Nominal (negative) moment strength at end A' of Span AA' = 5.0 ft = 0. These capacities are provided in Table 615.746 in.5.8 = 6. 1.68(528) . Beam moments at the face of the support are used for this computation.42(528) + 0.0E.5(54) + 1.2. use the basic load combinations: 1. #9.4.0(84) = 861 kips (compression) The combination for minimum compression (or tension) is: Pu = 0.5L + 1. or #10 bars.45kN).3.42D + 0.kips Nominal column design moment = 6/5 × 6746 = 8. 1.kips Nominal (positive) moment strength at end A' of Span A' B = 4. Knowing the factored axial load and the required design flexural strength.1 Longitudinal Reinforcement To determine the axial design loads. Thus.0 kip = 4. The combination that results in maximum compression is: Pu = 1. columns of 4.8 = 7.181 in. Figure 625 gives design curves for 30 in.1.kips Average nominal moment framing into joint = 6.4 mm.Chapter 6.1.945/0.0E 0.
These dots must lie to the left of the curve representing the design columns.FEMA 451. ACI 318 Eq.36 kNm). a column with 12 #8 bars (with As = 9.5 .05 percent of steel) is clearly adequate.3 ⎜ c c ⎟ ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎜ f yh ⎟ ⎝ Ach ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ Ash = 0. 656 .3.24 ACI 318 Eq.2 Transverse Reinforcement ACI 318 Sec.45kN.000 0 500 1.1.5)2 = 729 in. 6. Pu (kips) 5.1. columns: Ach = (30 .2 Ag/Ach = 900/729 = 1.3. 214 therefore controls.000 0 1.000 2. For rectangular sections with hoops.0 as required for nominal strength.2 Ag = 30 (30) = 900 in. At axial forces of 275 kips and 861 kips.500 2. For both the minimum and maximum axial forces.000 1.000 (12) #9 (12) #8 3.000 (12) #10 4. 213 and 214 are applicable: ⎛ sh f ′ ⎞ ⎛ Ag ⎞ Ash = 0.0 kip = 4.48 in. solid horizontal lines are drawn.5.by30in. 21. For the 30in. are based on a φ factor of 1.000 2.2 and 1.09shc fc′ f yh The first of these equations controls when Ag/Ach > 1. 1.4.kips) at each axial load level.4.0 ftkip = 1.4 gives the requirements for minimum transverse reinforcement. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.000 1.000 Mu (ftkips) Figure 625 Design interaction diagram for column on Gridline A' (1. The dots on the lines represent the required nominal flexural strength (8095 in.
5 in. will be used. six bar diameters (6 × 1.2 kips φVs = φ Av f y d / s = 0. and sx = 5.6 requires a maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in the region of the column not covered by Sec.4. 657 . must extend through the joint at (at most) the same spacing. 214 controls.2 kips > 143 kips OK The column with the minimum transverse steel is therefore adequate for shear.2.1.25 .Chapter 6. This shear will be compared to the capacity provided by the 4leg #4 hoops spaced at 6 in. or the dimension sx where: sx = 4 + 14 − hx 3 and where hx is the maximum horizontal spacing of hoops or cross ties.25/0. the design shear strength contributed by concrete is: φVc = φ 0.75(4)(0. The final column detail with both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement is given in Figure 626. ACI 318 Sec.5) = 33.4.5 . The average probable moment is roughly 1. 21. The spacing of reinforcement through the joint has been reduced to 4 in.0.8) times the average design moment = (1. 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.5) 4000] = 5. the columns will be acceptable for shear.5. the maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement is the lesser of onefourth the maximum column dimension (30/4=7.5x118) = 143 kips.72 in.3 Transverse Reinforcement Required for Shear The amount of transverse reinforcement computed above is the minimum required. the concrete contribution to shear strength may be considered because Pu > Agf!c/20.5 in.433 in.09 (26. 11.8 (φ = 0.03 in.5 . so a spacing of 5 in.0 in. This is done for practical reasons only.85 for sandLW concrete (ACI 318 Sec. For the design of column shear capacity. on center. If this capacity is well in excess of the demand.4. where required. This transverse reinforcement must be spaced over a distance lo = 30 in.5.25 = 26. Column bar splices. according to ACI 318 Sec. However.8)(5397) = 8. at each end of the member and. spacing required by ACI Eq.1.2 + 165 = 198. the column shear can be estimated at 8433/(0.2) in addition to the capacity reduction factor for shear.3.). but it does not specify what the details of reinforcement should be.2) 60.000]/[0.4.833 in. With a clear height of 118 in.5) / 6 = 165 kips φVn = φVc + φVs = 33. Reinforced Concrete For LW concrete. Using a shear strength reduction factor of 0.000(30)(27.25/0. In this example. on center.). 21. should be located in the center half of the of the column and must be proportioned as (Class B) tension splices.000 psi: hc = 30 . try hoops with four #4 legs and fc' = 4.4.kips.0 in. which for #8 bars is also 6 in. hoops and crossties with the same details as those placed in the critical regions of the column are used. or 6db. 6..75 fc′bc dc = 0. hx = 8.75(0. The 5. ACI 318 requires transverse steel at this spacing. The maximum spacing is the smaller of 6. For the column with twelve #8 bars and #4 hoops and cross ties.0. s = [4 (0.0 = 6.03in.2)(60)(27.2.85)( 4. 21.4.1.
this girder supports an average of 3. 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. This girder is of variable depth with a maximum depth of 32 in. Based on a tributary gravity load analysis. a separate analysis of the girder was carried out using the SAP2000 program.4. For the purpose of estimating gravity moments. the entire structure was analyzed using the ETABS program. was modeled as fixed.4 mm). For determining earthquake forces. throughout. The length of the haunch at each end (as measured from the face of the support) is 8 ft9 in.5. End A of the girder was supported with halfheight columns pinned at midstory and End B.0 in = 25. 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 (1.375 kips/ft of dead load and 0.4 Design of Haunched Girder The design of a typical haunched girder of Level 5 of Frame 3 is now illustrated. The width of the web of girder is 22. The loading and geometry of the girder is shown in Figure 627a. Each haunch was divided into four segments with nonprismatic section properties used for each segment.FEMA 451. at the support and a minimum depth of 20 in. 6.90 kips/ft of reduced live load.5 in. which is supported by a shear wall.
5E 1.000 8.000 4.0 in. 1.kips) 4.5L + 0.0 k/ft = 14.5E 0.68D .167 = φMn 14.000 2.000 0 2.42D + 0.38 kips/ft Level 5 (a) Span geometry and loading 1'3" 8'9" 10'0" 10'0" 8'9" 1'3" 13. 659 .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.E 1.000 4.982 = φMn 6. Reinforced Concrete earthquake force in the NS direction.824 = φMn 1.kip = 0.000 12.000 6.0.3048 m.000 10.6L Strength envelope (b) Moment envelope (in.Chapter 6.113 kNm).5E 0. 1.68D + 0. and accidental torsion. WL = 0.2D + 1.6 kN/m.90 kips/ft WD= 3. 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.000 8.0 ft = 0.000 6.42D + 0.5L .
3/8 .4. try seven #11 bars. and assuming #3 hoops: As = 7 × 1. a = [10.kips at Support B.56/2) = 13.02 in.00 (60)]/[0.3/8 . is greater than 50 percent of the negative moment capacity at the face of the support. Depth of compression block. φMn = [0.1.6 in. For negative moment in the 20ft span between the haunches. These four top bars are part of the negative moment reinforcement already sized 660 .102 in.41/2 = 29.1 Design and Detailing of Longitudinal Reinforcement The results of the analysis for five different load combinations are shown in Figure 627b. 21.kips > 12.3.42D + 0.282 in.5 .0075 > 0.4 in.02 in. 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.1.00/(29.1.5) = 0.6 .54 = 10. 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. 21.167 in.85 (4) 22.5] = 1.5.6 .3.00 (60)]/(0. ρ = 5.0) = 5.600 in. For a factored negative moment of 12.025.600 in.1.00 in.4. from the face of the support) when the 0.2D + 1. O.kips.2. Envelopes of maximum positive and negative moment are shown on the figure indicate that 1. a = [5.kips. This moment is larger than the design moment and. four #11 bars (ρ = 0.6L controls positive moment at midspan.2 d = 32.1.4 × 22.92/(29.8 (5.2 d = 20 .1.5] = 8.5) = 0.0) = 5. 0.3/8 .8 (5. b = 22. the design for negative moment controls the amount of reinforcement required at all sections per ACI 318 Sec.5] = 1. OK OK The five #9 bottom bars are adequate for strength and satisfy ACI 318 Sec.982 in.K. φMn = [0.033.5L ± E controls negative moment at the support.128/2 = 29.00/(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.4 .02/2) = 6. Design strength.FEMA 451.016) could be used at the top. These bars provide a strength greater than 25 percent of the negative moment capacity at the support.0165 < 0. 21.02/2) = 4.2.56 in.E load combination is applied.1.kips For positive moment at the support.128/2 = 17.00) 60] (17.92 (60)]/[0.K.2.85 (4) 86. which supplies about half the negative moment reinforcement: As = 5 (1.68D ± E controls positive moment at the support.6 × 22.5 . For positive moment at midspan the same five #9 bars used for positive moment at the support will be tried: As = 5 (1.kips > 3. φMn = [0.8 (10. ρ =5.3.00) 60] (29. therefore.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.68D . b = 86. (assuming stress block in flange) a = [5.2.0126 b = 86.8.5 in.85 (4) 86.92 in. ρ = 10. try five #9 bars.1.6 in.5 . O. and 1.2.00 in.5 in. as required by ACI 318 Sec.5 in.6 × 22.92) 60](29.2 d = 32 .5) = 0.
4 . Note that these bars provide a negative design moment capacity of 6.00) 1. For positive moment in the constant depth region and using five #9 bars: As = 5 (1.1.0 (5.5] = 10.2 d = 20 . a tabular approach is taken for the calculations.025).3.1.56) = 10.kips Before the earthquake shear may be determined. This spacing should accommodate the vertical column reinforcement.71 in. Mpr = 1. thus R – wx = 0 661 .71/2) = 19. Summing moments (clockwise positive) about point B gives: + − M pr + M pr + Rx − wx 2 =0 2 At the positive moment hinge the shear must be zero. The layout of longitudinal reinforcement used for the haunched girder is shown in Figure 627c. The violation is minor and will be accepted in lieu of cutting off the bars in a potential plastic hinge region.5] = 1. however..6 . Finally. consider the freebody diagram of Figure 628a.00 (1.25) 60]/[0.92 in.2.92 (1. Under combined gravity and earthquake load. where seven #11 top bars are used. deep portion of the girder provide ρ = 0.128/2 = 17.5 .kips.25 (60)] (17.0) = 5. which is a violation of ACI 21.00 in. therefore.028. a = [5. the hooked #11 bars can be developed in the confined core of the columns.5.1.85 (4) 86.1 (ρmax = 0. however. the maximum probable strength must be determined for negative moment at the support and for positive moment in the constant depth region. b = 22. seven #11 bars in 20in.2 Design and Detailing of Transverse Reinforcement The design for shear of the haunched girder is complicated by its variable depth. the corresponding positive moment hinge will form in the constant depth portion of the girder. which is greater than the diameter of a #11 bar and is therefore acceptable. 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.25)(60)(29.5 . 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.4 in.3/8 . the spacing between bars is approximately 1. 6. b = 86.1. For negative moment at the face of the support and using seven #11 bars: As = 7 (1.6 in.Chapter 6.360 in.1.28 in. a negative moment plastic hinge will form at the support and.5 in.4 in.4.41/2 = 29. Mpr = [1. the exact location of plastic hinges must be determined in order to design the transverse reinforcement. Before the table may be set up.4.25) 60]/[0.3/8 .kips in the constant depth region of the girder. Reinforced Concrete for negative moment at the support. a = [10.92)(1.85 (4) 22.0(10.2 d = 32 .28/2) = 6.10. the location of the positive moment hinge that will form in the constant depth portion of the girder must be identified. and the flexural strength envelope provided by the reinforcement is shown in Figure 627b.5 in.824 in. As noted in Table 613. based on the moment envelopes from the loading (Figure 627b). this detail results in a possible bar cutoff in a plastic hinge region (see below) that is not desirable.693 in. As discussed in the following sections. however. To do so.
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
5. For wind.3.75 P W 0.75 P L Case 1 PW Case 3 0.75 P W 0.56 P W PL 0.57% the building width. 679 .2. (See Sec. However. As mentioned earlier.4.75 P L Case 2 Case 4 Figure 638 Wind loading requirements from ASCE 7. ASCE 7 requires that buildings over 60 ft in height be checked for four loading cases.2. 6. Reinforced Concrete must be made to determine which load governs for strength.3] because the building does not have a Type 1a or 1b torsional irregularity.2 [4.4 for supporting calculations and discussion. seismic story forces must be applied at a 5 percent accidental eccentricity.56 P W 0.Chapter 6.32].2 [4.2].4.56 P L 0.2.2 [5. Case 4 is similar to Case 2 because of the torsion inducing pressure unbalance.75 P W 0. This determination is complicated by the differing (wind versus seismic) rules for applying accidental torsion and for considering orthogonal loading effects. Case 2 may be seen to produce torsional effects because 7/8 of the total force is applied at an eccentricity of 3. PW 0.3.75 P W 0. 5.75 P W 0.2. which is reproduced directly from Figure 69 of ASCE 7. Because the Honolulu building is in Seismic Design Category C and has no plan irregularities of Type 5 in Provisions Table 5.2.4.4. load is applied separately in the two orthogonal directions. This is relatively less severe than required for seismic effects. orthogonal loading effects need not be considered per Provisions Sec. Load Cases 3 and 4 require that 75 percent of the wind pressures from the two orthogonal directions be applied simultaneously.75 P L 0. In Cases 1 and 2. 5.75 P L 0.75 P L PW PL 0. as required by Provisions Sec.75 P L PL 0. the Honolulu building has no orthogonal seismic loading requirements.) For wind.4.56 P L 0.4. The required loads are shown in Figure 638. Torsional amplification is not required per Provisions Sec.5.2.3.2].2 and 6.3 [5. where 100 percent of the story force is applied at a 5 percent eccentricity.75 P W 0.4.
Frame 1 sees a relatively larger seismic shear.FEMA 451. 680 . story height. the girder shears produced from seismic effects control at the fifth level. 6. hence. with the next largest forces coming from direct EW wind without torsion. For the five load cases indicated above. 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. wherein the total story shears are plotted and where wind controlled for the lower five stories. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples In this example.4 Design and Detailing of Members of Frame 1 In this section. the girders and a typical interior column of Level 5 of Frame 1 are designed and detailed. where the shears in the exterior bay of Frame 1 are plotted vs. Hence. only loading in the EW direction is considered.5. This is somewhat different from that shown in Figure 64. This is shown graphically in Figure 639. 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.
deep and 20 in.1 Initial Calculations The girders of Frame 1 are 30 in. kips Figure 639 Wind vs. wide. #3 stirrups and #8 longitudinal reinforcement.6 in.10. 6. ft 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Girder shear.5 in. 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.2 Design of Flexural Members ACI 318 Sec. 681 .5.4] gives the minimum requirements for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the beams of intermediate moment frames. Assuming 1. cover. the effective width of the compression flange is taken as 20 + 20(12)/12 = 40. the effective depth for computing flexural and shear strength is 27. The requirements for longitudinal steel are as follows: 1. Reinforced Concrete 160 Seismic (with torsion) 140 Wind (without torsion) 120 100 Height.Chapter 6. For positive moment bending.4 [21. 2.0 kip = 4.4. 6.4.45kN). 1.0 ft = 0. seismic shears in exterior bay of Frame 1 (1.5.3048 m.0 in.12. The positive moment strength at the face of a joint shall be at least onethird of the negative moment strength at the same joint.
3048 m. the reinforcement layout of Figure 641 will be checked. 1. 682 .796 2.1 as 200/fy or 0.302 850 2. to 28 in. The minimum reinforcement ratio at any section is taken from ACI 318 Sec.835 (b) Earthquake moment (in.kips) 2.252 Figure 640 Bending moment envelopes at Level 5 of Frame 1 (1.5.394 1.252 850 2.kips) 2.526 3.5.12. The gravity loads and design moments for the first three spans of Frame 1 are shown in Figure 640. and the gravity moments were computed by hand using the ACI coefficients.10.850 2.5L+E 0.492 502 573 155 176 3.kips) (d) Unfactored LL moment (in.0' (a) Span layout and loading 2.8D . Note that the steel clearly satisfies the detailing requirements of ACI 318 Sec.66 kips/ft WD = 2. the minimum reinforcement provided need not exceed 1. Based on preliminary calculations.269 2.658 3.3 times the amount of reinforcement required for strength.4].67' 20. The seismic moments are taken directly from the ETABS analysis.6 kN/m.4 [21.0' 20. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The second requirement has the effect of requiring top and bottom reinforcement along the full length of the member.kip = 0.E 1. 10. according to ACI 318 Sec. However.910 (e) Required strength envelopes (in.852 729 502 969 2.113 kNm).886 2. 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.927 3.kips) 1.0' 20. 1.910 3. ' WL = 0. 21.FEMA 451.6L 225 729 (c) Unfactored DL moment (in.0 in.14 kips/ft 17.2D+1.0 kip/ft = 14. All moments are given at the face of the support.946 247 225 802 729 2.835 729 502 225 155 225 155 3.0 ft = 0. 10.3D+0.3.0033 for fy = 60 ksi.
a = [3. Mn = Asfy(d .796) = 2.394 in.526 in.79) + 1 (0.2. As = 3 (0.79) = 3.kips Design capacity.0061 Depth of compression block.1 Design for Negative Moment at Face of Support A Mu = 1.0. 1.526 in. φMn = 0.946 in.98/2] = 5.0 ft = 0.0)] [27.kips 6.2.2 ρ = 0.2. (2) #8 (3) #8 Figure 641 Preliminary reinforcement layout for Level 5 of Frame 1 (1.6 .3 Design for Negative Moment at Face of Support A' Mu = 1.796) = 3.3048 m).05 in.886) = 3.5 (155) .8 (502) + 1.5. Nominal moment capacity.0 in = 25. 6.79) = 2.1.37 (60)/[0.kips > 3.0)][27. 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". 10 at 6".295 in.kips Try three #8 long bars. Mn = Asfy(d .0 (2.2 Design for Positive Moment at Face of Support A Mu = 0.0068 683 OK OK . 5 at 8" (typical each span).4.3 (502) .a/2) = [2.080 in.60) + 2 (0.37 in.5.2 ρ = 0.1.394 in.kips > 2.a/2) = [3.8(5.76 in.Chapter 6.6) = 3.3 (729) .38 in.8(3850) = 3.kips This reinforcement also will work for positive moment at all other supports.37 (60.38 (60.0043 a = 2.0.5 (225) .05/2] = 3.0 (2. Asfy = 3 (0.236 in. 6.850 in.1.98 in.4.295) = 4.kips Try three #7 short bars and two #8 long bars.kips φMn = 0.85 (4) 40] = 1.5.6 .4.2 ρ = 0.2.kips Try four #8 long bars and one #7 short bar: As = 4 (0.85 (4) 20] = 2.0 (2.38 (60)]/[0.4 mm.
a/2) = [3.1 kips.946 in. The bottom bars are spliced in Spans A'B and CC' with a Class B lap length of 48 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples a = [3.83 kips 2 The factored design shear Vu = 1.2.kips OK This reinforcement will also work for negative moment at Supports B and C. Nominal moment strengths are computed with a flexural reinforcement tensile strength of 1. For this example. is the clear span of the member. 21. The top short bars are cut off 5 ft0 in. The design shear force is resisted by a concrete component (Vc) and a steel component (Vs).852 in. the flexural reinforcement layout shown in Figure 641 is adequate. Compute the design earthquake shear VE: VE = 5.33) = 18. Unlike special moment frames. The second option requires that the design earthquake shear force be 2.0fy and a flexural φ factor of 1. 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.9 kips 2 VL = 0.FEMA 451. the first option is used.5(5. Therefore.4.3 kips. the earthquake shear is 43. 6.kips for positive moment at Support A' and 5.850 = 45.4 Design for Shear Force in Span A'B: ACI 318 Sec.0.3.0 times the factored earthquake shear taken from the structural analysis.10.32 in.33) = 5. Note that the concrete component may be used regardless of the ratio of earthquake shear to total shear.681 in.8 kips 212 where 212 in. 2.kips for negative moment at Support B. from the face of the support.6 .kips > 3.5.66(20 − 2. The gravity load shears at the face of the supports are: VD = 2.852 in.kips φMn = 0.852) = 4.85 (4) 20] = 3.76 (60.0)][27.14(20 − 2.9) + 0.3 [21.3(18. This shear force applies for earthquake forces coming from either direction as shown in the shear strength design envelope in Figure 642. The required design strength is: 684 .76 (60)]/[0.12.8) + 1. The first option requires that the design shear force for earthquake be based on the nominal moment strength at the ends of the members.32/2] = 5. The earthquake shears computed from the nominal flexural strength are added to the factored gravity shears to determine the total design shear.852 + 3.0(45. Mn = Asfy(d .8) = 73. For earthquake forces acting in the other direction.3] provides two choices for computing the shear strength demand in a member of an intermediate moment frame: 1. This shear is used in combination with the factored gravity shears. The nominal strengths at the ends of the beam were computed earlier as 3850 in.8(5.
the minimum requirements of ACI 318 Sec. In the remainder of the span.10.0 in. stirrups should be placed at a maximum of d/2 (ACI 318 Sec.6) = 59.4 Minimum transverse steel requirements are given in ACI 318 Sec.9 in. 50(20) This spacing controls over the d/2 requirement.85) (2 4.85 above reflects the reduced shear capacity of sandLW concrete. and within a distance 2h from the face of the support. required for strength. The shear to be resisted by steel. eight times the smallest longitudinal bar diameter. Vc = (0.3 kips 1. For the beam under consideration d/4 controls minimum transverse steel.3]). with the maximum spacing being 27. The stirrups may be detailed according to ACI 318 Sec. 21.10.3 [21.12. than the 6. This is slightly greater.4.32 in.3 − 0.000 The factor of 0.Chapter 6.6) = 6. 685 .5. 38. 21. from the face of the support. The final spacing used for the beam is shown in Figure 641.32 in. 000)20(27. the spacing should be not greater than d/4.12.4. 7.1.22)(40)(27.4. Because the earthquake shear (at midspan) is greater than 50 percent of the shear strength provided by concrete alone.6/4 = 6.000) = 8. The first stirrup should be placed 2 in.2(40.75 Using VS = Av fyd/s: s= (0. 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. which requires a 90degree hook with a 6db extension.4 kips 0. 11.75(59.75 for shear.5.3 must be checked: smax = 0. Reinforced Concrete Vu # φVc + φVs where φ = 0.2]. 24 times the stirrup diameter. This spacing is used for all other spans as well. however.2 [21. or 12 in. assuming stirrups consist of two #3 legs (Av = 0.3.3) = 38.4.22) and fy = 40 ksi is: Vs = Vu − φ V c φ = 73.
3 18.FEMA 451.3 73.3 18.kips 3.5 27.852 5. 1. 686 . 1.5 27.8 45.kip = 0.850 3.0 in.8 (c) Gravity shear (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Loading ' 5.45kN.850 3.8 45.295 5.3 (d) Design shear seismic + gravity positive kips 15.3 18.113 kNm).3 73.175D + 1.850 14" 212" 240" 14" 45.8 (b) Seismic shear positive kips 43.5 27.0 in = 25.3 18.6 73.5 27.850 3.852 5.5 27.3 18.6 70.0 kip = 4.852 (a) Seismic moment (tension side) in.1 45.3 Figure 642 Shear strength envelopes for Span A'B of Frame 1 (1.5 73.4 mm.8 45.0L) positive kips 27.3 73.
square and is constructed from 4. which supports Level 5 of Frame 1.000 psi LW concrete.5. respectively. Reinforced Concrete 6.4. The ETABS analysis indicates that the axial earthquake force is ±33.Chapter 6.2(528) + 1.3(528) + 0.45kN).0 ft = 0.2 kips 687 .137 and ±2.kips.33. The column. and 40 ksi transverse reinforcement. The factored gravity force for maximum compression (including earthquake) is: Pu = 1.1 Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement The factored gravity force for maximum compression (without earthquake) is: Pu = 1.2 kips. and the earthquake moments at the top and the bottom of the column are ±2. 60 ksi longitudinal reinforcement. An isolated view of the column is shown in Figure 643.708 in. the earthquake shear force is ±41. ' 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' (1.0 kip = 4.4.8(528) .6 kips The factored gravity force for minimum compression (including earthquake) is: Pu = 0.2 = 389. The column supports an unfactored axial dead load of 528 kips and an unfactored axial live load of 54 kips. 6.3048 m.2 = 746.9 kips.3 Design of Typical Interior Column of Frame 1 This section illustrates the design of a typical interior column on Gridline A'. 1. Moments and shears due to gravity loads are assumed to be negligible.6(54) = 720 kips This force acts with no significant gravity moment.5.3.5(54) + 33. is 28 in.
5.4.by28in.3: ⎛ 0. In this example.12.05.6 load factors on gravity load: βd = 1. the structure must be considered unbraced.88 = 72. this does not affect this example because I = 1.21 [5. Hence. ACI 318 Sec. 10. Even though the frame is defined as unbraced. has been added to 2003 Provisions Eq.54. However. I.5 E ⎜ ⎟ 240 ⎝ L ⎠Girder According to ACI 318 Sec.4EIColumn ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ (1 + βd ) ⎠ ⎛ EI ⎞ =⎝ ⎜ ⎟ 150 ⎝ L ⎠Column Using the 1.39 187.5 688 . ACI 318 Sec.4(51. the ACI story stability factor will be in excess of 0.2 and 1. This factor is given as: Q= ∑ Puδ 0 Vu lc which is basically the same as Provisions Eq. The importance factor. lu = 120 in. 10.11. the gravity forces are factored.2 allows slenderness effects to be neglected when klu/r < 22. 5.4.12.] ACI is silent on whether or not δ0 should include Cd.4 = 14.6.1b): E (45.000) ⎛ EI ⎞ = = 187. This requires that the effective length factor k for this column be less than 1.3) and lu/r = 120/8. As can be seen from earlier calculations shown in Table 612b. For a 28in. For use with the nomograph for unbraced columns (ACI 318 Figure R10. δ0 does not include Cd. and is therefore consistent with the Provisions. 221E ) 1 + 0.FEMA 451.4 in.0.7 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 = 72.216. 10.88 720 I Column = 283 (28) = 51. 221 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Since the frame being designed is unbraced in both the NS and EW directions. column with a clear unbraced length.3. (ACI 318 Sec.13. slenderness effects should be checked.216] except that in the ACI equation. [Note also that the equation to determine the stability coefficient has been changed in the 2003 Provisions.4 12 0..05 for Level 5 of the building responding in the EW direction.3(28) = 8. 10. r = 0.2 states that the frame may be considered braced against sidesway if the story stability factor is less than 0.7 = 0.11.2(528) = 0.
85(2) 4. As the computed effective length factor is less than 1. The ETABS analysis indicates that the shear force is 41.000 M x (ftkips) Figure 644 Interaction diagram for column (1.500 1.3. However. Since each of the other 32 columns has a lateral stiffness well in excess of that required for story stability in the NS direction.85(2) fc′bw d = 0.36 kNm). the column under consideration has no beam framing into it in the direction of loading.000 500 0 500 0 200 400 600 800 1. P (kips) 3. slenderness effects need not be checked for this column. 6. 21.1b).5 Continuing with the design.000 1.45kN.0 times the factored shear force as derived from the structural analysis.0 ftkip = 1.000(28)(25.000 2.0 kip = 4.Chapter 6.0(41.3] allows the column to be checked for 2.5.10.15 (ACI 318 Figure R10.12. If the stiffness contributed by the joists and the spandrel beam acting in torsion is ignored.500 2.9) = 83.0121) is shown in Figure 644. The concrete supplies a capacity of: Vc = 0.9 kips and the design shear is 2. Reinforced Concrete and the effective length factor k = 1. 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. The column clearly has the strength to support the applied loads (represented as solid dots in the figure).0.3 [21.2 Design and Detailing of Transverse Reinforcement ACI 318 Sec.12.4. the effective length factor for the column in the NS direction is effectively infinity. column with 12 #8 bars (ρ = 0.1 kips For loading in the NS direction.54. 1.8 kips. A Pdelta analysis carried out per the ACI Commentary would be required to substantiate this. 5 689 . an axialflexural interaction diagram for a 28in. this column is only one of four in a story containing a total of 36 columns.by28in.6) = 77.
a fourlegged #3 tie spaced at 8 in.0db = 8. 12 in.00 in. s = [4(0. below the beam soffit. Ties at this spacing are required over a length lo of: 1/6 clearspan of column = 120/6 = 20 in.0 in. above the floor slab. 18.6/34. maximum cross section dimension = 28 in. the next tie is placed 4 in.FEMA 451.0 in.75(77. the tie spacing should not exceed: 8. 690 . 21.02 in.5] specifies the minimum reinforcement required. (using #8 longitudinal bars) 24dtie = 24 (3/8) = 9.8 − 0.10. The 8. ACI 318 Sec.1) = 34. over a depth of 28 in.6 kips 0. maximum spacing controls.0 (25. Note that the tie spacing is not varied beyond lo.75 Using ties with four #3 legs. The final spacing is as shown in Figure 645.12. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The requirement for steel reinforcement is: Vs = Vu − φVc φ = 83.0 in.0 (1.6)] = 13. Within a region lo from the face of the support.5 [21.008) = 8. Given the above. (using #3 ties) 1/2 the smallest dimension of the frame member = 28/2 = 14 in. on center. will be used.11)] [40. One tie will be provided at 4 in. and the remaining ties are spaced at 8 in.
5. ACI 318 Sec.2 requires that all beamcolumn connections have a minimum amount of transverse reinforcement through the beamcolumn joints. 1113: ⎛b s⎞ Av = 50 ⎜ w ⎟ ⎜ fy ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ This is the same equation used to proportion minimum transverse reinforcement in beams.c.5.12.11.4 mm). 50(28) 691 28" Level 6 .11.2.Chapter 6.10. Assuming Av is supplied by four #3 ties and fy = 40 ksi: s= 4(0.000) = 12. which refers to Sec. 28" 4" 30" 28" Figure 645 Column reinforcement (1.5. The only exception is in nonseismic frames where the column is confined on all four sides by beams framing into the column. 11. The amount of reinforcement required is given by ACI 318 Eq.6 in.0 in = 25. Reinforced Concrete ' Level 7 4" 3" 3 at 8" 30" 3" (12) #8 bars 14 spaces at 8" o.3 [21. 11.4 Design of BeamColumn Joint Joint reinforcement for intermediate moment frames is addressed in ACI 318 Sec.5].11)(40.4. 6. 21.
8D . The width of the girder is 20 in.000 (b) Moment envelope (in.5L . the first tie will be placed 3 in. The length of the haunch at each end (as measured from the face of the support) is 106 in. 1.000 4.1 Design of Haunched Girder A typical haunched girder supporting Level 5 of Frame 3 is now illustrated.000 6.000 2. moments. WL = 0.000 8.2D + 1.8D + E 0. The girder frames into 28in.0 in = 25. columns on Gridlines A and B. and reinforcement for haunched girder (1. The final arrangement of ties within the beamcolumn joint is shown in Figure 645.6L Strength envelope (3) #10 (3) #10 (2) #10 Level 7 (2) #10 48" (4) #9 48" 48" (4) #9 Figure 646 Loads. 6. has a variable depth with a maximum depth of 30 in. below the top of the beam and then three additional ties will be placed below this hoop at a spacing of 8 in. However.5. at the support and a minimum depth of 20 in.6 kN/m.3D + 0.FEMA 451.000 10.113 kNm).000 4. throughout. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples This effectively requires only two ties within the joint.kip = 0.000 0 2.E 0.5L + E 1. located between Gridlines A and B. 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" 12.5.0 ft = 0. This girder.4 mm. 692 .0 kip/ft = 14.5.3048 m.E 1.3D + 0. the reinforcement at Gridline B is extended into the adjacent span (Span BC) instead of being hooked into the column.90 kips/ft WD = 0. 1.by28in.5 Design of Members of Frame 3 6.000 8.kips) 1.0 in.000 6. for the middle half of the span. As illustrated in Figure 646c.
As = 6 (1.2 d = 30 .5 .113) = 3. Nominal capacity. φMn = 0.10. The other three bars are long and extend into Span BC. three extend from Span BC.90 kips/ft of reduced live load.5L ± E produce approximately equal negative end moments.375 . ρ = 10.kips φMn = 0.49 .38 kips/ft of dead load and 0.Chapter 6.996) = 11.72/2) = 11.kips For the maximum factored positive moment at midspan of 2.12. Three of the bars are short.kips > 2.375 .0) = 4.16 (60)]/[0.641 in.5 .kips > 10.1.16 in.5.49)] = 0.375 .106 in.5 ..49)] = 0. Since positive moment at the support is negligible.kips on Gridline A.56)] = 0. For a factored negative moment of 8.27/2 = 27.62 in. a positive moment capacity of at least onethird of the negative moment capacity will be supplied per ACI 318 Sec.113 in.49 in.84/2) = 4.128/2 = 17. A gravity load analysis of the girder was carried out in a similar manner similar to that described above for the Berkeley building.85 (4) 20.824 in.8(4. Mn = [10.221 in.2 d = 20 .0139 Depth of compression block.4.8.1.4. extending just past the end of the haunch.290 in.0] = 6. (effective flange width = 84 in.964 OK OK OK 693 .6L and 1.00 (60)]/[0.8D E.kips φMn = 0. ρ = 4. The envelopes of maximum positive and negative moment indicate that 1.kips > 8.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.00 (60)](17.62 (60)](27.1.62/[20 (27.96/2) = 13.1.6.996 in. try four #9 bars: As = 4 (1. and gravity controls midspan positive moment. For a factored negative moment of 10.56 in.85 (4) 84] = 0.8(13.) Mn = [4.8(11.00 in.85 (4) 20.3D + 0. 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.2 d = 30 .106 in.56 . 21. the entire structure was analyzed using the ETABS program.1. Reinforced Concrete Based on a tributary gravity load analysis.1.16 (60)](27.84 in.96 in. and the remaining two are short bars centered over Support B.5. a = [7.0.62 (60)]/[0.964 inkips.641 in. try eight #10 bars.0. try six #10 bars.0. Three of the bars extend from Span AB.0/[20 (17. Positive moment at the support is nearly zero under 0. 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.1].2 Design of Longitudinal Reinforcement The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 646b for five different load combinations.27) = 10.031 inkips Design capacity.kips on Gridline B. this girder supports an average of 3.0185 a = [10. For determining earthquake forces.2D + 1.0] = 8.49 in. As = 8 (1.27) = 7.0.27/2 = 27. 6.49 .16/[20 (27. Mn = [7.031) = 8.72 in.1 [21. ρ = 7.0114 a = [4.
56)] = 0.6) + 0.84/2) = 6. ACI 318 Sec.3 [21.128/2 = 27.10.3) = =122.5 − 0. Stirrup spacing required for strength is based on two #4 legs with fy = 60 ksi.0073 a = [4. the nominal moment strength = 11.8 + 91.211 in.514)/(480 .9 = 130. Vc = (0.FEMA 451.8 kips VG = 1.75 φ 694 .3 (63.84 in.8(6.1.00 (60)] (27.56 in.514)/(480 .3 kips 1.85)(2) 4.00/[20 (27.00) = 1. 21.031 + 6. Splices shown are Class B and do not need to be confined within hoops.996 + 6. 6.0.6) = 59.7 kips 0.75(59.3VD + 0.12. the nominal strength =13. For the haunched girder.28) = 38.deep section with four #9 bars is computed as follows: As = 4 (1.5.514) = 5.kips For positive moment and four #9 bars.5.996 in. the four #9 bars will be extended into the supports as shown in Figure 646.3 Design of Transverse Reinforcement For the design for shear.5(16.5VL = 1.5 kips The shear at Support A is 38. the nominal moment strength = 6. Due to the small difference in end shears.85 (4) 20.2 d = 30 .3] gives the two options discussed above.00 in. Mn = [4.514 in.0 (60)]/[0. use the larger shear for designing transverse reinforcement at each end.kips Earthquake shear when Support A is under positive seismic moment is: VE = (13. The design positive moment strength for the 30in.9) = 91.1 = 136.4 kips Earthquake shear when Support B is under positive seismic moment is: VE = (11. the approach based on the nominal flexural capacity (φ = 1.kips The final layout of longitudinal reinforcement used is shown in Figure 646.0.5 . ρ = 4.kips φMn = 0.1. The complete design shear (demand) strength envelope is shown in Figure 647a.28) = 45. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Even though they provide more than onethird of the negative moment strength at the support.4+91.56 . The hooked #10 bars can easily be developed in the confined core of the columns. Note that the supplied design strengths at each location exceed the factored moment demands.1 kips Maximum total shear occurs at Support B: Vu = 45. 000 Vs = Vu −φVc 136.514 in.031 in.375 .1 kips.kips For negative moment and eight #10 bars.0] = 0. 000)(20)(27.0) of the girder will be used as follows: For negative moment and six #10 bars.
5" o. from the face of the support followed by four stirrups at a spacing of 5 in. depth region. at the support and approximately 5. 8" o. and then 13 stirrups at 6 in.. 1. h = 25 in. h =20 in.45kN).5 kips 6" o. Reinforced Concrete Using Vs = Av fyd/s: s= (0.4 kips Middle of haunch.4 mm. Outside this region. (b) Spacing of transverse reinforcement 2" 8'10" 2" 20'0" 8'10" #4 stirrups Figure 647 Shear force envelope for haunched girder (1.3048m.1 in. a constant spacing of 8 in.75 in. 695 . Within a region 2h from the face of the support. The final spacing of stirrups used is shown in Figure 647b.1 kips 136. Three additional stirrups should be placed at each bend or “kink” in the bottom bars. the allowable maximum spacing is d/4 = 6. 5" o. VU = 114. VU =93.c. the spacing required for other stations is: At support.c.1 kips s = 5.39 in. at the end of the haunch and in the 20in. VU = 69. is used. Vu = 45. on either side of the kink.61 in. h = 30 in. s = 7.0 in = 25.deep segment of the beam. depth. at midhaunch.c.2 kips Midspan.7 130. through the remainder of the haunch. At the haunched segments at either end of the beam. at midhaunch and 8.. the maximum spacing is d/2 = 11.67 in. Following the same procedure as shown above.6) = 5.0 kips 46.c. 6" o.0 ft = 0.7 in. VU = 136.39 in.2 in.9 kips End of haunch. One should be located at the kink and the others approximately 2 in. s = 6. s = 29. the first stirrup is placed 2 in.87 in.60 in. 122. For the constant 20in.4)(60)(27. 1.Chapter 6.c.4 kips Quarter point of region of 20in..0 kips 52.0 kip = 4. s = 12.4 kips (a) Required shear strength envelope 42.
kips.0 in.80(2603) . V = 1.603 in.kips and the corresponding live load moment is 693. The corresponding shears are 43.1 kips compression 696 .392 in.3 kips (same sign of gravity shear) Axial force = 63.5 kips.874 = 1.2(13. the forces in the column are obtained from the ETABS analysis as follows: Moment at top of column = 690 in.4 Design of Supporting Column The column on Gridline A which supports Level 5 of the haunched girder is 28 in. and supports a total unfactored dead load of 803.5(11.kips Shear = 0.2(43. the forces in the column are obtained from the ETABS analysis as follows: Moment at top of column = 690 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 6.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.1 = 580 kips For earthquake forces acting from east to west.6) + 1. respectively.6(693) = 4.kips (tension on inside face adds to gravity) Shear in column = 13.2(2.232 in.690 = 1. Under gravity load alone.2(803. by 28 in.kips Moment at bottom = 0.090 kips For equivalent static earthquake forces acting from west to east.kips (tension on inside face subtracts from gravity) Moment at bottom of column = 874 in.63.208 in. The layout of the column is shown in Figure 648.4 and 11.5.4) + 0.3 kips (opposite sign of gravity shear) Axial force = 63.6(78. M = 1. P = 1.1 kips (using the second option for computing EQ shear) Axial force = 0.80(2603) .5.5) = 57.4) = 1.4 kips.4) .6 kips and an unfactored reduced live load of 78.kips (tension on outside face subtracts from gravity) Shear in column = 13.kips (tension on outside face adds to gravity) Moment at bottom of column = 874 in.80(803.6) . the unfactored dead load moment is 2.80(43. The factored gravity load combinations for designing the column are as follows: Bending moment.FEMA 451.8 kips Axial compression.1 kips tension The factored forces involving earthquake from west to east are: Moment at top 0. Shear.603) + 1.3) = 8.
0 ft = 0.604 in.5) + 2(13. Reinforced Concrete P L = 78.603) + 0.5(693) + 690 = 4.6 kips (using second option for computing EQ shear) Axial force = 1.6 kips 30" Includes level 5 Level 5 12'6" 28" 20" Figure 648 Loading for Column A.45kN).0 kip = 4.5(11.3) = 94.kips Moment at bottom = 1.420 in.603) + 0.4) + 0.kips Shear = 1.4 mm.3(43. The factored forces involving earthquake from east to west are: Moment at top 1.5(693) + 874 = 4.6) + 0.Chapter 6.0 in = 25.3048 m.3(2.5(78. 1.4 kips P D = 803.4) + 63.3(2.3(803.147 kips As may be observed from Figure 649. 30" Level 4 697 . 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 = 1. the column with 12 #8 bars is adequate for all loading combinations. The actual details for the column supporting the haunched girder of Frame 3 are shown in Figure 650. 1. Frame 3 (1. the details for the column currently under consideration are similar to those shown in Figure 645.
500 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples P (kips) 3.0 ftkip = 1.000 M x (ftkips) Figure 649 Interaction diagram for Column A.36 kNm).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.000 2.5.5. 1.FEMA 451. The joint details are shown in Figure 650.0 kip = 4. 6. Frame 3 (1. 698 .000 1.45kN.500 1.000 500 0 500 0 200 400 600 800 1.
28" 699 .0 in = 25.4 mm).Chapter 6.c. Frame 3 (1. Reinforced Concrete Level 5 4" (12) #8 bars 14 spaces at 8" o. 28" 4" Level 4 28" Figure 650 Details for Column A.
or b. Ph. or lap splices (observing the restrictions regarding the location of splices given for monolithic concrete) and the connection is completed with grout. P. for precast concrete structural systems. Ductile connections. Strong connections. Some detail is given for special moment frame designs that emulate monolithic concrete. 5. precast or not. Wet connections where reinforcement is spliced with mechanical couplers. if momentresisting frames are used as the vertical system.) 2. 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. in which the nonlinear response occurs at a connection between a precast unit and another structural element.. this requirement applies in Seismic Design Categories B and C. P. Requires assurance of ductility at connections that resist overturning for ordinary precast concrete shear walls.E. Stevens. (In the authors’ opinion this does not apply to buildings in Seismic Design Category A. or b. or 71 .D. 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. 4.E. welds. Resist amplified chord forces in diaphragms and. (Because ordinary shear walls are used in lower Seismic Design Categories. To validate designs that do not emulate monolithic concrete. Very briefly. Defines that monolithic emulation may be achieved through the use of either: a. Defines both ductile and strong connections can be either: a.7 PRECAST CONCRETE DESIGN Gene R. Requires the system (even if the precast carries only gravity loads) to satisfy one of the following two sets of provisions: a. reference is made to a new ACI testing standard (ACI T1. 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. the Provisions: 1. Provide a momentresisting connection at all beamtocolumn joints with positive lateral support for columns and with special considerations for bearing lengths.) 3. provide a minimum degree of redundancy measured as a fraction of available bays. and James Robert Harris.101).
1. Conventional tiltup buildings may deserve a unique treatment for seismicresistant design. The reader should bear in mind that the appendices of the Provisions are prepared for trial use and comment. The two untopped precast concrete diaphragms of Sec. they are explained. Sec. Given the brief nature of the requirements in both the Provisions and ACI 318. the system probably would behave more like a jointed precast system. For buildings in Seismic Design Category D. The example in Sec.2.2 shows the same precast plank with a 2 ½ in. with a minimum ductility ratio of 4 and specific anchorage requirements. The precast concrete walls in this example resist the seismic forces for a threestory office building. Type Z. which are defined as any connection that is not a wet connection.1.4] 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 example in Sec.1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples b. 7. the inplane performance of the precast panels has rarely been a problem. the authors offer some interpretation. Type Y. located in southern New England (Seismic Design Category B). Sec. Although untopped diaphragms are commonly used in regions of low seismic hazard. 9. 7. Tiltup concrete wall buildings in all seismic zones have long been designed using the precast wall panels as shear walls in the seismicforceresisting system. 7.1.3 illustrates the design of a special precast concrete shear wall for a singlestory industrial warehouse building in the Los Angeles. which they usually do not. 6.3 presents an interpretation of monolithic emulation of precast shear wall panels with ductile. and dry connections are permitted.3. 9. Where those differences are pertinent to the examples illustrated here. although tiltup panels with large heighttowidth ratios could behave in the fashion described in design example 7. Dry connections. ACI 31802 identifies this system as an “intermediate precast concrete shear wall” and does not specifically define the Type Y or Z connections. Many of these requirements have been adopted into the 2002 edition of ACI 318. prestressed concrete planks.1 illustrate the design of untopped and topped precast concrete floor and roof diaphragms of the fivestory masonry buildings described in Sec.thick composite lightweight concrete topping for the fivestory masonry building in Seismic Design Category D described in Sec. 7. with a minimum ductility ratio of 8 and stronger anchorage requirements. One such requirement qualifies is that overturning connections qualify as the newly defined Type Y or Z.thick hollow core precast.2 of this volume of design examples. however. which is where most precast concrete seismicforceresisting systems are constructed. 9. This example identifies points of yielding for the system and connection features that are required to maintain stable cyclic behavior for yielding. Additional clarity in the definition and application of design provisions of such precast systems is needed. 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. and they are not the subject of any of the examples in this chapter. The Provisions describes methods specifically intended to emulate the behavior of monolithic construction. Whether this connection would qualify under ACI 31802 is a matter of interpretation. 7.2. primarily because there has been little demand for postelastic performance in that direction. There are very few seismic requirements for such walls in the Provisions.12 [9. and future changes should be expected. but some differences remain. dry connections. 72 . In tiltup buildings subject to strong ground shaking. Provisions Sec. 7. or b. The examples in Sec.2. the only place they are addressed in the Provisions is the Appendix to Chapter 9.1 show the requirements for Seismic Design Categories B and C using 8in.2 illustrates the design of an ordinary precast concrete shear wall building in a region of low or moderate seismicity.FEMA 451. Requires that ductile connections be either: a. The design is computed using the Provisions rules for monolithic emulation.
” PCI Journal. and 3. Saad E. and No. “Effectiveness of ShearFriction Reinforcement in Shear Diaphragm Capacity of HollowCore Slabs. American Institute of Steel Construction. American Society of Civil Engineers. 21. 2002. 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. Design and Detailing of Untopped HollowCore Slab Systems for Diaphragm Shear. 2002. Precast Concrete Design In addition to the Provisions. American Concrete Institute. 1981 and 1982. it has been annotated to reflect changes made for the 2003 Provisions. Hawkins. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. xxx (ACI Sec. 1999. Structural Engineers Association of Arizona. 1 (Jan. 1998 [2002]. No. yyy) where “xxx” is the section in the Provisions and “yyy” is the section proposed for insertion into ACI 31899. Neil M. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes made for the 2003 Provisions. 5 (Sept. 2. “Proposed Revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Precast Concrete Structures. Special precast shear walls either need to satisfy the design requirements for special castinplace concrete shear walls 73 .Oct.” PCI Journal. Second Edition. Vol. No. 1988.Dec. 26. Load & Resistance Factor Design. Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. 27. PCI Design Handbook.13 (with limited modifications in Chapter 9 of the 2003 Provisions). Building Code Requirements and Commentary for Structural Concrete. No. Although the general conepts of the changes are described. The 2003 Provisions recognizes ordinary and intermediate precast concrete shear walls.. 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. 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. Moustafa.Chapter 7.). [ ]. No. 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. 1981) and the discussion contained in PCI Journal. Ghosh. and S. Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. Central Chapter. Vol. Annotations within brackets. The 2003 Provisions does not distinguish between precast and castinplace concrete for special shear walls.). Third Edition. 45. 6 (Nov. Manual of Steel Construction.Feb. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. 2000. Design and Typical Details of Connections for Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 1999. 3 (MayJune 1982). 3 (MayJune). Parts 1. Vol. Fifth Edition. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. K. 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.
Where they affect the design examples in the chapter.6).4 and 9. 74 . some minor changes may not be noted. 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. 9.2.7) or most be substantiated using experimental evidence and analysis (2003 Provisions Sec.FEMA 451. Many of the design provisions for precast shear walls in the 2000 Provisions have been removed. Where this occurs. revisions to the redundancy requirements. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (ACI 31802 Sec. and the requirements in ACI 31802 are in some ways less specific. However. 21.” Commentary on how the specific design provision was incorporated into ACI 31802 is included where appropriate.2. and revisions to the minimum base shear equation. the 2000 Provisions references in this chapter are simply annotated as “[not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].
Other definitions (e. Dynamic modeling of seismic response is not required. ρΩ0Fpx but not less than ρΩ0Cswpx where Fpx is calculated from Provisions Eq.5. 7. being equal to 1. 21.. untopped precast diaphragms are permitted only in Seismic Design Categories A through C.1. Precast Concrete Design 7. 9. Figure 9. New York This example illustrates floor and roof diaphragm design for the fivestory masonry buildings located in Birmingham.4 in the first printing of the 2000 Provisions. and New York.6. This method makes use of the shear friction provisions of ACI 318 with the friction coefficient. 7.9]. ACI 318 requires grout or concrete placed against hardened concrete to have clean. These two sources occasionally conflict (such as the symbol µ used above).g.2] “shall not be less than the forcee calculated from either of the following two criteria:” 1. Reinforced concrete diaphragms constructed using untopped precast concrete elements are addressed in the Appendix to Chapter 9 of the Provisions. No outofplane offsets in vertical seismicforceresisting members (Type 4 plan irregularities) are permitted with untopped diaphragms.3 [A9. 7. 5. The design method used here is that proposed by Moustafa.3.thick hollow core precast. The terminology used is defined in ACI 318 Chapter 21 and Provisions Chapter 9. This equation normally is specified for Seismic Design 1 Note that this equation is incorrectly numbered as 5.2. (peak to valley).1. Details from the SEAA Hollow Core reference are used to develop the connection details.Chapter 7. 75 . Alabama.2. laitance free. The Appendix to Chapter 9 provides design provisions for untopped precast concrete diaphragms without limits as to the Seismic Design Category.63].1. and intentionally roughened surfaces with a total amplitude of about 1/4 in.1 General Design Requirements In accordance with the Provisions and ACI 318.41 [4. The example in Sec. but the source is clear from the context of the discussion. Diaphragms with untopped precast elements are designed to remain elastic. To use µ = 1. which act compositely or noncompositely for gravity loads. µ.2 General InPlane Seismic Design Forces for Untopped Diaphragms The inplane diaphragm seismic design force (F!px) for untopped precast concrete in Provisions Sec.21 shows the typical floor plan of the diaphragms. The floors and roofs of these buildings are to be untopped 8in.4SDSIwpx. 21.2SDSIwpx and not more than 0.0.1 HORIZONTAL DIAPHRAGMS Structural diaphragms are horizontal or nearly horizontal elements.0. on soft rock (Seismic Design Category B) and in New York. Alabama. Roughness for formed edges is provided either by sawtooth keys along the length of the plank or by hand roughening with chipping hammers.4. Topped precast concrete elements. 9A. New York (Seismic Design Category C). and connections are designed for limited ductility. such as floors and roofs.2 provides design parameters used in this example.1. chord elements) are provided as needed for clarity in this example. prestressed concrete plank. which also bounds Fpx to be not less than 0. Precast concrete diaphragms may be constructed using topped or untopped precast elements depending on the Seismic Design Category of the building. are designed using the requirements of ACI 31899 Sec.2. that transfer seismic inertial forces to the vertical seismicforceresisting members.1. Static rational models are used to determine shears and moments on joints as well as shear and tension/compression forces on connections.1 Untopped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Buildings Located in Birmingham.7 [ACI 31802 Sec.
62] and not limited by the minima and maxima for that equation. 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.3 [A9.2] requires that collector elements. Here the Provisions requires the designer to compute both an overstrength level force and a yield level force and then use the larger. Because vertical forces do not normally affect diaphragm collector elements.6. If the option is exercised. collector splices. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Categories D and higher.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 used to calculate inplane seismic design forces for the diaphragms are provided in Table 7.2. the designer can then use the smaller of the two forces. which places the overstrength factor on horizontal seismic forces and combines the horizontal and vertical seismic forces with the effects of gravity forces.2.9] defines a minimum diaphragm seismic design force that will always be less than the forces computed above. 5. and collector connections to the vertical seismicforceresisting members be designed in accordance with Provisions Sec.2.2. 5. This approach to yielding uses the first mode force distribution along the height of the building and basic pushover analysis concepts.2. This appears to conflict with the Commentary.2. 5. 9A. 5.4.6.1 [4.11.7.25KFpx* where K is the ratio of the yield strength in bending to the demand. Ω0 is the overstrength factor (Provisions Table 5.25 times the shear force to cause yielding of the vertical seismicforceresisting system.4.6 [4.7. 76 . 1. the authors believe that Provisions Sec. Parameters from the example in Sec.2.2.1 [4.2.6.6. 5.0 for Seismic Design Categories A through C per Provisions Sec.2 [4.0) Fpx* is the seismic force at each level for the diaphragm as defined above by Provisions Eq.1 [5. which can be approximated as: F!px = 1.31]) Cs is the seismic response coefficient (Provisions Sec.1 [4.2 [3. 5.3.1]. 1.2.2].3.2.2.4 [4. and connections. The maximum force would normally be computed from a plastic mechanism analysis.6.1.4 [1. Provisions Sec.1. My/Mu. For components thought likely to behave in a brittle fashion. 9.2. For Seismic Design Category C. which is 1.3. 4. splices.4. 5. For the fivestory masonry buildings of this example. which requires use of the overstrength factor. 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.1 [4. For Seismic Design Categories B and C.3.3.2] is satisfied by the requirements of Provisions Sec.FEMA 451. (Note that φ = 1. 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.2].1. This requirement is different from similar requirements elsewhere in the Provisions.3]) 2. ρ is the reliability factor.2.1.2. Provisions Sec.3]) I is the occupancy importance factor (Provisions Sec.
9.2 Design Parameter ρ Ωo Cs wi (roof) wi (floor) SDS I 1. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.Chapter 7.11 Design Parameters from Example 9. A simple factor of 0. whereas K is maximum for the maximum axial load. The factor K is large primarily due to consideration of axial load. 1. Birmingham 1 1.0 New York City 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.2.0 ftkip = 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.0 2. The shape of the interaction diagram between the balanced point and pure bending is far enough from a straight line (see Figure 9.95 was applied to the nominal capacity here.12 861 kips 963 kips 0.2 (the final numbers in this section may have changed. Table 7. Yielding begins before the nominal bending capacity is reached.12 shows the load information from Sec. The strength for design is controlled by minimum axial load. so Mn for the wall is computed from the axial load moment interaction diagram data developed in Sec. 9. such as these. because this example was completed first). Thus.39 1.5 0.2. which includes some live load and a vertical acceleration on dead load. An intermediate point on the interaction diagram was computed for each wall in Sec.156 869 kips 978 kips 0. but that does not appear necessary for design.0 2.45 kN. and that point is utilized here. 77 . It is feasible to compute the moment at which the extreme bar yields.24 1.5 0.36 kNm. For lightly reinforced walls with distributed reinforcement and with axial loads about onethird of the balanced load.0 kip = 4. 9. particularly when the reinforcement is distributed uniformly along the wall rather than being concentrated at the ends of the wall. the yield moment is on the order of 90 to 95 percent of the nominal capacity.
12 Shear Wall Overstrength Birmingham 1 Pure Bending.2.640 ftkips 1.6. MnB Intermediate Load. Compute diaphragm weight (wpx) for the roof and floor as follows: Roof Total weight Walls parallel to force = (45 psf)(277 ft)(8.1.782 ftkips 5. 5.229 ftkips 363 kips 327 kips 5.4 [4.67 ft) wpx n = 861 kips = 54 kips = 807 kips = 963 kips = 108 kips = 855 kips Compute diaphragm demands in accordance with Provisions Eq.355 ftkips 335 kips 315 kips 5.13.4. 78 . PnB Maximum Design Load.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.493 ftkips 3.723 ftkips 6.67 ft/2) wpx Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (45 psf)(277 ft)(8.3.092 ftkips 4.483 ftkips 1.1. Mn0 Intermediate Load.6.4]: Fpx = i=x n i=x ∑ Fi w px ∑ wi Calculations for Fpx are provided in Table 7.83 New York City 1.58 7.837 ftkips 2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 7. Pu Interpolated Mn Approximate My Design Mu Factor K = My/Mu 963 ftkips 5.FEMA 451.
0 kips) = 38.0(855 kips) = 2(38. To simplify the design.2SDSIwpx The maximum value of Fpx = 0.12(855 kips) = 103 kips (at the floors) Since Cswpx is larger than Fpx. 79 . Compare this value to Cswpx to determine the minimum diaphragm force for untopped diaphragms as indicated previously.25KFpx* = 1. the force to yield the walls clearly controls the design.85)164 kips = 379 kips (at the roof) F!px = 1. Cswpx = 0.1 kips. Therefore.0(2.5.7 kips (at the roof) = 41. the diaphragm seismic design forces are as follows: F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.8 kips (at the roof) Cswpx = 0.24)1.5 kips (at the roof) = 82.13 is substantially larger than the maximum Fpx.25(1. The minimum value of Fpx = 0.22. the controlling force is Cswpx.8 kips) = 242 kips (at the roof) F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1.45 kN.13 Birmingham 1 Fpx Calculations i= x Level Roof 4 3 2 1 wi (kips) 861 963 963 963 963 ∑ wi n (kips) 861 1.790 3.2(0.750 4. Note that this will always be true when I = 1. This is generally true at upper levels if the R factor is less than 5.1.25KFpx* = 1.4SDSIwpx = 0.2(0. the diaphragm design force used for all levels will be the maximum force at any level.0 kips (at floors) = 77.1 kips (at floors) Note that Fpx by Table 7.13 are listed in Table 9.Chapter 7.0(807 kips) = 0. The value of Fpx used for the roof diaphragm is 82. The values for Fi and Vi used in Table 7.5)(96. 379 kips.24)1.5)(103 kips) = 256 kips (at the floors) The second check on design force is based on yielding of the shear walls: F!px = 1.12(807 kips) = 96.0 and R is less than or equal to 2.85)155 kips = 358 kips (at the floors) For this example.7 kips) = 2(41.820 2.710 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(2. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.1. 7.4 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.25(1.0 kip = 4.
Thus.4SDSIwpx when I = 1.5)(135 kips) = 337 kips (at the floors) Calculations for Fpx using Provisions Eq.2.0(2.25KFpx* = 1. 5. Following the same procedure as illustrated in the previous section.4] are required for the second check F!px = 1.67 ft/2) wpx Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (48 psf)(277 ft)(8. 710 . 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. Compute Cswpx as: Cswpx = 0.4.0(2.3. 7. The diaphragm seismic design force (423 kips) is controlled by yielding at the base of the walls.156(863 kips) = 135 kips (at the floors) The diaphragm seismic design forces are: F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 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. 5.3.6.25KFpx. just as with the Birmingham 1 building.1. the maximum Fpx is 214 kips at the roof.4.58)214 kips = 423 kips (at the roof) To simplify the design.6.4] are not required for the first set of forces because Cswpx will be greater than or equal to the maximum value of Fpx = 0.11.2.156(812 kips) = 127 kips (at the roof) Cswpx = 0.6.6.0 and R is less than or equal to 2. In the transverse direction.4 [4.25(1.1.5)(127 kips) = 318 kips (at the roof) F!px = ρΩ0Cswpx = 1. the loads will be distributed as shown in Figure 7.67 ft) wpx = 978 kips = 115 kips = 863 kips = 870 kips = 58 kips = 812 kips Calculations for Fpx using Provisions Eq.FEMA 451.4 [4. 1.5. the diaphragm design force used for all levels will be the maximum force at any level.
0 ft = 0.11) are computed as follows: F = 423 kips/4 = 105. 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 .8 kips The uniform diaphragm demands are proportional to the distributed weights of the diaphragm in different areas (see Figure 7.12 identifies critical regions of the diaphragm to be considered in this design. Precast Concrete Design W1 W2 W1 F F F F 40'0" 3 at 24'0" = 72'0" 152'0" 40'0" Figure 7. W1 = [67 psf(72 ft) + 48 psf(8. the diaphragm reactions at the transverse shear walls (F as shown in Figure 7.3048 m). Assuming the four shear walls have the same stiffness and ignoring torsion.11).180 lb/ft = 2.Chapter 7.364 lb/ft Figure 7.11 Diaphragm force distribution and analytical model (1.67 ft)4](423 kips / 863 kips) W2 = [67 psf(72 ft)](423 kips / 863 kips) = 3.
Since the diaphragms have no infection points. The amplification factor is: 2 ⎡ ⎛ Leff ⎞ ⎤ ⎢1 + 0. this amplification factor has been included in calculating the chord forces. Because these masonry wall buildings are similar to buildings with concrete walls.] This amplification factor appears to apply to buildings with vertical seismicforceresisting members constructed of precast or monolithic concrete.1.12 Diaphragm plan and critical design regions (1.1. Provisions Sec.67 ft bd = diaphragm width = 72 ft 2 ⎡ ⎛ 80 ⎞ ⎤ ⎢1 + 0.4 [not applicable in 2003 Provisions] defines a chord amplification factor for diaphragms in structures having precast gravityload systems.67 ) = 1.0 bd ⎣ 12hs where Leff = length of the diaphragm between inflection points. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4 1 2 3 5 72'0" 36'0" 4'0" 24'0" Figure 7.0 ft = 0. 9.4 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎝ 72 ⎠ ⎥ ⎢ ⎦ The amplification factor = ( 72 ) ⎣ 12 ( 8.4 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ bd ⎠ ⎥ ⎦ ≥ 1.3048 m). 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.FEMA 451. [The chord amplification factor has been dropped in the 2003 Provisions and does not occur in ASC 31802.03 712 .
1. 5.0 kips Joint 4 – Outofplane forces The Provisions have several requirements for outofplane forces.6.6.2 [4.9 kips According to Provisions Sec.1] (Seismic Design Category A and greater) [In the 2003 Provisions.Chapter 7.4(SDS)Wwall = 0. 5.2.9 kips = 114.061 ftkips = 29.540 ftkips = 36. Vu2 = 3. The design and detailing requirements in 2003 Provisions Sec.6.7 [4. 5. Tu2 = M/d = 1.6.05(D + L)plank = 0.6. F = 423 kips/8 Wall shear along wall length. Vu3 = 127 kips + 2. Vu4 = 52.1. the minimum anchorage for masonry walls is: Fp = 400(SDS)I = 400(0.2 [4.9 kips = 25.8 kips (24 ft) Chord tension force. Mu2 = 127 kips (40 ft/2) Chord tension force.03(2.105. Mu3 = 127 kips (44 ft) + 56.105.0 = 156 plf According to Provisions Sec.7 kips (12 ft) . Mu1 = 114.03(2. None are unique to precast diaphragms and all are less than the requirements in ACI 318 for precast construction regardless of seismic considerations. Tu4 = Cu4 = 52.9 plf Provisions Sec. This diaphragm is 713 .5 but they generally are the same as those in the 2000 Provisions.5 kips = 2.36 kips/ft (24 ft) .061 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 2 – Transverse forces Shear.2.1.05(67 psf + 40 psf)(24 ft/2) = 64. Assuming the planks are similar to beams and comply with the minimum requirements of Provisions Sec.4(0.67 ft) = 64.1] (Seismic Design Category C and greater) requires masonry wall anchorage to flexible diaphragms to be designed for a larger force. Precast Concrete Design Joint forces are: Joint 1 – Transverse forces Shear. Vu1 = 3. 1.18 kips/ft (36 ft) Moment.6.6. all requirements for Seismic Design Category A are in Sec.2.9 kips (36 ft)/(152 ft /2) Collector force at wall end.39)(48 psf)(8.03(3.9 kips . the required outofplane horizontal force is: 0.3.2.2 plf = 52.738 ftkips = 54.25. Tu3 = M/d = 1. bearing wall anchorage shall be designed for a force computed as: 0.540 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 3 – Transverse forces Shear.1 kips = 3.738 ftkips/71 ft) Joint 4 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force.0 kips = 27.2.2.39)1. 5. 4.2 kips = 127 kips = 2.1 [4.6.3] (Seismic Design Category B and greater).2] (Seismic Design Category A and greater).18 kips/ft (40 ft) Moment. Tu1 = M/d = 1.1.6 apply to Seismic Design Category B and greater].5 kips (36 ft/2) Chord tension force.8 kips Moment.1.9 kips = 78.
9 kips [2(36 ft)/152 ft]/2 Collector force at wall end. . 16. The maximum spacing of ties parallel to the span is 10 ft.5. However. and considering that it is designed to avoid yield under the loads that will yield the walls.500 lb/ft parallel and perpendicular to the span of the floor members. Thus. F = 423 kips/8 Wall shear along each side of wall.9 kips ACI 318 Sec.9 kips = 12. 2. These factors are about 10% less than the comparable factors within the main body of the standard. 16.1 specifies that the strengths “. 16.0[(48 psf)(8. but most of the reinforcement is controlled by the computed connections for diaphragm action. They do control some of the reinforcement provided. 16. The maximum spacing of ties perpendicular to the span is the distance between supporting walls or beams. .” This is interpreted to apply to the precast elements of this masonry bearing wall structure. The horizontal tie force requirements are: 1.85SDSIWp. The minimum tie force requirements given in ACI 318 Sec. for structural integrity shall apply to all precast concrete structures. 1.6 Diaphragm Design and Details Before beginning the proportioning of reinforcement.67 ft)] = 195 plf [In the 2003 Provisions. Vu4 = 52. meaning that φ = 1. Joint 5 – Longitudinal forces Wall force.75 Compression control in tied members φ = 0.2(SDS)Iwp = 1. 7.000 lb parallel to the perimeter of a floor or roof located within 4 ft of the edge at all edges. For buildings over two stories there are force requirements for horizontal and vertical members.1.65.] The force requirements in ACI 318 Sec. 4. 714 . 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 31899.6.61 in Sec.1.2(0. Tu5 = Cu5 = 52. ACI 318 Sec. 4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples considered rigid with respect to the walls.5 will be described later. Eq. This example uses the φ factors given in the 2002 edition of ACI 318. Fp = 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. this is a reasonable assumption. a note about ACI’s φ factors is necessary.25. 16. which are the same as those given in Appendix C of the 1999 edition with one exception.0 kips = 52.5 are specified as nominal values.5 kips = 27.5 also has minimum connection force requirements for structural integrity of precast concrete bearing wall building construction.FEMA 451.1 has been changed to 0.90 Shear φ = 0.00 for those forces. The Provisions cites ASCE 7 for combination of seismic load effects with the effects of other loads.39)1. 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 φ factors used here are: Tension control (bending and ties) φ = 0.9 kips . This building has no vertical precast members.
4]. but not less than 2.7.19 in.2 kips)/[0.17).5.3 [21.3].9.1 psi The design 28day compressive strength of the grout is 4.3 is not required. As3 = Tu3/φfy = (54.8. 715 .1 through 21.20 in.4. This section provides requirements for transverse reinforcement in the chords of the diaphragm. 21.8.2.7. = 25. As = 2(0.6.3]. 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 7.63 in.0 in.2(4.5)(72 × 12)2 = 80. The compressive stress in the chord is computed using the ultimate moment based on a linear elastic model and gross section properties.1. Minimum spacing = 3(7/8) = 2.Chapter 7.4.9 [A9.738 × 12)/(4.0 in. 21.4. which then refers to ACI 318 Sec. 9A.000 psi.. an equivalent thickness (t) based on the cross sectional area is used for the hollow core precast units as follows. 21.9(60 ksi)] = 1.7. To determine the inplane section modulus (S) of the diaphragm. the transverse reinforcement indicated in ACI 318 Sec.9.1. Require cover for chord bars and spacing between bars at splices and anchorage zones by ACI 318 Sec. Minimum cover = 2.8.2 along the exterior edges (top and bottom of the plan in Figure 7.2 Use two #7 bars. but not less than 11/2 in.3 [21. 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 7.1.00 in. Since the chord compressive stress is less than 0.9.60) = 1.8. Figure 7.3.5(7/8) = 2.1 Design and Detailing at Joint 3 Joint 3 is designed first to check the requirements of Provisions Sec.2). which references ACI 318 Sec.3].13 shows the chord element at the exterior edges of the diaphragm.000) = 800 psi..5 in.13 Joint 3 chord reinforcement at the exterior edge (1.4. t = area/width = 215/48 = 4.4 mm).5.2 fc' = 0. S = td2/6 Chord compressive stress is computed as: Mu/S = 6Mu3/td2 = 6(3.3 [21. Precast Concrete Design 7. 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. Compute the required amount of chord reinforcement as: Chord reinforcement. 21.
55 in. = 25.75)(1.65 in. This bar is required at all bearing walls and is shown in subsequent details. As1 = Tu1/φfy = (29..9 kips)/[0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Joint 3 must also be checked for the minimum ACI tie forces.60 in2) + 4(0. 7.6.60 in.5 kips)/[(0.9.2) = 4.7. Minimum spacing = 3(6/8) = 2.1.Joints 1 and 5 (1.88 in. but not less than 11/2 in.2) + 2.3 [21.14 Interior joint reinforcement at the ends of plank and the collector reinforcement at the end of the interior longitudinal walls .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. 33 4" (2) #6 (collector bars) #3 x 4'0" (behind) at each joint between planks Figure 7. Shear friction reinforcement. Avf1 = Vu1/φµfy = (114.8.6 kips).8.5(6/8) = 1.2 Because the interior joint reinforcement acts as the collector reinforcement in the longitudinal direction for the interior longitudinal walls.0 in. 21.54 in.1..55 in. but not less than 2. The two #6 bars extend along the length of the interior longitudinal walls as shown in Figure 7.44 in.4 mm).0)(60 ksi)] = 2.14 shows the reinforcement in the interior joints at the ends of the plank. 716 31 2" 21 2" 2" . the cover and spacing of the two # 6 bars in the interior joints will be provided to meet the requirements of ACI 318 Sec.18. Figure 7.25 in.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(0.5 kips per foot requirement requires a 6 kip tie at each joint between the planks.9(60 ksi)] = 0. The chord reinforcement obviously exceeds the 16 kip perimeter force requirement.9 kips is not directly additive).2 ACI tie force = (3 kips/ft)(72 ft) = 216 kips.0 in.54 in.2 (collector force from Joint 4 calculations at 27. The 1. which is satisfied with a #3 bar in each joint (0.2 at 60 ksi = 6.11 in.16 in.3]: Minimum cover = 2.FEMA 451. reinforcement = (216 kips)/(60 ksi) = 3.2 = 3. which is also the collector reinforcement for the interior longitudinal walls (Joint 5).2 Total reinforcement required = 2(0.
= 25.6° ) ( ) 11 2" 21 2" 2" 717 . use ld = 4 ft.4 [21.2 The shear force may be reduced along Joint 2 by the shear friction resistance provided by the supplemental chord reinforcement (2Achord .0 )( 4 × 0.5. Therefore.5) ⎜ ⎟ = 1.2 [21. The anchorage length of the #6 bars is calculated using ACI 31899 Sec.) = 43. Figure 7. which is the width of the plank.6(2.5.16. As2 = Tu2/φfy = (36.6(2.75 ( 60 )(1.75 ( 60 )(1.5 factor is for the difference between straight and hooked bars.As2) and by the four #6 bars projecting from the interior longitudinal walls across this joint. The shear force along the outer joint of the wall where the plank is parallel to the wall is modified as: ⎡ ⎤ VuMod = Vu 2 − ⎣φ f y µ ( A4#6 ) ⎦ = 127 − ⎡0.9.7.9 kips)/[0.6° + cos 26.0 in. Using the arrangement shown in Figure 7.79 in.5. 21.75 in.9(60 ksi)] = 0.2(0. the required ld = 58. Precast Concrete Design Figure 7. are conservatively excluded here.44 ) ⎤ = 47.000( db ) ⎤ ld = 1.5.15 Anchorage region of shear reinforcement for Joint 1 and collector reinforcement for Joint 5 (1.7.9.15 shows the extension of the two #6 bars of Figure 7.3 Joint 2 Design and Detailing The chord design is similar to the previous calculations: Chord reinforcement. and the 1.1.8 kips 2 ⎣ ⎦ This force must be transferred from the planks to the wall.Chapter 7.4 mm). Using #6 bars.8 Avf 2 = = = 0.2]) and shows the bars anchored at each end of the plank. The supplemental chord bars.000 ⎦ ⎝ The 2.14 into the region where the plank is parallel to the bars.4: ⎛ f y db ⎞ ⎡ 60.5) ⎢ ⎥ = 58. This detail makes use of this supplement plank reinforcement (two #6 bars or an equal area of strand per ACI 31899 Sec. 2" (2) #6 anchored 4'0" into plank at ends.1.7 in.5.6 factor applies when the development length is not within a confined core.2db ⎜ 65 f ′ ⎟ c ⎠ ⎣ 65 4. 21.6. the required shear friction reinforcement (Avf2) is computed as: VuMod 2 47. 21.2 φ f y µ sin α f + cos α f 0. The bars will need to be extended the full length of the diaphragm unless supplemental plank reinforcement is provided. which are located at the end of the walls.0 sin 26. 7.4] which references ACI 318 Sec.68 in.
7 (1.7 factor of ACI 318 Sec.2 in.000 = 14.2 The shear force between the other face of this wall and the diaphragm is: Vu2 . 718 . Figure 7. 12.99 in. The total shear reinforcement provided is 9(0. but not less than 8db or 6 in.200) 0. Side cover exceeds 21/2 in. 12.000 ( 0.7 (1.000 = 4. but it is not arranged to take advantage of ACI 318’s 0.0) = 49. to apply the 0. The full strength is not required for shear transfer. minimum requirement.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).2. and cover on the bar extension beyond the hook is provided by the grout and the planks.375) 25 4.2 is used for ld. the diagonal #3 hook will be developed in the wall as required for the computed diaphragmtoshearwall transfer. The straight end of the #3 will now be checked.11 in.5.FEMA 451.95 in. ldh = lhb times the factors of ACI 318 Sec.106 = 21 kips The shear friction resistance provided by #3 bars in the grout key between each plank (provided for the 1.2)(60 ksi)(1.5.5 kips The development length of the #3 and #4 bars will now be checked.375 4.F = 127 .8 factor. (6" minimum) The available distance for the perpendicular hook is about 51/2 in. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Use two #3 bars placed at 26. 12.16 shows the reinforcement along each side of the wall on Joint 2.2) = 0. The continuous #5 provides transverse reinforcement. For the 180 degree standard hook use ACI 318 Sec.5.11 in.75)(10 bars)(0. The angle (αf) used above provides development of the #3 bars while limiting the grouting to the outside core of the plank.5 klf requirement of the ACI) is computed as: φAvffyµ = (0. 12. which is close enough to 2 in.3.3. By inspection. The standard development length of ACI 318 Sec.200) db fc′ = 0. For the #3 hook: ldh = 0. ld = f y db 25 fc′ = 60. The bar will not be fully developed at the end of the plank because of the 6 in.
Chapter 7. which are an extension of the transverse chord reinforcement.88 in.16 Joint 2 transverse wall joint reinforcement (1.2.9 kips)/[0. 7.1.0 in. The required collector reinforcement is computed as: As4 = Tu4/φfy = (27. which is more than sufficient even considering the marginal development length.2 Based upon the ACI tie requirement.1. Figure 7.56 in.9(60 ksi)] = 0.11) = 0. Provide 3 sets for each plank.17 shows this joint along the wall. 719 .4 Joint 4 Design and Detailing The required shear friction reinforcement along the wall length is computed as: Avf4 = Vu4/φµfy = (25. the area of reinforcement is 8(0.0 kips)/[(0.2 The reinforcement required by the Provisions for outofplane force is (195 plf) is far less than the ACI 318 requirement.0 ft = 0. 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. = 25.0)(60 ksi)] = 0.4 mm. which is more than the development length and equal to half the width of the plank. 1.52 in. provide #3 bars at each planktoplank joint.75)(1. provide an area of reinforcement of 1. 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.20 in. For eight bars total.6.2 The two #7 bars. which is less favorable at Joint 2. The bars are extended 2 ft into the grout key.3048 m).
18 shows this joint along the wall. 7.0)(60 ksi)] = 0.28 in.9 kips)/[0.5 Joint 5 Design and Detailing The required shear friction reinforcement along the wall length is computed as: Avf5 = Vu5/φµfy = (12. The required collector reinforcement is computed as: As5 = Tu5/φfy = (27. 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 7.1.4 mm.FEMA 451.2 Provide #3 bars at each planktoplank joint for a total of 8 bars. = 25.2 Figure 7.6. 720 .0 in.5 kips)/[(0.17 Joint 4 exterior longitudinal walls to diaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage (1. 1.52 in.1.0 ft = 0.88 in.75)(1.9(60 ksi)] = 0.2 Two #6 bars specified for the design of Joint 1 above provide an area of reinforcement of 0.3048 m).
1.thick hollowcore precast. Provisions Sec. 7.4 [21.21 shows the typical floor and roof plan.1. 21.6] specifies the forces to be used in designing the diaphragms. 721 .7 [21.3048 m). Design parameters are provided in Sec. the same as previously computed for the untopped diaphragm. 9. The topping thickness exceeds the minimum thickness of 2 in. ACI 318 Sec.9.2.4].0 in. The amplification factor of Provisions Sec.4 mm. as required for composite topping slabs by ACI 318 Sec.Joint 5 (1. 9.2. California.000 psi and is to act compositely with the 8in.1 General Design Requirements Topped diaphragms may be used in any Seismic Design Category.1. California (see Sec.0 ft = 0.4 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] is 1. 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 7.2 Topped Precast Concrete Units for FiveStory Masonry Building. The topping shall be lightweight concrete (weight = 115 pcf) with a 28day compressive strength (fc' ) of 4. Los Angeles.9]provides design provisions for topped precast concrete diaphragms. 21. 5. 1.03.Chapter 7.18 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls . = 25.2) This design shows the floor and roof diaphragms using topped precast units in the fivestory masonry building in Los Angeles.6 [4. prestressed concrete plank. 7.7.2. Figure 9.1. 9.
2 Design Parameter Value 2.2 [3. 7. 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.0 kip = 4.4.62] but must not be less than 0.2. 5. 4. 5.2. collector splices.4 [1.4 [4. Table 7.2. 1.45 kN.166 kips = 72 kips = 1.4 [4.4SDSIwpx.4.0 1.5]) occupancy importance factor (Provisions Sec.166 kips 1.14.3 Diaphragm Forces As indicated previously. and collector connections to the vertical seismicforceresisting members be designed in accordance with Provisions Sec.302 kips 1.2.14 Design Parameters from Sec.2] requires that collector elements.094 kips 722 .2].1.2 General InPlane Seismic Design Forces for Topped Diaphragms The inplane diaphragm seismic design force (Fpx) is calculated using Provisions Eq.3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples [As noted above.1 [4.0 D Ωo wi (roof) wi (floor) SDS I Seismic Design Category 1.6.1. Compute diaphragm weight (wpx) for the roof and floor as: Roof Total weight Walls parallel to force = (60 psf)(277 ft)(8. which combines the diaphragm forces times the overstrength factor (Ω0) and the effects of gravity forces.1. 9.62] where: wpx SDS I Vx = = = = the weight tributary to the diaphragm at Level x the spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (Provisions Sec. the chord amplification factor has been dropped for the 2003 Provisions and does not occur in ASC 31802.3]) 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.6. For Seismic Design Category C and higher.7.1 [4.2. Vx must be added to Fpx calculated using Eq. 9. 5.2.2 used to calculate inplane seismic design forces for the diaphragms are provided in Table 7.6.2.2.2.6. The parameters from example in Sec.5 1. Provisions Sec.FEMA 451. 5.] 7.2SDSIwpx and need not be more than 0.3.67 ft/2) wpx = 1.
0 kip = 4. The minimum value of Fpx = 0.1.302 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.166 2.4 [4.5 times 1.11 shows the distribution).12 shows critical regions of the diaphragm to be considered in this design.2. The force is only 9.15.45 kN.0)1. The values for Fi and Vi are listed in Table 9.2(1. 7.62]: Fpx = i=x n i=x ∑ Fi w px n ∑ wi Calculations for Fpx are provided in Table 7.0)1.446 1.15 Fpx Calculations from Sec.2SDSIwpx The maximum value of Fpx = 0.4SDSIwpx = 0.158 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.Chapter 7.302 i=x ∑ wi n Level Roof 4 3 2 1 (kips) 1.1.384 Fi (kips) 564 504 378 252 126 i= x ∑ Fi = Vi (kips) 564 1.2.158 1.1.158 1. Precast Concrete Design Floors Total weight Walls parallel to force = (60 psf)(277 ft)(8. except for collector elements where forces will be computed below. 5.824 n wpx (kips) 1.095 are as: 723 .0(1.072 6.166 1.0(1. 9.4.4 Static Analysis of Diaphragms The seismic design force of 463 kips is distributed as in Sec.158 kips Compute diaphragm demands in accordance with Provisions Eq.302 kips = 144 kips = 1. Figure 7.698 1.770 5.2 wi (kips) 1.468 3.6.1.094 1. 7. Collector elements will be designed for 2.302 1.2(1.068 1.1.6 (Figure 7.217.5 times the diaphragm force based on the overstrength factor (Ω0).158 Fpx (kips) 529 501 444 387 331 1.094 kips) = 0. Joint forces taken from Sec.67 ft) wpx = 1.302 1. 7.158 1. Table 7.
5 kips × 1.5 in.5 kips = 4. F = 52. Tu2 = M/d = 1.095 Moment. Vu4 = 12. The need for transverse boundary member reinforcement is reviewed using ACI 318 Sec.9 kips × 1. Vu2 = 127 kips × 1.5.3 kips = 125 kips = 2. Note that the ACI 318 Sec.061 ftkips × 1. Vu1 = 114.090 ftkips = 59.1.5 kips × 1. 21.095 Chord tension force. Calculate the compressive stress in the chord with the ultimate moment using a linear elastic model and gross section properties of the topping.095) 7.054 in.0018bd for welded wire fabric.9 kips = 27.W4.4 kips = 57.5(27.095 Chord tension force. 16.540 ftkips × 1.095) OutofPlane forces Just as with the untopped diaphragm.5 provides 0.5.5. which requires a minimum As = 0.3].780 ftkips / 71 ft Joint 3 – Transverse forces Shear.250 ftkips / 71 ft Joint 2 – Transverse forces Shear. Mu1 = 2.FEMA 451.7 kips = 76.095 Wall shear along wall length. 7. Tu1 = M/d = 1. Vu3 = 78.4 kips = 85.2/ft. Mu2 = 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Joint 1 – Transverse forces Shear.095 Chord tension force. The minimum spacing of wires is 10 in.738 ftkips × 1.2.054 in. Ω0Tu4 = 2.9.9.095 Moment.5 in.2/ft. WWF 10×10 .12 limit on spacing of five times thickness is interpreted such that the topping thickness is not the pertinent thickness.1] references ACI 318 Sec.095 Collector force at wall end. Vu4 =25 kips × 1. 7.03 × 4. Joint 5 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force.7.5×W4. For a 2.2.9 kips = 13. 7.3 [21.12. and the maximum spacing is 18 in.03 × 2.5 Diaphragm Design and Details 7.1 Minimum Reinforcement for 2.5(27.9 kips)(1.095 Moment.4 kips = 76. Mu2 = 2.2 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.6 kips 724 . Tu3 = M/d = 1. the required As = 0.780 ftkips = 39. It is = 57. Ω0Tu4 = 2. topping.1 kips × 1.1.5. which requires horizontal ties of 1.1. the outofplane forces are controlled by ACI 318 Sec.5 kips per foot from floor to walls.090 ftkips/71 ft Joint 4 – Longitudinal forces Wall Force.1 [21.5.5.9 kips)(1.03 × 2.250 ftkips = 32. 21.095 Collector force at wall end.3 kips = 139 kips = 2.7.2. F = 463 kips / 8 walls Wall shear along each side of wall.5. Topping ACI 318 Sec.
2 7. The required chord reinforcement is: As3 = Tu3/φfy = (59. Minimum cover = 2.9(60 ksi)] = 1..110.10 in. 21. Figure 7.19 Diaphragm plan and section cuts. but not less than 11/2 in.2) along the exterior edges.Chapter 7.5)(72 × 12)2 = 158 psi The chord compressive stress is less than 0.0 in. but not necessary.0 in. Given the close margin on cover. 725 . Precast Concrete Design conservative to ignore the precast units. and along the length of the interior longitudinal walls. Figure 7. Transverse reinforcement in the boundary member is not required. the chord compressive stress is: 6Mu3/td2 = 6(4.2 Use two #8 bars (As = 2 × 0. As developed previously.8.2(4.9. the transverse reinforcement at lap splices also is shown.5.79 = 1.4 kips)/[0.58 in.5 in.3 kips)/[0.000) = 800 psi.2..3].1. Provide cover for chord and collector bars and spacing between bars per ACI 318 Sec.19 shows the diaphragm plan and section cuts of the details and Figure 7.3 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.8. Minimum spacing = 3(8/8) = 3.41 in.5(8/8) = 2.2fc' = 0.3 [21.9(60 ksi)] = 1. but not less than 2.090 × 12)/(2. the boundary member and chord/collector reinforcement along the edge.7. As4 = As5 = Ω0Tu4/φfy = (76. along the length of the exterior longitudinal walls.
2. Contact lap splice 31 2" 21 2" Grouted chord / collector element along exterior edge of precast plank Figure 7. The side cover of 21/2 in. = 25. A minimum space of 1 in. is provided by casting the topping into the cores and by the stems of the plank. 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.FEMA 451.4 Shear Resistance 726 21 2" 3" 21 2" 21 2" min (concrete topping) 3" .4 mm). and chord and collector reinforcement (1. WWF 21 2" min topping 3" (2) #8 (collector bars) Figure 7.5.3048 m). 7.111 shows the collector reinforcement for the interior longitudinal walls. Figure 7. 1.110 Boundary member.1. is provided between the plank stems and the sides of the bars.0 in.4 mm.0 in. = 25.Joint 5 (1.111 Collector reinforcement at the end of the interior longitudinal walls .0 ft = 0.
2 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.4 mm.9.112. 16.2].113. Provide #3 bars at 2 ft on center. = 25.75)(1.112 Walltodiaphragm reinforcement along interior longitudinal walls .7.3 klf. and the spacing of the No.023 in.9)(60ksi) = 0.5. Vc = 0).5 (2) #8 collector bars (2) #5 in masonry bond beam Figure 7. 3 dowels are used to make the welded wire fabric continuous across the masonry walls.61 in.3048 m).2. The required shear reinforcement along the exterior longitudinal wall (Joint 4) is: Avf4 = Vu4/φµfy = (27.43 kips/ft (72 ft) = 175 kips which is greater than the Joint 2 shear (maximum transverse shear) of 139 kips. The required reinforcement. The detail provides more than required by ACI 318 Sec.25 kips.1.75(0. The detail at joint 2 is similar. Vertical reinforcement 1" clear Cut out alternate face shells (16" o. Fp = 624 plf = 2 ft(624 plf) = 1. The development length was checked in the prior example.4 kips)/[(0.11 x 60 / 2 = 3. 3 bars is set to be modular with the CMU.Joint 5 (1.2 [21. φVn = φAcvρnfy = 0.2.Chapter 7.054 in.2/ft)60 ksi = 2.5 klf tie force.5 for the 1.0 in.7.7. As = 1.0 ft = 0. 21. Using #3 bars at 2 ft on center will be adequate. 727 . which provides a nominal strength of 0.c. and the detail is shown in Figure 7. each side) and place topping completely through wall and between planks #3x4'0" at 16" to lap with WWF WWF 10 x 10 W4. No. 1.0)(60 ksi)] = 0. all of the shear resistance must be provided by the reinforcement (that is.43 kips/ft The shear resistance in the transverse direction is: 2.5 Check OutofPlane Forces At Joint 4 with bars at 2 ft on center.25/(0. In accordance with ACI 318 Sec.5 x W4. The topping is to be cast into the masonry walls as shown in Figure 7.
4 mm.3048 m).5 #3x STD HK 2'6" at 2'0" o.0 ft = 0.FEMA 451. 1.5 x W4.0 in. 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 7.113 Exterior longitudinal walltodiaphragm reinforcement and outofplane anchorage .Joint 4 (1.c. 728 . = 25.
thick (minimum). normal weight castinplace concrete topping. The precast shear walls are continuous from the ground level to 12 ft above the roof. the building has a regular plan. 7. The Provisions has one requirement for detailing such walls: connections that resist overturning shall be Type Y or Z.deep prestressed double tees (DTs) spanning 40 ft to prestressed inverted tee beams for the floors and the roof.] 7.1 for more discussion of system requirements. Precast Concrete Design 7. The building has no vertical irregularities.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. Walls of the elevator/mechanical pits are castinplace below grade. The structure utilizes 10ftwide by 18in.2. See also Sec. The vertical seismicforceresisting system is to be constructed entirely of precast concrete walls located around the stairs and elevator/mechanical shafts.21.1 Building Description This precast concrete building is a threestory office building (Seismic Use Group I) in southern New England on Site Class D soils. 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. ACI 31802 has incorporated a less specific requirement. 729 . The diaphragm design is not illustrated. The DTs are to be constructed using lightweight concrete. Each of the abovegrade floors and the roof are covered with a 2in. which should also meet the cited ACI 31802 requirements. [As indicated at the beginning of this chapter. renamed the system as intermediate precast structural walls. This example shows an interpretation of the intent of the Provisions for precast shear wall systems in regions of moderate and low seismicity. and removed some of the detail.Chapter 7.2. As shown in Figure 7. the requirements for precast shear wall systems in the 2003 Provisions have been revised – primarily to point to ACI 31802 by reference.2. The storytostory height is 12 ft.
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 ft = 0. = 25.000 psi.0 in. Reinforcing bars used at the ends of the walls and in welded connectors are ASTM A706 (60 ksi yield strength).2 Design Requirements 7. The precast walls are estimated to be 8 in. fc' = 5. The concrete for the foundations and belowgrade walls has a 28day compressive strength.000 psi. 7.2.3048 m).1 Seismic Parameters of the Provisions The basic parameters affecting the design and detailing of the building are shown in Table 7. These walls are normal weight concrete with a 28day compressive strength.21 Threestory building plan (1.2.2. thick for building mass calculations. 730 .FEMA 451. fc' = 4.4 mm. 1.21.
266 0.2 Structural Design Considerations 7.2.21 Design Parameters Design Parameter Seismic Use Group I SS (Map 1 [Figure 3.1. Note that while this system is permitted in Seismic Design Category B.31 are: R = 3.3] provides for the use of ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls in Seismic Design Category B.192 0.5 4 Provisions Sec. 9.1 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.08 D 1.59 2.31 of the 2003 Provisions. Consistent with the philosophy that precast systems are not expected to perform as well as castinplace systems. as this example indicates conceptually. it is not permitted in Seismic Design Category C.] [Ordinary precast concrete shear walls is recognized as a system in Table 4. unline ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls.425 0.2.1.128 B Bearing Wall System Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls 4 2. shear slip could kink the vertical rebar at the connection and sabotage the intended performance. and Cd = 4. this building could be designed incorporating intermediate precast concrete shear walls with the following design values per 2003 Provisions Table 4. Although not a stated design requirement of the Provisions or ACI 31802 for this Seismic Design Category. and Cd = 3. Ω0 = 2.5. which does not require adherence to the special seismic design provisions of ACI 318 Chapter 21.] 7.4 0.2.S.283 0.2.31: R = 4. which counts on an R factor of 4.2. Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazard maps and the maps have been added to the body of the 2003 Provisions as figures in Chapter 3. the design factors for the ordinary precast concrete shear walls per 2003 Provisions Table 4. [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 U.2.32]) 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. Alternatively. The flexural connections at the ends of the 731 .1.31]) S1 (Map 2 [Figure 3.5. These figures replace the previously used separate map package.2. Precast Concrete Design Table 7.3 [9.Chapter 7. Ω0 = 2.0 0.
6.9]). 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.2. 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. welded steel angles are designed to be flexible for uplift but stiff for inplane shear.6.2. and the walls and columns. Careful attention to detail is required to assure adequate ductility in the location of first yield and that no other connections yield prematurely.2]) is permitted. At the base of the panel.1]) for the definitions of ordinary precast concrete structural walls and Provisions Sec.1.2.44]. but that design is not illustrated here. 21. 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.11.1.6. 16. See Provisions Sec.6. Therefore. For this particular example.6. the floors are assumed to act as rigid horizontal diaphragms to distribute seismic inertial forces to the walls parallel to the motion. are designed to be the Type Y connection specified in the Provisions. 5.5. continuity.2]) must be explicitly considered when detailing connections between the floors and roof. The issue of most significant concern is the performance of the shear connections at the same joint. 5.6. which are highly stressed by seismic forces.2. 21.2. but this requirement is of no real consequence for this building.31]).2. Diaphragms need to be designed for the required forces (Provisions Sec.1. 7.1] (ACI Sec.2. The drift limit is 0. 732 .5.2.2.1 [4. for which.2.4. Ties.1 (ACI 31802 Sec. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples walls.1 and 4. 9.7 [4.1 [4. The connections are often unavoidable weak links.3]).1 [21.2. This example does not include consideration of nonstructural elements. The building is regular both in plan and elevation.6.1.2 [9. but drift is not computed here. The bearing walls must be designed for a force perpendicular to their plane (Provisions Sec.6.1). 5. The remainder of the connections (shear connectors) are then made strong enough to ensure that the inelastic straining is forced to the intended location.1.2 [4.8 [4.1.2 [4.FEMA 451.2.2. the connections are to be designed in accordance with ACI 31802 Sec.2. 5.4 [5.51]).2.2. For structural design.1.025hsx (Provisions Table 5.6 [4.1. Collector elements are required due to the short length of shear walls as compared to the diaphragm dimensions. ordinary precast concrete shear walls need only satisfy the requirements of ACI 31802 Chapters 118 (with Chapter 16 superceding Chapter 14). 5.2.2 Building System No height limitations are imposed (Provisions Table 5. but are not designed in this example.6) for the connections.1]). it frequently is not possible to do so with common configurations of precast elements and connections. use of the ELF procedure (Provisions Sec.1. 9.2. [Per 2003 Provisions Sec. Orthogonal load combinations are not required for this building (Provisions Sec. and anchorage (Provisions Sec.2. 9.12 [not applicable for the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec.6.1 and 5.1. 21.] Although it would be desirable to force yielding to occur in a significant portion of the connections. according to Provisions Table 5.
14D . mechanical. square columns Ceiling. 16.5L 0. and C.3.21 and 4. topping (24 psf) Precast beams at 40 ft 16 in.790 kips) = 5.4. the total building weight is W = 3(1.843D .283)D = QE ± 0.2.0 for structures in Seismic Design Categories A.5 requires minimum strengths for connections between elements of precast building structures.5L 1.360 kips.22]: E = ρQE ± 0. B.9D ± 1.10 ksf) = 1. 5.5 psf 4.2.1 [4. double tees (32 psf) + 2 in.2 Base Shear 733 .2)(0.790 kips Considering the roof to be the same weight as a floor.4.2. 7. 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/1.26D + QE + 0. even though this seismic resisting system is not particularly redundant.0)QE ± (0. 5. 5. Precast Concrete Design ACI 318 Sec. = = = = = = = 56.71 and 5.QE These load combinations are for loading in the plane of the shear walls.0E + 0.2.4.Chapter 7.3.3 Load Combinations The basic load combinations (Provisions Sec.000) + [15 ft(4) + 25 ft(2)](12 ft)(0.1 Weight Calculations For the roof and two floors 18 in.0 psf 5. The relevant load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1.0 psf 92.2]) 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.5L (will not control) 0.2. substitute E as determined above: 1.96D + QE (will not control) 0. the vertical forces will be described in this example.0 psf 12. The horizontal forces were described in Sec. ρ = 1.0E Into each of these load combinations.1].0 psf 7.5 psf 4.2.4 Seismic Force Analysis 7.2.0567D According to Provisions Sec.2. 7.2.7 [4.0 psf 10.72 [4.2SDSD = (1. 7.2D ± 1.QE + 0.1.
0708 R/I 41 except that it need not exceed the value from Provisions Eq.4. = = 0110 T ( R / I ) 0.2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed using Provisions Eq.4. 7.5 sec.3]: Fx = CvxV where Cvx = k wx hx i =1 ∑ wi hi n k Since the period.29 sec Therefore.3 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces The seismic lateral force (Fx) at any level is determined in accordance with Provisions Sec.283 = = 0. 5.FEMA 451.50 Cv3 = 0.0708.0125 [The minimum Cs has been changed to 0.41 [5.02)(36) 0.29(4 / 1) where T is the fundamental period of the building computed using the approximate method of Provisions Eq.11 [5. use Cs = 0. S D1 .6.0708)(5.2.17 Fr = 190 kips F3 = 127 kips F2 = 63.2.] The total seismic base shear is then calculated using Provisions Eq.12 [5. the resulting values of Cvx and Fx are as follows: Roof Third Floor Second Floor 734 Cvr = 0. the result would be less than half this seismic force already reduced by an R factor of 4.1. 5. 5.370) = 380 kips Note that this force is substantially larger than a design wind would be.21] as: V = CsW = (0. If a nominal 20 psf were applied to the long face and then amplified by a load factor of 1.283) = 0 .4.75 = 0. 5.33 Cv2 = 0. 5.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: Cs = 0.044)(1.044ISDS = (.1. T < 0.1.22]: CS = S DS 0.0)(0.26]: Ta = Cr hnx = (0.01 in the 2003 Provisions.4. k = l in both building directions.0 kips .11 [5.3 [5. which is larger than the minimum specified in Provisions Eq.4. 5.23] computed as: CS = 0128 .4. With equal weights at each floor level.
4.33) = 36. A rough approximation is used in place of a more rigorous analysis considering all of the walls.4.45 kN.2. 1.2.5 kips 12'0" Grade V = ∑F = 190 kips 25'0" Figure 7.2 kips Seismic forces on the transverse walls of the stairwells are shown in Figure 7. Since the longitudinal walls are very close to the center of rigidity. assume that torsion will be resisted by the 15ftlong stairwell walls in the transverse direction.4.5 kips F3 = 109(0.2.1 Longitudinal Direction Design each of the 25ftlong walls at the elevator/mechanical shafts for half the total shear. The forces for each of the longitudinal walls are shown in Figure 7.4.22.4.0 ft = 0.4.50) = 54.4 Horizontal Shear Distribution and Torsion 7.2. 95 kips 12'0" 63. 735 . Precast Concrete Design 7.23.167) = 18.0 kip = 4.3048 m).Chapter 7.05)(150)/[(100 ft moment arm) × (2 walls in each set)] = 109 kips Thus Fr = 109(0.4.2 [5.3 kips F2 = 109(0.2 Transverse Direction Design the four 15ftlong stairwell walls for the total shear including 5 percent accidental torsion (Provisions Sec.4. 7.5 kips 12'0" 31. The maximum force on the walls is computed as: V = 380/4 + 380(0. 5.2]).22 Forces on the longitudinal walls (1.
1. 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. 9.5. A commonly used alternative is a threaded posttensioning bar inserted through the stack of panels.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.2. are included. with a floor and equipment at 180 psf between the shafts and a roof at 20 psf.2.5.5 kips 12'0" 36.1.1. but it is not ignored in the following calculations. except 100 psf is used in the elevator lobby.2 kips 12'0" Grade V= 15'0" ∑F = 109 kips Figure 7.3 kips 12'0" 18.23 Forces on the transverse walls (1.3 [9. but the behavior is different.3]).2.0 kip = 4. Floor live load is 50 psf. 7.2. (The elevator penthouse is so small that it was ignored in computing the gross seismic forces on the building. 7.3048 m). The weight for the floors includes double tees.1. ceiling and partition (total of 70 psf).0 ft = 0.24.1 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. and the application of the rules for a Type Y connection to such a design is not clear. Roof snow load is 30 psf.2. but not beams and columns.45 kN. the weights for an elevator penthouse.FEMA 451.1 Longitudinal Direction The freebody diagram for the longitudinal walls is shown in Figure 7. In this example. 1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 54. 7.) 736 .
1 ksf) + (25 ft)(48 ft/2)(0.18 ksf) + (25ft )(24 ft/2)(0.05 ksf)(2) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0. At the base ME = (95 kips)(36 ft) + (63. Precast Concrete Design 12'0" D 95 kips 12'0" D 63.02 ksf) = 120 + 126 + 14 + 18 + 6 = 284 kips 3L = (25 ft)(48 ft/2)(0.070 ksf)(2) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.5 = 23. the tension reinforcement can easily be found from the simple couple shown on Figure 7. the vertical loads for combining with the overturning moment are computed as: Pmax = 1.Chapter 7.1 ksf) = 60 + 10 = 70 kips 3S = (25ft)(48 ft + 24 ft)(0.24 Freebody diagram for longitudinal walls (1.070 ksf)(3) + (25 ft)(8 ft/2)(0.5 kips 12'0" D 31.0 ft = 0. The average compression Pmax / Ag = 0.3048 m).5 kips 12'0" D T 9" V 23'6" 12'0" C 9" Figure 7.45 kN.843 D = 239 kips The axial load is quite small for the wall panel.5 kips)(24 ft) + (31.03 ksf)/2 = 27 kips Using the load combinations described above. Therefore.1.3 percent of f'c).0 kip = 4.26 D + 0.2 S = 397 kips Pmin = 0. 1.5 L + 0. The effective moment arm is: jd = 25 .165 ksi (3.520 ftkips 3D = wall + exterior floors (& roof) + lobby floors + penthouse floor + penthouse roof = (25 ft)(48 ft)(0.24.5 kips)(12 ft) = 5.5 ft 737 .
Bearing walls must have vertical ties with a nominal strength exceeding 3 kips/ft.2 in.5 will be made.0 in. it is unlikely that there will be any flexural cracking in the wall more than a few feet above the base.98 in. it is shown here for interest. far in excess of the 19 in.9(60 ksi)] = 1. At this point a check of ACI 318 Sec.6. Thus.5 kip The two #9 bars are more than adequate for the ACI requirement. Therefore. An analysis of the wall for the design lateral forces using 50% of the gross moment of inertia. 16.0)(60) + 397 = 517 kips Compression block a = (517 kips)/[(0.5. Although no check for confinement of the compression boundary is required for ordinary precast concrete shear walls. Using the check from ACI 31899 Sec.FEMA 451.2 [21. applying the 0.2].0 in. 218 [218] is: c≤ 600(δ u / hw ) l where the term (δu/hw) shall not be taken less than 0.2 Transverse Direction 738 . width)] = 15.6.520 ) 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. and applying the Cd factor of 4 to the results gives a ratio (δu/hw) far less than 0.7. The maximum depth (c) with no boundary member per ACI 31899 Eq.2fc' . For those used to checking the compression stress as an index: σ= 6 ( 5.85)(5 ksi)(8 in. 7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples and the net tension on the uplift side is: Tu = M Pmin 5320 239 − = − = 107 kips 2 23.007 in the equation results in a distance c of 71 in. the depth to the neutral axis is: Total compression force = As fy + Pmax = (2.2.007.2 Use two #9 bars (As = 2. ACI 31899 would not require transverse reinforcement of the boundary even if this wall were designed as a special reinforced concrete shear wall. and there must be at least two ties per panel.007. which is 1000 psi.5 2 jd The required reinforcement is: As = Tu/φfy = (107 kips)/[0.1. use both #9 bars at each end of the panel at all three levels for simplicity.80) = 19. 21. Neutral axis depth c = a/(0. the demand on the tie is: Tn = (3 kip/ft)(25 ft)/2 = 37.6. so no transverse reinforcement is required at the ends of the longitudinal walls.2 ) at each end with direct tension couplers for each bar at each panel joint. ignoring the effect of axial loads.. Once the base joint yields. required. Since the flexural reinforcement must extend a minimum distance d (the flexural depth)beyond where it is no longer required.
3 kips 12'0" D 18.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2)(0.2 739 . The transverse wall is similar to the longitudinal wall.7 kips Pmax = 1.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2)(0.3048 m). 12'0" D 54.25 Freebody diagram of the transverse walls (1.5 kips jd = 15 .5 kips 12'0" D 36.03 ksf) = 3.1 ksf) + 2(12.26(107) + 0.0 ft = 0. 1.Chapter 7.Pmin/2 = (3.07 ksf)] = 72 + 13 + 18 + 4 = 107 kips 3L = 2(12.2 kips)(12 ft) = 3.2(4) = 148 kips Pmin = 0.5 = 13.07 ksf)(3) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)[(0.0 kip = 4.1 ksf)(3) + (0.5(24) + 0.35 in.45 kN.1 ksf)(3) = 6 + 18 = 24 kips 3S = [2(12. Precast Concrete Design The freebody diagram of the transverse walls is shown in Figure 7.5 ft Tu = (Mnet/jd) .3 kips)(24 ft) + (18.843(107) = 90.052 ftkips 3D = (15 ft)(48 ft)(0.5 kips)(36 ft) + (36.5) .052/13.2 kips 12'0" D V 9" T C 7'0" 13'6" 9" Figure 7.1.05 ksf)(2) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)(0. At the base ME = (54.9(60 ksi)] = 3.5 ft/2)(10 ft/2) + (15 ft)(8 ft/2)](0.5/2 = 181 kips As = Tu/φfy = (181 kips)/[0.90.25. The weight of the precast concrete stairs is 100 psf and the roof over the stairs is 70 psf.
The overturning reinforcement and connection are shown in Figures 7..3 in. for the spliced bars is multiplied by both the 1. therefore no calculation of development length is necessary in the panel.1.007 is used for the ratio (δu/hw). although not for this particular example.26.128) 4000 = 24. 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. 21.2.6. The development length.1.6.11. this design does concentrate a demand for overturning resistance on the foundation. the connection requirements for ordianry precast concrete shear walls have been removed in the 2003 Provisions and the ACI 31802 requirements are less specific. Provisions Sec. This yields a maximum value of c = 42.3 factors to satisfy the Provisions requirement. The dowel from the foundation will be hooked.930 ) P M 140 + = + = 951 psi A S 8 (15 )12 8 (15 )2 (12 ) Since σ < 1.54)(60) + 148 = 360 kips Compression block a = (360 kips)/[(0. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Use two #10 and one #9 bars (As = 3.4) 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.7(1200)d b f c' = 1365(1.000 psi. Following the same method for boundary member check as on the longitudinal walls: Total compression force = As fy + Pmax = (3. All three bars at each end of the panel will also extend up through all three levels for simplicity. Neutral axis depth c = a/(0. the length is 27. thus confinement of the boundary would not be required. width)] = 10.6 in. Similarly.3(1. For the # 9 bar: 1. or by deep piers or piles with an appropriate cap for load transfer. The bar in the panel is made continuous to the roof.54 in. which must develop the specified tensile strength of the bar.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI 21.3 in.2 ) at each end of each wall with a direct tension coupler at each bar for each panel joint.4 in.25)ldh = (1.80) = 13. Like many shear wall designs.9 in.25)0. The size of the foundation will provide adequate cover to allow the 0.25 and the 1. otherwise the depth of the foundation would be more than required for structural reasons.] The 125% requirement applies to the grouted mechanical splice.6. for the #10 bar. the computed deflections are still small and the minimum value of 0. 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. Some of the grouted splices on the market can qualify as the Type 2 coupler defined by ACI.85)(5 ksi)(8 in. 740 . no transverse reinforcement is required at the ends of the transverse walls. 9.7 factor on ACI’s standard development length for hooked bars. Note how much closer to the criterion this transverse wall is by the compression stress check. [As already noted. ld. Even though this wall is more flexible and the lateral loads will induce more flexural cracking.FEMA 451. The check of compression stress as an index gives: σ= 6 ( 2.1. Refer to Chapter 4 for examples of design of each type of foundation.
a probable strength.3048 m). This is the authors’ interpretation of the Provisions text indicating that “Type Y connections shall develop under flexural.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. 1. full ht. which could lead to a kink in the principal tension reinforcement at or near its splice and destroy the integrity of the system. as required.” based upon 125 percent of the specified yield in the connection. end. This opening would concentrate the shear stress on the small area of the drypacked joint that remains in compression. the joint will be designed with direct shear connectors that will prevent slip along the joint. 741 . 7. . Therefore.26 Overturning connection detail at the base of the walls (1. 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. Precast Concrete Design 8" Direct tension coupler(typical) 1" shim and drypack (typical) 8" precast wall (2) #9 ea. end. This distribution can be affected by the shims used in construction.2. .Chapter 7. Tests have shown that this often leads to slip of the joint. and axial load actions. shear. full height of 25' longitudinal wall panel (2) #10 & (1) #9 ea.4 mm. . It would not be required by the ACI 31802 rules for intermediate precast walls.5.0 ft = 0.0 in = 25.
weld an L 4 × 3 × 5/16 × 0'8".1 Longitudinal Direction The shear amplification factor is determined as: M capacity M demand = As (1. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.54 Therefore.2 )(1. × 12 in.0 in = 25. provide an assembly with two face plates 3/8 in. The vertical flexibility is intended to minimize the contribution of these connections to overturning resistance. which would simply increase the shear demand.54(190 kips) = 292 kips The base shear connection is shown in Figure 7. In the panel. × 4 in.5 ft / 2) 5320 ftkip =1.4 mm. connected by a C8x18. 1. on each face. 1 4 #5.5.0 in.0 ft = 0. In the field. 4 Drypack Plate 1 2x12x1'0" C8x18.A. see (c) Welded wire fabric Plate 3 8x4x1'0" L4x3x516x0'8" LLH 1 4 8 (b) Side elevation 3 4"Ø H.2.S.2.75 (a) Section through connection 1 4 (c) Section through embedded assembly Figure 7.3048 m).25)(60 ksi)(23. long leg horizontal. diameter headed anchor studs. In the foundation provide an embedded plate 1/2 × 12 × 1'6" with six 3/4 in. The shear capacity of this connection is checked: 742 .27 and is to be flexible vertically but stiff horizontally in the plane of the panel.25) f y jd + Pmax jd / 2 Mu = (2.5 ft) + (397 kip)(23.27 Shear connection at base (1.75 and with diagonal #5 bars as shown in the figure. the design shear (Vu) at the base is 1.FEMA 451.
= 0.4872 in.487 in.243 in./8 in. using Table 89 in AISC Manual (3rd edition.Chapter 7. vertical component is 2. bf = 2.tw)(l) = (2.65(0.75)(0.5 kip Weld at toe of loose angles φVn = φ(0.53 in.6 = 86. the critical flange thickness is greater than the web thickness).6 kip Weld from channel to plate has at least as much capacity.76 ksi that develops the plastic moment in the web: Mp = φFytw2/4 = (0. (average) The bearing will be controlled by bending in the web (because of the tapered flange.76[(b .(tw/2)2/2] = 2. = 0.0. Conservatively ignoring the concrete’s resistance to vertical deformation of the flange.75 for shear is used here: φVs = φfyAscosα = (0.0. Therefore bearing on the channel is φVn = CC1Dl(2 sides) ` φVc = fc(2 .8 in.65 in.80 in.0 for E70 electrodes l = 8 in.6 + 39. and a = 4. D = 4 (sixteenths of an inch) k = 2 in.6Fu)tel(2) = (0. compute the width (b) of flange loaded at 2.6Fu)tl(2) = (0.1 kip 743 . Mu = fc[(btw)2/2 . thus.75)(60 ksi)(4)(0. / 8 in. By interpolation.](6 in.0)(4)(8)(2) = 82. Precast Concrete Design Shear in the two loose angles φVn = φ(0. the total capacity for transfer to concrete is: φVn = φVc + φVs = 46.6 kip To the bearing capacity on the channel is added the 4 .6)(58 ksi)(0.85)(5 ksi) = 2. which are effective in tension and compression.2)/4 = 2. same table is 842 in 2nd edition) C1 = 1.) = 46.6 from the table.kip/in.243 in.29 φVn = (1.29)(1.3125 in. Bearing of concrete at steel channel fc = φ(0.(0.6)(70 ksi)(0.)(2) = 130.)2]/2 setting the two equal results in b = 1. tf = 0. C = 1.#5 diagonal bars. but less demand.1 kip Weld at face plates.5 kip Thus.)(8 in.2)(cos 45E) = 39. summed vectorially: horizontal component is 4 in.487 in.25 in..75)(0.31 in.9)(50 ksi)(0.)(2) = 89.25 a = eccentricity. al = 4. φ = 0.76 ksi The C8 has the following properties: tw = 0.76 ksi)[(2(1. / o 2)(8 in.)2 .67 in.85f'c) = 0.65) .39 in..67 in.
is 5320 ft .12 kips There are four assemblies with two loose angles each. ACI Sec.2 per stud)(60 ksi) = 103 kip Provisions Sec 9. 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. For the minimum required ρh = 0.10. which could easily cause failures in the system.1 kip 82.) = 2. . However.85( 2) 5.1 kip 103 kip The number of embedded plates (n) required for a panel is: n = 292/82. Note that the shear strength of wall itself is not governed by the overstrength required for the connection.6 = 3.10. The Provisions contain the new anchorage to concrete provisions that are in ACI 31802 Appendix D.6 kip 86. [In the 2003 Provisions.31252 in. were used and if the welds and foundation embedment did not fail first.000 ( 8)( 23.65)(6 studs)(0.2. 11. x 8 in.5 kip 89. the tensile capacity would be 72 kips each.4 rather than Chapter 14 or 16. for which the entire system is proportioned. a factor of 42 increase over the angles.. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The capacity of the plate in the foundation is governed by the headed anchor studs. which yields 212 ftkips.10.9. the anchorage to concrete provisions have been removed and replaced by the reference to ACI 31802. and the shear connections would have the unintended effect of more than doubling the flexural resistance.8 requires minimum wall reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318 Sec. such as these.0. 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. check the shear strength of the precast panel at the first floor: φVc = φ 2 Acv fc′ hd = 0. equally spaced along each side (5'0" on center works well to avoid the end reinforcement). The plates are recessed to position the #5 bars within the thickness of the panel and within the reinforcement of the panel. 11. The moment resistance is this force times half the length of the panel.3.44 in.5)(12) = 271 kips Because φVc $Vu = 190 kips.69 in.5 Use four connection assemblies.3.kips.3.3. 11. these connections will add about 4% to the resistance and ignoring this contribution is reasonable. If a straight plate 1/4 in.75 to derate anchors in structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories C and higher.] Capacity in shear for anchors located far from an edge of concrete. Thus.2 (ACI 31802 Sec. Using ACI 318 Sec. It is instructive to consider how much moment capacity is added by the resistance of these connections to vertical lift at the joint. and with sufficient embedment to avoid the pryout failure mode is governed by the capacity of the steel: φVs = φ n Ase fut = (0. the wall is adequate for shear without even considering the reinforcement. the required reinforcement is: 744 .0025. since Vu $ φVc/2 = 136 kips. D. which would be sufficient. giving a total vertical force of 17 kips.2)/4]/(4 in.FEMA 451. The total demand moment.3) specifies an additional factor of 0.
n = 244/82. but welded with a straight plate.24 in.28 Shear connections on each side of the wall at the second and third floors (1.0 in = 25. Vu2 = 1.2/ft Next.27 for embedded plates Horizontal and vertical edges 1 4 Plate 516x5"x0'8" Shim and drypack Figure 7. To be consistent with the seismic force increase from yielding at the base. the shear at this level will be increased using the same amplification factor as calculated for the first story. Shear keys in the surface of both panels would be advisable.0. Also. See Figure 7. therefore. compute the shear strength at Level 2.96. Figure 7.24 in. the number of plates.0025(8)(12) = 0. it is not necessary to make the shear connection be flexible with respect to vertical movement.54(95 + 63. shear friction could rationally be used to design the connections at this level and above. Since the end reinforcement at the base extends to the top of the shear wall. one on each face. use two layers of welded wire fabric. Use three plates. WWF 4×4 . The design shear. Av = 0.0×W4.5) = 244 kips. Using the same recessed embedded plate assemblies in the panel as at the base.2/ft As before.28 shows the shear connection at the second and third floors of the longitudinal precast concrete shear wall panels. equally spaced along each side.6 = 2.4 mm). Shear reinforcement provided. because of the lack of flexural yield at the joint. 745 . Yield of the vertical bars will not occur. bending is not a concern.12(2) = 0.W4.Chapter 7. Precast Concrete Design Av = 0. the second floor joint will not open (unlike at the base) and.
W4.50(105 kips) = 157.9.5.27). The design shear.54 in. one on each face as in the longitudinal walls.FEMA 451.5/82.28.9) = 130. Use two plates.2.0×W4. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.8/82.5 ft) + (148 kip)(23.2 )(1.85( 2) 5.6 kips and the number of connections required is n = 157.5 kips.50(52. The number of plates. Use the same shear connections for the transverse walls as for the longitudinal walls as shown in Figures 7.6 = 1.5 ft / 2) 3052 ftkip = 1.50 Design shear.000 ( 8)(13. but Vu $ φVc/2 so provide two layers of welded wire fabric.5)(12) = 156 kips Similar to the longitudinal direction. Vu = 1. n = 130. φVc $Vu = 142 kips. Provide two connections on each panel. equally spaced.2. The connection capacity is 82. Compute the shear demand at the second floor level joint as indicated below. 746 .8 kips.25)(60 ksi)(13.25) f y jd + Pmax jd / 2 Mu = (3.2 Transverse Direction Use the same procedure as for the longitudinal walls: M capacity M demand = As (1.27 and 7. Vu at base is 1.3+ 34.6 = 1. Check the shear strength of the first floor panel as described previously: φVc = φ 2 fc′hd = 0. Use the same plates as in the longitudinal walls.0. Use the same shear connections as at the base of the longitudinal walls (Figure 7.6. WWF 4×4 .
For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D. The vertical seismicforceresisting system is the precast/prestressed DT wall panels located around the perimeter of the building. [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 31802.2.3) for a singlestory building in a region of high seismicity.2. which is regular. This is because ACI 31802 Sec.11.1. 9. special precast concrete shear walls are permitted if they satisfy experimental and analytical requirements contained in 2003 Provisions Sec.13). The average roof height is 20 ft. and there is a 3 ft parapet.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. Alternatively.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec.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. 21.12 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions] (ACI Sec.1.8 essentially requires special precast concrete shear walls to satisfy the same design requirements as special reinforced concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec.2. Here the connections in tension at the base of the wall panels yield by bending steel angles outofplane. 21. Precast Concrete Design 7. The building is located in the Los Angeles area on Site Class C soils.6. This example presents an interpretation of monolithic emulation design with ductile connections.1.11.deep prestressed double tee (DT) wall panels. 21. 9. 747 .7).31 shows the plan of the building. The center supports for the joists are joist girders spanning 40 ft to steel tube columns.8) or intermediate precast concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec. 9.4 and 9.2.1.21. 2003 Provisions Sec. For buildings in Seismic Design Category D. 21. Provisions Sec. The structure has 8ftwide by 121/2in.3 ONESTORY PRECAST SHEAR WALL BUILDING This example illustrates precast shear wall seismic design using monolithic emulation as defined in the Provisions Sec.3 (ACI 31802 Sec. The 2003 Provisions does not differentiate between precast or castinplace concrete for special shear walls.] 7.3. 9.1. 21.2.Chapter 7. 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. Figure 7. 21. 21.1. 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.4) permits special precast concrete shear walls (ACI 31802 Sec.
c. the strand.H.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 [9.c.4] (ACI Sec. 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. .5.000 psi. For these wall panels. 3 DT at 8'0" = 24'0" 16'0" O.FEMA 451. 9. door 5 DT at 8'0" = 40'0" 16'0" O.2. Provisions Sec.7.5. Reinforcing bars used in the welded connections of the panels and footings are ASTM A706 (60 ksi). This extra thickness is intended to reduce cracking of the flanges and provide cover for the bars used in the deck at the base. 748 24LH03 at 4'0" o. The rationale for this is that the primary reinforcement of the DT. has been added to the thickness of the deck (flange). ACI 31899 Sec.1 [21. an extra 1/2 in.1. 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.5. 21.5.2.1. fc' = 5.0 ft = 0.H. fc' = 4. The wall panels are normalweight concrete with a 28day compressive strength.3048 m).1. The concrete for the foundations has a 28day compressive strength.000 psi.5. is not working as the ductile element of the wall panel and is not expected to yield in an earthquake. 21.31 Singlestory industrial warehouse building plan (1.9.2] permits the use of strand in boundary elements of diaphragms provided the stress is limited to 60. The use of thicker flanges is addressed later.2. This design example uses the strand as the reinforcement based on that analogy. door 3 DT at 8'0" = 24'0" 48'0" Figure 7.2 [21.000 psi.2.
3.Chapter 7.2. 21.5 0. Precast Concrete Design 7.31.S.0 1.7.52 D Bearing Walls System Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall 5 2. 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). 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 .] 7.2.0 1.5 5 Provisions Sec.1.2.31 Design Parameters Design Parameter Seismic Use Group I SS (Map 1 [Figure 3.3.2 Design Requirements 7. Per Provisions Sec.3.2.3 1. [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 U.3.2.1) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]. 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. 9.2 [9.11.1.5 0. 9.3.1 Seismic Parameters of the Provisions The basic parameters affecting the design and detailing of the building are shown in Table 7.78 1. Table 7.32]) 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 = 1.2.12 (ACI Sec.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.60 C 1.31]) S1 (Map 2 [Figure 3.1.1.3] requires special reinforced concrete shear walls in Seismic Design Category D and requires adherence to the special seismic design provisions of ACI 318 Chapter 21.0 0.2 Structural Design Considerations 7.
520 ft2 ρx = 2 − 20 rmaxx Ax = 2− 20 = 2. 9. 5. The building is regular both in plan and elevation.31]). 21.].0 as long as it can be shown that failure of a single shear wall with an aspect ratio greater than 1.0455 11. The maximum ρx value is given when rmaxx is the largest value. rmaxx is computed as: 12 rmaxx = 11 = 0. For a shear wall building assigned to Seismic Design Category D. ρ is computed in accordance with Provisions Sec.3.2 [4. 21.2 [4. The largest rmaxx value is along the side with the least number of panels. The anchorage of the connection into the concrete is designed to satisfy the Type Z requirements in Provisions Sec.11.6.2 750 . 21. Alternatively. All shear wall elements (8ftwide panels) have the same stiffness.2). 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.1.3.7 requirements for special structural walls as referenced by ACI 31802 Sec.5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions.1 [4. [The redundancy requirements have been substantially changed for the 2003 Provisions. 21.2. Therefore.2.0. The connections on the two legs of the DT are each designed to resist 50 percent of the shear. the exception in 2003 Provisions Sec.2.10 0.2. 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.2. 9. 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. Based on the design procedures for the walls.FEMA 451. The connection requirements are not as clearly defined as in the 2000 Provisions.3.2 Building System Height limit is 160 ft (Provisions Table 5. 5.4 (ACI 31802 Sec. the design must satisfy ACI 31802 Sec.1.1.12 (ACI Sec.3.0 would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or create an extreme torsional irregularity.8.2. Along the side with 11 panels.0455 1.8.] 7.3. ρ = 1. [Based on the 2003 Provisions. the shear in each element is the total shear along a side divided by the number of elements (wall panels).2.1]). 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.0 Ax = 96 ft × 120 ft = 11.3].520 Therefore.2. unless the design of special precast shear walls is substantiated by experimental evidence and analysis per 2003 Provisions Sec. The reliability factor. 4. 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. use ρ = 1.0. rmaxx is the ratio of design story shear resisted by the single element carrying the most shear force to the total story shear.0 and a steel stress equal to 125% of specified yield). NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples (which ACI defines as φ = 1. each individual panel should be considered a separate wall with an aspect ratio greater than 1.3.4.
and anchorage (Provisions 5. This example does not include design of the foundation system.4. 5.1 through 5.3 Load Combinations The basic load combinations (Provisions Sec.3]).9D ± 1.0.QE (will not control) (will not control) These load combinations are for the inplane direction of the shear walls.2)(1.1D + QE 0.8.2D ± 1. 7. footnote b [4. continuity.72 [4.] The structural analysis to be used is the ELF procedure (Provisions Sec.2.2SDSD = (1.2.2. 5.2.5. 751 . Precast Concrete Design permits the use of D.0E + 0.2]) as permitted by Provisions Table 5.71 and 5.41].0D . This example does not include the design of these connections.22]: E = ρQE ± 0.2.7D . so the live load term.6.3 [4. footnote c]).6]) must be explicitly considered when detailing connections between the roof and the wall panels.2. Into each of these load combinations.4 [4.5L 0.Chapter 7. except that the load factor for earthquake effects (E) is defined by Provisions Eq. but sketches of details are provided to guide the design engineer. There are no drift limitations for singlestory buildings as long as they are designed to accommodate predicted lateral displacements (Provisions Table 5.2. ρ = 1. the metal deck diaphragm.4D + QE 1.2.5 [4.4 [5. which is regular and has more than two wall panels (bays) in both directions.2D The relevant load combinations from ASCE 7 are: 1. 5. 5. Orthogonal load combinations are not required for flexible diaphragms in Seismic Design Category D (Provisions Sec. This exception could be interpreted as applying to this example.2.3.0)QE ± (0. substitute E as determined above: 1.0)D = QE ± 0. L.6.21 and 4. or the nonstructural elements. can be omitted from the equation.2.QE 1.0E Note that roof live load need not be combined with seismic loads.7) require that seismic forces and gravity loads be combined in accordance with the factored load combinations as presented in ASCE 7. Ties.51.
000) = 138 kips The exterior double tee wall weight tributary to the roof is: (20 ft/2 + 3 ft)[42 psf/1.000](120 ft + 96 ft)2 = 236 kips Total building weight for seismic lateral load.5 psf = 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7. 5.3. which is larger than the minimum specified in Provisions Eq.2 psf = 2. W = 138 + 236 = 374 kips 7.41 [5.11 [5.1.55 T ( R I ) 0. 5.044ISDS = (0.8 psf = 1.4.3.0 ) 0.22] as: Cs = S DS 1.189 ( 5 1) where T is the fundamental period of the building computed using the approximate method of Provisions Eq.189 sec Therefore.4.75 = 0.1.4 Seismic Force Analysis 7.4.21] as: 752 .4. The total seismic base shear is then calculated using Provisions Eq. Bar joists Joist girder and columns Total The total weight of the roof is computed as: (120 ft × 96 ft)(12 psf/1. 5. use Cs = 0. 5.11 [5. the 2003 Provisions.FEMA 451.0 psf = 1.0 psf The seismic response coefficient (Cs) is computed using Provisions Eq.0) = 0 .2 Base Shear = 2.0 = = 0.52 = = 0.12 [5. sprinkler system etc.0)(1.20 R/I 5 1 except that it need not exceed the value from Provisions Eq. 5.7 psf = 0.02) ( 20.1 Weight Calculations Compute the weight tributary to the roof diaphragm Roofing Metal decking Insulation Lights.23] as follows: Cs = S D1 0. mechanical.3.13 [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions]: Cs = 0.8 psf = 12.26]: x Ta = Cr hn = (0.01 in.044 [The minimum Cs value has been changed to 0.1.4.2.4.044)(1.20.
3.4. Precast Concrete Design V = CsW = (0.8 kips 7.4 kips On each side.32.0 ft = 0.4.3048 m).1 Longitudinal Direction The total shear along each side of the building is V/2 = 37.4 kips.Chapter 7. based on a tributary area force distribution.3.32 Freebody diagram of a panel in the longitudinal direction (1.3 Horizontal Shear Distribution and Torsion Torsion is not considered in the shear distribution in buildings with flexible diaphragms. where D1 represents roof joist reactions and D2 is the panel weight. The shear along each side of the building will be equal.4/11 = 3. The maximum shear on longitudinal panels (at the side with the openings) is: Vlu = 37. 7. 753 .3.20)(374) = 74. 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. each longitudinal wall panel resists the same shear force as shown in the freebody diagram of Figure 7.
33 shows the transverse wall panel freebody diagram. 7. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7.4/12 = 3. 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. 8'0" 3'0" V tu D 20'0" 2'0" 2'0" DT leg Foundation Vtu T C Figure 7.33 Freebody diagram of a panel in the transverse direction (1.5 Proportioning and Detailing The strength of members and components is determined using the strengths permitted and required in ACI 318 including Chapter 21. but an explicit check should be made in the design.4. The chord designed for diaphragm action in the perpendicular direction will normally be capable of fulfilling this function.3. 754 .3048 m).0 ft = 0.12 kips Figure 7.2 Transverse Direction Seismic forces on the transverse wall panels are all equal and are: Vtu = 37.3.FEMA 451.
92 kips Compute the tension force due to net overturning based on an effective moment arm. For the purposes of this example. A steel angle connector will be provided at the connection of each leg of the DT panel to the concrete footing. the horizontal shear on this connection shall not exceed onehalf the nominal shear strength of the connection.32. 7.4 kips)(20 ft) = 68.73 kips ΣD = 2(1. 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. When tension from the seismic overturning moment causes 1. The nominal shear strength of the connections at the legs need to be designed to exceed the inplane shear strength of the DT. Where the moment action on the connection is assumed equal to Mpr. 2.5SnConnection and 2.3.25 times the yield moment in the angle. At the base ME = (3. For this design. The dry connections used here do meet the definition of a yielding steel element at a connection contained in ACI 31802. 9. Determine the forces for design of the DT connection at the base.0 ftkips Dead loads ⎛ 48 ⎞ D1 = (11.7 D = 6.1 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.7D: 755 . The maximum is found when combined with 0.1.08 kips ⎝ 2 ⎠ D2 = 0.12 [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: 1.1 Longitudinal Direction Use the freebody diagram shown in Figure 7. which excludes the joist girders and columns.0 ft (distance between the DT legs).000 ) ⎜ ⎟ 4 = 1. d = 4.1. Precast Concrete Design 7.2 1. Provisions Sec.08) + 7.3. 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 0.4D = 13. The nominal shear strength for the connection shall not be less than the shear strengths of the members immediately adjacent to that connection. The horizontal leg of the angle is designed to yield in bending as needed in an earthquake.1. The weight for the roof is 11.73 = 9.89 kips 1.5.5. Precisely how ductile dry connections emulate monolithic construction is not clearly explained.2 psf.Chapter 7. these two additional requirements are interpreted as: 1.042(23)(8) = 7. the coexisting shear on the connection shall be no greater than 0.
5.4/4 . 21.FEMA 451. since it is negligible.7D/2 = 68.0 ft (distance between the DT legs): Tu = 62.3048 m). 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.7D = 5.41/2 = 12.6.4 ftkips The dead load of the panel (as computed above) is D2 = 7. 240 4'0" M Figure 7.92/2 = 13.7.0/4 . 756 average 23 8" 43 4" . diameter strand. Roof live loads need not be included as a factored axial load in the compressive stress check. The compressive stress due to the overturning moment at the top of the footing and dead load is: A = 227 in. at least at the bottom of the panel. diameter and one 3/8in.33. Use the tension force of the longitudinal wall panels for the design of the angle connections.0. Figure 7.5. Figure 7.34 shows the cross section used. At the base ME = (3. The section is limited by the area of drypack under the DT at the footing. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Tu = ME/d .6.3.3]. 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.5.12 kips)(20 ft) = 62.73 kips.35 shows the location of these prestressed strands.800 12 ( 68.2 S = 3240 in.41. Each leg of the DT will be reinforced with one 1/2in.3 P M 13.2 Transverse Direction For the transverse direction. No load from the roof is included.9 kips This tension force is less than that at the longitudinal wall panels.000 ) σ= + E = + = 313psi A S 227 3.5 kips 7.2 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.34 Cross section of the DT drypacked at the footing (1.6.3. 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. The reason to limit the area of drypack at the footing is to locate the boundary elements in the legs of the DT. 7. 1.0 ft = 0.3 [21. use the freebody diagram of Figure 7. and 0.0 in = 25.6. The tension force is computed as above for d = 4.1.4 mm.
The rationale for using this stress is discussed at the beginning of this example. is less than at the top of footing.91( 37.27 = 688 psi.4 mm).91 in.83)(8) = 7. above the footing. The limiting stress is 0. use P = 0.CGStrand = 9.0 in = 25. compute the compressive stress resulting from these strands.085] = 37.153 + 0.58(270 ksi)[0.8.000 psi. Sb = 189 in. The strand reinforcement of the DT leg resisting tension is limited to 60.Chapter 7. the total compressive stress is approximately 313 + 402 .300 ) + = + = 402 psi 168 189 A S Therefore. This reduces the compressive stress by: (3.2 fc'.0 kips 757 .4)(26) x 1000 = 27 psi 3. Reinforcement in the DT for tension is checked at 26 in. which is 1000 psi. strand Leg mesh 6" 43 4" average Figure 7.35 Cross section of one DT leg showing the location of the bonded prestressing tendons or strand (1. Precast Concrete Design Deck mesh 21 2" (1) 1 2" dia. so no special boundary elements are required in the longitudinal wall panels. about 26 in. strand 4" (1) 3 8" dia. Next. Note the moment at the height of strand development above the footing.300 0. for the effective stress (fse).042)(20.3 kips A = 168 in.3 σ= P Pe 37. D2 = (0.57 = 0.48 .58fpu Aps = 0. 240 In each leg.2 e = yb .
2/ft The nominal shear strength of the wall panel by ACI 318 Sec.6 [21.0 kips 1.4 kips. complete the shear calculation for the panel in accordance with ACI Sec. Grade 50. The demand on each panel is: Vu = Vlu = 3.7]. which is the ductile element of the connection.2 The mesh in the legs is available for tension resistance. where the connection is.0. determine the minimum required shear reinforcement based on ACI Sec.W2.7(7.49 kips exceeds Vu = 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Pmin = 0.2].0 + 2(1. 21. The steel for the angle and embedded plates will be ASTM A572.000 = 8. but not required in this check.2 + 0.5 )( 48 ) ) 2 5. Since Acv f c′ = 2.085 in. it is obvious that half the nominal shear strength will exceed the seismic shear demand. the required areas of reinforcement are: Ash = Asv = (0.3. although this is not stated as a 758 .6 ftkips Tu = Mnet/d . Using welded wire fabric.5 × W2.2/ft Provide 6 × 6 .0 kips The area of tension reinforcement required is: As = Tu/φfy = (12.2/ft Asv = 0.05 ( 4 )( 60 ) = 29. which is 3. 21. To determine the nominal shear strength of the concrete for the connection design.2 = 0. 16. 21.9(60 ksi)] = 0.4 kips. which are not effective in shear.5. meaning that the area effective for shear is the deck between the legs).1 [21.2.5 ( 48 ) 5. Given that the connections will be designed for a shear of 29 kips. which is greater than 2.0 for hw/lw = 23/4 = 5. diameter strand is 0.0 welded wire fabric. with the long leg vertical.4.4 kips Only the deck between the DT legs is used to resist the inplane shear (the legs act like flanges.4)(17.Pmin/2= 12.3 Size the Yielding Angle The angle.05 in.7.236 in. diameter and one 3/8 in.4. 7.75.22 in. The horizontal leg of the angle needs to be long enough to provide significant displacement at the roof. First. the reinforcement of the deck is per ACI 318 Sec. Ash = 0. and the legs are like the flanges of a channel.6.0 kips)/[0.04 in.000 where αc is 2.08)) = 6.41 kips ME = (3. This angle is a L5 × 31/2 × 3/4 × 0 ft5 in.FEMA 451.1 is: Vn = Acv α c ( f c′ + ρ n f y = ( 2.83) = 60.6.001)(2.5)(12) = 0.2 The area of one ½ in.2.03 in. is welded between the plates embedded in the DT leg and the footing. The prestress force is not effective at the base. 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.153 in.000 + 0.
or the shear associated with Tu'.0/2 = 14.36 Freebody of the angle and the fillet weld connecting the embedded plates in the DT and the footing (elevation and section) (1.6. Using Provisions Sec.5(3.75 )2 ⎤ ⎥ = 31.5 kips. 1" 759 . The bearing panel.1. The angle and its welds are shown in Figure 7. Precast Concrete Design requirement in either the Provisions or ACI 318. Thus Tu′ = M n (1. 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. The bending moment at a distance k from the heel of the angle (location of the plastic hinge in the angle) is: Mu = Tu(3.9 kips 3.k) = 13.25) = 30.4 mm).4 in.1.1.5 .5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].g..0 in = 25.25 Check the welds for the tension force of 21.5 − k 3.9 Fy Z = 0. 21.12 (ACI Sec.kips 4 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ Providing a stronger angle (e.5 − 1.kips φb M n = 0.11.5 . 9.36.4) (50)(5)(0.Chapter 7.4 = 21. a shorter horizontal leg) will simply increase the demands on the remainder of the assembly. will give a larger shear.9 kips and a shear force (Vu')of 29.9 ( 50 ) ⎢ ⎡ 5 ( 0.75) 2 / 4 = × 1. with its larger vertical load. 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 7.6 in. This will be examined briefly here.
thus. 7. (20 ft to the roof.707)Aw. it appears that this dry connection will provide enough deformability to be in the range of expectation of the Provisions. as computed previously.)3/12] = 0. Also.75 in. the vertical deformation at the design moment in the leg is δv = TL3/3EI = (13. this would imply an elastic displacement of δh = 74. the diaphragm deformation will overwhelm all other aspects of deformation. Size a fillet weld. divided by the 4 ft from leg to leg at the base of the DT.047 in.6)70(0.5.3 ksi. consider the deformability of the system as controlled by the yielding angle.9/4 + 13. but now compare with the expectations of the Provisions.75(0. . particularly the plate and reinforcement embedded in the DT.76 kips. (This is not a bad assumption regarding the double tee itself.)3/[3(29000 ksi)(5 in. For which limiting stress is 22.) = 0.) The angle deformation will be idealized as a cantilever with a length from the tip to the center of the corner. long at the angle to embedded plate in the footing: Using an elastic approach Resultant force = V 2 + T 2 = 14. φRn = φ(Fy)ABM. φRn = φ(Fy)Aw = 0. given the design seismic base shear of 74. then upward to the level of the bottom of the DT. the predicted total displacement is 0. This is about 50% larger than the simplistic calculation considering only the angle. These displacements are not very large. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 1. The bending of angle legs about their weak axis has a long history of providing ductility and.4 Welds to Connection Angle Welds will be fillet welds using E70 electrodes.0 ksi.75 in.19 sec. For the base metal. The approximate period predicted for a 20fttall shear wall building is 0.4D = 13. will contribute to the overall deformation. K Now. but this is not the place to address flexible diaphragm issues. Vn for the panel obviously controls.8 kip / (201 kip/in. .8(2)]/20 = 5.5 in. Given a weight of 374 kips.8 kips. Ignore all sources of deformation except the angle.t/2 = 3.FEMA 451.52 + 219 2 = 26.24 in. 760 .t/2 + 1 in. this would imply a stiffness from the fundamental equation of dynamics: T = 2π W /g ⇒ K = 4π 2W /( gT ) = 4π 2 374 /(386 × 0.37 in. But before checking the welds. This translates into a horizontal motion at the roof of 0.5 kips)(3.75 in.9(50) = 45.) With Cd of 4. but other aspects of the connections. For the weld metal.8 kips. For which the limiting stress is φFy = 0. and V = [Tu'(4) + 1. which amounts to: L = 3.3.)(0.3 kips . Using an elasticplastic idealization.19) = 201 kip/in. 5 in.96 in.4D(2)]/20 = [21.
With ordinary quality control to avoid flaws.9(3.37 Freebody of angle with welds.3 = 1.5) = 21.3/22. For a 3/4 in. For the weld between the angle and the embedded plate in the DT as shown in Figure 7. Try a fillet weld 5 in. Given the importance of this weld.18 in.5)(3. showing only shear forces and resisting moments.5) = (14. Precast Concrete Design Aw = 26. long across the top and 4 in.37 for shear.4 Iy = 60.7 in. increasing the strength of this weld by such an amount should not have a detrimental effect elsewhere in the connection.24 in.77 + 1.5) = 50.18 in.2 Ix = 23.Chapter 7.0) = 14.7 in. Now size the weld to the plate in the DT. angle leg.kips My = Vu'(3.0) = 54.5) = 76.4t in.kips Mz = Vu'(yb + 1.kips Mz My V X Z V Figure 7.5(2. = 0. fillet weld. long on each vertical leg of the angle.8 in. use a 5/16 in.37 the section properties for a weld leg (t) are: A = 13t in. the weld moments and stresses are: Mx = Tu'(3. Continue to use the conservative elastic method to calculate weld stresses. increasing the size to 3/8 in.4 761 . Using the freebody diagram of Figure 7.0t in.2/5 in.36 for tension and Figure 7.2 t = Aw/l =1. top view. would be a reasonable step.
75(0.1.77) ⎛ 2. 7.6. To check the weld.5) (76.67/22. σx = Vu′ M z yb 14.93 + = + =⎜ 13t 83.4t A Ip ⎝ t ⎠ M y xL Iy M x yb (50. The maximum stress is at the lower right end of the inverted U shown in Figure 7.5) ⎛ 0.3 = 0.5) [not applicable in the 2003 Provisions].5E) = 16.Sloped = Tu′ 21. 21.7)(2.0t Ix ⎛ 11. The resultant shear resistance is: φVn = 0. The tension reinforcement area required in the footing is: As.2 ) at each embedded plate in the footing.1.2 o φ f y cosθ 0..8)(2.4t A Ip ⎝ t ⎞ ⎟ ksi ⎠ σy =− Tu′ M z xL 21.62 in.4t 23. and the development lengths are lengthened by an additional 30%.9 (54. t = 11.FEMA 451.52 in.7)(2. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Ip = Ix + Iy = 83.3) 2 = ⎜ ⎟ ksi t ⎝ t ⎠ Thus.1 kips 762 .67 ⎞ (2.045 ⎞ + =− + =⎜ ⎟ ksi 13t 83.9 = = 0. Field welds are conservatively sized with the elastic method for simplicity and to minimize construction issues.045) 2 + (−11. say 9/16 in.5 ( ) Use two #5 bars (As = 0.5.4 yb = 2. The shear bars in the footing will be two #4 placed on an angle of two (plus)toone.36. 9.4t in.9 ( 60) cos26.3. Reinforcement in the DT leg and in the footing will be welded to embedded plates as shown in Figure 7.5 (54)(2.11.5 Tension and Shear at the Footing Embedment Reinforcement to anchor the embedded plates is sized for the same tension and shear.77) == 60.77 in.45 in.93) 2 + (0.5 in. stresses are computed at all four ends (and corners). The welded reinforcement is sloped to provide concrete cover and to embed the bars in the central region of the DT leg and footing.3 ⎞ ⎜⎟ ksi ⎝ t ⎠ σz = − − 2 2 2 σR = σx +σ y +σz = 1 ⎛ 11.12 (ACI Sec. xL = 2. per Provisions Sec.38.2)(2)(60)(cos 26.
The available bearing area is approximately Abr = 4(0. In this case they will be extended 22 in. past the point of development of the effective stress in the strand.2) = 27.85)(5 ksi)(10 in.6 Tension and Shear at the DT Embedment The area of reinforcement for the welded bars of the embedded plate in the DT.5 kips. Two #5 and two #4 bars (explained later) are welded to the plate. concrete footing " 2'6 1 2 Figure 7.5 kip demand. The same embedded plate used for tension will also be used to resist onehalf the nominal shear.408 in.39) (2) #4 with standard hooks 9 1 9 (2) #4x24" (see Fig 7.4 mm).5 in.2 and the bearing capacity of the concrete is φVn = (0. which develop tension as the angle bends through cycles is: As = Tu′ 21. Precast Concrete Design (2) #4x48" (See Fig 7.39) 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.3 Two #4 bars are adequate. 7.I. This shear force is 14.(available)) = 10 in.9(60) cos 6. The transfer of direct shear to the concrete is easily accomplished with bearing on the sides of the reinforcing bars welded to the plate.9 = = 0.3 times the development length. which would be 22 in.P. which totals about 48 in.2 o φ f y cosθ 0.6 kips > 14.0 in = 25.5. Note that the bars in the DT leg are required to extend upward 1.38 Section at the connection of the precast/prestressed shear wall panel and the footing (1.Chapter 7. 763 .65)(0.)(5 in.3.
kips) and Mx (76. The shear demand is prorated among the four bars as (14.8 in.7 in. Thus. This approximate method is demonstrated here. For My assume that the effective depth extends 1 in.7).kips (>50.0 ) Use one #4 bar on each side of the vertical embedded plate in the DT as shown in Figure 7. Use Mz = 54.2)(60 ksi)(0.2)(60 ksi)(0.3 = 2.20 + 0.9)(0.11 + 0.9 ( 60 )( 9.) = 54 in.2. Each component is strong enough.20/2 = 0.7 = = 0. The #4 bars are effective in resisting Mx.3 in.4 in.30 in. assume a triangular shaped compression block in the concrete.95)(5 in.kips. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples The weld of these bars to the plate must develop both the tensile demand and this shear force.7 Resolution of Eccentricities at the DT Embedment Check the twisting of the embedded plate in the DT for Mz.kips (>76.2 times the bar diameter along each side of the bar.FEMA 451.0 kip). Begin by assigning onehalf of the “corner” #4 to each component.4 kip.20/2 = 0.39).5.5 kip. The weld is a flare bevel weld.75)(0. This is the same bar used to transfer direct shear in bearing. so the proposed bars are satisfactory.2 φ f y ( jd ) 0. Check the DT embedded plate for My (50.2 . The tension demand is the larger of 1. With Asx = 0.)(2) = 6. the minimum length of weld is 15.3. and one each of the #3 and #4 bars are effective in resisting My.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. beyond the edge of the angle (equal to twice the thickness of the plate).3 kips/in.) = 77 in. 7. the weld capacity is φVn = (0.11 in.95)(5 in.21 in. As = Mz 54.5 kip)/4 = 3.39. With Asy = 0.7 in.8). φMnx = φAs fy jd = (0.21 in.2)(0.25 fy on the bar (15 kip) or Tu/2 (11.) For the #4 bar. (Refer to the PCI Handbook. and then compute the resisting moment.9)(0.5 in. The vectorial sum of shear and tension demand is 15.6)(70 ksi)(0.4 / 6. It is relatively straightforward to compute the resultant moment magnitude and direction. with an effective throat of 0. φMny = φAs fy jd = (0. 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. 764 .
765 .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 7.311 Sketch of connection of loadbearing DT wall panel at the roof (1. DT Plate at each DT leg L4x3x1 4x continuous Metal deck Bar joists DT corbel at each leg Figure 7.Chapter 7. Precast Concrete Design 3" 2" 3" #4 (2) #4 with standard hook For 1.4 mm).0 in = 25.39 Details of the embedded plate in the DT at the base (1.
1.1] requires specific force minimums for the connection and requires continuous ties across the diaphragm. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 7. the designer may wish to use the top chord of the bar joists.3048 m). In precast double tee shear wall panels with flanges thicker than 21/2 in.3. Also. Provisions Sec.310 Sketch of connection of nonloadbearing DT wall panel at the roof (1.6.310 and 7. Therefore.2 [4.8 Other Connections This design assumes that there is no inplane shear transmitted from panel to panel.0 in = 25.3.FEMA 451. this means the chord for the roof diaphragm should not be a part of the panels. as the continuous cross ties.5.2. Because the diaphragm supports concrete walls out of their plane. 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 7.6.0 ft = 0. In that direction. Note that the continuous steel angle would be expected to undergo vertical deformations as the panels deform laterally. These connections are not designed here.4 mm. 5. 766 . it specifically prohibits use of the metal deck as the ties in the direction perpendicular to the deck span. These types of connections are not considered here. 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.. 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. with an appropriate connection at the joist girder. if connections are installed along the vertical joints between DT panels to control the outofplane alignment.311 show the connections at the roof and DT wall panels. Figures 7. the deck may be used but the laps should be detailed appropriately. In a practical sense. In the direction parallel to the deck span.2.
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. California) is used in the example.D. is presented. the design examples and calculations have not been revised to reflect the changes to the 2003 Provisions.. The example covers only design for seismic forces in combination with gravity..E. The RISA 3D analysis program. but this is the only one illustrated in this set of design examples.4. This system is referred to as a “Composite Partially Restrained Moment Frame (CPRMF)” in the Provisions. Some types of PRC connections have been studied in laboratory tests and a design method has been developed for one in particular. Rutz. The structure is analyzed using threedimensional static methods. 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. Colorado.E. 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. Updates to the reference documents.5 (Risa Technologies. in particular AISC Seismic. 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. Annotations within brackets. v. 81 . Although this volume of design examples is based on the 2000 Provisions. 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. Part II. P. it has been annotated to reflect changes made to the 2003 Provisions. The Provisions set forth a wealth of opportunities for designing composite steel and concrete systems. have some affect on the calculations illustrated herein. Ph. AISC Seismic. P. While the general concepts of the changes are described. and Frederick R. Ph.D. 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. [ ]. Foothill Ranch. An example of a multistory medical office building in Denver. which is illustrated in this example. 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. although a check on drift from wind load is included. In addition.
Partially Restrained Composite Connections. Load and Resistance Factor Design. 82 . Manual 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. the above referenced documents. However. Chicago: AISC. Standard ACI 31899.FEMA 451. American Society of Civil Engineers. October 1998. 1998. 2 (2000). 1999. significant changes to the 2003 Provisions and primary reference documents are noted. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction. 1997. American Society of Civil Engineers Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete. including Supplement No. Steel Design Guide Series 8. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Institute of Steel Construction. Reston: ASCE. 1999. Detroit: ACI. Chicago: AISC. Chicago: AISC. American Institute of Steel Construction. In addition to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (referred to herein as the Provisions). the following documents are referenced: ACI 318 American Concrete Institute. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. ASCE 798. American Institute of Steel Construction. “Design Guide for Partially Restrained Composite Connections. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.. or are as defined in the text. Volumes 1 and 2. some minor changes to the 2003 Provisions and the reference documents may not be noted.” Journal of Structural Engineering 124(10). Customary U. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Where they affect the design examples in this chapter. 2nd Edition. units are used.S. 1998. The symbols used in this chapter are from Chapter 2 of the Provisions. 1996.
3048 m). and it is an appropriate choice for buildings with lowtomoderate seismic demands. Figure 84 shows the typical connection. N W E 25'0" S 12'6" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 25'0" 12'6" 20K5 at 3'11 2" o.2 and in AISC Seismic. (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. which depend on the building as well as the ground shaking hazard.0 ft = 0. The structure is free of irregularities both in plan and elevation.c. This is considered a Composite Partially Restrained Moment Frame (CPRMF) per Provisions Table 5.2. The floors and roof are supported by open web steel joists.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION This fourstory medical office building has a structural steel framework (see Figures 81 through 83). W21x44 (typical for NS beams) 25'0" 83 . 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. Composite Steel and Concrete 8. 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.Chapter 8.
84 .0 ft = 0. 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 (1.0 ft = 0. 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.3048 m). Colorado).FEMA 451. The building is located in a relatively low hazard region (Denver.3048 m). 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. and to push the example into Seismic Design Category C.
normal weight): Steel reinforcing bars (ASTM A615): Fy = 50 ksi Fy = 36 ksi fc' = 3000 psi Fy = 60 ksi The floor live load is 50 psf. except in 3 internal bays on each floor where medical records storage imposes 200 psf. which would provide flexural restraint for the strong axis of the columns at their base (very similar to the foundation for a conventional steel moment frame). For this location and system. 3. Composite Steel and Concrete Concrete Headed stud Rebar Girder Double angle web connection Column Seat angle Figure 84 Typical composite connection. the typical foundation would be a drilled pier and voided grade beam system. The typical bay spacing is 25 feet. Incorporating the connection flexibility into the analytical model of the building 85 . This arrangement is illustrated in the figures. but they are not required for this design. This example covers the following aspects of seismic design that are influenced by partially restrained composite frame systems: 1. Architectural considerations allowed an extra column at the end bay of each side in the northsouth direction. The frames in each bay in the eastwest direction have momentresisting connections at all except the end columns. Load combinations for composite design 2. The main purpose here is to illustrate the procedures for the partially restrained composite connections. Assessing the flexibility of the connections 3. The floor slabs serve as horizontal diaphragms distributing the seismic forces. Structural steel beams and columns (ASTM A992): Structural steel connection angles and plates (ASTM A36): Concrete slab (4. Material properties in this example are as follows: 1. Composite connections to the weak axis of the column are feasible. 2.5" normal weight concrete slab used to control footfall vibration response of the open web joist system and the precast concrete panels on the exterior walls. which is useful in what is the naturally weaker direction. and the roof snow load is taken as 30 psf. There are no foundations designed in this example.Chapter 8. Dead loads are relatively high for a steel building due to the 4. The exterior frames in the northsouth direction have momentresisting connections at all columns. 4.5 inches thick on form deck. and the stiffness for serviceability in wind is a factor in the design. and by inspection they are stiff enough to be considered as rigid. Wind loads per ASCE 7 are also checked.
8. springs at each end of the beams. but there are not truly standard criteria for this.1 below.FEMA 451. 86 . Even for software that does not.2 SUMMARY OF DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR COMPOSITE PARTIALLY RESTRAINED MOMENT FRAME SYSTEM For buildings with low to moderate seismic demands. Proportion columns based upon a simple portal analogy for either stiffness or strength. the first trial was made using the same W18x35 beam. an approximate effective column length factor of K = 1. Proportion composite beams with heavy noncomposite loads based upon the demand for the unshored construction load condition. this resulted in W18x35 beams to support the open web steel joists. This is much like seismic design for any other frame system. 4. which is consistent with the overall requirements of the Provisions for linear analysis. 2. Given the nature of the connection. such as the spandrel beams in this example.3. 3. Prudence in the use of this simplification does suggest checking the behavior of the connections under gravity loads to assure that significant yielding is confined to the seismic event. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples 4. Also check that the moment capacity of the column (after adjusting for axial loads) is at least as large as that for the beam. the member and connection properties are adjusted to satisfy the overall drift limits and the individual strength limits. If stiffness is selected. The key difference is that the flexibility of the connection must be taken into account in the analysis. it is also a good idea to examine behavior at service loads. based upon judgment. but the AISC LRFD and the Provisions approaches considering second order moments from the translation of gravity loads are essentially the same. If strength is selected. There are multiple ways to accomplish this. Some analytical software allows the explicit inclusion of linear. For this example. or even nonlinear. The further checks on details. the partially restrained composite frame system affords an opportunity to create a seismicforceresisting system in which many of the members are the same size as would already be provided for gravity loads. keep the column’s contribution to story drift to no more than onethird of the target. a dummy member can be inserted at each end of each beam that mimics the connection behavior. The member properties of the composite beam are altered to become an equivalent prismatic beam that gives approximately the same flexural stiffness in the sway mode to the entire frame as the actual composite beams combined with the actual connections. Design of the connections 8. Once an analytic model is constructed. are also generally familiar. Proportion other composite beams. For this example another method is illustrated. A reasonable preliminary design procedure to develop member sizes for a first analysis is as follows: 1. Select a connection such that the negative moment strength is about 75 percent of the plastic moment capacity of the bare steel beam.5 is suggested for preliminary design. such as the strong column rule.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 8. Column stability does need to account for the flexibility of the connection. For this example. Those final design checks that are peculiar to the system are explained in detail as the example is described.1 Provisions Parameters The basic parameters affecting the design and detailing of the buildings are shown in Table 8.
Diaphragms must be designed for the required forces (Provisions Sec.50 SMS = FaSs 0. Composite Steel and Concrete Table 81 Design Parameters Parameter Value 0. Part II. the seismic forces are low enough that conventional stiffness rules for wind design actually control the stiffness.2).025 times the story height.2.2. 8 (Provisions Table 5.6.3 Building Weight and Base Shear Summary The unit weights are as follows: 87 . 8.6).2 Structural Design Considerations Per the Provisions The building is regular both in plan and elevation. 5. Nonstructural elements (Provisions Chapter 14) are not considered in this example. 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).20 Ss (Map 1) 0.] The frames are designed in accordance with AISC Seismic. 5. Sec.2. it would be difficult to design such structures without reference to at least one of these two documents.2.2. Given the need to determine the flexibility of the connections.33 SDS = 2/3SMS 0.2 Moment Frame R 6 3 Ω0 Cd 5.4 is permitted. 5.5 Fa 3. Provisions Table 5.2.21 SM1 = FvS1 0.5.1 indicates that use of the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure in accordance with Provisions Sec.5. however this is not unique to this system and therefore is not explained in this example.5 Fv 0. 5.8) is 0. 8.14 SD1 = 2/3SM1 Seismic Design Category C Frame Type per Composite Partially Restrained Provisions Table 5. Orthogonal effects need not be considered for Seismic Design Category C.2.2). provided the structure does not have a plan structural irregularity (Provisions Sec. Although the Cd factor is large.5 [The 2003 Provisions have adopted the 2002 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps.5. AISC SDGS8 and ASCE TC describe this particular system in detail.Chapter 8.3.06 S1 (Map 2) Site Class E 2.3.2. The story drift limit (Provisions Table 5.
slab on 0. 5. is equal to 0. and the upper bound for this level of ground motion is 1. the design wind force is somewhat less than the design seismic base shear.021: Cs = S D1 0.12 ⎜ ⎟ I ⎝1⎠ The methods used to determine W and Cs are similar to those used elsewhere in this volume of design examples.2) The distribution of the base shear to each floor (again.080) = 170 kips (Provisions Eq. The approximate period per the Provisions is 0. When including the directionality effect and the strength load factor.12 seconds.6 in.FEMA 451. The total seismic force or base shear is then calculated as follows: V = CsW = (0. by methods similar to those used elsewhere in this volume of design examples) is found to be: Roof Story 4 Story 3 Story 2 Story 1 (Level 4): 70 kips (Level 3): 57 kips (Level 2): 34 kips (Level 1): 8 kips (Level 0): 0 kips Σ: 169 kips (difference is rounding. W. plus sag Joist and beam framing Columns Composite dead load: Fire insulation Mechanical and electrical Ceiling Partitions Exterior wall: Precast concrete panels: 58 psf 6 psf 2 psf 66 psf 4 psf 6 psf 2 psf 20 psf 32 psf 0. form deck.80 klf Records storage on 3 bays per floor 120 psf (50 percent is used for seismic weight.66 seconds.14 = = 0.3. These are much higher than the customary 0. but lowrise frames with small seismic force demands typically do have periods substantially in excess of the rule of thumb. The treatment of the dead loads for analysis is described in more detail subsequently.01 seconds in the northsouth and eastwest directions. total is 170) Without illustrating the techniques. Cs. The building is somewhat heavy and flexible. The computed periods of vibration in the first modes are 2. respectively. The wind force is not distributed in the same fashion as the 88 . The Seismic Response Coefficient.021 R ⎛6⎞ T 1. is found to be 8. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Noncomposite dead load: 4.080 kips. minimum per the Provisions is 25 percent) The building weight.1 second per story rule of thumb.5 in. the gross service level wind force following ASCE 7 is 123 kips.12 and 2.021)(8.
2 (For use in these equations AwL is limited to 150 percent of AL). Eq. At larger rotations the web angles contribute a tension force that increases the resistance for both negative and positive bending. Y3 = distance from top flange of the girder to the centroid of the reinforcement. Each of these conditions has a momentrotation relationship available in AISC SDGS8 and ASCE TC.0065 AwL (d + Y3)Fy From these equations. 2) where: C1 = 0.48AwL ) + AL](d + Y3)Fy C2 = 0. 1) where: C1 = 0.857ALFy)(d + Y3) C2 = 0. in.2 AwL = gross area of double web angles for shear calculations.2 AL = area of seat angle leg. in.4 DETAILS OF THE PRC CONNECTION AND SYSTEM 8. As = steel reinforcing area.0210(d + Y3/2) C3 = 0.2400[(0. The negative moment connection has the slab rebar in tension and the leg of the seat angle in compression. (Unfortunately there are typographical errors in ASCE TC: A “+” should be replaced by “=” and the symbol for the area of the seat angle is used where the symbol should be that for the area of the web angle. ksi Fy = yield stress of seat and web angles. thus the story shears and the overturning moments for wind are considerably less than for seismic. Fyrb = yield stress of reinforcing. The positive moment connection has the slab concrete in compression (at least the “a” dimension down from the top of the slab) and the seat angle in tension (which results in flexing of the seat angle vertical leg).0100(AwL + AL )(d + Y3)Fy C4 = 0.1 Connection Mθ Relationships The composite connections must resist both a negative moment and a positive moment. 8. Composite Steel and Concrete seismic force.Chapter 8.775 C3 = 0. Eq.18(4 × AsFyrb + 0. in. milliradians (radians/1000) d = girder depth. in.4. curves for Mθ can be developed for a particular connection. in.) An Mθ curve can be developed from these equations: Negative moment connection: − M n = C1 (1 − e − C2θ ) + C3θ (AISC SDGS8.007(AL + AwL)Fy (d + Y3) θ = girder end rotation. Figures 85 and 86 are Mθ curves for the connections associated with the W18x35 girder and the W21x44 spandrel beam 89 . ksi Positive moment connection: + M n = C1 (1 − e − C2θ ) + (C3 + C 4 )θ (AISC SDGS8.
24.025 radians and total rotation of 0.4 in 2003 Provisions Sec. do not reproduce the line from a single test.2. ftkip Negative M Figure 85 Mθ Curve for W18x35 connection with 6#5 (1. 3.015 radians and total rotation capacity of 0. Part II. as are the bilinear approximations shown in the figures.36 kNm) 810 .FEMA 451.inelastic rotation of 0.5. 27. It should be recognized that these curves. They smear out the slip of bolts into bearing.4 . 27. Vol. the required rotation capabilities are inelastic rotation of 0. Vol. The differing stiffnesses for negative and positive bending. milliradians 10 15 20 25 Pos Bilinear Neg Bilinear Moment. 10.1. connection angles.030 radians. 8. Vol. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples respectively. which are used in this example.) [Based on the modifications to AISC Seismic. 2. 24. 2. The substantial ductility in both negative and positive bending. and The substantial postyield stiffness for both negative and positive bending. No.0 ftkip = 1. and the equations from which they were plotted. The typical tests clearly demonstrate the ability of the connection to meet the rotation capabilities of AISC Seismic. and Vol 31.4. No. No.] 300 Positive M 200 100 0 100 200 300 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 Rotation.16. No.040 radians. Section 8. They are in Vol. They are averages fit to real test data by numerical methods. Sec. The selection of the reinforcing steel. and bolts are described in the subsequent section. (There are several articles in the AISC Engineering Journal that describe actual test results. Among the important features of the connections demonstrated by these curves are: 1. No. 2.
] 811 .36 kNm). in 2003 Provisions Sec. Table I61. Sec. Each major step in the table is described in a linebyline description following the table. where a W21x44 was used in the end.0 ftkip = 1. Part II. Composite Steel and Concrete 500 400 300 200 Moment. milliradians 10 15 20 25 Positive M Pos Bilinear Neg Bilinear Negative M Figure 86 Mθ Curve for W21x44 connection with 8#5 (1. where Ry is the ratio of expected yield strength to nominal yield strength per AISC Seismic.4.2 Connection Design and Connection Stiffness Analysis Table 82 is taken from a spreadsheet used to compute various elements of the connections for this design example. 10. the nominal strength of the connection must be exceed RyMp for the bare steel beam.Chapter 8. Part I. 8.16. It shows the typical W18x35 girder and the W21x44 spandrel beam with the connections used in the final analysis. [Based on the modifications to AISC Seismic. as well as a W18x35 spandrel beam for the short exterior spans. ftkip 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 Rotation.5.
3 4 Area of beam. Mn+.0 45 Q (prying). in.0 5.4 40 Tension to bottom flange.00 0.3 7 Beam depth.000 1. 2.4 114. in. ftkips 78% 82% 78% 19 % Mp (Mn/beam Mp) 20 Check: > 50%? (75% per ASCE TC) OK OK OK Seat Demands for Negative Moment 22 Seat angle L7x4x1/2x8 L7x4x5/8x8. kips 31.0 4.3 74. fillet length. in.5 9 Y3 to rebar.75 86.8 31.3125 4. 7. 10. plastic modulus of beam.5 39 Seat tension from shear.9 215.FEMA 451.3 (2) 1"325X 47 Bolts to column (2) 1"325X (2) 11/8"490X 48 Bolt design tension.0 7. 10 Column W10x77 W10x88 W10x77 11 Flange width.2 3. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Table 82 Partially Restrained Composite Connection Design Line Girder Spandrels Basic Data 2 Beam size W18x35 W21x44 W18x35 3 Span.875 5.86 111.3 13 10.0 26 Leg area. in.00 38 Seat tension from bending. vertical leg.5 6 Z.9 18. in.5 L7x4x1/2x8 36 36 36 23 Seat Fy.75) 33 Check Close enough OK Close enough Nominal Positive Moment Capacity 35 Seat k.2 32 Bolt design shear capacity.875 1. kips 86.0 7. in.6 141.5 38.8 10.2 510 843 510 5 I.7 6.75) 106 168.0 141.4 149.25 144 (4) 1"325X 30 Bolts to beam (4) 1"325X (4) 11/8"490X 31 Diameter.2 12 Flange thickness.625 0.8 111. kips (φ = 0.4 66.7 20.4 106 49 Check OK OK OK 812 .5 63. kips 144 191.5 8. 0.7 17. in.8 18 Mn. ft 25 25 12. k1. 17. in.2 223.6 148. in. kips (φ = 0. kips 31. of beam alone.875 27 Minimum area = 1. in. 8. in. 0. in.5 0. in.5 5. kips 6. in.87 0.2 28 Check OK OK OK 29 Leg yield force.0 5.0 0.2 1.88 0.5 95. kips 215.0 36 Mp.2 10.86 2.99 0. in.9 67. nominal negative moment. Basic Negative Moment Capacity 15 Reinforcing bars 6#5 8#5 6#5 16 As.5 67. rebar area. 1.125 1.0 29.1 2. kips 38. rebar tension.167 3.8 46 Bolt tension. ftkips 24% 38% 24% 42 Percent of Beam Mp Demand on Tension Bolts at Nominal Capacity 44 a' (see Figure 87).5 25 Seat length.000 18.94 0.5 5.kips 37 b' (see Figure 87).0 2. 1.81 1.5 63.7 8 Slab thickness. 1.. in. in.8 31.4 66.87 0.0 8.88 13 Flange fillet.5 10.48 1.25 Tr /Fy. ksi 24 Seat thickness. in. in.6 17 Tr.4 41 Nominal Positive Moment.3 10.8 324.
See Provisions Sec.175 82 Equivalent beam for positive and negative.290 2.10 56 Rebar Ty + bottom seat Ty. ftkip 29.5 73 Secant stiffness for Mpos at 0. Sec. M pos) × Cd.13 0.29 75 Rotation at nominal Mpos Beam Moments of Inertia 77 Full composite action force. in.3 268.5 69 Mneg at maximum capacity(0. in.5 63 Web angles L4x4x /4x8. Composite Steel and Concrete Line Girder Spandrels Compute Total Joint Moment to Column based on Nominal Capacities 51 Connection nominal Mn.020 rad).25 1.435 1.63 Web Shear Connection (needed for effective stiffness) 62 Seismic shear demand.31 78 Y2.0 650.263 639 955 412 84 Eff. 1. and ASCE 7 Sec.2. in. prismatic inertia.Chapter 8.03 3.7 14.0 68 Mneg at service level (0.105 61. bending. ftkip 71. in.9 10.4 83 Weighted connection stiffness. 2.66 7.1 71.402 79 Composite beam inertia for pos.9 29. in.9 72 Mpos at maximum capacity(0.63 0. beam and PRCC. in.14 367.0 5.3 224.81 6.1. in.020 rad).7 264.7 117. 5.72 2.1 1 1 L4x4x /4x11.65 5.30 4.263 88.5 90 Nominal capacity of bolts. prismatic I / I of beam alone 1.71 364.79 3.5 397.29 3.2 107.020 radians) / Mp beam 75% 79% 75% Detailed explanation of the computations in Table 82: Step 1: Establish nominal negative moment capacity: (This is a step created in this design example. in.25 5. limit based on area of rebar. 6. ftkips 283 475 283 177 297 177 52 Minimum column Mp (125% of sum) 53 Average as percentage of beam 51% 60% 51% 54 Check OK OK OK Concrete Compression Transfer to Column 143.7 71 Mpos at service level (0.3. in. ftkip 264.+ Mn+. kips 11.03 74 Rotation at nominal Mneg 2.66 834 1366 834 81 Composite beam inertia for neg.4 1. kips 80.25 64 Aw. ftkip 208.79 3.2 2.9 208. is not actually an explicit step in the procedures recommended in the references.83 0.2 70 Secant stiffness for Mneg at 0.5 L4x4x1/4x8.5 2 4. kips 2. at nom.2 152.85 f'c on two flanges.03 3. bending.2 Moment Rotation Values for Analysis of Effective Stiffness 178. in. area of two legs. kips 141.3 Check Positive Moment Capacity as a Percentage of Beam Mp (50% criterion) 92 M pos (at 0.5 125.14 57 0.7 87 Rotation at φ × (rotation at nominal M pos) × Cd 88 Moment at φ × (rot. to plastic centroid in concrete. 2. ftkips 152.4 80 Centroid of all steel for negative bending.4 85 Ratio of eff. kips 364.7.8 178.008 1.0 267.72 58 Projection for flange Mp.75 4.0025 radian 3.70 2.3 89 Tension demand.92 254.81 Check Bottom Bolt Tension at Maximum Deformation 10.92 59 Force from flange Mp.1 80. beam AFy.0025 rad).2.9 23. kips 515. 813 .10 212. ftkips/radian 61.62 143.0 515. It appears to be necessary to satisfy the basic Provisions strength requirement.5 46. used in Mθ calculation.79 65 Aw.10 2. 5.593 2.0025 rad). demand / minimum capacity 0.72 3. kips 60 Ratio.3 73.72 2.5 19.5 141.88 225.79 66 Aw.9 313.0025 radian 73. 225.
Compute the nominal plastic moment of the angle leg bending out of plane (line 36) and assume that the location of the maximum moments are at the end of the fillet on the vertical leg (line 35) and at the edge of the bolt shaft (line 37). The capacity at bolt slip could be compared against service loads. AISC SDGS8 recommends 120 percent.FEMA 451. Line 41: Compute the nominal positive moment as a couple with the force and the distance from the bottom of the beam to the center of the compression area of the slab on the column. There is not a simple. Part II. Shear will control if the angle is thick. the more stringent recommendation of 75 percent contained within the ASCE TC is followed. The references do apply a resistance factor to the bolts. A larger Mn gives a larger stiffness. The concrete compression area uses the idealized Whitney stress block (ACI 318). It significantly underestimates the ultimate capacity. φ Mn exceeds demand from seismic load combination: basic Provisions requirement φ Mn exceeds demand from total service gravity loads . by “codes” the factored gravity demand can be checked using plastic analysis Lines 1920: Mn exceeds 50 percent (by AISC Seismic. A check based on overstrength might be more consistent. and generally weaker. and use the smaller. thus some drift problems can be addressed by increasing connection capacity.85. not design strength. and the authors elected to use 125 percent. compare with the shear governed by moment. but strain hardening the angle would probably be as large. conventional rules regarding threads in the shear plane apply. Lines 2933: Provide high strength bolts in normal (not oversized) holes to transfer force between beam flange and angle by shear. Lines 3940: Check the shear capacity. using a resistance factor of 0. The design capacity. The nominal capacity is plotted in Figures 85 and 86 as the break of the bilinear relation. 8. This is a check in compression. The moment near the bolt is reduced for the material lost at the bolt hole. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples Lines 1518: Mn is taken as a simple couple of rebar in slab and force at connection of bottom flange of beam. Figure 87 shows the mechanics. Step 2: Design bottom seat angle connection for negative moment: Lines 2228: Provide nominal yield of angle leg at least 125 percent of nominal yield of reinforcing steel. In this example. Strain hardening in the rebar is a factor. clear mechanism for a nominal positive moment. for computing prying in hangertype connections. has two requirements: 1. but then uses 125 percent to check the bolts. This allows for increased force due to web shear connection. which would be a good idea for designs subject to strong wind forces. Note that this check is on nominal strength. ASCE TC recommends 133 percent. in so far as construction of a bilinear approximation is concerned. Lines 3538: Compute the shear in the vertical leg associated with bending. the true maximum moment is larger due to strain hardening in rebar and the bottom connection and due to tension force in the web connection. Note that the capacity to transfer 814 . so long as the bottom connection can handle the additional demand. which may be an inconsistent design methodology. which is based on methods in the AISC Manual. Step 3: Establish nominal positive moment capacity: This connection is less stiff and less linear for positive moment than for negative moment. 2.simply a good idea to maintain reasonable initial stiffness for lateral loads. The authors of this example suggest the following procedure which follows the normal methods of structural engineering and yields a point relevant to the results of connection tests.4) of Mp of the bare steel beam.
and the moment arm extends from the edge of the bolt shaft (closest to the beam) to the bottom edge of the angle. The moment in the vertical leg is computed as described above. but it does not give any particular margin. is set to be 125 percent of the demand from the sum of the nominal strengths of the connections. 8. another check at maximum positive moment is recommended (see step 9). and this check shows that the average of negative and positive nominal moment capacities for the connection exceeds 50 percent of the plastic moment for the beam. Also. In this example. summed above and below as well as adjusted for the presence of axial load.Chapter 8. Step 6: Check the transfer of force from concrete slab to steel column: The tension in the reinforcing steel and the compression couple from positive bending must both transfer.25. Lines 5152: The minimum nominal flexural strength of the column. Part II. Step 5: Compute the flexural demand on the column: AISC Seismic. which generally means that these bolts have excess capacity. Composite Steel and Concrete concrete compression force to the steel column flange is checked later. Lines 5354: AISC Seismic. Refer to Figure 87. The nominal positive moment is also shown on Figures 85 and 86 at the break point in the bilinear relation. Note that the resistance factor is used here to be consistent with step 2. require that the flexural resistance of the column be greater than the demand from the connections. the negative moment connections are designed for 75 percent of the beam plastic moment. Both flanges provide 815 b' . 7 and 8. Lines 4648: Add the basic tension to the prying force and compare to the factored design capacity of the bolts.4 requires that the connection capacity exceed 50 percent of the plastic moment capacity of the beam. ASCE TC recommends a ratio of 1. Part II. T k Mp Mp b T+Q a' a Q Figure 87 Analysis of seat angle for tension. A later check (step 10) will compare the maximum positive moment resistance to the 50 percent rule. for seismic design. It is common to use the same size and grade of bolt as used for the connection to the beam flange. Step 4: Design the bolts to transfer positive moment tension to the column: Lines 4445: Compute the prying force following AISC’s recommended method.
flexural mechanics leads to a simple expression for a moment of inertia of an equivalent prismatic beam.FEMA 451. per the recommendations in AISC SDGS8 and ASCE TC. (This is useful when idealizing the behavior as bilinear. using the criteria in the AISC manual. Line 57: Compute an upper bound concrete compression capacity as 0. one in negative moment and one in positive. NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples resistance if concrete fills the space between the flanges. which is the rotation angle that defines the effective stiffness for lateral analysis (per both AISC SDGS8 and ASCE TC). The end connections can be modeled as regions with their own moments of inertia. and straight gravity demand must also be checked before selecting the actual connection. Lines 5859: Compute the force that would yield the steel column flanges over the thickness of the slab by computing the projection beyond the web fillet that would yield at a load of 0. Line 60: Compare the demand with the smaller of the two capacities just computed. Step 7: Select the web connection: Line 62: The seismic shear is computed by assuming beam end m