SEAOC BlueBook PDF

Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements

and Commentary
1999
Seventh Edition
Seismology Committee
Structural Engineers Association of California
Preface SEAOC Blue Book
Copyright Editor
© 1999 Structural Engineers Association of California Gail Hynes Shea, Albany, California
All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof
must not be reproduced in any form without the written
permission of the Structural Engineers Association Print History
of California. First Edition, 1959
First Edition with Commentary, 1960
First Edition Revised, 1963
Publisher Second Edition without Commentary, 1966
Second Edition with Commentary, 1967
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Second Edition with Commentary and Addendum, 1968
555 University Avenue, Suite 126 Third Edition with Commentary, 1973
Sacramento, California 95825-6510 Fourth Edition with Partial Commentary, 1974
Telephone: 916-427-3647 Commentary for Fourth Edition, 1975
Fax: 916-568-0677 Fourth Edition Revised, 1980
E-mail: seaoc@aol.com Fifth Edition with Tentative Commentary, 1988
Web address: www.seaint.org Fifth Edition Revised with Commentary, 1990
Sixth Edition with Commentary, 1996
Seventh Edition with Commentary, 1999
The Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) is a professional association of four member or-
ganizations representing the structural engineering com-
munity in California. This document is published in Disclaimer
keeping with SEAOC’s stated mission “to advance the Neither SEAOC, nor its member organization, commit-
structural engineering profession; to provide the public tees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed
with structures of dependable performance through the ap- to this publication make any warranty, expressed or im-
plication of state of the art structural engineering princi- plied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
ples; to assist the public in obtaining professional use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings,
structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard conclusions, or recommendations included in this publica-
mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage tion.
research; to provide structural engineers with the most cur-
rent information and tools to improve their practice; and to
maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.”
Special Thanks
Special thanks to Degenkolb Engineers of San Francisco
for generously providing the AutoCAD support that made
most of graphics in this volume possible.
ii September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Changes in this Edition of the Blue Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii
Chapter 1
General Requirements for
Design and Construction of
Earthquake-Resistive Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101 UBC §1626 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.2 Minimum Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.3 Seismic and Wind Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.4 Continuous Load Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.5 Basis for Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.6 Computer Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101.7 UBC §1612 Combinations of Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
102 UBC §1627 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
103 UBC §1628 Symbols and Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
104 UBC §1629 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
104.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
104.2 Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
104.3 Site Geology and Soil Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
104.4 Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
104.5 Configuration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
104.6 Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
104.7 Height Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
104.8 Selection of Lateral Force Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
104.9 System Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
104.10 Alternative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
105 UBC §1630 Minimum Design Lateral Forces and Related Effects . . 9
105.1 Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 9
105.2 Static Force Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
105.3 Determination of Seismic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
105.4 Combinations of Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
105.5 Vertical Distribution of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
September 1999 iii

Table of Contents SEAOC Blue Book
105.6 Horizontal Distribution of Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

105.7 Horizontal Torsional Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
105.8 Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
105.9 Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
105.10 Story Drift Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
105.11 Vertical Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106 UBC §1631 Dynamic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.2 Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.4 Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.5 Response Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
106.6 Time-History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
107 UBC §1632 Lateral Force on Elements of Structures,
Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported
by Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.2 Design for Total Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.3 Specifying Lateral Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
107.4 Relative Motion of Equipment Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
107.5 Alternative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
108 UBC §1633 Detailed Systems Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .18
108.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
108.2 Structural Framing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
109 UBC §1634
Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.2 Lateral Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.3 Rigid Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.4 Tanks With Supported Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
110 UBC §1635 Earthquake Recording Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . .23
111 UBC §1636 Site Categorization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
111.1 UBC §1636.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
111.2 UBC §1636.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
112 UBC §3400 Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.1 UBC 3401 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.2 UBC §3402 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.3 UBC §3403 Additions, Alterations, or Repairs . . . . . . . . . .25
112.4 UBC §3040 Moved Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
112.5 UBC §3405 Change In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
113–149 Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
150 UBC §1654 Appendix Chapter 16, Division IV
Earthquake Regulations for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . .27
151 UBC §1655 Definitions for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . .27
152 UBC §1656 Symbols and Notations for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
153 UBC §1657 Criteria Selection for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.2 Stability of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.3 Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
iv September 1999
153.4 Configuration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

153.5 Selection of Lateral Response Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
154 UBC §1658 Static Lateral Response Procedure for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.2 Deformation Characteristics of the Isolation System . . . . . . 31
154.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
154.5 Vertical Distribution of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
154.6 Drift Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155 UBC §1659 Dynamic Lateral Response Procedure for
155.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.2 Isolation System and Structural Elements at or
Below the Isolation Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.3 Structural Elements Above the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . 33
155.4 Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.5 Mathematical Model for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . 34
155.6 Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
155.7 Design Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
155.8 Drift Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
156 UBC §1660 Lateral Load on Elements of Structures
and Nonstructural Components Supported by
156.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
156.2 Forces and Displacements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
157 UBC §1661 Detailed Systems Requirements for
157.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
157.2 Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
157.3 Structural System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
158 UBC §1662 Nonbuilding Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . 37
159 UBC §1663 Foundations of Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . 37
160 UBC §1664 Design and Construction Review for
160.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
160.2 Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161 UBC §1665 Required Tests of Isolation System for
161.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161.2 Prototype Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161.3 Determination of Force-Deflection Characteristics. . . . . . . . 39
161.4 System Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
161.5 Design Properties of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 2
Structural Tests and Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
201 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
202 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
202.1 Special Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
202.2 Special Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
September 1999 v
202.3 Structural Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

202.4 Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
202.5 Project Design Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
202.6 Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Chapter 3
Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
301 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
302 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
302.1 Allowable Foundation and Lateral Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . .63
302.2 Requirements for Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade
Beams in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Chapter 4
Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
402.1 Definitions of ρ n and ρ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
402.2 Welded Splices and Mechanically Connected Reinforcement65
402.3 Flexural Members of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
402.4 Frames Members Subjected to Bending and Axial Loads . .66
402.5 Strong Column/Weak Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
402.6 Column Lap Splice Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
402.7 Lap Splices and Reinforcement Development for
Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
402.8 Shear Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
402.9 Reinforcement Ratio for Walls and Diaphragms. . . . . . . . . .66
402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and Flanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
402.11 Boundary Zone Requirements by Strain Calculation . . . . . .67
402.12 Wall Areas Where Special Boundary Zone Detailing
is Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beam Detailing . . . . . . . . .67
Chapter 5
Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
501 UBC §2001 General Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
502.1 Allowable Stresses for Members and Fasteners . . . . . . . . .69
502.2 General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
502.3 Fabrication and Erection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
502.4 Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
502.5 Special Design Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
502.6 Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
502.7 Welded Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Chapter 6
Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
602.1 Standards of Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
vi September 1999
602.2 General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

602.3 Design of Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
602.4 Strength Design of Masonry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Chapter 7
Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
701 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
702 Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
702.1 UBC Division IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
702.2 Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97—Part I, LRFD. . . . . . . . . 73
702.3 Modification to UBC Division V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
702.4 Modification to AISC-Seismic 97, Part III-ASD. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chapter 8
Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
802.1 Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms in
Seismic Zones 3 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Chapter 9
Other Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
903 Other Sheathing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Commentary
CHAPTER 1
General Requirements for Design and Construction
of Earthquake-Resistive Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C101 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C101.1 Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C101.2 Minimum Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C101.3 Seismic and Wind Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C101.4 Continuous Load Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.5 Basis for Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.6 Computer Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.7 UBC §1612 Combinations of Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C102 UBC §1627 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
C103 UBC §1628 Symbols and Notations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C104 UBC §1629 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C104.1 UBC §1629.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C104.2 Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
September 1999 vii

C104.3 Soil Profile Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

C104.4 Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
C104.5 Configuration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
C104.6 Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
C104.7 Height Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
C104.8 Selection of Lateral Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
C104.9 System Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
C104.10 Alternative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
C105 UBC §1630 Minimum Design Lateral Forces and
Related Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
C105.1 Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements. . . . . . . . .101
C105.2 Static Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
C105.3 Determination of Seismic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
C105.4 Combinations of Structural Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.5 Vertical Distribution of Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.6 Horizontal Distribution of Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.7 Horizontal Torsional Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.8 Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
C105.9 Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
C105.10 Story Drift Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
C105.11 Vertical Component of Seismic Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106 UBC §1631 Dynamic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106.2 Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
C106.3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
C106.4 Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
C106.5 Response Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
C106.6 Time-History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
C107 UBC §1632 Lateral Force on Elements of Structures,
Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported
by Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
C107.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
C107.2 UBC §1632.2 Design for Total Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . .128
C107.3 Specifying Lateral Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.4 Relative Motion of Equipment Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.5 UBC §1632.5 Alternative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.6 Additional Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
C108 UBC §1633 Detailed Systems Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . .131
C108.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
C108.2 Structural Framing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
C109 UBC §1634 Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
C109.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
C109.2 Lateral Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.3 Rigid Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.4 No Commentary provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C110-C111 Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
C112 UBC §3400 Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
C113–C149 Reserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
viii September 1999

C150 UBC §1654 General Requirements for

Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
C150.1 Important Changes in the 1999 Blue Book
Seismic Isolation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
C150.2 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
C150.3 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
C151.1 Isolation System/Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
C151.2 Effective Stiffness and Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
C153 UBC §1657 Criteria Selection for Seismic-Isolated Structures. . 148
C153.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C153.2 Stability of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C153.3 Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C153.4 Configuration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C153.5 Selection of Lateral Response Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C154 UBC §1658 Static Lateral Response Procedure for
C154.1 No Commentary provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
C154.2 Deformational Characteristics of the Isolation System. . . . 148
C154.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
C154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C154.5 Vertical Distribution of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C154.6 Drift Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C155 UBC §1659 Dynamic Lateral Response Procedure for
C155.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C155.2 Isolation System and Structural Elements at or
Below the Isolation Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C155.4 Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
C155.5 Mathematical Model for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . 151
C155.6 Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
C155.7 Design Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
C156 UBC §1660 Lateral Load on Elements of Structures and
Nonstructural Components Supported by Seismic-Isolated
Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
C157 UBC §1661 Detailed Systems Requirements for
C158–C159 No Commentary provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
C160 UBC §1664 Design and Construction Review for
C161 UBC §1665 Required Tests of Isolation System for
C161.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
C161.2 Prototype Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
C161.3 Determination of Force-Deflection Characteristics. . . . . . . 154
C161.5 Design Properties of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
September 1999 ix
Chapter 2
Structural Tests and Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
C201 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
C202 Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
C202.1 Special Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
C202.2 Nondestructive Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
C202.3 Structural Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
C202.4 Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
C202.5 Project Design Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
C202.6 Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
Chapter 3
Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C302 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
C302.1 Allowable Foundation and Lateral Pressures . . . . . . . . . . .179
C302.2 Requirements for Piles, Pile Caps, and
Grade Beams in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180
Chapter 4
Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
C401.1 Comparison to Upcoming ACI Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.1 Definitions of ρ n and ρ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.2 Welded Splices and Mechanically
Connected Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.3 Flexural Members of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.4 Frame Members Subjected to Bending and Axial Loads . .184
C402.5 Strong-Column/Weak-Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
C402.6 Column Lap Splice Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.7 Lap Splices and Reinforcement Development
for Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.8 Shear Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.9 Reinforcement Ratio for Walls and Diaphragms. . . . . . . . .186
C402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and Flanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
C402.11 Boundary Zone Requirements by Strain Calculation . . . . .187
C402.12 Wall Areas Where Special Boundary Zone Detailing
is Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
C402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beam Detailing . . . . . . . .188
C403.1 UBC §1909.2.3 Load Combinations Including
Earthquake Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
C403.2 UBC §1909.3.4 and UBC §1921.2.3 Strength Reduction
Factors, f, as Applied to Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
C403.3 UBC §1921.2.4.2 Lightweight Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
C403.4 UBC §1921.2.5 Reinforcement in Members Resisting
Earthquake Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
C404 Flexural Members of Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
C404.1 UBC §1921.3.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
C404.2 UBC §1921.3.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . .190
x September 1999
C404.3 UBC §1921.3.2.3 Lap Splices in Flexural Members

of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
C404.4 UBC §1921.3.3 Transverse Reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . 190
C404.5 UBC §1921.3.3 Hoops and Seismic Hooks . . . . . . . . . . . 191
C404.6 UBC §1921.3.4.1 Shear Strength Design Forces . . . . . . 191
C405 Frame Members Subjected to Bending and Axial Loads. . . . . . . . 191
C405.1 UBC §1921.4.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
C405.2 UBC §1921.4.2 Minimum Flexural Strength of Columns . 191
C405.3 UBC §1921.4.3.2 Splice Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
C405.4 Transverse Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
C405.5 UBC §1921.4.5.1 Shear Strength Design Forces . . . . . . 192
C406 Joints of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
C406.1 UBC §1921.5.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
C406.2 UBC §1921.5.4.1 Development Length for
Reinforcement in Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
C407 Shear Walls, Diaphragms, and Trusses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
C407.1 UBC §1921.6 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
C407.2 Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
C407.3 UBC §1921.6.3Design Forces and
UBC §1921.6.5Shear Strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
C407.4 UBC §1921.6.5.5 Reinforcement Ratio for Walls
and Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
C407.5 UBC §1921.6.6 Design of Shear Walls for
Flexural and Axial Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
C407.6 UBC §1921.6.7.3 Boundaries of Structural Diaphragms . 198
C407.7 Coupling Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
C407.8 UBC §1921.6.13 Wall Piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
C408 UBC §1921.7 Frame Members Not Part of the Lateral
Force Resisting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
C408.1 Factored Gravity Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
C408.2 Members Exceeding Design Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
C409 Constructibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Chapter 5
Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C501 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C502 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C502.1 Allowable Stresses for Members and Fasteners . . . . . . . . 211
C502.2 General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C502.3 Fabrication and Erection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C502.4 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C502.5 Special Design Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
C502.6 Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Chapter 6
Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
C601.1 UBC §1612.2 Load Combinations Including
Earthquake Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
C602.1 Standards of Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
September 1999 xi
C602.2 General Design Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213

C602.3 Design of Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
C602.4 Strength Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
C603 UBC §2105 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C604 General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C604.1 UBC §2106.1.12.4 Special Provisions for Seismic
Zones 3 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C604.2 UBC §2106.2.14 Placement of Embedded Anchor Bolts .214
C604.3 Working Stress Design and Strength Design
Requirements for Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C605 Working Stress Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C606 Strength Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
C606.1 UBC §2108.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
C606.2 UBC §2108.1.2 Quality Assurance Provisions . . . . . . . . .215
C606.3 UBC §2108.1.4 Design Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
Chapter 7
Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
C701 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
C702 Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
C702.1 UBC Division IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
C702.2 Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97 Part I, LRFD . . . . . . . . .221
C702.3 Modification to UBC Division V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C702.4 Modification to AISC-Seismic 97, Part III-ASD . . . . . . . . . .226
C703 Moment Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C703.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C703.2 Through-Thickness (T-T) Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
C703.3 K-Area Brittleness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228
C703.4 Strength Deterioration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
C703.5 Strong-Column/ Weak-Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
C703.6 Interpretation and Acceptance of Test Results . . . . . . . . . .230
C703.7 Parent Metal Material Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
C703.8 Effects of Significantly Overstrength Material and
Variation of Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
C703.9 Panel Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
C703.10 Continuity Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233
C703.11 Lateral Bracing of Moment Frame Connections
That Move the Plastic Hinge Away From the Column . . . .233
C703.12 Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
C703.13 Appropriate Redundancy "rho" Factors for Steel Frames. .235
C704.1 Braced Frame Requirements SCBF and OCBF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235
C704.1 AISC 13.1/UBC §2213.9.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235
C704.2 AISC 13.2a/UBC 2213.9.2.1 Slenderness of
Bracing Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
C704.3 AISC 13.2c/UBC 2213.9.2.2 Lateral Force Distribution . . .237
xii September 1999

Chapter 8
Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
C801 UBC §2301 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
C802 Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
C802.1 Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms in Seismic
Zones 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
802.2 UBC Table 23-II-G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
C803 Errata to the 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
C803.1 UBC §2318.3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
C803.2 UBC Table 23-II-G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
C803.3 UBC Tables 23-II-I-1 and 23-II-I-2, Footnote 3. . . . . . . . . . 252
C804 Comments on Selected 1997 UBC Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
C804.1 UBC §2302Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
C804.2 UBC §2315 Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms . . . . . . 253
C804.3 UBC §2315.5.3 Wood Structural Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
C804.4 UBC Table 23-II-G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
C804.5 UBC Tables 23-II-I-1 & 23-II-I-2, Footnote 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 254
C804.6 UBC §2320.1 Conventional Light Frame Construction . . 255
C804.7 UBC Table 23-IV-C-2 Cripple Wall Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . 255
C804.8 UBC §1633.2.6 Collector Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
C804.9 UBC §1630.8.2.1 Elements Supporting
Discontinuous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
C804.10 UBC §1701 Special Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
C804.11 UBC §1702 Structural Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
C804.12 UBC §1806.6 Foundation Plates or Sills . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
C805 Other Current Wood Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
C805.1 ASD vs. LRFD Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
C805.2 UBC Chapter Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
C805.3 Lateral Force Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
C805.4 Shear Wall Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
C805.5 Earthquake Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
C805.6 Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
C805.7 Conventional Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
C805.8 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation . . . . . . . . . . 261
C805.9 Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Chapter 9
Other Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
C903 Other Sheathing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
C904 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
C905 Styrofoam Building Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
C906 Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
C907 Composite Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
September 1999 xiii

Appendices
Appendix A
Seismic Zone Coefficient
and Near Source Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Appendix B
Soil Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Appendix C
Development of the R Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Appendix D
Dynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Appendix E
Deformation Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Appendix F
Engineering Implications of the
1994 Northridge Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Appendix G
Conceptual Framework for
Performance-Based Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Appendix H
Tentative Guidelines for
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Appendix I
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering . . . . . . . 361
Part A Strength Design Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367
Part B Force-Displacement Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .389
xiv September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 104-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z (UBC Table 16-I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 104-2 Soil Profile Types (UBC Table 16-J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 104-3 Occupancy Categories (similar to UBC Table 16-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 104-4 Vertical Structural Irregularities (UBC Table 16-L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 104-5 Plan Structural Irregularities (UBC Table 16-M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 104-6 Structural Systems1 (UBC Table 16-N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 104-7 Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp (UBC Table 16-O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 104-8 Ro and Rd Factors for Nonbuilding Structures (UBC Table 16-P) . . . . . . . . 49
Table 104-9 Seismic Coefficient Ca (UBC Table 16-Q) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 104-10 Seismic Coefficient Cv (UBC Table 16-R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 104-11 Near Source Factor Na (UBC Table 16-S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 104-12 Near Source Factor Nv (UBC Table 16-T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 104-13 Seismic Source Type (UBC Table 16-U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 152-1 Structural Systems Above the Isolation Interface (UBC Table A-16-E) . . . . 52
Table 152-2 Maximum Capable Earthquake Response
Coefficient, MM (UBC Table A-16-D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 152-3 Damping Coefficients, BD and BM (UBC Table A-16-C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 152-4 Seismic Coefficient, CAM (UBC Table A-16-F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 152-5 Seismic Coefficient, CVM (UBC Table A-16-G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 702-1 LRFD Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 702-2 ASD Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 802-1 Maximum Diaphragm Dimension Ratios (UBC Table 23-II-G) . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table C104-1 Pre-Northridge Earthquake Records Close to Fault Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Table C104-2 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (Sites <= 15 km of Fault Rupture) . . 159
Table C104-3 Equations for Determining Near-Source Factors Na and Nv . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table C154-1 Damping Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Table C155-1 Limits on Key Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Table C606-1 Behavior and Limit States—Ductile Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table AppA-1 Pre-Northridge Earthquake Records Close to Fault Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Table AppA-2 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (Sites <= 15 km of Fault Rupture) . . 277
Table AppD-1 Cross-Modal Coefficients for Equal Modal Damping
Ratios of 0.05 for all Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Table AppF-1 1994 Northridge Earthquake Ground Motion Recorded Near-Fault Rupture 314
Table AppG-1 General Damage Descriptions by Performance Levels and Systems . . . . . 326
Table AppG-2 Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage —
Vertical Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
September 1999 xv
List of Tables SEAOC Blue Book
Table AppG-3 Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage —

Horizontal Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Table AppG-4 Performance Levels and Permissible Damage — Architectural Elements . 329
Table AppG-5 Performance Levels and Permissible Damage —
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Table AppG-6 Performance Levels and Permissible Damage — Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Table AppH-1 Factors of Coefficient C0 versus Building Story Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Table AppH-2 Modification Factor for Increased Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Table AppIA-1 Site Restrictions for Various Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
Table AppIA-2 Recommended Limitations on Structural Materials and Systems
(by Performance Objectives) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Table AppIA-3 Recommended Limitations on Horizontal Irregularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Table AppIA-4 Recommended Limitations on Vertical Irregularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Table AppIA-5 Recommended Drift Limits by Performance Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
Table AppIA-6 Method of Analysis and Nonstructural Components Applicability of
Requirements to Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
Table AppIA-7 Nonstructural Components: Horizontal Force Factors ap and Rp as a
Function of Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Table AppIB-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Table AppIB-2 Recommended Siting Restrictions For PBSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Table AppIB-3 Recommended Yield Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Table AppIB-4 Recommended Drift Targets for Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
Table AppIB-5 Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits for Preliminary Design . . . . . 409
Table AppIB-6 Recommended System Damping Design Values for Preliminary Design . . 410
Table AppIB-7 K factors for Equations IB-1 and IB-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Table AppI-Att1-1 Equivalent Probability of EQ-IV (n=0.29 for California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
Table AppI-Att1-2 Equivalent Probability of EQ-III and smaller (n=0.44 for California) . . . . . . 432
xvi September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 104-1 Seismic zone map for California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 104-2 Response spectrum shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure C104-1 Schematic representation showing how effective peak acceleration
and effective peak velocity are obtained from a response spectrum . . . . . . . 161
Figure C104-2 Determination of distance from nonvertical fault for use in establishing
near-source factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure C104-3 Graphical relationship for determining Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure C104-4 Graphical relationship for determining Nv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure C104-5 Vertical structural irregularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure C104-6 Plan structural irregularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Figure C104-7 Irregularities in force transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure C105-1 Horizontal force conditions for determination of ri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure C105-2 Relationship between base shear and displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure C105-3 P-delta symbols and notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure C107-1 Comparison of Equation 107-2 with recorded data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure C107-2 Comparison of Equation 107-2 with the recorded data
average at roof level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure C108-1 Tributary area for pilaster anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure C109-1 Nonbuilding structures supported above grade (Wp< 0.25Ws ) . . . . . . . . . . 170
Figure C109-2 Nonbuilding structures supported above grade (Wp> 0.25Ws ) . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure C151-1 Isolation system terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure C151-2 Idealized isolation system force-displacement relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure C151-3 Displacement terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure C402-2 Plastic mechanisms for moment frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Figure C402-3 Distribution of longitudinal reinforcement in a wall section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Figure C402-4 Example calculation of ρ L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Figure C407-1 Wall moment versus displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Figure C407-2 Moment curvature diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Figure C407-3 Strain compatibility diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Figure C407-4 Approximate determination of φ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Figure C606-1 Compressive stress strain diagram for masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Figure C702-1 Multiple step test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Figure C704-1 Common concentrically braced frame configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Figure C704-2 Hysteresis diagram of an axially loaded strut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Figure C704-3 Design forces in stitches of built-up members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Figure C704-5 Postbuckling deformation mode of a chevron-braced frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Figure C704-4 Gusset plate with an unrestrained hinge zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
September 1999 xvii

List of Figures SEAOC Blue Book
Figure C704-6 Chevron-braced frame variants: (a) two-story X, and (b) zipper . . . . . . . . . . 250
Figure C804-1 Subdiaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Figure C804-2 Earthquake forces—regular diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Figure C804-3 Earthquake forces—cantilevered diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Figure C804-4 Earthquake forces—building with rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Figure AppC-1 Resistance versus demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Figure AppD-1 Effect of damping and period ratio on cross-modal coefficient rij . . . . . . . . . 290
Figure AppE-1 Compatibility considerations of diaphragm deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Figure AppE-2 Deformation compatibility consideration of foundation flexibility . . . . . . . . . . 297
Figure AppF-1 Comparison of selected spectra from the Northridge earthquake . . . . . . . . . 315
Figure AppF-2 Composite spectra from the Northridge earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Figure AppF-3 Ground motion attenuation from the Northridge earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Figure AppG-1 Methodology for performance-based engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Figure AppG-2 Spectrum of seismic damage states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Figure AppG-3 Recommended seismic performance objectives for buildings . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Figure AppCH-1 Effect of dampers on the force-displacement response of a building . . . . . . 356
Figure AppCH-2 Definition of components in an energy dissipation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Figure AppCH-3 Idealized force-displacement loops for displacement-dependent EDDs . . . . 357
Figure AppCH-4 Idealized force-displacement loops for velocity-dependent EDDs . . . . . . . . 357
Figure AppCH-5 Model for solid viscoelastic EDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Figure AppCH-6 Model for fluid viscoelastic EDD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Figure AppCH-7 Force-displacement relation for a building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Figure AppCH-8 Variations in damper response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Figure AppCH-9 Base shear/roof displacement relation for a building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Figure AppIA-1 Standard Performance Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Figure AppIA-2 Illustration of structural performance levels and force-based
acceptance criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Figure AppIA-3 Acceleration response spectra for 5 percent damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Figure AppIB-1 Scope and methodology for performance-based seismic design . . . . . . . . . 412
Figure AppIB-2 Typical seismic performance objectives for buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Figure AppIB-3 Illustration of structural performance levels seismic response
curve for structural systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Figure AppIB-4 Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQ1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Figure AppIB-5 Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Figure AppIB-6a Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4
sites where a displacement transition period Td=4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
Figure AppIB-6b Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4
sites where a displacement transition period Td=4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
Figure AppIB-6c Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites
where displacement transition period Td=4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Figure AppIB-6d Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4 sites
Figure AppIB-6e Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites
Figure AppIB-6f Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites
xviii September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book List of Figures
Figure AppIB-6g Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites

Figure AppIB-6h Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites
Figure AppIB-6i Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites
Figure AppIB-6j Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites
Figure AppIB-7 Illustration of DBD and EBD concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Figure AppIB-8 Direct displacement-based design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Figure AppIB-9 Equal displacement approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Figure AppI-Att1-1 Spectral acceleration versus period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
Figure AppI-Att1-2 Acceleration displacement response spectra (ADRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
Figure AppI-Att2-1 Equations for determining spectral points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Figure AppI-Att2-2 Alternate ground motion spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
September 1999 xix

List of Figures SEAOC Blue Book
xx September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Preface
Preface
The 1999 seventh edition of the Recommended Lateral This 1999 edition of the Blue Book uses the same for-
Force Requirements and Commentary, also known as the mat as the 1996 edition. However, this edition reflects and
SEAOC Blue Book, summarizes recommendations of the comments upon the 1997 UBC seismic provisions and re-
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) lated documents, not exclusively the UBC, as has been the
for earthquake resistant design of structures. It represents case in past editions. Requirements and Commentary for
over five years of work by the SEAOC Seismology Com- passive damping systems and performance based seismic
mittee. engineering are also presented.
The Requirements in this edition of the Blue Book
were developed in conjunction with a parallel effort by the
Changes in this Edition of the Blue Book
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) for the 1997 Reference Document
NEHRP provisions. The NEHRP provisions serve as the
With the exception of Chapter 7 the 1999 Blue Book ref-
source document for other model Codes (BOCA and
erences only the 1997 UBC. Chapter 7, Steel, references
SBC), and the 1997 NEHRP provisions serve as the source
AISC-Seismic 97.
document for the 2000 International Building Code (IBC).
Consequently, there was a focused effort to “converge” the Format
Requirements of the Blue Book and the NEHRP provi- Chapters in the 1999 edition parallel those of the 1997
sions to enable development of a national code by the year UBC. There are nine chapters. Listed below are the Blue
2000. Book chapter titles and corresponding UBC chapter titles.
1999 Blue Book Recommendations 1997 UBC

Chapter 1 General Requirements Chapter 16 Structural Loads
Chapter 1 §150-161 Seismic Isolated Structures Chapter 16 Div. IV, Seismic Isolated Structures
Chapter 2 Structural Tests and Inspection Chapter 17 Structural Tests and Inspection
Chapter 3 Foundations Chapter 18 Foundations and Retaining Walls
Chapter 4 Concrete Chapter 19 Concrete
Chapter 5 Aluminum Chapter 20 Lightweight Metals
Chapter 6 Masonry Chapter 21 Masonry
Chapter 7 Steel Chapter 22 Steel
Chapter 8 Wood Chapter 23 Wood
Chapter 9 Other Materials
September 1999 xxi

UBC Numbering System 3. Site Geology and Soil Characteristics

The 1999 edition is numbered to make it easier to refer be- The soil profile categories S1 through S4 have been
tween the 1997 UBC and the Blue Book. The correspond- replaced by the NEHRP soil profile categories SA
ing UBC section number is given at the beginning of through SF. For California SB corresponds to S1 , while
subsections. a soft S4 corresponds to SF. Procedures for
Chapter 1 - General Requirements determining the soil profile category have been
specified in the Recommendations.
Chapter 1 has been completely revised. The Requirements
contain a complete description of the SEAOC recom- 4. Near-Source Factors and Fault Maps
mended general seismic requirements in the same format Near-source factors (Na and Nv) are specified in
as the 1996 Blue Book. The requirements of Chapter 1 are Seismic Zone 4 to recognize the amplified ground
for the most part, repeated in Chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC motions that occur close to known active faults. The
and are very similar to those presented as Appendix C of Seismology Committee, in cooperation with the
the 1996 Blue Book. The primary difference is that the California Department of Mines and Geology, caused
strikeout and underlines for changes have been deleted. ICBO to publish maps of active faults so these factors
The section for existing structures has been retained. Re- could be easily determined for a given building site.
quirements and Commentary for seismic isolated struc- These maps are now available through ICBO.
tures has also been retained and updated for the 1997 5. Redundancy
UBC. A redundancy/reliability factor ( ρ ) has been
introduced which is intended to encourage redundant
Summary of Significant Technical lateral force resisting systems by penalizing
Changes nonredundant ones through higher lateral force
The 1999 edition of the Blue Book contains more significant requirements.
and profound changes in the requirements than any other 6. Modeling Requirements
edition in the past 20 years. The major changes are Mathematical modeling requirements have been
summarized below. Many other minor changes not described expanded to include all elements (including those
below, have been incorporated into these Recommendations. which are not part of lateral force resisting systems)
1. Notation which are significant to the distribution of forces.
Earthquake forces are defined as E and Em for use in 7. P-Delta Effects
load combination equation. Em is the estimated The P-delta effects are to be specifically calculated
maximum earthquake force and replaces the based on the reduced design seismic forces which are
earthquake force multiplied by 3/8 Rw which had been consistent with current design practice.
prescribed in previous editions. 8. Base Shear Equation
2. Load Combinations for Load Factors for Strength The base shear equation is now strength based and has
(including LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design been revised to be consistent with the 1994 NEHRP
The ASCE-7 load factors, with slight modifications equation. New seismic coefficients Ca and CV have
for strength and allowable stress design, are specified. been introduced which are a function of Z, soil type
This edition of the Blue Book also modifies the and near-sources factor. The Rw factor has been
concrete load factors in the 1997 UBC. In addition, replaced by R. R is roughly equal to Rw /1.4 to achieve
working stress load combinations and factors which parity with the 1996 Blue Book. The R factor has been
have been traditionally used with past editions are broken into two components, Ro and Rd, which
maintained as an alternate. Because the earthquake
represent overstrength and system ductility. The
forces are now strength based, they are approximately
Seismology Committee would have liked to specify
1.4 times greater than previous earthquake forces
optional procedures for determining Ro. However,
which were used with working stress design.
Therefore, the alternate allowable stress loading simple code language could not be agreed on, and
combinations which include earthquake forces divide consequently, values for both Ro and Rd are provided,
the earthquake forces by 1.4 so that parity is achieved. as well as values for R.
xxii September 1999

9. Simplified Base Shear Equation 17. Building Separations

A simplified design base shear calculation is provided Building separations are now required to be
as an option for one- and two-story dwellings, one- to determined based on actual expected displacements
three-story light frame construction, and other one- ∆M .
and two-story buildings as permitted.
18. Nonbuilding Structures
10. New Minimum Base Shear Values
Base shear formulation for nonbuilding structures has
New base shear minimum values are specified as a
been revised to be consistent with building structures.
function of Ca. This is essentially equivalent to the
19. Seismic Isolated Structures
minimum provided by C/Rw limits. Additionally, in
Requirements for seismic isolated structures have
seismic Zone 4 another minimum is provided which is been updated to reflect changes in the Chapter 1
a function of Z, Nv, and R. criteria. A complete set of dual level design
11. Overstrength parameters have been defined, i.e. sub “D” for the
A new factor for overstrength Ω o has replaced 3/8 Rw design base earthquake and sub “M” for the maximum
for use in special local cases where the maximum capable earthquake. Prototype testing requirements
earthquake force is required, such as columns have been clarified and made more rational. In
supporting discontinuous shear walls, weak stories, addition, refinements have been made to the stiffness
and collector elements. and damping formulas for determining the maximum
total displacements to make them consistent with
12. Drift and Drift Limits
measured isolation properties.
Drift is now calculated based on actual expected
20. Concrete
inelastic drifts, ∆ M . Drift limits have been increased
Chapter 4 includes significant changes in several
to 0.025 of story height (h), except drift limits are aspects of reinforced concrete design. Shear-governed
0.020h for periods greater than 0.7 seconds. concrete walls are designed for increased forces.
13. Ground Motion Design Spectra Requirements for lap-splices and reinforcement
The ground motion design spectra has been development in walls revised. Effective flange widths
completely revised and is now a function of Ca and of wall are revised. Wall boundary zone requirements
Cv. It includes not only site-soil effects, but near-fault are clarified and improved. Additional changes in
effects as well. Requirements are made, many of which reflect
14. Time History Analysis changes approved for the 1999 edition of ACI 318.
Explicit requirements are now provided for time Commentary Section 402.5 contains a draft of strong
history analysis. Specific requirements are provided column/weak beam requirements that are currently
for selection and scaling of ground motion time under study.
histories similar to what was already required in the 21. Passive Energy Systems
seismic isolation provision (Section 150 et seq.). A new appendix has been added, presenting draft
Specific requirements are also provided for nonlinear requirements for structures employing passive
time history analysis. supplemental damping devices. The section includes
15. Lateral Force on Elements of Structures, Non- provisions for modeling, analysis, detailing, peer
structural Component and Equipment Supported review, testing and inspection. Users are cautioned
by Structures that these Requirements are regarded as tentative and
The component force equation is now strength based preliminary until research and experience provide
and has been completely revised to be consistent with improved design methods.
1994 NEHRP equation (with simplifications). 22. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
16. Deformation Compatibility Guidelines
Deformation compatibility is now required based on A new appendix has been added that presents tentative
actual expected drifts ∆ M . guidelines for performance-based seismic
engineering. Two sets of guidelines are presented. The
first set is based on modifying the Requirements in
Chapter 1 of this Blue Book. The second set of
guidelines are based on a “displacement-based”
September 1999 xxiii

approach to design. The guidelines are intended for 24. Steel

trial use only and require significant case studies Chapter 7 contains significant changes in the
before they will be recommended for actual use. Requirements and substantial discussion in an
23. Wood extensive Commentary. Main features include:
n Definition of Shear Wall Aspect Ratios. For n Recommendation to adopt AISC’s 1997 edition of
determination of the aspect ratio of a shear wall, the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
the height and width of the shear wall are now Buildings (AISC-Seismic 97) with additional
specifically defined. The definitions include SEAOC Requirements. AISC-Seismic 97
typical shear walls, extending the full story height, incorporates ongoing development of LRFD
as well as shear wall piers in shear walls designed seismic design and much of the current knowledge
for continuity around openings A figure is on design and quality assurance following
provided in the UBC to illustrate the definitions. intensive research and testing during recent years.
n Reduction of Maximum Shear Wall Aspect n Significant discussion in the Commentary on
Ratios. The maximum aspect ratio for wood many of the issues associated with moment frames
structural panel (plywood and OSB) and special and AISC-Seismic 97-related provisions. The
diagonally sheathed shear walls has been reduced discussion includes those issues still unresolved
from 3-1/2:1 to 2:1 for Seismic Zones 3 and 4. following the well-reported damage to moment
n Framing Members for Shear Walls. frame buildings.
Foundation sill plates and studs receiving nailing n Important design considerations in the
from two abutting panels are required to be 3x Commentary on braced frames, eccentric braced
where allowable shear values exceed 350 lb/ft. An frames and truss moment frames following much
exception exists for foundation sill plates. research and development in recent years.
n Conventional Construction Cripple Walls. 25. Other Materials
Conventional construction bracing panels for Chapter 9 has been expanded and general
cripple walls are limited to wood structural panels Requirements for the use of new materials (other
for all seismic zones. Required lengths of cripple materials) in seismic force resisting systems have
wall bracing are increased from what has been been added.
required in the past.
n Foundation Anchor Bolts. Steel plate washers
are required on foundation sill anchor bolts in
Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
n Elements Supporting Discontinued Systems.
In wood buildings, members supporting
discontinued shear walls are required to be
designed for the Special Seismic Load
Combinations of UBC Chapter 16.
n Collectors. Where wood construction occurs in
combination with steel, concrete or masonry,
collector members are required to be designed for
the Special Seismic Load combinations of UBC
Chapter 16.
xxiv September 1999

Acknowledgments
The changes in this 1999 edition of the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary reflect the work of
the 1995-96 through 1998-99 SEAOC Seismology Committees. Members of these committees are listed below. This
1999 edition of the Recommendations has built upon the work of all the SEAOC Seismology Committees over a 40-year
period. A list of all past and present members of the Committee is included.
The actual task of developing the 1999 Recommendations was performed by the 1999 Blue Book Committee. Mem-
bers of the Blue Book Committee who contributed substantial work on the document are listed below.
1999 Blue Book Committee Scott A. Stedman (SEAOSD)

Ronald P. Gallagher (SEAONC), Co-Chair Doug Talmage (SEAONC)
Theodore C. Zsutty (SEAONC), Co-Chair Charles C. Thiel Jr. (SEAONC)
Robert Bachman (SEAOSC), Lead Preface and Appendix I Douglas S. Thompson (SEAOSC)
Richard J. Phillips (SEAOSC), Lead Chapter 1 Joe Uzarski (SEAONC)
Carl B. Schulze (SEAOSD), Lead Chapter 2 Edwin G. Zacher (SEAONC)
Tom H. Hale (SEAOCC), Lead Chapters 3 and 6
Joseph R. Maffei (SEAONC), Lead Chapter 4 1998-1999 Seismology Committee
David Johnson (SEAOSC), Lead Chapter 5 Saif M. Hussain (SEAOSC), Chair
Peter J. Maranian (SEAOSC), Co-Lead Chapter 7 Tom H. Hale (SEAOCC), Past Chair
Robert T. Lyons (SEAOSC), Co-Lead Chapter 7 Robert N. Chittenden (SEAOCC)
Kelly E. Cobeen (SEAONC), Lead Chapter 8 Stephen K. Harris (SEAONC)
Gerard C. Pardoen (SEAOSC), Lead Chapter 9 Douglas C. Hohbach (SEAONC)
Ali M. Sadre (SEAOSD), Lead Appendix A and B Y. Henry Huang (SEAOSC)
Martin Johnson (SEAOSC), Lead Appendix H Saiful Islam (SEAOSC)
Albert Alexanian (SEAOSC) Martin W. Johnson (SEAOSC)
Craig V. Baltimore (SEAOSC) Jaiteerth B. Kinhal (SEAOSD)
David R. Bonneville (SEAONC) Eric T. Lehmkuhl (SEAOSD)
Steven T. Brokken (SEAONC) Simin Naaseh (SEAONC)
Eugene E. Cole (SEAOCC) Hassan Sassi (SEAOSC), Assistant to the Chair
Edward F. Diekmann (SEAONC)
S.K. Ghosh (SEAONC)
Gary C. Hart (SEAOSC) 1997-1998 Seismology Committee
Henry Y. Huang (SEAOSC) Tom H. Hale (SEAOCC), Chair
Saif M. Hussain (SEAOSC) Ali M. Sadre (SEAOSD), Past Chair
Michael W. Ishler (SEAOSC) Robert N. Chittenden (SEAOCC)
Saiful M. Islam (SEAOSC) Stephen K. Harris (SEAONC)
Charles A. Kircher (SEAONC) Saif M. Hussain (SEAOSC)
John W. Lawson (SEAOSC) Saiful Islam (SEAOSC)
Marshall Lew (SEAOSC) Martin W. Johnson (SEAOSC)
James O. Malley (SEAONC) Eric T. Lehmkuhl (SEAOSD)
Daniel L. McNaughton (SEAOSD) Roumen V. Mladjov (SEAONC)
John “Jack” F. Meehan (SEAOCC) Simin Naaseh (SEAONC)
Maurice S. Power (SEAONC) Carl B. Schulze (SEAOSD)
Edward E. Rinne (SEAOSC) Chris V. Tokas (SEAOCC)
Rafael Sabelli (SEAONC) Joyce Copelan (SEAOCC), Assistant to the Chair
C. Mark Saunders (SEAONC)
September 1999 xxv

1996-1997 Seismology Committee 1995-1996 Seismology Committee

Ali M. Sadre (SEAOSD), Chair David Bonneville (SEAONC), Chair
David R. Bonneville (SEAONC), Past Chair Robert Bachman (SEAOSC,) Past Chair
Dominic E. Campi (SEAONC) Dominic E. Campi (SEAONC)
Tom H. Hale (SEAOCC) Tom H. Hale (SEAOCC)
Stephen K. Harris (SEAONC) Saif M. Hussain (SEAOSC)
Saif Mohammed Hussain (SEAOSC) Mark S. Jokerst (SEAONC)
Saiful M. Islam (SEAOSC) Roumen Mladjov (SEAONC)
Eric T. Lehmkuhl (SEAOSD) Richard Phillips (SEAOSC)
Roumen V. Mladjov (SEAONC) Thomas A. Sabol (SEAOSC)
Richard J. Phillips (SEAOSC) Ali M. Sadre (SEAOSD)
Carl B. Schulze (SEAOSD) Carl B. Schulze (SEAOSD)
Chris V. Tokas (SEAOCC) Ajit S. Virdee (SEAOCC)
Arthur K. Serata (SEAOSD), Assistant to the Chair Stacy Bartoletti (SEAONC), Assistant to the Chair
1958-1996 Seismology Committees

*Chair Forell, Nicholas (SEAONC) 1980-1982
Foth, Ullrich A. (SEAOSC) 1975, 1976, 1987
Bachman, Robert (SEAOSC) 1989-1995, 1994* Fratessa, Paul F. (SEAONC) 1981-1985, 1984*
Barnes, Stephenson B. (SEAOSC)1957-1959 Freeman, Sigmund A. (SEAONC) 1975-1980, 1982-1987
Barrish Jack S. (SEAOCC)1957-1959, 1974-1976, 1978,* Gallagher, Ronald P. (SEAONC) 1989-1991, 1992*, 1993
1979 Gates, William R. (SEAOSC) 1979-1981
Binder, Reuben W. (SEAOSC)1957-1963 Gilligan, Mark (SEAONC) 1985-1987
Blume, John A. (SEAONC)1957-1959 Gordon, Ben (SEAOSC) 1968, 1969
Bonneville, David R. (SEAONC)1993-1996, 1995* Graham, Leslie W. (SEAONC) 1968
Brandley, R. W. (SEAOCC)1957-1959 Green, Norman B. (SEAOSC) 1957-1959
Brandow, Gregg (SEAOSC)1985-1987 Greenlaw, Charles (SEAOCC) 1985
Brownfield, Allen H. (SEAOCC)1957-1959 Greve, Norman R. (SEAOSC) 1975-1978
Brugger, Walter A. (SEAOSC) 1957-1959, 1963, 1965 Griffin, Phillip G. (SEAONC) 1984-1986
Buehler, Walter D. (SEAOCC) 1968 Hale, Tom H. (SEAOCC) 1994-1999, 1997*
Byrum, Robert C. (SEAOSC) 1968 Hamburger, Ronald (SEAONC) 1991-1993
Campbell, David B. (SEAOCC) 1985 Hanlon, Jr., Edward A. (SEAOSD) 1988, 1993
Campi, Dom (SEAONC) 1995,1996 Hammill, Harold B. (SEAONC) 1957-1959
Chittenden, Robert (SEAOCC) 1990-1995, 1993* Hart, Gary C. (SEAOSC) 1988
Christensen, Ted (SEAOSC) 1982-1984 Hart, Gordon M. (SEAOCC) 1957-1959
Clough, Raymond W. (SEAONC) 1966, 1967 Hendershot, Robert (SEAOSD) 1991, 1992
Cole, Eugene E. (SEAOCC) 1979-1984, 1989*, 1990 Holmes, William T. (SEAONC) 1977-1979
Crandall, L. Leroy (SEAOSC) 1957-1959 Hussain, Saif (SEAOSC) 1995-1999, 1998*
Crane, David A. (SEAOCC) 1969-1971, 1977 Johnson, Albin W. (SEAOSC) 1964*, 1965*
Dean, R. Gordon (SEAONC) 1962 Johnson, Edwin H. (SEAOSD) 1972-1977, 1983-1986
Degenkolb, Henry J. (SEAONC) 1957-1959 Johnson, James (SEAOSC) 1977-1979
Dixon, Schaefer J. (SEAOSC) 1975, 1976 Johnston, Roy G. (SEAOSC) 1957-1959, 1961, 1963,
Doig, Bruce (SEAOCC) 1987, 1988 1969-1971
Donovan, Neville (SEAONC) 1975, 1976 Jokerst, Mark (SEAONC) 1993-1996
Driskell, John J. (SEAOSC) 1964-1968 Jones, Norman (SEAOSC) 1967
Elsesser, Eric (SEAONC) 1963, 1974-1976 Kamei, Tom T. (SEAOSC) 1971, 1973
Erick, Murray (SEAOSC) 1957, 1958 Kariotis, John C. (SEAOSC) 1974-1977, 1979
Ewing, Merle A. (SEAONC) 1957-1959 Kellam, H.S. (Pete) (SEAONC) 1957-1959, 1963-1970,
Finch, Herman F. (SEAOCC) 1957-1963, 1961* 1966*
Flores, Raymond (SEAOSD) 1981-1983 Kesler, James J. (SEAOSC) 1966-1968
xxvi September 1999

Kircher, Charles (SEAONC) 1992-1994 Sabol, Thomas A. (SEAOSC) 1994-1996

Knox, M.T. (SEAOCC) 1957-1959 Sadre, Ali M. (SEAOSD) 1994-1996, 1996*
Lai, James S. (SEAOSC) 1986-1988, 1988*, 1989 Sauer, Arthur A. (SEAOCC) 1966
Larson, Marvin A. (SEAONC) 1968, 1969 Saunders, C. Mark (SEAONC) 1987-1989
Lehmer, Gerald D. (SEAOSC) 1978-1985 Schulze, Carl (SEAOSD) 1994-1996
Libby, James R. (SEAOSD) 1978-1982, 1981* Sedgewick, G.A. (SEAONC) 1957-1959
Lindskog, Ed (SEAOSC) 1957-1959 Seed, H. Bolton (SEAONC) 1975, 1976
Luttrell, Kenneth (SEAOCC) 1983-1987, 1983* Sharpe, Roland L. (SEAONC) 1969, 1972*, 1973*, 1974
Lyons, Kevin P. (SEAOSD) 1988 Skinner, M.J. (SEAOSC) 1957-1959
Maag, Ernst (SEAOSC) 1957-1959 Smith, W. Hudson (SEAONC) 1976-1979
Magee, Douglas H. (SEAOSD) 1984-1986 Steinbrugge, John M. (SEAOSC) 1957-1959
Manning, Joseph G. (SEAONC) 1975, 1976 Steinman, Hans G. (SEAOSC) 1971*, 1972
Mark, Melvin H. (SEAOSD) 1970, 1972-1978, 1977* Strand, Donald R. (SEAOSC) 1971-1975, 1975*
Mathiesen, R.B. (Fritz) (SEAONC) 1979-1981 Tandowsky, Sanford (SEAONC) 1970-1974
McClure, Frank E. (SEAONC) 1957-1959 Teal, Edward J. (SEAOSC) 1970, 1982*
McNaughton, Daniel L. (SEAOSD) 1977-1981, 1993 Teixeira, Stanley E. (SEAONC) 1965, 1966
Meehan, John F. (SEAOCC) 1957-1959, 1969-1974 Thacker, Robert C. (SEAOCC) 1986-1990
Merovich, Andrew (SEAONC) 1990-1992 Thiel, Charles C. (SEAONC) 1987
Messinger, David L. (SEAONC) 1982-1984 Thompson, James H. (SEAOSC) 1970
Mladjov, Roumen (SEAONC) 1995, 1996 Travis, William L. (SEAOSC) 1969, 1971, 1972, 1982, 1983
Moore, William W. (SEAONC) 1957-1959 Venolia, Kenneth V. (SEAOCC) 1962-1967, (1962-1963)*
Mujumdar, Vilas S. (SEAOSD) 1991-1993, 1993* Virdee, Ajit S. (SEAOCC) 1972-1976, 1974*, 1988-1996
Nicoletti, Joseph P.(SEAONC) 1970-1973 Vossenkemper, Earl H. (SEAOSC) 1969, 1970
Omsted, Herald (SEAOSC) 1957-1959 Wheeler, William T. (SEAOSC) (1957-1960)*
Parme, Alfred L. (SEAOSD) 1984 Whitelaw, Robert (SEAOSC) 1985-1987
Phillips, Richard (SEAOSC) 1991-1993, 1996 Wilder, Robert (SEAOSC) 1957-1959
Pinkham, Clarkson W. (SEAOSC) 1962-1970, Willsea, Frederick J. (SEAONC) 1988-1990
(1967-1970)*, 1972-1975 Wong, Hoi W. (SEAOCC) 1978, 1979
Porush, Allan (SEAOSC) 1982-1988, 1987*, 1988* Wosser, Thomas D. (SEAONC) 1971-1974
Powers, Henry C. (SEAONC) 1957-1959, 1961 Wylie, Loring A. (SEAONC) 1975-1977
Preece, F. Robert (SEAONC) 1960, 1983-1985 Youssef, Nabih F.G. (SEAOSC) 1988, 1990-1995, 1991*
Ragsdale, John T. (SEAOCC) 1977, 1978 Zacher, Edwin G. (SEAONC) 1972-1977, 1976*,
Richter, Phillips J. (SEAOSC) 1980-1984, 1982*, 1983*, 1986-1988, 1988*
1987 Zsutty, Theodore (SEAONC) 1978-1981, 1980*
Rinne, John E. (SEAONC) 1957-1967
Robb, John O. (SEAOSC) 1974-1979, 1979*, 1980
Rumberger, William D. (SEAOCC) 1963, 1967, 1968, *Chair
1975, 1976, 1980-1982
September 1999 xxvii

Reference to 1999 1999 1999

1997 UBC 1997 UBC § SEAOC 1997 UBC § SEAOC 1997 UBC § SEAOC
Blue Book Blue Book Blue Book
The following sections of
1700 201-202 1921.4.2.2 402.5.1 1921.7 C408
the 1997 UBC are refer-
1701 C804.10 1921.4.2.2 402.5.2 1921.7.2.1 C408.1.1
enced in this edition of the
Blue Book. 1701.5 202.1,2,3 1921.4.2.3 C402.5.1 1921.7.2.2 C408.1.2
1702 202.3, 1921.4.3.2 402.6 1921.7.3.1 C408.2.1
C804.11
1921.4.3.2 C402.6 1921.7.3.2 C408.1.3
1999 1703 202.2
1921.4.3.2 C405.3 1921.7.3.3 C408.2.2
1997 UBC § SEAOC 1705 202.4
Blue Book 1921.4.4.1 C405.4.1 1929.2-3 C407.1.1
1706 202.6
1612.2 C601.1 1921.4.4.4 C405.4.2 2002.2 502.1
1707 202.6
1626 101 1921.4.4.5 C405.4.3 2003.3 502.2
1805 302.1
1627 102 1921.4.4.7 C405.4.4 2004.2 502.3.1
1806.6 C804.12
1628 103 1921.4.5.1 C405.5 2004.3 502.3.2
1809.1 302.1
1629 104 1921.5.1 C406.1 2004.5 502.3.3
1809.5.1 C302.2.1
1629.1 C104.1 1921.5.1.4 C406.1.1 2007 502.4
1809.5.2.4 302.2.2
1630 105 1921.5.4.1 C406.2 2009.6 502.5
1809.5.3 302.2.3
1630.8.2.1 C804.9 1921.6 C407.1 2011.1 502.6
1809.6 302.2.4
1631 106 1921.6 C407.1.1 2012.1 502.7
1909.2.3 C403.1
1631.2.8 C108.2.8 1921.6.10.1 C407.7.1 2102.2 602.1
1909.3.4.1 402.8.2
1632 107 1921.6.10.2 C407.7.2 2106.1.12.4 602.2,
1921.0 402.1 C604.1
1632.2 C107.2 1921.6.10.3 C407.7.3
1921.2.3 C403.2 2106.2.14 C604.2
1632.5 C107.5 1921.6.10.4 402.13,
1921.2.4.2 C403.3 C407.7.4 2107.1.7 C605.1
1633 108
1921.2.5 C403.4 1921.6.13 C407.8 2107.2.12 602.3.2
1633.2.6 C804.8
1921.2.6 C402.2 1921.6.2.2 C407.2.1 2107.2.2 602.3.1,
1633.2.8.1 C108.2.8.1 602.3.3,
1921.2.6.1 402.2 1921.6.2.4 402.7,
1634 109 C605.2
C407.2.2
1921.2.6.1 402.2.1
1635 110 2108.1 C606.1
1921.6.3 402.8.1
1921.2.6.2 402.2.2
1636 111 2108.1.2 C606.2
1921.6.3 402.8.2,
1921.2.6.3 402.2.3
1636.1 111.1 C402.8, 2108.1.4 C606.3
1921.2.6.4 402.2.4 C407.3
1636.2 111.2 2108.2.1.2 C606.3.1.2.1
1921.3.1 402.3 1921.6.5 C407.3
1652 C152 2108.2.2 C606.3.2.2
1921.3.1 C402.3 1921.6.5.5 402.9,
1654 150 2108.2.2.6 602.4.1,
C402.9,
1921.3.1 C404.1 C606.3.2.3
1655 151 C407.4
1921.3.2 C404.2 2108.2.2.7 604.2.2.7,
1656 152 1921.6.6 C407.5
C604.4.2
1921.3.2.3 C404.3 1921.6.6.1 C407.5.1
1657 153 2108.2.3 C606.3.2
1921.3.3 C404.4 1921.6.6.2 402.10
1658 154 2108.2.3.1 C606.3.2.1
1921.3.3 C404.5 1921.6.6.2 C407.5.2
1659 155 2108.2.3.3 C606.3.2.2, 3
1921.3.4.1 C404.6 1921.6.6.3 C407.5.3
1660 156 2108.2.3.6.2 C606.3.2.4
1921.4.1 402.4.1 1921.6.6.4 C407.5.4
1661 157 2108.2.3.7 C606.3.2.5
1921.4.1 C405.1 1921.6.6.5 402.11.1-3,
1662 158 2108.2.3.8 C606.3.2.6
1921.4.1.1 C405.1.1 C407.5.5
1663 159 2108.2.5 C606.3.4
1921.4.2 C405.2 1921.6.6.6 402.12,
1664 160 C407.5.6 2108.2.6 C606.3.5
1921.4.2.1 C402.5.1
1665 161 1921.6.7.3 C407.6 2108.2.6.1 C606.3.5.1
xxviii September 1999

1999 1999 Reference to 1999

1997 UBC § SEAOC 1997 UBC § SEAOC AISC-Seismic 97 AISC § SEAOC
Blue Book Blue Book Blue Book
The following sections of
2108.2.6.2.5 C606.3.5.2 3405 112.5 Part I, §S5.5 702.2.15
the AISC-Seismic 97 are
2108.2.6.2.6 C606.3.5.3 Division IV 702.1 Part I, §S6.3 702.2.16
referenced in this edition
2108.2.6.2.7 C606.3.5.4 Division V 702.3 of the Blue Book. Part III-ASD 702.4
2108.2.6.2.8 C606.3.5.5 Table 23-II-2 C803.3
2108.2.6.2.9 C606.3.5.6 Table 23-II-G 802.2
1999
2108.8.2.4 C606.3.3 Table 23-II-G C803.2
AISC § SEAOC
2210 702.2.1 Table 23-II-I-1 C804.5 Blue Book
2212 702.4.1 Table 23-II-I-2 C804.5 Part I, Glos- 702.2.3
2213 702.4.2 Table 23-IV- C804.7 sary
C-2 Part I, §1 702.2.2
2213.8 C704.12
2213.9.1 C704.1 Part I, §10 702.2.9,
702.2.17
2213.9.2.1 C704.2
Part I, §11.2a 702.2.10
2213.9.2.2 C704.3
Part I, §13.1 C704.3
2213.9.2.3 C704.4
Part I, §13.2a C04.2
2213.9.2.4 C704.5
Part I, §13.2c C704.3
2213.9.3.1 C704.6
Part I, §13.2d C704.5
2213.9.3.2 C704.7
Part I, §13.2e C704.4
2213.9.3.3 C704.8
Part I, §13.3a C704.6
2213.9.4.1 C704.9
Part I, §13.3b C704.7
2213.9.4.2 C704.10
Part I, C704.8
2213.9.4.5 C704.11 §13.3c-d
2213.10.1 C705.1 Part I, §13.4a C704.9
2213.10.12 C705.6 Part I, §13.4b C704.10
2213.10.13 C705.7 Part I, §13.5 C704.11
2213.10.18 C705.5 Part I, §14 C704.12
2213.10.2 C705.2 Part I, §14.3 C704.12.2
2213.10.4 C705.3 Part I, §14e C704.12.1
2213.10.5 C705.4 Part I, §15.1 C705.1
2214 702.4.2 Part I, §15.2 C705.2,3,4,5
2302 C804.1 Part I, §15.4 C705.6
2315 C804.2 Part I, §15.4b 702.2.11
2315.5.3 802.1, Part I, §15.6 C705.7
C804.3
Part I, §16 702.2.12
2315.5.4 802.1.2
Part I, §2 702.2.4
2318.3.1 C803.1
Part I, §4.1 702.2.5
2320.1 C804.6
Part I, §6.1 702.2.6
3040 112.4
Part I, §7.3b 702.2.7
3400 112
Part I, §9.2a 702.2.8
3401 112.1
Part I, §S10 702.2.17
3402 112.2
Part I, §S2 702.2.13
3403 112.3
Part I, §S3 702.2.14
xxix September 1999

xxx September 1999

Requirements
SEAOC Blue Book Requirements §101
CHAPTER 1
General Requirements for
Design and Construction of
Earthquake-Resistive Structures
Note: Changebars in margins indicate sections that differ 101.6 Computer Calculations
from the 1997 UBC. Calculations may include the results from an electronic
digital computer program. The following Requirements
101 UBC §1626 General apply to calculations submitted to a building official that
101.1 Purpose include such computer output.
The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is prima- 101.6.1 A drawing of the complete mathematical
rily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss model used to represent the structure in the computer-gen-
of life, not to limit damage or maintain function. erated analysis shall be provided.
101.6.2 A program description (User's Guide) shall be
101.2 Minimum Seismic Design
available and contain the information necessary to deter-
Structures and portions thereof shall, as a minimum, be de- mine the nature and extent of the analysis, verify the input
signed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic data, interpret the results, and determine whether the com-
ground motions as provided in this division. putations comply with these Requirements.
101.3 Seismic and Wind Design 101.6.3 Data provided as computer input shall be
When the code-prescribed wind design produces greater clearly distinguished from those computed in the program.
effects, the wind design shall govern, but detailing require- The information required in the output shall include date
ments and limitations prescribed in this Section and other of processing, program identification, identification of
referenced sections shall be followed. structures being analyzed, all input data, units, and final
results.
101.4 Continuous Load Path
101.6.4 The first sheet of each computer run shall be
A continuous load path, or paths, with adequate strength signed by the engineer responsible for the structural de-
and stiffness shall be provided to transfer all forces from sign.
the point of application to the resisting elements.
101.7 UBC §1612 Combinations of
101.5 Basis for Seismic Design Loads
The basis for seismic design shall be stated on the struc- 101.7.1 General. Buildings and other structures and
tural drawings. As a minimum, the statement shall include: all portions thereof shall be designed to resist the load
1. A statement of the governing edition of the building combinations specified in Section 101.7.2 or 101.7.3 and,
code. where required by Chapter 1 or by Chapters 3 through 8,
2. Total base shear coefficient used for seismic design. the special seismic load combinations of Section 101.7.4.
3. Description of the lateral force resisting system, as All applicable loads shall be considered, including
defined in these Requirements. both earthquake and wind, in accordance with the speci-
fied load combinations.
September 1999 1
§101.7.2 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
101.7.2 UBC §1612.2 Load Combinations Using D Eqn. 101-7

Strength Design or Load and Resistance D + L + (Lr or S) Eqn. 101-8
Factor Design
D + (W or E/1.4) Eqn. 101-9
101.7.2.1 Basic Load Combinations. Where
load and resistance factor design (strength design) is used, 0.90D ± E/1.4 Eqn. 101-10
structures and all portions thereof shall resist the most crit- D + 0.75 [L + (Lr or S) + (W or E/1.4)] Eqn. 101-11
ical effects from the following combinations of factored
loads: No increase in allowable stresses shall be used with
these load combinations except as specifically permitted
1.4D Eqn. 101-1
by UBC §1809.2 and §2316.2, Amendment 5.
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5 (Lr or S) Eqn. 101-2
101.7.3.2 Alternative Basic Load Combinations.
1.2D + 1.6 (Lr or S) + (f1L or 0.8W) Eqn. 101-3 In lieu of the basic load combinations specified in Section
101.7.3.1, structures and portions thereof shall be permit-
1.2D + 1.3W + f1L+ 0.5 (Lr or S) Eqn. 101-4
ted to be designed for the most critical effects resulting
1.2D + 1.0E + (f1L + f2S) Eqn. 101-5 from the following load combinations. When using these
0.9D ± (ρEh or 1.3W) Eqn. 101-6
alternate basic load combinations, a one-third increase
shall be permitted in allowable stresses for all combina-
where: tions including W or E.
f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public D + L + (Lr or S) Eqn. 101-12
assembly, for live loads in excess of 100
D + L + (W or E/1.4) Eqn. 101-13
pounds per square foot (4.79 kN/m2), and
for garage live load. D + L + W + S/2 Eqn. 101-14
= 0.5 for other live loads. D + L + S + W/2 Eqn. 101-15

f2 = 0.7 for roof configurations (such as saw D + L + S + E/1.4 Eqn. 101-16
tooth) that do not shed snow off the 0.9D ± E/1.4 Eqn. 101-16a
structure.
Exceptions:
= 0.2 for other roof configurations.
1. Crane hook loads need not be combined with roof
Exceptions: live loads or with more than three-fourths of the
1. Factored load combinations for concrete per UBC snow load or one-half of the wind load.
§1909.2 where load combinations do not include
2. Design snow loads of 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) or less
seismic forces.
need not be combined with seismic loads. Where
2. Where other factored load combinations are
design snow loads exceed 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) the
specifically required by the provisions of these
design snow load shall be included with seismic
Requirements.
loads, but may be reduced up to 75 percent where
101.7.2.2 Other Loads. Where F, H, P, or T are consideration of siting, configuration and load
to be considered in design, each applicable load shall be duration warrant when approved by the building
added to the above combinations factored as follows: official.
1.3F, 1.6H, 1.2P, and 1.2T. 101.7.4 Special Seismic Load Combinations. For
101.7.3 Load Combinations Using Allowable both Allowable Stress Design and Strength Design, the
Stress Design following special load combinations for seismic design
shall be used as specifically required by Chapter 1 or by
101.7.3.1 Basic Load Combinations. Where al-
Chapters 3 through 8:
lowable stress design (working stress design) is used,
structures and all portions thereof shall resist the most crit- 1.2D + f1L + 1.0Em Eqn. 101-17
ical effects resulting from the following combinations of 0.9D ± 1.0 Em Eqn. 101-18
loads:
2 September 1999
where: Concentrically Braced Frame. A braced frame in

f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public which the members are subjected primarily to axial forces.
assembly, for live loads in excess of 100 Design Basis Ground Motion. Ground motion that
pounds per square foot, (4.79 kN/m2) and has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years as
for garage live load. determined by a site specific hazard analysis or may be de-
= 0.5 for other live loads. termined from a hazard map. A suite of ground motion
time histories with dynamic properties representative of
102 UBC §1627 Definitions the site characteristics shall be used to represent this
ground motion. The dynamic effects of the design basis
For the purposes of this Section certain terms are defined ground motion may be represented by the design response
as follows: spectrum. See Section 106.2.
Base. The level at which the earthquake motions are Design Response Spectrum. An elastic response
considered to be imparted to the structure, or the level at spectrum for 5 percent equivalent viscous damping used to
which the structure as a dynamic vibrator is supported. represent the dynamic effects of the Design Basis Ground
Base Shear (V). V is the total design lateral force or Motion for the design of structures in accordance with
shear at the base of a structure. Sections 105 and 106. This response spectrum may be ei-
ther a site specific spectrum based on geologic, tectonic,
Bearing Wall System. A structural system without seismological and soil characteristics associated with a
a complete vertical load-carrying space frame. See Section specific site or may be a spectrum constructed in accor-
104.6.2. dance with the spectral shape in Figure 104-2 using the site
Boundary Element. An element at edges of open- specific values of Ca and Cv and multiplied by the acceler-
ings or at perimeters of shear walls or diaphragms. ation of gravity, 386.4 in/sec2 (9.815 m/sec2). See Section
Braced Frame. An essentially vertical truss system 106.2.
of the concentric or eccentric type that is provided to resist Diaphragm. A horizontal or nearly horizontal sys-
lateral forces. tem acting to transmit lateral forces to the vertical resisting
Building Frame System. An essentially complete elements. The term “diaphragm” includes horizontal brac-
space frame that provides support for gravity loads. See ing systems.
Section 104.6.3. Diaphragm or Shear Wall Chord. The boundary
Cantilevered Column Element. A column element element of a diaphragm or shear wall that is assumed to
in a lateral force resisting system that cantilevers from a take axial stresses analogous to the flanges of a beam.
fixed base and has minimal moment capacity at the top Diaphragm Strut (drag strut, tie, collector). The el-
with lateral forces applied essentially at the top. ement of a diaphragm parallel to the applied load that col-
Collector. A member or element provided to trans- lects and transfers diaphragm shear to the vertical resisting
fer lateral forces from a portion of a structure to vertical el- elements or distributes loads within the diaphragm. Such
ements of the lateral force resisting system. members may take axial tension or compression.
Component. A part or element of an architectural, Drift. See Story Drift.

electrical, mechanical, or structural system. Dual System. A combination of moment resisting
Component, Equipment. Mechanical or electrical frames and shear walls or braced frames designed in accor-
component or element that is part of a mechanical and/or dance with the criteria of Section 104.6.5.
electrical system. Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF). A steel
Component, Flexible. A component, including its braced frame designed in conformance with Chapter 7,
attachments, that has a fundamental period greater than Steel.
0.06 second. Elastic Response Parameters. Forces and defor-
Component, Rigid. A component, including its at- mations determined from an elastic dynamic analysis us-
tachments, that has a fundamental period less than or equal ing an unreduced ground motion representation, in
to 0.06 second. accordance with Section 106.
September 1999 3
§102 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
Essential Facilities. Structures that are necessary Space Frame. A three-dimensional structural sys-
for emergency operations subsequent to a natural disaster. tem, without bearing walls, composed of members inter-
connected so as to function as a complete self-contained
Flexible Element or System. One whose deforma-
unit with or without the aid of horizontal diaphragms or
tion under lateral load is significantly larger than adjoining
floor bracing systems.
parts of the system. Limiting ratios for defining specific
flexible elements are set forth in Sections 105.6 and 107.2. Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF). A
steel-braced frame designed in conformance with the Re-
Horizontal Bracing System. A horizontal truss sys-
quirements of Chapter 7, Structural Steel.
tem that serves the same function as a diaphragm.
Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF). A mo-
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame
ment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile
(IMRF). A concrete frame designed in accordance with
behavior and comply with the requirements given in Chap-
Chapter 4, Reinforced Concrete.
ter 4 or 7.
Lateral Force Resisting System. That part of the
Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF). A mo-
structural system designed to resist the design seismic
ment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile
forces.
behavior and comply with the Requirements given in
Moment Resisting Frame (MRF). A frame in Chapter 7, Structural Steel.
which members and joints are capable of resisting forces
Story. The space between levels. Story x is the story
primarily by flexure.
below level x.
Moment Resisting Wall Frame (MRWF). A ma-
Story Drift. The lateral displacement of one level
sonry wall frame especially detailed to provide ductile be-
relative to the level above or below.
havior and designed in conformance with Chapter 6,
Reinforced Masonry. Story Drift Ratio. The story drift divided by the
story height.
Ordinary Braced Frame (OBF). A steel-braced
frame designed in accordance with the provisions of Chap- Story Shear, Vx. The summation of design lateral
ter 7, Steel, or concrete-braced frame designed in accor- forces above the story under consideration.
dance with Chapter 4, Reinforced Concrete.
Strength. The capacity of an element or a member
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF). A to resist factored load as specified in Chapters 1, 3, 4, 6,
moment resisting frame not meeting special detailing re- and 7.
quirements for ductile behavior.
Structure. An assemblage of framing members de-
Orthogonal Effects. The earthquake load effects on signed to support gravity loads and resist lateral forces.
structural elements common to the lateral force resisting Structures may be categorized as building structures or
systems along two orthogonal axes. nonbuilding structures.
Overstrength. A characteristic of structures where Subdiaphragm. A portion of a larger wood dia-
the actual strength is larger than the design strength. The phragm designed to anchor and transfer local forces to pri-
degree of overstrength is material and system dependent. mary diaphragm struts and the main diaphragm.
P-delta (P ∆ ) Effect. The secondary effect on Vertical Load-Carrying Frame. A space frame
shears, axial forces, and moments of frame members in- designed to carry vertical gravity loads.
duced by the vertical loads acting on the laterally displaced Wall Anchorage System. The system of elements
building system. anchoring the wall to the diaphragm and those elements
Shear Wall. A wall designed to resist lateral forces within the diaphragm required to develop the anchorage
parallel to the plane of the wall (sometimes referred to as forces, including subdiaphragms and continuous ties, as
a vertical diaphragm or a structural wall). specified in Sections 108.2.8 and 108.2.9.
Soft Story. One in which the lateral stiffness is less Weak Story. One in which the story strength is less
than 70 percent of the stiffness of the story above. See Ta- than 80 percent of that of the story above. See Table 104-4.
ble 104-4.
4 September 1999
103 UBC §1628 Symbols and L = Live load on a structural element.

Notations Level i= Level of the structure referred to by the subscript
The following symbols and notations apply to the provi- i. “i = 1” designates the first level above the base.
sions of this section: Level n=That level uppermost in the main portion of the
structure.
AB = Ground floor area of structure in square feet (m2)
Level x=That level under design consideration. “x = 1”
to include area covered by all overhangs and
designates the first level above the base.
projections.
M = Maximum moment magnitude.
Ac = The combined effective area, in square feet (m2),
Na = Near-source factor used in the determination of
of the shear walls in the first story of the structure.
Ca in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity
Ae = The minimum cross sectional area in any
of the building or structure to known faults with
horizontal plane in the first story, in square feet magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in
(m2) of a shear wall. Tables 104-11 and 104-13.
Ax = The torsional amplification factor at Level x. Nv = Near-source factor used in the determination of
ap = Numerical coefficient specified in Section 107 Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity
and set forth in Table 104-7. of the building or structure to known faults with
magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in
Ca = Seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 104-9.
Tables 104-12 and 104-13.
Ct = Numerical coefficient given in Section 105.2.2. PI = Plasticity index of soil determined in accordance
Cv = Seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 104-10. with approved national standards.
D = Dead load on a structural element. R = RoRd
De = The length, in feet (m), of a shear wall in the first Rd = Numerical coefficient representative of the global
story in the direction parallel to the applied forces. ductility capacity of lateral force resisting
systems, as set forth in Table 104-6 or 104-8. See
di = Thickness of soil layer. See Section 111.
Figure C105-2.
E, Eh, Em, Ev = Earthquake loads set forth in Section Ro = Numerical coefficient, representative of the
105.1. overstrength inherent in the lateral force resisting
Fi, Fn, Fx = Design seismic force applied to level i, n or system, and given in Tables 104-6 or 104-8. See
x, respectively. Figure C105-2.
Fp = Design seismic forces on a part of the structure. Rp = Component response modification factor. See
Section 107.
Fpx = Design seismic force on a diaphragm
Ft = That portion of the base shear, V, considered r = A ratio used in determining ρ , see Section 105.1.
concentrated at the top of the structure in addition SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, SF = Soil Profile Types as set forth in
to Fn. Table 104-2.
fi = Lateral force at Level i for use in su = Average undrained shear strength. See
Equation 105-10. Section 111.2.3.
g = Acceleration due to gravity. T = Elastic fundamental period of vibration, in
hi, hn, hx = Height in feet (m) above the base to Level i, n seconds, of the structure in the direction under
consideration.
or x, respectively.
V = The total design lateral force or shear at the base
I = Importance factor given in Table 104-3.
given by Equation 105-4, 105-6, or 105-7.
Ip = Importance factor specified in Table 104-3.
VE = Elastic response base shear illustrated in Figure
lw = Length of shear wall. C105-2.
September 1999 5
VM = Lower bound system strength that is an estimate characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural sys-
of the probable maximum base shear capacity of tem and height in accordance with this section. Structures
the lateral load resisting system illustrated in shall be designed with adequate strength to withstand the
Figure 104-3. lateral displacements induced by the design basis ground
motion, considering the inelastic response of the structure,
vs = Average shear wave velocity. See Section
and the inherent redundancy, overstrength and ductility of
111.2.1. the lateral force resisting system.
Vx = The design story shear in story x.
The minimum design strength shall be based on the
W = The total seismic dead load defined in Section design seismic forces determined in accordance with the
105.1.1. static lateral force procedure of Section 105 except as
wp wx = That portion of W located at or is assigned to level modified by Section 106.5.4. Where strength design is
i or x, respectively. used, the load combinations of Section 101.7.2 shall apply.
Where allowable stress design is used, the load combina-
Wp = The weight of an element or component. tions of Section 101.7.3 shall apply. Allowable stress de-
wpx = The weight of the diaphragm and the element sign may be used to evaluate sliding or overturning at the
tributary thereto at Level x, including applicable soil-structure interface regardless of the design approach
portions of other loads defined in Section 105.1.1. used in the design of the structure provided load combina-
tions of Section 101.7.3 are utilized. One and two family
Z = Seismic zone factor as given in Table 104-1. dwellings in Seismic Zone 1 need not conform to the pro-
δi = Horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the visions of this section.
base due to applied lateral forces, fi , for use in 104.2 Occupancy Categories
Equation 105-10.
For purposes of earthquake-resistant design, each structure
∆E = Elastic response displacement corresponding to shall be placed in one of the occupancy categories listed in
VE and illustrated in Figure C105-2. Table 104-3. Table 104-3 assigns importance factors, I and
Ip, and structural observation requirements for each cate-
∆S = Design level response displacement, which is the
gory.
total drift or total story drift that occurs when the
structure is subjected to the design seismic forces. 104.3 Site Geology and Soil
Characteristics
∆M = Maximum inelastic response displacement,
which is the total drift or total story drift that Each site shall be assigned a Soil Profile Type based on
occurs when the structure is subjected to the properly substantiated geotechnical data using the site cat-
design basis ground motion, including estimated egorization procedure set forth in UBC Division V §1636
elastic and inelastic contributions to the total and Table 104-2.
deformation defined in Section 105.9. See Exception: When the soil properties are not known
Figure 104-3. in sufficient detail to determine the Soil Profile Type,
∆MT= Minimum design separation between adjoining Type SD shall be used. Soil Profile Types SE or SF
buildings. need not be assumed unless the building official
determines that Type SE or SF may be present at the
ρ = Redundancy/reliability factor given by
site or in the event that Type SE or SF is established by
Equation 105-3.
geotechnical data.
Ωo = Seismic force amplification factor, which is
104.3.1 Soil Profile Type. Soil Profile Types SA, SB,
required to account for structural overstrength
and set forth in Section 105.3.1. SC, SD, SE are defined in Table 104-2 and Soil Profile Type
SF is defined as soils requiring site-specific evaluation as
104 UBC §1629 Criteria Selection follows:
104.1 Basis for Design
1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under
seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and
The procedures and the limitations for the design of struc- highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented
tures shall be determined considering seismic zoning, site soils.
6 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Requirements §104.4
2. Peats and/or highly organic clays where the thickness 104.5.2 Regular Structures. Regular structures
of peat or highly organic clay exceeds 10 feet (3048 have no significant physical discontinuities in plan or ver-
mm). tical configuration or in their lateral force resisting sys-
3. Very high plasticity clays with a plasticity index, PI > tems such as the irregular features described In Section
75, where the depth of clay exceeds 25 feet (7620 104.5.3.
mm). 104.5.3 Irregular Structures
4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays, where the depth of 1. Irregular structures have significant physical
clay exceeds 120 feet (36576 mm). discontinuities in configuration or in their lateral force
104.4 Site Seismic Hazard resisting systems. Irregular features include, but are
Characteristics not limited to, those described in Tables 104-4 and
104-5. All structures in Seismic Zone 1 and
Seismic hazard characteristics for the site shall be estab- Occupancy Categories 4 and 5 in Seismic Zone 2 need
lished based on the seismic zone and proximity of the site to be evaluated only for vertical irregularities of Type
to active seismic sources, site soil profile characteristics 5 (Table 104-4) and horizontal irregularities of Type 1
and the structure's importance factor. (Table 104-5).
104.4.1 Seismic Zone. Each site shall be assigned a 2. Structures having any of the features listed in Table
seismic zone in accordance with Figure 104-1. Each struc- 104-4 shall be designated as if having a vertical
ture shall be assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accor- irregularity.
dance with Table 104-1.
Exception: Where no story drift ratio under design
104.4.2 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factors. In lateral forces is greater than 1.3 times the story drift
Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned near-source ratio of the story above the structure may be deemed
factors in accordance with Tables 104-11 and 104-12 and to not have the structural irregularities of Type 1 or 2
the Seismic Source Type set forth in Table 104-13. The in Table 104-4. The story drift ratio for the top two
value of Na used to determine Ca need not exceed 1.1 for stories need not be considered. The story drifts for this
structures complying with all of the following conditions: determination may be calculated neglecting torsional
1. The Soil Profile Type is SA, SB, SC or SD. effects.
2. ρ = 1.0 3. Structures having any of the features listed in Table
104-5 shall be designated as having a plan irregularity.
3. Except in single story structures, or Group R, Division
3 and Group U, Division 1 Occupancies, moment 104.6 Structural Systems
frame systems designated as part of the lateral force 104.6.1 General. Structural systems shall be classi-
resisting system shall be special moment resisting fied as one of the types listed in Table 104-6 and defined
frames. in this subsection.
4. The exceptions to strong column-weak beam moment
104.6.2 Bearing Wall System. A structural system
resisting frame systems (UBC §2213.7.5) shall not
without a complete vertical load-carrying space frame.
apply except for columns in one story buildings or
Bearing walls or bracing systems provide support for all or
columns at the top story of multi-story buildings.
most gravity loads. Resistance to lateral loads is provided
5. None of the following structural irregularities is by shear walls or braced frames.
present: Type 1, 4 or 5 of Table 104-4 and Type 1 or
4 of Table 104-5. 104.6.3 Building Frame System. A structural sys-
tem with an essentially complete space frame providing
104.4.3 Seismic Response Coefficients. Each support for gravity loads. Resistance to lateral load is pro-
structure shall be assigned a seismic coefficient, Ca, in ac- vided by shear walls or braced frames.
cordance with Table 104-9 and a seismic coefficient, Cv,
104.6.4 Moment-Resisting Frame System. A
in accordance with Table 104-10. structural system with an essentially complete space frame
104.5 Configuration Requirements providing support for gravity loads. Moment-resisting
104.5.1 General.Each structure shall be designated frames provide resistance to lateral load primarily by flex-
ural action of members.
as being structurally regular or irregular in accordance
with Sections 104.5.2 and 104.5.3. 104.6.5 Dual System. A structural system with the
following features:
September 1999 7
1. An essentially complete space frame that provides 3. Other regular buildings not more than two stories in
support for gravity loads. height excluding basements.
2. Resistance to lateral load is provided by shear walls or 104.8.3 Static. The static lateral force procedure of
braced frames and moment-resisting frames (SMRF, Section 105 may be used for the following structures:
IMRF, MMRWF or steel OMRF). The moment 1. All structures, regular or irregular, in Seismic Zone 1
resisting frames shall be designed to independently and in Occupancy Categories 4 and 5 in Seismic Zone
resist at least 25 percent of the design base shear. 2.
3. The two systems shall be designed to resist the total 2. Regular structures under 240 feet (73 152 mm) in
design base shear in proportion to their relative height with lateral force resistance provided by
rigidities considering the interaction of the dual systems listed in Table 104-6 except where Section
system at all levels. 104.8.4, Item 4, applies.
104.6.6 Cantilevered Column System. A struc- 3. Irregular structures not more than five stories or 65
tural system relying on cantilevered column elements for feet (19 812 mm) in height.
lateral resistance. 4. Structures having a flexible upper portion supported
104.6.7 Undefined Structural System. A structural on a rigid lower portion where both portions of the
system not listed in Table 104-6. structure considered separately can be classified as
104.6.8 Nonbuilding Structural System. A struc- being regular, the average story stiffness of the lower
tural system conforming to Section 109. portion is at least 10 times the average story stiffness
of the upper portion and the period of the entire
104.7 Height Limits structure is not greater than 1.1 times the period of the
Height limits for the various structural systems in Seismic upper portion considered as a separate structure fixed
Zones 3 and 4 are given in Table 104-6. at the base.
Exception: Regular structures may exceed these 104.8.4 Dynamic. The dynamic lateral force proce-
limits by not more than 50 percent for unoccupied dure of Section 106 shall be used for all other structures,
structures that are not accessible to the general public. including the following:
104.8 Selection of Lateral Force 1. Structures 240 feet (73 152 mm) or more in height
Procedure except as permitted by Section 104.8.3, Item 1.
2. Structures having a stiffness, weight, or geometric
104.8.1 General. Any structure may be, and certain
vertical irregularity of Type 1, 2, or 3 as defined in
structures defined below shall be, designed using the dy-
Table 104-4 or structures having irregular features not
namic lateral force procedures of Section 106.
described in Tables 104-4 or 104-5 except as
104.8.2 Simplified Static. Except in structures us- permitted by Section 105.4.2.
ing moment-resisting frame systems or cantilevered col- 3. Structures over five stories or 65 feet (19 812 mm)) in
umn systems, the simplified static lateral force procedure height in Seismic Zone 3 and 4 not having the same
set forth in Section 105.2.3 may be used for the following structural system throughout their height except as
structures of Occupancy Categories 4 or 5: permitted by Section 105.4.2.
1. Single-family dwellings not over two stories in height 4. Structures, regular or irregular, located on Soil Profile
excluding basements. This class of buildings may Type SF that have a period greater than 0.7 second.
have single story moment-resisting frames or
The analysis shall include the effects of soils at the site
cantilever columns supporting roofs along a single
and shall conform to Section 106.2, Item 4.
line of lateral load resistance, such as in a garage
opening, provided that drift is calculated along that 104.9 System Limitations
line in accordance with Section 105.9 and conforms to 104.9.1 Discontinuity. Structures with a disconti-
the limits prescribed by Section 105.10. nuity in capacity, vertical irregularity Type 5 as defined in
2. Buildings of any occupancy that use light frame shear Table 104-4 shall not be over two stories or 30 feet (9144
panel construction, including single-family dwellings, mm) in height where the weak story has a calculated
not more than three stories in height, excluding strength of less than 65 percent of the story above.
basements.
Exception: Where the weak story is capable of
8 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Requirements §104.9.2
resisting a total lateral seismic force of Ωo times the

design force prescribed in Section 105. Em = ΩoEh Eqn. 105-2
104.9.2 Undefined Structural Systems. For unde- where:
fined structural systems not listed in Table 104-6, the co-
E = the earthquake load on an element of the structure
efficients Ro and Rd shall be substantiated by approved
resulting from the combination of the horizontal
cyclic test data and analyses. The following items shall be component, Eh, and the vertical component, Ev.
addressed when establishing Ro and Rd:
Eh = the earthquake load due to the base shear, V, as set
1. Dynamic response characteristics.
forth in Section 105.2 or the design lateral force,
2. Lateral force resistance.
Fp, as set forth in Section 107.
3. Overstrength and strain hardening or softening.
4. Strength and stiffness degradation. Em = the estimated maximum earthquake force that can
5. Energy dissipation characteristics. be developed in the structure as set forth in
Section 105.1.1.
6. System ductility.
7. Redundancy. Ev = the load effect resulting from the vertical
component of the earthquake ground motion and
104.9.3 Irregular Features. All structures having ir-
is equal to an addition of 0.5CaID to the factored
regular features described in Table 104-4, or 104-5 shall
be designed to meet the additional requirements of those dead load effect, 1.2D in Equation 101-5. Ev does
Section referred to in the tables. not apply to Equation 101-6, and may be taken as
zero for allowable stress design.
104.10 Alternative Procedures
Ωo = is the seismic force amplification factor required
104.10.1 Alternative lateral force proce-
General.
to account for structural overstrength and is set
dures using rational analyses based on well established
forth in Section 105.3.1.
principles of mechanics may be used in lieu of those pre-
scribed in these provisions. ρ = reliability/redundancy factor as given by the
104.10.2 Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation following formula:
Systems. Seismic isolation, energy dissipation and 20
damping systems may be used in the design of structures ρ = 2 – ---------------------- Eqn. 105-3
when approved by the building official and when special r max A B
detailing is used to provide results equivalent to those ob- for SI:
tained by the use of conventional structural systems. For
6.1
alternate design procedures on seismic isolation systems, ρ = 2 – ----------------------
refer to Section 150, General Requirements for Seis- r max A B
mic-Isolated Structures. For design procedures for passive
energy dissipation systems in structures not utilizing seis- except that ρ shall not be taken as less than 1.0 and need
mic isolation, refer to Appendix H, Passive Energy Dissi- not be greater than 1.5.
pation Systems. where:
AB = ground floor area of the structure in square
105 UBC §1630 Minimum Design
feet (m2).
Lateral Forces and Related Effects
Exception: AB may be taken as the average floor
105.1 Earthquake Loads and Modeling
area in the upper setback portion of the building where
Requirements
a larger base area exists at ground floor.
105.1.1 Earthquake Loads. Structures shall be de-
rmax = maximum element-story shear ratio.
signed for ground motion producing structural response
and seismic forces in any horizontal direction. The follow- For a given direction of loading, the element-story
ing earthquake loads shall be used in the load combina- shear ratio is the ratio of the design story shear in the most
tions set forth in Section 101.7: heavily loaded single element divided by the total design
E = ρEh + Ev Eqn. 105-1 story shear. For any given story level i, the element-story
September 1999 9
shear ratio is denoted as ri. The maximum element-story Seismic dead load, W, is the total dead load and appli-
shear ratio rmax is defined as the largest of the element sto- cable portions of other loads listed below.
ry shear ratios, ri, which occurs in any of the story levels 1. In storage and warehouse occupancies, a minimum of
at or below the two-thirds height level of the building. 25 percent of the floor live load shall be applicable.
2. Where a partition load is used in the floor design, a
For braced frames the value of ri is equal to the max- load of not less than 10 pounds per square foot (psf)
imum horizontal force component in a single brace ele-
(0.48 kN/m2) shall be included.
ment divided by the total story shear.
3. Design snow loads of 30 pounds per square foot (psf)
For moment frames ri shall be taken as the maximum (1.44 kN/m2) or less need not be included. Where
of the sum of the shears in any two adjacent columns in a
design snow loads exceed 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) the
moment frame bay divided by the story shear. For columns
design snow load shall be included, but may be
common to two bays with moment resisting connections
reduced up to 75 percent where considerations of
on opposite sides at level i in the direction under consider-
siting, configuration and load duration warrant when
ation, 70 percent of the shear in that column may be used
approved by the building official.
in the column shear summation.
4. Total weight of permanent equipment shall be
For shear walls, ri shall be taken as the maximum included.
value of the product of the wall shear multiplied by 10/lw 105.1.2 Modeling Requirements. The mathemati-
(for SI:3.05/lw) and divided by the total story shear, where cal model of the physical structure shall include all ele-
lw is the length of the wall in feet (m). The value of the ra- ments of the lateral force resisting system. The model shall
tio of 10/lw need not be taken as greater than 1.0. also include the stiffness and strength of elements signifi-
cant to the distribution of forces and shall represent the
For dual systems, ri shall be taken as the maximum spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of the struc-
value of ri as defined above considering all lateral load re- ture. In addition, the model shall comply with the follow-
sisting elements. The lateral loads shall be distributed to ing:
elements based on relative rigidities considering the inter- 1. Stiffness properties of reinforced concrete and
action of the dual system. For dual systems, the value of ρ masonry elements shall consider the effects of cracked
need not exceed 80 percent of the value calculated above. sections.
2. For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of
For special moment resisting frames, except when
panel zone deformations to overall story drift shall be
used in dual systems, ρ shall not exceed 1.25. The number
included.
of bays of special moment resisting frames shall be in-
creased to reduce r such that ρ is less than or equal to 1.25. 105.1.3 P-delta Effects. The resulting member
forces and moments and the story drifts induced by P∆ ef-
When calculating drift, or when the structure is locat- fects shall be considered in the evaluation of overall struc-
ed in Seismic Zones 0, 1 or 2, ρ shall be taken equal to 1. tural frame stability and shall be evaluated using the forces
Also for the following conditions: producing the displacements of ∆S. P∆ need not be consid-
ρ = 1 for design of cantilever column elements. ered when the ratio of secondary moment to primary mo-
ment does not exceed 0.10; the ratio may be evaluated for
ρ = 1 for design of diaphragms, except diaphragms
any story as the product of the total unfactored dead, floor
that transfer forces between offset lateral force live and snow load above the story times the seismic drift
resisting systems per Table 16-L, Item 4. in that story divided by the product of the seismic shear in
ρ = 1 for design of non-building structures and non- that story times the height of that story. In Seismic Zones
structural elements. 3 and 4, P∆ need not be considered when the story drift ra-
tio does not exceed 0.02I/Rd Ro.
The ground motion producing lateral response and de-
sign seismic forces may be assumed to act nonconcurrent- 105.2 Static Force Procedure
ly in the direction of each principal axis of the structure, 105.2.1 Design Base Shear. The total design base
except as required by Section 106.6 and Section 108.1. shear in a given direction shall be determined from the fol-
lowing formulas:
10 September 1999
Cv in a properly substantiated analysis. The analysis shall

V = ------------------ W Eqn. 105-4 be in accordance with the requirements of Section
( R ⁄ I )T
105.1.2. The value of T from Method B shall not
where: exceed a value 30 percent greater than the value of T
obtained from Method A in Seismic Zone 4 and 40
R = Rd Ro Eqn. 105-5
percent in Seismic Zones 1, 2 and 3.
The total design base shear need not exceed the fol- The fundamental period T may be computed by using
lowing: the following formula:
2.5C a
V = -------------- W Eqn. 105-6  n 2  n 
(R ⁄ I) T = 2π  ∑ w i δ i  ÷  g ∑ f i δ i Eqn. 105-10
i= 1   i=1 
The total design base shear shall not be less than the
The values of fi represent any lateral force distributed
following:
approximately in accordance with the principles of
V = 0.11C a IW Eqn. 105-7a Equations 105-14, 105-15 and 105-16 or any other
rational distribution. The elastic deflections δi shall be
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear
calculated using the applied lateral forces fi.
shall also not be less than the following:
0.8ZN v 105.2.3 Simplified Design Base Shear
V = ----------------- W Eqn. 105-7b 105.2.3.1 General. Structures conforming to the
(R ⁄ I)
requirements of Section 104.8.2 may be designed using
105.2.2 Structure Period. The value of T shall be this procedure.
determined from one of the following methods:
105.2.3.2 Base Shear. The total design base
1. Method A. For all buildings, the value T may be
approximated from the following formula: shear in a given direction shall be determined from the fol-
lowing formula:
3⁄4
T = Ct ( hn ) Eqn. 105-8 V = 0.8C a W Eqn. 105-11
where: where the value of Ca shall be based on Table 104-9 for the
Ct = 0.035 (0.0853) for steel moment-resisting Soil Profile Type and a near source factor Na = 1.0. When
frames. the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to de-
Ct = 0.030 (0.0731) for reinforced concrete termine the Soil Profile Type, Type SD shall be used in
moment-resisting frames and eccentrically Seismic Zones 3 and 4 and Type SE shall be used in Seis-
braced frames. mic Zones 1, 2A and 2B.
Ct = 0.020 (0.0488) for all other buildings. 105.2.3.3 Vertical Distribution. The forces at
Alternatively, the value of Ct for structures with each level shall be calculated using the following formula:
concrete or masonry shear walls may be taken F x = 0.8C a w x Eqn. 105-12
as 0.1 ⁄ A c (For SI: 0.0743 ⁄ A c for A c in m2). where the value of Ca shall be based on Table 104-9 for the
The value of A c shall be determined from the Soil Profile Type and a near source factor Na = 1.0. When
following formula: the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to de-
termine the Soil Profile Type, Type SD may be used in
A c = ∑ A e [ 0.2 + ( D e ⁄ h n ) ]
2
Eqn. 105-9 Seismic Zones 3 and 4 and Type SE shall be used in Seis-
The value of De /h n used in Equation 105-9 shall not mic Zones 1, 2A and 2B.
exceed 0.9. 105.2.3.4 Applicability. Sections 105.1.2,
2. Method B. The fundamental period T may be 105.1.3, 105.2.1, 105.2.2, 105.5, 105.9, 105.10 and 106
calculated using the structural properties and shall not apply when using the simplified procedure.
deformational characteristics of the resisting elements Where required, Ωo shall be equal to 3.0. Where used, ∆M
September 1999 11
§105.3 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
shall be taken equal to 0.01 times the story height of all shall be those determined from the analysis of the
stories. In Section 108.2.9, Equation 108-1 shall read upper portion amplified by the ratio of (R/ρ) of the
Fpx = 0.8Cawpx . upper portion over (R/ρ) of the lower portion.
105.3 Determination of Seismic Factors 105.4.3 Combinations Along Different Axes. In
Seismic Zones 3 and 4 where a structure has a bearing wall
105.3.1 Determination of Ω o . For specific ele- system in only one direction, the value of R used for design
ments of the structure, as specifically identified in this in the orthogonal direction shall not be greater than that
code, the minimum design strength shall be the product of used for the bearing wall system.
the seismic force overstrength factor Ωo and the design
Any combination of bearing wall systems, building
seismic forces set forth in Section 105. For both allowable frame systems, dual systems, or moment-resisting frame
stress design and strength design, the Seismic Force Over- systems may be used to resist seismic forces in structures
strength Factor, Ωo shall be determined as follows: less than 160 feet (48 768 mm) in height. Only combina-
Ω o = 1.1R o Eqn. 105-13 tions of dual systems and special moment-resisting frames
shall be used to resist seismic forces in structures exceed-
Values for Ω o are provided in Table 104-6. ing 160 feet (48 768 mm) in height in Seismic Zones 3
and 4.
105.3.2 Determination of Ro and Rd . The terms Ro
105.4.4 Combinations Along the Same Axes. For
and Rd shall be taken from Table 104-6. Values of the
other than dual systems, where a combination of different
product of Ro and Rd (which is R) are provided in Table structural systems is utilized to resist lateral forces in the
104-6. same direction, the value of R used in that direction shall
105.4 Combinations of Structural not be greater than the least values for any of the systems
Systems utilized in that same direction.
105.4.1 General. Where combinations of structural Exception: For light frame buildings in occupancy
systems are incorporated into the same structure, the re- groups 4 and 5 and of two stories or less in height, the
quirements of this Subsection shall be satisfied. lateral force resisting elements are permitted to be
designed using the least value of R for the different
105.4.2 Vertical Combinations. The value of R
structural systems found on each independent line of
used in the design of any story shall be less than or equal resistance. The value of R used for design of
to the value of R used in the given direction for the story diaphragms for a given direction of loading in such
above. structures shall not be greater than the least value used
Exception: This requirement need not be applied to for any of the systems in that same direction.
a story where the dead weight above that story is less
105.5 Vertical Distribution of Force
than 10 percent of the total dead weight of the
structure. The total force shall be distributed over the height of the
structure in conformance with Equations 105-14, 105-15
Structures may be designed using the procedures of and 105-17 in the absence of a more rigorous procedure.
this Section under the following conditions:
1. The entire structure is designed using the lowest R of n
V = Ft + ∑ Fi Eqn. 105-14
the lateral force-resisting systems used or, i=1
2. The following two-stage static analysis procedures
may be used for structures conforming to Section The concentrated force Ft at the top, which is in addi-
104.8.3, Item 4. tion to Fn, shall be determined from the formula:
2.1. The flexible upper portion shall be designed as a
F t = 0.07TV Eqn. 105-15
separate structure, supported laterally by the rigid
lower portion, using the appropriate values of R The value of T used for the purpose of calculating Ft
and ρ.
shall be the period that corresponds with the design base
2.2. The rigid lower portion shall be designed as a shear as computed using Equation 105-4. Ft need not ex-
separate structure using the appropriate values of
ceed 0.25V and may be considered as zero where T is 0.7
R and ρ. The reactions from the upper portion
seconds or less. The remaining portion of the base shear
12 September 1999
shall be distributed over the height of the structure, includ- design lateral forces at levels above that story and the ver-
ing Level n, according to the formula: tical resisting elements in that story plus an accidental tor-
sion.
( V – F t )w x h x
F x = -------------------------------
- Eqn. 105-16 The accidental torsional moment shall be determined
n
∑ wi hi by assuming the mass is displaced as required by Section
i=1
105.6.
At each level designated as x, the force Fx shall be ap- Where torsional irregularity exists, as defined in Table
plied over the area of the building in accordance with the 104-5, the effects shall be accounted for by increasing the
mass distribution at that level. Structural displacements accidental torsion at each level by an amplification factor
and design seismic forces shall be calculated as the effect Ax, determined from the following formula:
of forces Fx and Ft applied at the appropriate levels above
δ max 2
the base. Ax = ----------------
- Eqn. 105-17
1.2δ avg
105.6 Horizontal Distribution of Shear
where:
The design story shear Vx, in any story is the sum of the
forces Ft and Fx above that story. Vx shall be distributed to δavg = the average of the displacements at the extreme
the various elements of the vertical lateral force resisting points of the structure at Level x.
system in proportion to their rigidities, considering the ri- δmax = the maximum displacement at Level x.
gidity of the diaphragm. See Section 108.2.4 for rigid ele-
The value of Ax need not exceed 3.0.
ments that are not intended to be part of the lateral force
resisting systems. 105.8 Overturning
Where diaphragms are not flexible, the mass at each 105.8.1 General. Every structure shall be designed
level shall be assumed to be displaced from the calculated to resist the overturning effects caused by earthquake
center of mass in each direction a distance equal to 5 per- forces specified in Section 105.5. At any level, the over-
cent of the building dimension at that level perpendicular turning moments to be resisted shall be determined using
to the direction of the force under consideration. The effect those seismic forces (Ft and Fx) that act on levels above the
of this displacement on the story shear distribution shall be level under consideration. At any level, the incremental
considered. Where forces are applied concurrently in two changes of the design overturning moment shall be distrib-
orthogonal directions, the required 5 percent displacement uted to the various resisting elements in the manner pre-
of the center of mass should be applied for only one of the scribed in Section 105.6. Overturning effects on every
orthogonal directions at a time. element shall be carried down to the foundation. See Sec-
tion 101.7 and Section 104.1 for combining gravity and
Diaphragms shall be considered flexible for the pur-
seismic forces.
poses of distribution of story shear and torsional moment
when the maximum lateral deformation of the diaphragms 105.8.2 Elements Supporting Discontinuous
is more than two times the average story drift of the asso- Systems
ciated story. This may be determined by comparing the 105.8.2.1 General. Where any portion of the lat-
computed midpoint in-plane deflection of the diaphragm eral load resisting system is discontinuous, such as for ver-
itself under lateral load with the story drift of adjoining tical irregularity Type 4 in Table 104-4 or plan irregularity
vertical resisting elements under equivalent tributary later- Type 4 in Table 104-5, concrete, masonry, steel, and wood
al load. elements supporting such discontinuous systems shall
105.7 Horizontal Torsional Moments have the design strength to resist the special seismic load
combinations of Section 101.7.4.
Provisions shall be made for the increased shears resulting
from horizontal torsion where diaphragms are not flexible. Exceptions:
The most severe load combination for each element shall 1. The quantity Em in Section 101.7.4 need not
be considered for design. exceed the maximum force that can be transferred
The torsional design moment at a given story shall be to the element by the lateral force resisting system.
the moment resulting from eccentricities between applied
September 1999 13
§105.8.2.2 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
2. Concrete slabs supporting light-frame wood shear 105.9 Drift

wall systems or light-frame steel and wood Drift or horizontal displacements of the structure shall be
structural panel shear wall systems. computed where required by this code. For both allowable
For allowable stress design, the design strength may stress design and strength design, the maximum inelastic
be determined using an allowable stress increase of 1.7 response displacement, ∆M, of the structure caused by the
and a resistance factor φ of 1.0. This increase shall not be Design Basis Ground Motion shall be determined in accor-
combined with the one-third stress increase permitted by dance with this section. The drifts corresponding to the de-
Section 101.7.3.2, but may be combined with the duration sign seismic forces of Section 105.2.1, ∆S, shall be
of load increase permitted in the 1997 UBC Chapter 23, determined in accordance with Section 105.9.1. To deter-
Division III. mine ∆M, these drifts shall be amplified in accordance with
105.8.2.2 Detailing Requirements in Seismic
Section 105.9.2.
Zones 3 and 4. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, elements sup- 105.9.1 Determination of ∆S. A static, elastic anal-
porting discontinuous systems shall meet the following de- ysis of the lateral force resisting system shall be prepared
tailing or member limitations: using the design seismic forces from Section 105.2.1 and
1. Reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry elements 105.5. Alternatively, dynamic analysis may be performed
designed primarily as axial load members shall in accordance with Section 106. The mathematical model
comply with UBC §1921.4.4.5. shall comply with Section 105.1.2. The resulting deforma-
2. Reinforced concrete elements designed primarily as tions, denoted as ∆S, shall be determined at all critical lo-
flexural members and supporting other than light- cations in the structure. Calculated drift shall include
frame wood shear wall systems or light-frame steel translational and torsional deflections.
and wood structural panel shear wall systems shall 105.9.2 Determination of ∆M. The maximum in-
comply with UBC §§1921.3.2 and 1921.3.3. Strength elastic response displacements, ∆M, shall be computed as
computations for portions of slabs designed as
follows:
supporting elements shall include only those portions
of the slab that comply with the requirements of these ∆ M = 0.7R∆ s Eqn. 105-18
UBC sections.
Exception: Alternatively, ∆M may be computed by
3. Masonry elements designed primarily as axial load
carrying members shall comply with UBC nonlinear time history analysis in accordance with
§2106.1.12.4, Item 1, and UBC §2108.2.6.2.6. Section 106.6.
4. Masonry elements designed primarily as flexural The analysis used to determine the maximum inelastic
members shall comply with UBC §2108.2.6.2.5. response displacement ∆M shall consider P∆ effects.
5. Steel elements designed primarily as flexural 105.10 Story Drift Limitation
members or trusses shall have bracing for both top and
bottom beam flanges or chords at the location of the 105.10.1 Story drifts shall be computed using the max-
support of the discontinuous system and shall comply imum inelastic response displacement, ∆M.
with AISC Seismic 97 Part I, Section 9.4b 105.10.2 Calculated story drift using ∆M, shall not ex-
6. Horizontal bracing that transfers forces between ceed 0.025 times the story height for structures having a
horizontally offset vertical lateral force resisting fundamental period of less than 0.7 second. For structures
elements shall be designed using the special seismic having a fundamental period of 0.7 seconds or greater, the
load combinations of Section 101.7.4. calculated story drift shall not exceed 0.020 times the story
7. Wood elements designed primarily as flexural height.
members shall be provided with lateral bracing or Exceptions:
solid blocking at each end of the element and at the
1. These drift limits may be exceeded when it is
connection locations(s) of the discontinuous system.
demonstrated that greater drift can be tolerated by
105.8.3 At Foundation. See Section 104.1 and both structural elements and nonstructural
UBC §1809.4 for overturning moments to be resisted at elements that could affect life safety. The drift
the foundation soil interface. used in this assessment shall be based upon the
maximum inelastic response displacement ∆M.
14 September 1999
2. There shall be no drift limit in single-story steel acceleration ordinates shall be multiplied by the
framed structures classified as Groups B, F, and S acceleration of gravity, 386.4 in/sec2 (9.815 m/sec2 ).
Occupancies or Group H, Division 4 or 5 2. A site-specific elastic design response spectrum based
Occupancies. In Group B, F, and S Occupancies, on geologic, tectonic, seismologic and soil
the primary use shall be limited to storage, characteristics associated with the specific site. The
factories, or workshops. Minor accessory uses spectrum shall be developed for a damping ratio of
shall be allowed in accordance with the 0.05 unless a different value is shown to be consistent
provisions of UBC §302. Structures on which this with the anticipated structural behavior at the intensity
exception is used shall not have equipment of shaking established for the site.
attached to the structural frame or shall have such
3. Ground motion time histories developed for the
equipment detailed to accommodate the
specific site shall be representative of actual
additional drift. Walls that are laterally supported
earthquake motions. Response spectra from time
by the steel frame shall be designed to
histories, either individually or in combination, shall
accommodate the drift, in accordance with
approximate the site design spectrum conforming to
Section 108.2.4.
Section 106.2, Item 2.
105.10.3 The design lateral forces used to determine 4. For structures on Soil Profile Type SF, the following
the calculated drift may disregard the limitation of Equa-
requirements shall apply when required by Section
tion 105-7a and may be based on the period determined
104.8.4, Item 4.
from Equation 105-10, neglecting the 30 or 40 percent
limitation of Section 105.2.2, Item 2. 4.1 The ground motion representation shall be
developed in accordance with Items 2 and 3
105.11 Vertical Component above.
The following requirements apply in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.2 Possible amplification of building response due
4 only. Horizontal cantilever components shall be de- to the effects of soil-structure interaction and
signed for a net upward force of 0.7CaIWp. lengthening of building period caused by
inelastic behavior shall be considered.
In addition to all other applicable load combinations,
horizontal prestressed components shall be designed using 5. The vertical component of ground motion may be
not more than 50 percent of the dead load for the gravity defined by scaling corresponding horizontal
load, alone or in combination with the lateral force effects. accelerations by a factor of two-thirds. Alternative
factors may be utilized when substantiated by
106 UBC §1631 Dynamic Analysis site-specific data. Where the near source factor, Na is
Procedures greater than 1.0, site specific vertical response spectra
shall be used in lieu of the factor of two-thirds.
106.1 General
106.3 Mathematical Model
Dynamic analysis procedures, when used, shall conform to A mathematical model of the physical structure shall rep-
the criteria established in this section. The analysis shall be resent the spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of
based on an appropriate ground motion representation and
the structure to an extent that is adequate for the calcula-
shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics.
tion of the significant features of its dynamic response. A
Structures that are designed in accordance with this Sec-
three-dimensional model shall be used for the dynamic
tion shall comply with all other applicable requirements of analysis of structures with highly irregular plan configura-
these provisions. tions such as those having a plan irregularity defined in
106.2 Ground Motion Table 104-5 and having a rigid or semi-rigid diaphragm.
The ground motion representation shall, as a minimum, be The stiffness properties used in the analysis and general
one having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in mathematical modeling shall be in accordance with Sec-
50 years, shall not be reduced by the quantity R and may tion 105.1.2.
be one of the following: 106.4 Description of Analysis Procedures
1. An elastic design response spectrum constructed in 106.4.1 Response Spectrum Analysis. An elastic
accordance with Figure 106-1, using the values of Ca dynamic analysis of a structure utilizing the peak dynamic
and Cv consistent with the specific site. The design response of all modes having a significant contribution to
September 1999 15
total structural response. Peak modal responses are calcu- than 80 percent of the base shear determined in
lated using the ordinates of the appropriate response spec- accordance with Section 105.2.
trum curve that correspond to the modal periods. 3. For all irregular structures, regardless of the ground
Maximum modal contributions are combined in a statisti- motion representation, Elastic Response Parameters
cal manner to obtain an approximate total structural re- may be reduced such that the corresponding design
sponse. base shear is not less than 100 percent of the base
106.4.2 Time-History Analysis. An analysis of the shear determined in accordance with Section 105.2.
dynamic response of a structure at each increment of time The corresponding reduced design seismic forces are
when the base is subjected to a specific ground motion the earthquake loads Eh for use in Sections 101.7 and
time history.
105.1. The corresponding reduced displacements are the
106.5 Response Spectrum Analysis drifts ∆ s for use in Section 105.9.
106.5.1 Response Spectrum Representation and
106.5.5 Directional Effects. Directional effects for
Interpretation of Results. The ground motion representa-
horizontal ground motion shall conform to the require-
tion shall be in accordance with Section 106.2. The corre-
ments of Section 105.1. The effects of vertical ground mo-
sponding response parameters, including forces, moments
tions on horizontal cantilevers and prestressed elements
and displacements, shall be denoted as Elastic Response
shall be considered in accordance with Section 105.11. Al-
Parameters. Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced
ternately, vertical seismic response may be determined by
in accordance with Section 106.5.4.
dynamic response methods; in no case shall the response
106.5.2 Number of Modes. The requirement of used for design be less than that obtained by the static
Section 106.4.1 that all significant modes be included may method.
be satisfied by demonstrating that for the modes consid-
106.5.6 Torsion. The analysis shall account for tor-
ered, at least 90 percent of the participating mass of the
sional effects, including accidental torsional effects as pre-
structure is included in the calculation of response for each
scribed in Section 105.7. Where three-dimensional models
principal horizontal direction.
are used for analysis, effects of accidental torsion shall be
106.5.3 Combining Modes. The peak member accounted for by appropriate adjustments in the model
forces, displacements, story forces, story shears, and base such as adjustment of mass locations, or by equivalent
reactions for each mode shall be combined by recognized static procedures such as provided in Section 105.6.
methods. When three dimensional models are used for
106.5.7 Dual Systems. Where the lateral forces are
analysis, modal interaction effects shall be considered
resisted by a dual system as defined in Section 104.6.5, the
when combining modal maxima.
combined system shall be capable of resisting the base
106.5.4 Reduction of Elastic Response Parame- shear determined in accordance with this section. The mo-
ters for Design. Elastic Response Parameters may be ment-resisting frame shall conform to Section 104.6.5,
reduced for purposes of design in accordance with the fol- Item 2 and may be analyzed using either the procedures of
lowing Items 1, 2 and 3 with the limitation that in no case Section 105.5 or those of Section 106.5.
shall the Elastic Response Parameters be reduced such that
the corresponding design base shear is less than the Elastic 106.6 Time-History Analysis
Response Base Shear divided by the value of R. 106.6.1 Time-History. Time-history analysis shall
1. For all regular structures where the ground motion be performed with pairs of appropriate horizontal ground
representation complies with Section 106.2, Item 1, motion time-history components, that shall be selected and
Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced such scaled from not less than three recorded events. Appropri-
that the corresponding design base shear is not less ate time histories shall have magnitudes, fault distances
than 90 percent of the base shear determined in and source mechanisms that are consistent with those that
accordance with Section 105.2. control the design basis earthquake (or maximum capable
2. For all regular structures where the ground motion earthquake). Where three appropriate recorded ground
representation complies with Section 106.2, Item 2, motion time history pairs are not available, appropriate
Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced such simulated ground motion time history pairs may be used to
that the corresponding design base shear is not less make up the total number required.
16 September 1999
For each pair of horizontal ground motion compo- 3. Review of the final design of the lateral force resisting
nents, the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of system and all supporting analyses.
the 5-percent-damped site specific spectrum of the scaled The Engineer of Record shall submit with the plans and
horizontal components shall be constructed. The motions calculations a statement by all members of the engineering
shall be scaled such that the average value of the SRSS team doing the review stating that the above review has
spectra does not fall below 1.4 times the 5-percent-damped been performed.
spectrum of the design basis earthquake for periods from
0.2T seconds to 1.5T seconds. Each pair of time histories 107 UBC §1632 Lateral Force on
shall be applied simultaneously to the model considering
torsional effects, as prescribed in Section 105.6.
Elements of Structures,
Nonstructural Components,
The parameter of interest shall be calculated for each
and Equipment Supported by
time-history analysis. If three time-history analyses are
performed, then the maximum response of the parameter Structures
of interest shall be used for design. If seven or more 107.1 General
time-history analyses are performed, then the average val-
Elements of structures and their attachments, permanent
ue of the response parameter of interest may be used for
nonstructural components and their attachments, and the
design, as prescribed in Section 105.6.
attachments for permanent equipment supported by a
106.6.2 Elastic Time-History Analysis. Elastic structure shall be designed to resist the total design seismic
time history shall conform to Sections 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, forces prescribed in Section 107.2. Attachments for floor-
106.5.2, 106.5.4, 106.5.5, 106.5.6, 106.5.7 and 106.6.1. or roof-mounted equipment weighing less than 400
Response parameters from elastic time-history analysis pounds (181 kg), and furniture need not be designed.
shall be denoted as Elastic Response Parameters. All ele-
ments shall be designed using strength design. Elastic Re- Attachments shall include anchorages and required
sponse Parameters may be scaled in accordance with bracing. Friction resulting from gravity loads shall not be
Section 106.5.4. considered to provide resistance to seismic forces. When
the structural failure of the lateral force-resisting systems
106.6.3 Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
of nonrigid equipment would cause a life hazard, such sys-
106.6.3.1 Nonlinear Time-History. Nonlinear tems shall be designed to resist the seismic forces pre-
time-history analysis shall meet the requirements of Sec- scribed in Section 107.2.
tion 104.10 and time histories shall be developed and re-
When permissible design strengths and other accep-
sults determined in accordance with the requirements of
tance criteria are not contained in or referenced by this
Section 106.6.1. Capacities and characteristics of nonlin-
code, such criteria shall be obtained from approved nation-
ear elements shall be modeled consistent with test data or
al standards subject to the approval of the building official.
substantiated analysis, considering the importance factor.
The maximum inelastic response displacement shall not be 107.2 Design for Total Lateral Force
reduced and shall comply with Section 105.10. The total design lateral seismic force, Fp, shall be deter-
106.6.3.2 Design Review. When nonlinear time mined from the following formula:
history analysis is used to justify a structural design, a de- F p = 4.0C a I p W p Eqn. 107-1
sign review of the lateral force resisting system shall be
performed by an independent engineering team including Alternatively, Fp may be calculated using the follow-
persons licensed in the appropriate disciplines and experi- ing formula:
enced in seismic analysis methods. The lateral force resist-
apCa Ip h
ing system design review shall include, but not be limited -  1 + 3 ----x- W
F p = ---------------- Eqn. 107-2
to, the following: Rp  h r p
1. Review the development of site-specific spectra and
Except that Fp shall not be less than 0.7CaIpWp, and
ground motion time histories.
need not be more than 4CaIpWp.
2. Review of the preliminary design of the lateral force
resisting system.
September 1999 17
where: 107.5 Alternative Designs

hx = element or component attachment elevation with Where an approved national standard or approved physical
respect to grade. hx shall not be taken less than test data provide a basis for the earthquake-resistant design
0.0. of a particular type of equipment or other nonstructural
component, such a standard or data may be accepted as a
hr = structure roof elevation with respect to grade. basis for design of the items with the following limitations:
ap = in-structure component amplification factor that 1. These provisions shall provide minimum values for
varies from1.0 to 2.5 the design of the anchorage and the members and
connections that transfer the forces to the seismic
A value for ap shall be selected from Table 104-7. Al- resisting system.
ternatively, this factor may be determined based on the dy- 2. The force, Fp, and the overturning moment used in the
namic properties or empirical data of the component and
design of the nonstructural component shall not be
the structure that supports it. The value shall not be taken
less than 80 percent of the values that would be
less than 1.0.
obtained using these provisions.
Rp is the component response modification factor that
shall be taken from Table 104-7, except that Rp for anchor- 108 UBC §1633 Detailed Systems
ages shall equal 1.5 for shallow expansion anchor bolts, Design Requirements
shallow chemical anchors, or shallow cast-in-place an-
108.1 General
chors. Shallow anchors are those with an embedment
length-to-diameter ratio of less than 8. Where anchorage is All structural framing systems shall comply with the re-
constructed of nonductile materials or by use of adhesive, quirements of Section 104. Only the elements of the des-
Rp shall equal 1.0. ignated seismic force resisting system shall be used to
resist design seismic forces. The individual components
The design lateral forces determined using shall be designed to resist the prescribed design seismic
Equation 107-1 or 107-2 shall be distributed in proportion forces acting on them. The components shall also comply
to the mass distribution of the element or component. with the specific requirements for the material contained
Forces determined using Equation 107-1 or 107-2 in Chapters 4 through 9. In addition such framing systems
shall be used to design members and connections that and components shall comply with the detailed system de-
transfer these forces to the seismic resisting systems. sign requirements contained in Section 108.
Members and connection design shall use the load combi- All building components in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4
nations and factors specified in Section 101.7. The reli- shall be designed to resist the effects of the seismic forces
ability/redundancy factor, ρ, may be taken equal to 1.0. prescribed herein and the effects of gravity loadings from
For applicable forces and component response modi- dead, floor live and snow loads.
fication factors in connectors for exterior panels and dia- Consideration shall be given to design for uplift ef-
phragms, refer to Sections 108.2.4, 108.2.8 and 108.2.9. fects caused by seismic loads.
Forces shall be applied in the horizontal direction that re- In Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, provision shall be made
sults in the most critical loadings for design. for the effects of earthquake forces acting in a direction
107.3 Specifying Lateral Forces other than the principal axes in each of the following cir-
Design specifications for equipment shall either specify cumstances:
the design lateral forces prescribed herein or reference The structure has plan irregularity Type 5 as given in
these provisions. Table 104-5.
107.4 Relative Motion of Equipment The structure has plan irregularity Type 1 as given in
Attachments Table 104-5 for both major axes.
For equipment in Category 1 and 2 buildings as defined in A column of a structure forms part of two or more in-
Table 104-3, the lateral force design shall consider the ef- tersecting lateral force resisting systems.
fects of relative motion of the points of attachment to the
structure, using the drift based upon ∆M. Exception: If the axial load in the column due to
seismic forces acting in either direction is less than 20
18 September 1999
percent of the column axial load capacity. ered in the evaluation, provided the assumed calculated ca-
pacities are consistent with member and connection design
The requirement that orthogonal effects be considered
and detailing.
may be satisfied by designing such elements for 100 per-
cent of the prescribed design seismic forces in one direc- For concrete and masonry elements that are part of the
tion plus 30 percent of the prescribed design seismic forces lateral force resisting system, the assumed flexural and
in the perpendicular direction. The combination requiring shear stiffness properties shall not exceed one-half of the
the greater component strength shall be used for design. gross Section properties unless a rational cracked-Section
Alternatively, the effects of the two orthogonal directions analysis is performed. Additional deformations that may
may be combined on a square root of the sum of the result from foundation flexibility and diaphragm deflec-
squares (SRSS) basis. When the SRSS method of combin- tions shall be considered. For concrete elements not part of
ing directional effects is used, each term computed shall be the lateral force resisting system, see UBC §1921.7.
assigned the sign that will result in the most conservative
108.2.4.1 Adjoining Rigid Elements. Moment-
result.
resisting frames and shear walls may be enclosed by or ad-
108.2 Structural Framing Systems joined by more rigid elements provided it can be shown
108.2.1 General. Four types of general building that the participation or failure of the more rigid elements
framing systems defined in Section 104.6 are recognized will not impair the vertical and lateral load-resisting ability
in these provisions and shown in Table 104-6. Each type is of the gravity load and lateral force resisting systems. The
subdivided by the types of vertical elements used to resist effects of adjoining rigid elements shall be considered
lateral seismic forces. Special framing requirements are when assessing whether a structure shall be designated
given in this Section and in Chapters 4 through 9. regular or irregular in Section 104.5.1.
108.2.2 Detailing for Combinations of Systems. 108.2.4.2 Exterior Elements. Exterior nonbear-
For components common to different structural systems, ing, nonshear wall panels or elements that are attached to
the more restrictive detailing requirements shall be used. or enclose the exterior shall be designed to resist the forces
108.2.3 Connections. Connections that resist de- per Equation 107-1 or 107-2 and shall accommodate
sign seismic forces shall be designed and detailed on the movements of the structure based on ∆M and temperature
drawings. changes. Such elements shall be supported by means of
cast-in-place concrete or by mechanical connections and
108.2.4 Deformation Compatibility. All structural
fasteners in accordance with the following provisions:
framing elements and their connections, not required by
design to be part of the lateral force resisting system, shall 1. Connections and panel joints shall allow for a relative
be designed and/or detailed to be adequate to maintain movement between stories of not less than two times
support of design dead plus live loads when subjected to the story drift caused by wind, the calculated story
the expected deformations caused by seismic forces. P∆ drift based on ∆M or 1/2 inch (13 mm), whichever is
effects on such elements shall be considered. Expected de- greater.
formations shall be determined as the greater of the maxi- 2. Connections to permit movement in the plane of the
mum inelastic response displacement, ∆M, considering P∆ panel for story drift shall be sliding connections using
effects determined in accordance with Section 105.9.2, or slotted or oversize holes, connections that permit
the deformation induced by a story drift of 0.0025 times movement by bending of steel, or other connections
the story height. When computing expected deformations, providing equivalent sliding and ductility capacity.
the stiffening effect of those elements not part of the lateral 3. Bodies of connections shall have sufficient ductility
force-resisting system shall be neglected. and rotation capacity to preclude fracture of the
For elements not part of the lateral force resisting sys- concrete or brittle failures at or near welds.
tem, the forces induced by the expected deformation may 4. The body of the connection shall be designed for the
be considered as ultimate or factored forces. When com- force determined by Equation 107-2, where Rp=3.0
puting the forces induced by expected deformations, the and ap=1.0.
restraining effect of adjoining rigid structural and non- 5. All fasteners in the connecting system such as bolts,
structural elements shall be considered and a rational value inserts, welds and dowels shall be designed for the
of member and restraint stiffness shall be used. Inelastic
deformations of members and connections may be consid-
September 1999 19
forces determined by Equation 107-2, where Rp=1.0 positive direct connection between the wall and floor or
and ap=1.0. roof construction capable of resisting the larger of the hor-
izontal forces specified in this section, and Section 107
6. Fasteners embedded in concrete shall be attached to,
and in UBC §1611.4. In addition, in Seismic Zones 3 and
or hooked around, reinforcing steel or otherwise
4, diaphragm to wall anchorage using embedded straps
terminated to effectively transfer forces to the
shall have the straps attached to or hooked around the re-
reinforcing steel.
inforcing steel or otherwise terminated to effectively trans-
108.2.5 Ties and Continuity. All parts of a structure fer forces to the reinforcing steel. Walls shall be designed
shall be interconnected and the connections shall be capa- to resist bending between anchors where anchor spacing
ble of transmitting the seismic force induced by the parts exceeds 4 feet. Requirements for developing anchorage
being connected. As a minimum any smaller portion of the forces in diaphragms are given in Section 108.2.8.1 below.
building shall be tied to the remainder of the building with Diaphragm deformation shall be considered in the design
elements having at least a strength to resist 0.5Ca I times of the supported walls.
the weight of the smaller portion.
108.2.8.1 UBC §1633.2.8.1 Out-of-Plane Wall
A positive connection for resisting a horizontal force Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms. This Section shall
acting parallel to the member shall be provided for each apply in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 where flexible dia-
beam, girder or truss. This force shall not be less than phragms, as defined in Section 105.6, provide lateral sup-
0.3CaI times the dead plus live load. port for the walls.
108.2.6 Collector Elements. Collector elements 1. Elements of the wall anchorage system shall be
shall be provided that are capable of transferring the seis- designed for the forces specified in Section 107 where
mic forces originating in other portions of the building to Rp=3.0 and ap=1.5.
the element providing the resistance to those forces. In Seismic Zone 4, the value of Fp used for the design
Collector elements splices and their connections shall of the elements of the wall anchorage system shall not
resist the forces determined in accordance with be less than 420 pounds per lineal foot of wall
Equation 108-1. In addition, collector elements and their substituted for E.
connections to resisting elements shall have the strength to See UBC §1611.4 for minimum design forces in other
resist the combined loads resulting from the special seis- seismic zones.
mic load combinations of Section 101.7. 2. When elements of the wall anchorage system are not
loaded concentrically or are not perpendicular to the
The quantity Em need not exceed the maximum force
wall, the system shall be designed to resist all
that can be transferred to the collector by the diaphragm components of the forces induced by the eccentricity.
and other elements of the lateral force resisting system.
3. When pilasters are present in the wall, the anchorage
For allowable stress design, the design strength may be de-
force at the pilasters shall be calculated considering
termined using an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and a re-
the additional load transferred from the wall panels to
sistance factor, φ , of 1.0. This increase shall not be the pilasters. However, the minimum anchorage force
combined with the one-third stress increase permitted by at a floor or roof shall be that specified in Section
UBC §1612.3, but may be combined with the duration of 108.2.8.1, Item 1.
load increase permitted in Division IV of UBC Chapter 23. 4. The strength design forces for steel elements of the
108.2.7 Concrete Frames. Concrete frames re- wall anchorage system shall be 1.4 times the forces
quired by design to be part of the lateral force resisting sys- otherwise required by this section.
tem shall conform to the following: 5. The strength design force for wood elements of the
1. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4 they shall be special wall anchorage system shall be 0.85 times the forces
moment-resisting frames. otherwise required by this Section and these wood
2. In Seismic Zone 2 they shall, as a minimum, be elements shall have a minimum actual net thickness of
intermediate moment-resisting frames. 2.5 inches (62 mm).
108.2.8 UBC §1633.2.8 Anchorage of Concrete or 108.2.9 Diaphragms
Masonry Walls. Concrete or masonry walls shall be an- 1. The deflection in the plane of the diaphragm shall not
chored to all floors and roofs that provide out-of-plane lat- exceed the permissible deflection of the attached
eral support of the wall. The anchorage shall provide a
20 September 1999
elements. Permissible deflection shall be that increase or the duration of load increase considered in
deflection that will permit the attached element to allowable stresses for elements resisting earthquake
maintain its structural integrity under the individual forces.
loading and continue to support the prescribed loads. 7. In structures in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 having a plan
2. Floor and roof diaphragms shall be designed to resist irregularity of Type 2 in Table 104-5, diaphragm
the design seismic forces determined in accordance chords and drag members shall be designed
with the following formula: considering independent movement of the projecting
n wings of the structure. Each of these diaphragm
F t + ∑ Fi elements shall be designed for the more severe of the
i=x
F px = -------------------------
-w Eqn. 108-1 following two assumptions: 1.) motion of the
n px
∑ wi projecting wings in the same direction; 2.) motion of
i=x the projecting wings in opposing directions.
The force Fpx determined from Equation 108-1 Exception: This requirement may be deemed
need not exceed 1.0CaIwpx, but shall not be less than satisfied if the procedures of Section 106 in
0.5CaIwpx. conjunction with a three-dimensional model have
been used to determine the lateral seismic forces for
When the diaphragm is required to transfer design
design.
seismic forces from the vertical resisting elements
above the diaphragm to other vertical resisting 108.2.10 Framing Below the Base. The strength and
elements below the diaphragm due to offset in the stiffness of the framing between the base and the founda-
placement of the elements or to changes in stiffness in tion shall not be less than that of the superstructure. The
the vertical elements, these forces shall be added to special detailing requirements of UBC Chapters 19 and 22,
those determined from Equation 108-1. as appropriate, shall apply to columns supporting discon-
3. Design seismic forces for flexible diaphragms tinuous lateral force-resisting elements and to SMRF,
providing lateral supports for walls or frames of IMRF, EBF, STMF and MMRWF system elements below
masonry or concrete, shall be determined using the base that are required to transmit the forces resulting
Equation 108-1 based on the load determined in from lateral loads to the foundation.
accordance with Section 105.2 using an R not 108.2.11 Building Separations. All structures shall
exceeding 4. be separated from adjoining structures. Separations shall
4. Diaphragms supporting concrete or masonry walls allow for the displacement ∆M. Adjacent buildings on the
shall have continuous ties or struts between same property shall be separated by at least ∆MT where:
diaphragm chords to distribute the anchorage forces
2 2
specified in Section 108.2.8. Added chords of ∆ MT = ( ∆ M1 ) + ( ∆ M2 ) Eqn. 108-2
subdiaphragms may be used to form subdiaphragms to
transmit the anchorage forces to the main continuous and ∆M1 and ∆M2 are the displacements of the adjacent
crossties. The maximum length to width ratio of the buildings.
wood structural sub diaphragm shall be 21/2:1. When a structure adjoins a property line not common
5. Where wood diaphragms are used to laterally support to a public way, that structure shall also be set back from
concrete or masonry walls, the anchorage shall the property line by at least the displacement ∆M of that
conform to Section 108.2.8 above. In Seismic Zones structure.
2, 3 and 4 anchorage shall not be accomplished by use Exception: Smaller separations or property line
of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal, nor shall setbacks may be permitted when justified by rational
wood ledgers or framing be used in cross-grain analyses based on maximum expected ground
bending or cross-grain tension, and the continuous ties motions.
required by Item 4 above shall be in addition to the
diaphragm sheathing.
6. Connections of diaphragms to the vertical elements in
structures in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 that have a plan
irregularity of Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 (Table 104-5) shall be
designed without considering either the one-third
September 1999 21
109 UBC §1634 shall be considered for structures whose calculated drifts
Nonbuilding Structures exceed the values in Section 105.1.3.
109.1.6 Interaction Effects. In Seismic Zones 3 and
109.1 General
4, structures that support flexible nonstructural elements
109.1.1 Scope. Nonbuilding structures include all whose combined weight exceeds 25 percent of the weight
self-supporting structures other than buildings that carry of the structure shall be designed considering interaction
gravity loads and resist the effects of earthquakes. Non- effects between the structure and the supported elements.
building structures shall be designed to provide the
strength required to resist the displacements induced by 109.2 Lateral Force
the minimum lateral forces specified in this section. De- Lateral force procedures for nonbuilding structures with
sign shall conform to the applicable provisions of other structural systems similar to buildings (those with struc-
sections as modified by the provisions contained in Sec- tural systems that are listed in Table 104-6) shall be se-
tion 109. lected in accordance with the provisions of Section 104.
109.1.2 Criteria. The minimum design seismic Exception: Intermediate moment-resisting frames
forces prescribed in this Section are at a level that produce (IMRF) may be used in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 for
displacements in a fixed base, elastic model of the struc- nonbuilding structures in Occupancy Categories 3 and
ture, comparable to those expected of the real structure 4 if: 1.) the structure is less than 50 feet (15 240 mm)
when responding to the design basis ground motion. Re- in height, and 2.) the value R used in reducing
ductions in these forces, using the coefficient R is permit- calculated member forces and moments does not
ted, where the design of nonbuilding structures provides exceed 2.8.
sufficient strength and ductility, consistent with the provi- 109.3 Rigid Structures
sions specified herein for buildings, to resist the effects of
seismic ground motions as represented by these design Rigid structures (those with period T less than 0.06 sec-
forces. ond), and their anchorages, shall be designed for the lateral
force obtained from Equation 109-1.
When applicable, design strength and other detailed
V = 0.7 Ca IW Eqn. 109-1
design criteria shall be obtained from other sections or
their referenced standards. The design of nonbuilding The force V shall be distributed according to the distribu-
structures shall use the load combinations or factors spection of mass and shall be assumed to act in any horizontal
ified in Section 101.7. For nonbuilding structures designed direction.
using Sections 109.3, 109.4 or 109.5, the reliability/redun-
109.4 Tanks With Supported Bottoms
dancy factor, ρ, may be taken as 1.0.
Flat bottom tanks or other tanks with supported bottoms,
When applicable design strengths and other design founded at or below grade, shall be designed to resist the
criteria are not contained in or referenced by this code, seismic forces calculated using the procedures in Section
such criteria shall be obtained from approved national 109.3 for rigid structures considering the entire weight of
standards. the tank and its contents.Alternatively, such tanks may be
109.1.3 Weight W. The weight, W, for nonbuilding designed using one of the two procedures described below.
structures shall include all dead loads as defined for build- 1. A response spectrum analysis, which includes
ings in Section 105.1.l. For purposes of calculating design consideration of the actual ground motion anticipated
seismic forces in nonbuilding structures, W shall also in- at the site and the inertial effects of the contained
clude all normal operating contents for items such as fluid.
tanks, vessels, bins and piping. 2. A design basis prescribed for the particular type of
109.1.4 Period. The fundamental period of the tank by an approved national standard, provided that
structure shall be determined by rational methods such as the seismic zones and occupancy categories shall be in
by using Method B in Section 105.2.2. conformance with the provisions of Section 104.4 and
109.1.5 Drift. The drift limitations of Section 105.10 104.2, respectively.
need not apply to nonbuilding structures. Drift limitations 109.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures
shall be established for structural or nonstructural ele- Nonbuilding structures not covered by Section 109.3 and
ments whose failure would cause life hazards. P∆ effects 109.4 shall be designed to resist design seismic forces not
22 September 1999
less than those determined in accordance with the provi- 111.2 UBC §1636.2 Definitions
sions of Section 105 with the following additions and ex- Soil profile types are defined as follows:
ceptions:
SA Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, vs
1. The factors Ro and Rd (and R and Ω o ) shall be as set
> 5,000 ft./sec. (1500 m/s).
forth in Table 104-8. The total design base shear
SB Rock with 2,500 ft./sec. < vs ≤ 5,000 ft./sec. (760
determined in accordance with Section 105.2 shall not
be less than the following: m/s < vs ≤ 1500 m/s).
V = 0.56C a IW Eqn. 109-2a

SC Very dense soil and soft rock with 1,200 ft./sec. <
vs ≤ 2,500 ft./sec. (360 m/s < vs ≤ 760 m/s) or
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4 the total base shear
with either N > 50 or su ≥ 2,000 psf (100 kPa).
shall also not be less than the following:
SD Stiff soil with 600 ft./sec. ≤ vs ≤ 1,200 ft./sec. (180
ZN v
V = 1.6 --------- W Eqn. 109-2b m/s ≤ vs ≤ 360 m/s) or with 15 ≤ N ≤ 50 or 1,000
R⁄I
psf ≤ su ≤ 2,000 psf (50 kPa ≤ su ≤ 100 kPa).
2. The vertical distribution of the design seismic forces
in structures covered by this Section may be SE A soil profile with vs 〈 600 ft./sec. (180 m/s) or
determined by using the provisions of Section 105.5 any profile with more than 10 ft. (3048 mm) of
or by using the procedures of Section 106. soft clay defined as soil with PI > 20, wmc ≥ 40
Exception: For irregular structures assigned to percent, and su < 500 psf (25 kPa).
Occupancy Categories 1 and 2 that cannot be modeled SF Soils requiring site-specific evaluation:
as a single mass, the procedures of Section 106 shall
1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or
be used.
collapse under seismic loading such as
3. Where an approved national standard provides a basis liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive
for the earthquake-resistant design of a particular type clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils.
of nonbuilding structure covered by this Section,
2. Peats and/or highly organic clays [H > 10 ft.
109.5, such a standard may be used, subject to the
(3048 mm) of peat and/or highly organic clay
limitations in this section:
where H = thickness of soil]
The seismic zones and occupancy categories shall be 3. Very high plasticity clays [H > 25 ft. (7620
in conformance with the provisions of Section 104.4 and mm) with PI >75]
104.2, respectively. 4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays [H > 120
The values for total lateral force and total base over- ft. (36 580 mm)]
turning moment used in design shall not be less than 80 Exception: When the soil properties are not known
percent of the values that would be obtained using these in sufficient detail to determine the Soil Profile Type,
provisions. Type SD shall be used. Soil Profile Type SE need not
be assumed unless the building official determines
110 UBC §1635 Earthquake that Soil Profile Type SE may be present at the site or
Recording Instrumentation in the event that Type SE is established by
For earthquake recording instrumentations, see UBC Ap- geotechnical data.
pendix Chapter 16, Division II.
The criteria set forth in the definition for Soil Profile
Type SF requiring site-specific evaluation shall be consid-
111 UBC §1636 Site
ered. If the site corresponds to this criteria, the site shall be
Categorization Procedure classified as Soil Profile Type SF and a site-specific eval-
111.1 UBC §1636.1 Scope uation shall be conducted.
This section describes the procedure for determining the 111.2.1 UBC §1636.2.1 vs Average Shear Wave
Soil Profile Type SA through SF in accordance with Table Velocity. vs shall be determined in accordance with Equa-
16-J. tion 111-1:
September 1999 23
n sui = undrained shear strength in accordance with

∑ di approved nationally recognized standards, not to
i=1
vs = ---------------- Eqn. 111-1 exceed 5000 psf (250 kPa)
n
d
∑ -----i- 111.2.4 UBC §1636.2.4 Soft Clay Soil Profile
i = 1 si v Type SE. The existence of a total thickness of soft clay
where: > 10 ft. (3048 mm) shall be investigated where a soft clay
layer is defined by su < 500 psf (24 kPa), wmc ≥ 40 per-
di = thickness of layer i in feet (m)
cent, and PI > 20. If this criteria is met, the site shall be
vsi = shear wave velocity in layer i in ft./sec. (m/sec) classified as Soil Profile Type SE.
n
111.2.5 UBC §1636.3.5 Soil Profile Types SC, SD
∑ d i = 100 ft (30 480 mm) and SE. Sites with Soil Profile Types SC, SD, and SE
i= 1
shall be classified by using one of the following three
111.2.2 UBC §1636.2.2 N Average Field Standard methods with vs, N and su computed in all cases as speci-
Penetration Resistance and NCH Average Standard
fied in UBC §1662.2.
Penetration Resistance for Cohesionless Soil
1. vs for the top 100 ft. (30 480 mm) (vs method).
Layers. N and NCH shall be determined in accordance
with the following equations: 2. N for the top 100 ft. (30 480 mm) (N method).
3. NCH for cohesionless soil layers (PI < 20) in the top
n 100 ft. (30 480 mm) and average su for cohesive soil
∑ di
i=1 layers (PI > 20) in the top 100 ft. (30 480 mm)
N = --------------- Eqn. 111-2
n (su method).
d
∑ -----i 111.2.6 UBC §1636.3.6 Rock Profiles, SA and SB.
i=1 i N
The shear wave velocity for rock, Soil Profile Type SB,
ds shall be either measured on site or estimated by a geotech-
N CH = --------------
- Eqn. 111-3
n nical engineer, engineering geologist or seismologist for
di
∑ ----- competent rock with moderate fracturing and weathering.
i = 1 Ni Softer and more highly fractured and weathered rock shall
where: be either be measured on site for shear wave velocity or
di = thickness of layer i in feet (mm) classified as Soil Profile Type SC.
ds = total thickness of cohesionless soil layers in the The hard rock, Soil Profile Type SA, category shall be
top 100 ft. (30 480 mm) supported by shear wave velocity measurements either on
Ni = standard penetration resistance of soil layer in site or on profiles of the same rock type in the same forma-
tion with an equal or greater degree of weathering and
accordance with approved nationally recognized
fracturing. Where hard rock conditions are known to be
standards, not to exceed 100 blows per ft.
continuous to a depth of 100 ft. (30 480 mm), surficial
111.2.3 UBC §1636.3 su, Average Undrained shear wave velocity measurements may be extrapolated to
Shear Strength. su shall be determined in accordance assess vs. The rock categories, Soil Profile Type SA and SB
with Equation 111-4: shall not be used if there is more than 10 ft. (3048 mm) of
soil between the rock surface and the bottom of the spread
dc
su = ---------------- Eqn. 111-4 footing or mat foundation.
n
d
∑ -----i- The definitions presented herein shall apply to the up-
i = 1 s ui per 100 ft. (30 480 mm) of the site profile. Profiles con-
taining distinctly different soil layers shall be subdivided
where:
into those layers designated by a number from 1 to n at the
dc = total thickness (100 - ds) of cohesive soil layers in bottom where there are a total of n distinct layers in the up-
the top 100 ft. (30 480 mm) per 100 ft. (30 480 mm). The symbol i then refers to any
one of the layers between 1 and n.
24 September 1999
112 UBC §3400 2. Fail to provide adequate egress in compliance with

Existing Structures these Requirements or obstruct existing exits.
3. Create a fire hazard.
112.1 UBC 3401 General
4. Reduce required fire resistance or otherwise create
Buildings in existence at the time of the adoption of this conditions dangerous to human life.
code may have their existing use or occupancy continued,
if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the adop- Any building so altered, and which involves a change
tion of this code, provided such continued use is not dan- in use or occupancy, shall not exceed the height, number
gerous to life. Any change in the use or occupancy of any of stories, and area permitted for new buildings. Any
existing building or structure shall comply with the Re- building, and all new additions, shall not exceed the
quirements of 1997 UBC §§109 and 3405. height, number of stories and area specified for new build-
ings.
For existing buildings, see UBC §101.3, Chapter 34,
and Appendix to Chapter 34. For a comprehensive code Additions or alterations shall not be made to an exist-
and guidelines on the treatment of existing buildings, see ing building or structure when such existing building or
Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC). structure is not in full compliance with these Require-
ments, except when such addition or alteration will result
112.2 UBC §3402 Maintenance in the existing building or structure being no more hazard-
All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all ous based on life safety, fire safety, and sanitation than be-
parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary fore such additions or alterations are undertaken (see also
condition. All devices or safeguards that are required by UBC §307.11.2 for Group H, Division 6 Occupancies).
this code shall be maintained in conformance with the Exception: Alterations of existing structural
code edition under which they were installed. The owner elements or additions of new structural elements not
or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the required by UBC §3401, and which are initiated for
maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine the purpose of increasing the lateral force resisting
compliance with this subsection, the building official may strength or stiffness of an existing structure, need not
cause a structure to be reinspected. be designed for forces conforming to these
112.3 UBC §3403 Additions, Requirements provided that an engineering analysis
Alterations, or Repairs be submitted to show the following:
112.3.1 General. Buildings and structures to which 1. The capacity of existing structural elements
additions, alterations, or repairs are made shall comply required to resist forces is not reduced.
with all the requirements of this code for new facilities, ex- 2. The lateral loading to required existing structural
cept as specifically provided in this section. See UBC elements is not increased beyond their capacity.
§310.9 for requirements requiring installation of smoke 3. New structural elements are detailed and
detectors in existing Group R, Division 3 Occupancies. connected to the existing structural elements as
112.3.2 When Allowed. Additions, alterations, or required by these regulations.
repairs may be made to any building or structure without 4. New or relocated nonstructural elements are
requiring the existing building or structure to comply with detailed and connected to existing or new
all the Requirements of this code, provided the addition, structural elements as required by these
alteration, or repair conforms to that required for a new regulations.
building or structure. 5. An unsafe condition as defined in this section is
not created.
Additions or alterations shall not be made to an exist-
ing building or structure that will cause the existing build- 112.3.3 Repairs to Buildings and Structures Dam-
ing or structure to be in violation of any of these aged by Earthquake. Repair criteria for structural and
Requirements, nor shall such additions or alterations cause nonstructural elements of all buildings and nonbuilding
the existing building or structure to become unsafe. An un- structures damaged by the occurrence of a proclaimed nat-
safe condition shall be deemed to have been created if an ural disaster shall be determined by this section. Required
addition or alteration will cause the existing building or repair levels shall be based on the damage ratio of the es-
structure to: timated cost of the structural repairs to the estimated re-
1. Become structurally unsafe or overloaded.
September 1999 25
placement value of the building or nonbuilding structure 112.3.3.2 Analysis of Noncomplying Structural
as follows: Member. When the requirements of UBC §3403.3 re-
1. When the damage ratio does not exceed 0.1 quire the removal of an otherwise undamaged structural
(10 percent), buildings and structures, except essential member because that member does not comply with these
service facilities (included as Category I buildings and Requirements, such member may remain and be analyzed,
structures in Table 104-3), shall at a minimum be strengthened, and its connections strengthened to the later-
restored to their pre-event condition. al force levels required by these Requirements.
2. When the damage ratio is greater than 0.1 112.3.4 Nonstructural. Alterations or repairs to an
(10 percent), but less than 0.5 (50 percent), buildings existing building or structure that are nonstructural and do
and structures, except essential service facilities not adversely affect any structural member, or any part of
(included as Category I buildings and structures in the building or structure having required fire resistance,
Table 104-3), shall at a minimum have the damaged may be made with the same materials of which the build-
structural members, including all critical ties and ing or structure is constructed.
connections associated with the damaged structural 112.3.5 Glass Replacement. The installation or re-
members, all structural members supported by the placement of glass shall be as required for new installa-
damaged member, and all structural members tions.
supporting the damaged members repaired and
strengthened to provide a structural system capable of 112.3.6 Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations,
meeting the life safety level of performance at story and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration,
rehabilitation, or continued use of a historic building or
drift and displacement given by 75 percent of ∆ M , or
nonbuilding structure shall comply with the California
comply with the California Building Code, Division Historic Building Code.
III-R or its later editions. This criteria shall apply to
essential service facilities when the damage ratio is 112.4 UBC §3040 Moved Buildings
less than 0.3 (30 percent). Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdic-
Exception: For buildings with rigid diaphragms tion shall comply with these Recommendations for new
where the above required repair and strengthening buildings or structures.
increases the rigidity of the resisting members, the 112.5 UBC §3405 Change In Use
entire lateral force resisting system of the building No change shall be made in the character of occupancies
shall be investigated. When, in the opinion of the or use of any building that would place the building in a
building official, an unsafe or adverse condition has different division of the same group of occupancy or in a
been created as a result of the increase in rigidity, the different group of occupancies, unless such building is
condition shall be corrected. made to comply with the Requirements of this code for
3. When the damage ratio is greater than 0.5 such division or group of occupancy.
(50 percent), buildings and structures, except essential
Exception: The character of the occupancy of
service facilities (included as Category I buildings and
existing buildings may be changed subject to the
structures in Table 104-3), shall at a minimum have
approval of the building official, and the building may
the entire building or structure brought into
be occupied for purposes in other groups without
compliance with the California Building Code,
conforming to all the Requirements of this code for
Division III-R or its later editions. Essential service
those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less
facilities when the damage ratio is equal to or greater
hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing
than 0.3 (30 percent) shall comply with the California
use.
Building Code.
No change in the character or occupancy of a building
112.3.3.1 Light Fixtures and Suspended
shall be made without a certificate of occupancy, as re-
Ceilings. Under all damage ratios, when light fixtures
quired in UBC §109 and in these Requirements. The build-
and the suspension system of suspended ceilings are dam-
ing official may issue a certificate of occupancy pursuant
aged, the damaged light fixtures and suspension systems
to the intent of the above exception without certifying that
shall be repaired to fully comply with these Requirements
the building complies with all provisions of these Require-
and UBC Standard 25-2.
ments and with UBC §109.
26 September 1999
113–149 Reserved structural elements that transfer force between elements of

the isolation system, and all connections to other structural
150 UBC §1654 elements. The isolation system also includes the wind re-
Appendix Chapter 16, straint system if such a system is used to meet the design
requirements of this section.
Division IV
Earthquake Regulations for Isolator Unit. A horizontally flexible and vertically
stiff structural element of the isolation system that permits
Seismic-Isolated Structures large lateral deformations under design seismic load. An
Every seismic-isolated structure and every portion thereof isolator unit may be used either as part of, or in addition to,
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the the weight-supporting system of the building.
Requirements of Sections 150 through 161 and the appli-
Maximum Capable Earthquake. The maximum
cable Requirements of Sections 101 through 111 of these
level of earthquake ground shaking that may ever be ex-
Recommendations.
pected at the building site within the known geological
1. The lateral force resisting system and the isolation framework. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, this intensity may
system shall be designed to resist the deformations be taken as the level of earthquake ground motion that has
and stresses produced by the effects of seismic ground a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 100-year
motions, as provided in Sections 150 through 161. time period.
2. Where wind forces prescribed by these
Recommendations produce greater deformations or Maximum Displacement. The maximum capable
stresses, such loads shall be used for design in lieu of earthquake lateral displacement, excluding additional dis-
the deformations and stresses resulting from placement due to actual and accidental torsion, required
earthquake forces. for design of the isolation system.
Total Design Displacement. The design basis
151 UBC §1655 Definitions for earthquake lateral displacement, including additional dis-
Seismic-Isolated Structures placement due to actual and accidental torsion, required
for design of the isolation system or an element thereof.
The definitions of Section 102 of these Recommendations
and the following apply to the Requirements of Sections Total Maximum Displacement. Lateral displace-
150 through 161: ment due to the maximum capable earthquake—including
additional displacement due to actual and accidental tor-
Design Basis Ground Motion. Defined in
sion—required for verification of the stability of the isola-
Section 102.
tion system or elements thereof, design of building
Design Displacement. The design basis earthquake separations, and vertical load testing of isolator unit proto-
lateral displacement required for design of the isolation types.
system, excluding additional displacement due to actual
Wind Restraint System. The collection of structur-
and accidental torsion.
al elements that provide restraint of the seismic-isolated
Effective Damping. The value of equivalent vis- structure for wind loads. The wind restraint system may be
cous damping corresponding to energy dissipated during either an integral part of an isolator unit or may be a sepa-
cyclic response of the isolation system. rate device.
Effective Stiffness. The value of the lateral force in
the isolation system, or an element thereof, divided by the
152 UBC §1656 Symbols and
corresponding lateral displacement. Notations for Seismic-Isolated
Structures
Isolation Interface. The boundary between the up-
per portion of the structure, which is isolated, and the low- The symbols and notations of Section 103 of these Recom-
er portion of the structure, which moves rigidly with the mendations and the following apply to the Requirements
ground. of Sections 150 through 161:
Isolation System. The collection of structural ele-
ments, which includes all individual isolator units, all
September 1999 27
BD = Numerical coefficient related to the effective d =

The longest plan dimension of the structure, in
damping of the isolation system at the design feet.
displacement, β D as set forth in Table 152-3. ELOOP= Energy dissipated, in kip-inches (kN-mm), in
an isolator unit during a full cycle of reversible
BM = Numerical coefficient related to the effective
+
damping of the isolation system at the maximum load over a test displacement range from ∆ to
_
displacement, β M as set forth in Table 152-3. ∆ , as measured by the area enclosed by the loop
of the force-deflection curve.
b = The shortest plan dimension of the structure, in
feet, measured perpendicular to d. ∑ E D = Total energy dissipated, in kip-inches (kN-mm),
CAD= Seismic coefficient, Ca, as set forth in Table 104- of all units of the isolation system during a full
9. cycle of response at the design displacement, DD.
CAM= Seismic coefficient as set forth in Table 152-4 for ∑ EM = Total energy dissipated, in kip-inches (kN-
shaking intensity MMZNa.
mm), of all units of the isolation system during a
CVD= Seismic coefficient, Cv, as set forth in Table full cycle of response at the maximum
104-10. displacement, DM.
CVM= Seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 152-5 for e = The actual eccentricity, in feet (mm), measured in
shaking intensity, MMZNv. plan between the center of mass of the structure
DD = Design displacement, in inches (mm), at the above the isolation interface and the center of
center of rigidity of the isolation system in the rigidity of the isolation system, plus accidental
direction under consideration, as prescribed by eccentricity, in feet, taken as 5 percent of the
Equation 154-1. maximum building dimension perpendicular to
the direction of force under consideration.
D´D = Design displacement, in inches (mm), at the
center of rigidity of the isolation system in the F- = Negative force, in kips (kN), in an isolator unit
direction under consideration, as prescribed by during a single cycle of prototype testing at a
Equation 155-1. displacement amplitude of ∆-.
DM = Maximum displacement, in inches (mm), at the F+ = Positive force, in kips (kN), in an isolator unit
center of rigidity of the isolation system in the during a single cycle of prototype testing at a
direction under consideration, as prescribed by displacement amplitude of ∆+.
Equation 154-3.
D´M= Maximum displacement, in inches (mm), at the ∑ F +D max = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
center of rigidity of the isolation system in the values of the individual isolator unit's maximum
direction under consideration, as prescribed by positive force in kips (kN) at positive
Equation 155-2. displacement DD. For a given isolator unit, the
DTD= Total design displacement, in inches (mm), of an maximum positive force at positive displacement,
element of the isolation system including both DD, is determined by comparing each of the
translational displacement at the center of maximum positive forces that occurred during
rigidity, DD, and the component of torsional each cycle of the prototype test sequence
displacement in the direction under consideration, associated with displacement increment DD, and
as specified in Section 154.3.5. selecting the maximum positive value at positive
DTM= Total maximum displacement, in inches (mm), of displacement, DD.
∑FD
an element of the isolation system, including both +
min = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
translational displacement at the center of
values of the individual isolator unit's minimum
rigidity, DM, and the component of torsional
positive force in kips (kN) at positive
displacement in the direction under consideration, displacement DD. For a given isolator unit, the
as specified by Section 154.3.5.
minimum positive force at positive displacement
DD is determined by comparing each of the
28 September 1999
minimum positive forces that occurred during each cycle of the prototype test sequence
each cycle of the prototype test sequence associated with displacement increment DM, and
associated with displacement increment DD, and selecting the minimum positive value at positive
selecting the minimum positive value at positive displacement DM.
displacement DD.
∑ F M max = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
_
∑ -
F D max = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute values of the individual isolator unit’s maximum
values of the individual isolator unit's maximum negative force in kips (kN) at negative
negative force in kips (kN) at negative displacement DM. For a given isolator unit, the
displacement DD. For a given isolator unit, the maximum negative force at negative
maximum negative force at negative displacement DM is determined by comparing
displacement DD is determined by comparing each of the maximum negative forces that
each of the maximum negative forces that occurred during each cycle of the prototype test
occurred during each cycle of the prototype test sequence associated with displacement increment
sequence associated with displacement increment DM, and selecting the maximum negative value at
DD, and selecting the maximum negative value at negative displacement DM.
negative displacement DD.
∑ F _M min = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
∑ -
F D min = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
values of the individual isolator unit’s minimum
values of the individual isolator unit's minimum
negative force in kips (kN) at negative
negative force in kips (kN) at negative
displacement DM. For a given isolator unit, the
displacement DD. For a given isolator unit, the
minimum negative force at negative displacement
minimum negative force at negative displacement
DM is determined by comparing each of the
DD is determined by comparing each of the
minimum negative forces that occurred during
minimum negative forces that occurred during
each cycle of the prototype test sequence
associated with displacement increment DM, and
associated with displacement increment DD, and
selecting the minimum negative value at negative
selecting the minimum negative value at negative
displacement DM.
displacement DD.
g = Gravity constant (386.4 in/sec.2, or 9,810 mm/
∑ +
F M max = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute
sec.2, for SI).
values of the individual isolator unit’s maximum
keff = Effective stiffness of an isolator unit, as
positive force in kips (kN) at positive
prescribed by Equation 161-1.
displacement DM. For a given isolator unit, the
kDmax= Maximum effective stiffness, in kips/inch (kN/
maximum positive force at positive displacement
DM is determined by comparing each of the mm), of the isolation system at the design
displacement in the horizontal direction under
maximum positive forces that occurred during
consideration.
associated with displacement increment DM, and kMmax= Maximum effective stiffness, in kips/inch (kN/
selecting the maximum positive value at positive mm), of the isolation system at the maximum
displacement DM. displacement in the horizontal direction under
consideration.
∑ F +M min = Sum for all isolator units of the absolute kDmin = Minimum effective stiffness, in kips/inch (kN/
values of the individual isolator unit’s minimum mm), of the isolation system at the design
positive force in kips (kN) at positive displacement in the horizontal direction under
displacement DM. For a given isolator unit, the consideration.
minimum positive force at positive displacement kMmin = Minimum effective stiffness, in kips/inch (kN/
DM is determined by comparing each of the mm), of the isolation system at the maximum
minimum positive forces that occurred during
September 1999 29
displacement in the horizontal direction under βD = Effective damping of the isolation system at the
consideration.
design displacement as prescribed by Equation
MM = Numerical coefficient related to maximum 161-7.
capable earthquake response as set forth in Table
βM = Effective damping of the isolation system at the
152-2.
Na = Near-source factor used in the determination of maximum displacement, as prescribed by
Equation 161-8.
CAD and CAM related to both the proximity of the
building or structure to known faults with ∆+ = Maximum positive displacement of an isolator
magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables unit during each cycle of prototype testing.
104-11 and 104-13. ∆- = Maximum negative displacement of an isolator
Nv = Near-source factor used in the determination of unit during each cycle of prototype testing.
CVD and CVM related to both the proximity of
the building or structure to known faults with 153 UBC §1657 Criteria Selection
magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables for Seismic-Isolated Structures
104-12 and 104-13.
153.1 Basis for Design
RI = Numerical coefficient related to the type of lateral
The procedures and limitations for the design of seis-
force resisting system above the isolation system,
mic-isolated structures shall be determined considering
as set forth in Table 152-1 for seismic-isolated
zoning, site characteristics, vertical acceleration, cracked
structures.
section properties of concrete and masonry members, oc-
TD = Effective period, in seconds, of seismic-isolated cupancy, configuration, structural system, and height in
structure at the design displacement in the accordance with Section 104, except as noted below.
direction under consideration, as prescribed by
Equation 154-2. 153.2 Stability of the Isolation System
TM = Effective period, in seconds, of seismic-isolated The stability of the vertical load-carrying elements of the
structure at the maximum displacement in the isolation system shall be verified by analysis and test, as
direction under consideration, as prescribed by required, for lateral seismic displacement equal to the total
Equation 154-4. maximum displacement.
Vb = The total lateral seismic design force or shear on 153.3 Occupancy Categories
elements of the isolation system or elements The importance factor, I, for a seismic-isolated building
below the isolation system, as prescribed by shall be taken as 1.0, regardless of occupancy category.
Equation 154-7.
153.4 Configuration Requirements
Vs = The total lateral seismic design force or shear on
Each structure shall be designated as being regular or ir-
elements above the isolation system as prescribed
regular on the basis of the structural configuration above
by Equation 154-8.
the isolation system in accordance with Section 104.5.
W = The total seismic dead load defined in Section
105.1.1. For design of the isolation system, W is 153.5 Selection of Lateral Response
the total seismic dead load weight of the structure Procedure
above the isolation interface. 153.5.1 General. Any seismic-isolated structure
y = The distance, in feet (mm), between the center of may be, and certain seismic-isolated structures defined be-
rigidity of the isolation system and the element of low shall be, designed using the dynamic lateral response
interest, measured perpendicular to the direction procedure of Section 155.
of seismic loading under consideration. 153.5.2 Static Analysis. The static lateral response
β eff = Effective damping of the isolation system and procedure of Section 154 may be used for design of a seis-
isolator unit as prescribed by Equation 161-2. mic-isolated structure, provided:
1. The structure is located at least 10 kilometer (km)
from all active faults.
30 September 1999
2. The structure is located on a Soil Profile Type SA, SB, design and analysis of all seismic-isolated structures
SC, SD , or SE. as specified below:
3. The structure above the isolation interface is equal to a. The structure is located on a Soil Profile Type SF;
or less than four stories, or 65 feet, in height. or
4. The effective period of the isolated structure, TM, is b. The structure is located within 10 km of an active
equal to or less than 3.0 seconds. fault.
5. The effective period of the isolated structure, TD, is
154 UBC §1658 Static Lateral
greater than three times the elastic, fixed-base period
of the structure above the isolation interface, as Response Procedure for
determined in accordance with Section 105.2.2.2. Seismic-Isolated Structures
6. The structure above the isolation system is of regular 154.1 General
configuration.
Except as provided in Section 155, every seismic-isolated
7. The isolation system is defined by all of the following structure, or portion thereof, shall be designed and con-
attributes: structed to resist minimum earthquake displacements and
a. The effective stiffness of the isolation system at forces, as specified by this section and the applicable Re-
the design displacement is greater than one third quirements of Section 105.
of the effective stiffness at 20 percent of the
design displacement. 154.2 Deformation Characteristics of the
Isolation System
b. The isolation system is capable of producing a
restoring force, as specified in Section 157.2.4. 154.2.1 Minimum lateral earthquake design displace-
c. The isolation system has force-deflection ments and forces on seismic-isolated structures shall be
properties independent of the rate of loading. based on the deformation characteristics of the isolation
system.
d. The isolation system has force-deflection
properties independent of vertical load and 154.2.2 The deformation characteristics of the isola-
bilateral load. tion system shall explicitly include the effects of the wind
e. The isolation system does not limit maximum restraint system if such a system is used to meet the design
capable earthquake displacement to less than Requirements of this document.
CVM/CVD times the total design displacement. 154.2.3 The deformation characteristics of the isola-
tion system shall be based on properly substantiated tests
153.5.3 Dynamic Analysis. The dynamic lateral
performed in accordance with Section 161.
response procedure of Section 155 shall be used for design
of seismic-isolated structures, as specified below: 154.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements
1. Response Spectrum Analysis. Response spectrum 154.3.1 Design Displacement. The isolation sys-
analysis may be used for design of a seismic-isolated tem shall be designed and constructed to withstand mini-
structure, provided: mum lateral earthquake displacements that act in the
a. The structure is located on a Soil Profile Type SA, direction of each of the main horizontal axes of the struc-
SB, SC, SD,or SE. ture in accordance with Equation 154-1.
b. The isolation system is defined by all of the g 
 --------- C T
attributes specified in Section 153.5.1, Item 7  4π 2 VD D
DD = --------------------------------- Eqn. 154-1
2. Time-History Analysis. Time-history analysis may BD
be used for the design of any seismic-isolated
structure and shall be used for the design of all 154.3.2 Effective Period at the Design
seismic-isolated structures not meeting the criteria of Displacement. The effective period of the isolated
Section 153.5.3, Item 1. structure at the design displacement, TD, shall be deter-
3. Site-Specific Design Spectra. Site-specific ground mined using the deformational characteristics of the isola-
motion spectra of the design basis earthquake and the tion system in accordance with Equation 154-2.
maximum capable earthquake, developed in
accordance with Section 106.2, shall be used for
September 1999 31
W 154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces

T D = 2π ----------------- Eqn. 154-2
k Dmin g 154.4.1 Isolation System and Structural Elements
at or Below the Isolation Interface. The isolation sys-
154.3.3 Maximum Displacement. The maximum tem, the foundation, and all structural elements at or below
displacement of the isolation system, DM, in the most crit- the isolation interface shall be designed and constructed to
ical direction of horizontal response shall be calculated as withstand a minimum lateral seismic force, Vb, using all of
prescribed by Equation 154-3. the appropriate requirements for a nonisolated structure,
g  where:
 --------- C T
 2 VM M V b = k Dmax D D Eqn. 154-7
DM 4π
= ---------------------------------
- Eqn. 154-3
BM 154.4.2 Structural Elements Above the Isolation
154.3.4 Effective Period at Maximum System. The structure above the isolation system shall
Displacement. The effective period of the isolated be designed and constructed to withstand a minimum
structure at the maximum displacement, TM, shall be de- shear force, Vs, using all of the appropriate requirements
termined using the deformational characteristics of the iso- for a nonisolated structure where:
lation system in accordance with Equation 154-4. k Dmax D D
V s = ----------------------
- Eqn. 154-8
W RI
T M = 2π ------------------ Eqn. 154-4
k Mmin g The RI factor shall be based on the type of lateral force
154.3.5 Total Displacement. The total design dis- resisting system used for the structure above the isolation
placement, DTD, and the total maximum displacement, system.
DTM, of elements of the isolation system shall include ad- 154.4.3 Limits on Vs. The value of Vs shall not be
ditional displacement due to actual and accidental torsion taken as less than the following:
calculated considering the spatial distribution of the lateral 1. The lateral seismic force required for a fixed-base
stiffness of the isolation system and the most disadvanta- structure of the same weight, W, and a period equal to
geous location of mass eccentricity. the isolated period, TD.
The total design displacement, DTD, and the total 2. The base shear corresponding to the design wind load.
maximum displacement, DTM, of elements of an isolation 3. The lateral seismic force required to fully activate the
system with uniform spatial distribution of lateral stiffness isolation system factored by 1.5 (e.g., the yield level
shall not be taken as less than that prescribed by Equations of a softening system, the ultimate capacity of a
154-5 and 154-6: sacrificial wind restraint system, or the static friction
level of a sliding system).
154.5 Vertical Distribution of Force
12e
D TD = D D 1 + y ----------------
- Eqn. 154-5 Total force shall be distributed over the height of the struc-
2 2
b +d ture above the isolation interface in accordance with the
12e equation:
D TM = D M 1 + y ----------------
2
-
2
Eqn. 154-6
b +d Vs wx hx
F x = -------------------
- Eqn. 154-9
n
The total design displacement, DTD, and the total ∑ wi hi
maximum displacement, DTM, may be taken as less than i=1
the value prescribed by Equations 154-5 and 154-6, but At each level designated as x, the force Fx shall be ap-
not less than 1.1 times DD and 1.1 times DM, respectively, plied over the area of the building in accordance with the
provided the isolation system is shown by calculation to be mass distribution at that level. Stresses in each structural
configured to resist torsion accordingly. element shall be calculated as the effect of force, Fx, ap-
plied at the appropriate levels above the base.
32 September 1999
154.6 Drift Limits 155.3 Structural Elements Above the

The maximum interstory drift ratio of the structure above Isolation System
the isolation system shall not exceed 0.010/RI. The design lateral shear force on the structure above the
isolation system, if regular in configuration, shall not be
155 UBC §1659 Dynamic Lateral taken as less than 80 percent of kDmaxDD /RI, or less than
Response Procedure for the limits specified by Section 154.4.3.
Seismic-Isolated Structures Exception: The design lateral shear force on the
structure above the isolation system, if regular in
155.1 General configuration, may be taken as less than 80 percent of
As required by Section 153, every seismic-isolated struc- kDmaxDD /RI, but not less than 60 percent of
ture, or portion thereof, shall be designed and constructed kDmaxDD /RI, provided time-history analysis is used
to resist earthquake displacements and forces, as specified for design of the structure.
in this section and the applicable Requirements of Section
106. The design lateral shear force on the structure above
the isolation system, if irregular in configuration, shall not
155.2 Isolation System and Structural be taken as less than kDmaxDD /RI, or less than the limits
Elements at or Below the Isolation
specified by Section 154.4.3.
Interface
Exception: The design lateral shear force on the
155.2.1 The total design displacement of the isolation
structure above the isolation system, if irregular in
system shall not be taken as less than 90 percent of DTD,
configuration, may be taken as less than kDmaxDD /RI,
as specified by Section 154.3.5.
but not less than 80 percent of kDmaxDD /RI, provided
155.2.2 The total maximum displacement of the isola- time-history analysis is used for design of the
tion system shall not be taken as less than 80 percent of structure.
DTM as specified by Section 154.3.5.
155.4 Ground Motion
155.2.3 The design lateral shear force on the isolation
system and structural elements below the isolation system 155.4.1 Design Spectra. Properly substantiated,
shall not be taken as less than 90 percent of Vb as pre- site-specific spectra are required for design of all struc-
tures with an isolated period, TM, greater than 3.0 seconds,
scribed by Equation 154-7.
or located on a soil type profile of SE or SF, or located
155.2.4 The limits of Sections 155.2.1 and 155.2.2
within 10 km of an active fault or located in Seismic Zone
above shall be evaluated using values of DTD and DTM de-
1, 2A or 2B. Structures that do not require site-specific
termined in accordance with Section 154.3, except that spectra and for which site-specific spectra have not been
D´D may be used in lieu of DD and D´M may be used in lieu calculated shall be designed using spectra based on
of DM, where D´D and D´M are prescribed by the equa- Figure 104-2.
tions:
A design spectrum shall be constructed for the design
DD basis earthquake. This design spectrum shall not be taken
D′D = ---------------------------- Eqn. 155-1
as less than the response spectrum given in Figure 104-2,
T 2
1 +  ------ where Ca shall be equal to CAD and Cv shall be equal
 T D
to CVD.
DM Exception: If a site-specific spectrum is calculated
D′M = ----------------------------
- Eqn. 155-2
for the design basis earthquake, then the design
T 2
1 +  ------- spectrum may be taken as less than 100 percent, but
 T M not less than 80 percent of the response spectrum
where T is the elastic, fixed-base period of the structure given in Figure 104-2, where Ca shall be equal to CAD
above the isolation system, as determined by and Cv shall be equal to CVD.
Equation 105-8 of Section 105. A design spectrum shall be constructed for the maxi-
mum capable earthquake. This design spectrum shall not
September 1999 33
be taken as less than the spectrum given in Figure 104-2, interface, considering the most disadvantageous
where Ca shall be equal to CAM and Cv shall be equal to location of mass eccentricity.
CVM. This design spectrum shall be used to determine the 3. Assess overturning/uplift forces on individual isolator
total maximum displacement and overturning forces for units.
design and testing of the isolation system. 4. Account for the effects of vertical load, bilateral load
Exception: If a site-specific spectrum is calculated and/or the rate of loading if the force-deflection
for the maximum capable earthquake, then the design properties of the isolation system are dependent on
spectrum may be taken as less than 100 percent, but one or more of these attributes.
not less than 80 percent of the response spectrum 155.5.3 Isolated Structure
given in Figure 104-2, where Ca shall be equal to CAM 155.5.3.1 Displacement. The maximum dis-
and Cv shall be equal to CVM. placement of each floor and the total design displacement
155.4.2 Time-Histories. Pairs of appropriate hori- and total maximum displacement across the isolation sys-
zontal ground motion time history components shall be se- tem shall be calculated using a model of the isolated struc-
lected and scaled from not less than three recorded events. ture that incorporates the force-deflection characteristics
Appropriate time histories shall have magnitudes, fault of nonlinear elements of the isolation system and the later-
distances and source mechanisms that are consistent with al force resisting system.
those that control the design basis earthquake (or maxi- Lateral force resisting systems with nonlinear ele-
mum capable earthquake). Where three appropriate re- ments include, but are not limited to, irregular structural
corded ground motion time history pairs are not available, systems designed for a lateral force less than Vs as pre-
appropriate simulated ground motion time history pairs
scribed by Equation 154-8 and the limits specified by Sec-
may be used to make up the total number required. For
tion 154.4.3, and regular structural systems designed for a
each pair of horizontal ground motion components, the
lateral force less than 80 percent of Vs.
square root sum of the squares (SRSS) of the 5 percent
damped spectrum of the scaled horizontal components 155.5.3.2 Forces and Displacements in Key
shall be constructed. The motions shall be scaled such that Elements. Design forces and displacements in key ele-
the average value of the SRSS spectra does not fall below ments of the lateral force resisting system may be calculat-
1.3 times the 5 percent damped spectrum of the design ba- ed using a linear elastic model of the isolated structure,
sis earthquake (or maximum capable earthquake) by more provided:
than 10 percent for periods from 0.5TD seconds to 1.25TM 1. Pseudo-elastic properties assumed for nonlinear
seconds. isolation system components are based on the
155.5 Mathematical Model for maximum effective stiffness of the isolation system.
Seismic-Isolated Structures 2. All key elements of the lateral force resisting system
are linear.
155.5.1 General. The mathematical models of the
isolated structure, including the isolation system, the lat- 155.6 Description of Analysis Procedures
eral force resisting system, and other structural elements, 155.6.1 General. A response spectrum analysis or a
shall conform to Section 106.3 and to the Requirements of time history analysis, or both, shall be performed in accor-
Sections 155.5.2 and 155.5.3 below. dance with Sections 106.4 and 106.5 and the Require-
155.5.2 Isolation System. The isolation system ments of this Section 155.6.
shall be modeled using deformational characteristics de- 155.6.2 Input Earthquake. The design basis earth-
veloped and verified by test in accordance with the Re- quake shall be used to calculate the total design displace-
quirements of Section 154.2. ment of the isolation system and the lateral forces and
The isolation system shall be modeled with sufficient displacements of the isolated structure. The maximum ca-
detail such that it will: pable earthquake shall be used to calculate the total maxi-
1. Account for the spatial distribution of isolator units. mum displacement of the isolation system.
2. Calculate translation, in both horizontal directions, 155.6.3 Response Spectrum Analysis
and torsion of the structure above the isolation 1. Response spectrum analysis shall be performed using
a modal damping value for the fundamental mode in
34 September 1999
the direction of interest not greater than the effective either response spectrum or time-history analysis, is less
damping of the isolation system or 30 percent of than minimum levels prescribed by Sections 155.1 and
critical, whichever is less. Modal damping values for 155.2, then all response parameters, including member
higher modes shall be selected consistent with those forces and moments, shall be adjusted upward proportion-
appropriate for response spectrum analysis of the ally.
structure above the isolation system on a fixed base.
155.8 Drift Limits
2. Response spectrum analysis used to determine the
total design displacement and the total maximum Maximum interstory drift corresponding to the design lat-
displacement shall include simultaneous excitation of eral force, including displacement due to vertical deforma-
the model by 100 percent of the most critical direction tion of the isolation system, shall not exceed the following
of ground motion and 30 percent of the ground motion limits:
on the orthogonal axis. The maximum displacement 1. The maximum interstory drift ratio of the structure
of the isolation system shall be calculated as the above the isolation system, calculated by response
vectorial sum of the two orthogonal displacements. spectrum analysis, shall not exceed 0.015/RI.
155.6.4 Time-History Analysis 2. The maximum interstory drift ratio of the structure
1. Time-history analysis shall be performed with at least above the isolation system, calculated by time-history
three appropriate pair of horizontal time-history analysis that considers the force-deflection
components, as defined in Section 155.4.2. characteristics of nonlinear elements of the lateral
force resisting system, shall not exceed 0.020/RI.
2. Each pair of time histories shall be applied
simultaneously to the model, considering the most 3. The secondary effects of the maximum capable
disadvantageous location of mass eccentricity in earthquake lateral displacement, ∆ , of the structure
accordance with Section 105.6. The maximum above the isolation system, combined with gravity
displacement of the isolation system shall be forces, shall be investigated if the interstory drift ratio
calculated from the vectorial sum of the two exceeds 0.010/RI.
orthogonal components at each time step.
3. The parameter of interest shall be calculated for each 156 UBC §1660 Lateral Load on
time-history analysis. If three time-history analyses Elements of Structures and
are performed, then the maximum response of the
Nonstructural Components
parameter of interest shall be used for design. If seven
or more time-history analyses are performed, then the Supported by Seismic-Isolated
average value of the response parameter of interest Structures
may be used for design. 156.1 General
155.7 Design Lateral Force Parts or portions of an isolated structure, permanent non-
155.7.1 Isolation System and Structural Elements structural components and attachments to them, and the at-
at or Below the Isolation Interface. The isolation sys- tachments for permanent equipment supported by a
tem, foundation, and all structural elements below the iso- structure shall be designed to resist seismic forces and dis-
lation interface shall be designed using all of the placements as prescribed by this section and the applicable
appropriate requirements for a nonisolated structure and Requirements of Section 107.
the forces obtained from the dynamic analysis.
156.2 Forces and Displacements
155.7.2 Structural Elements Above the Isolation
156.2.1 Components at or Above the Isolation
System. Structural elements above the isolation system
Interface. Elements of seismic-isolated structures and
shall be designed using the appropriate requirements for a
nonstructural components, or portions thereof, that are at
nonisolated structure and the forces obtained from the dy-
or above the isolation interface shall be designed to resist
namic analysis divided by a factor of RI. The RI factor shall
a total lateral seismic force equal to the maximum dynamic
be based on the type of lateral force resisting system used response of the element or component under consider-
for the structure above the isolation system. ation.
155.7.3 Scaling of Results. When the factored lat- Exception: Elements of seismic-isolated structures
eral shear force on structural elements, determined using and nonstructural components, or portions thereof,
September 1999 35
may be designed to resist total lateral seismic force as sistance as the structural element in which it is installed
prescribed by Equations 107-1 and 107-2,Section 107. when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 7-1 (see
156.2.2 Components That Cross the Isolation UBC Section 703.2).
Interface. Elements of seismic-isolated structures and Such isolation system protection applied to isolator
nonstructural components, or portions thereof, that cross units shall be capable of retarding the transfer of heat to the
the isolation interface shall be designed to withstand the isolator unit in such a manner that the required gravity
total maximum displacement. load-carrying capacity of the isolator unit will not be im-
156.2.3 Components Below the Isolation paired after exposure to the standard time-temperature
Interface. Elements of seismic-isolated structures and curve fire test prescribed in UBC Standard 7-1 for a dura-
nonstructural components, or portions thereof, that are be- tion not less than that required for the fire-resistive rating
low the isolation interface shall be designed and con- of the structural element in which it is installed.
structed in accordance with the Requirements of Section Such isolation system protection applied to isolator
107. units shall be suitably designed and securely installed so as
not to dislodge, loosen, sustain damage, or otherwise im-
157 UBC §1661 Detailed Systems pair its ability to accommodate the seismic movements for
Requirements for which the isolator unit is designed and to maintain its in-
Seismic-Isolated Structures tegrity for the purpose of providing the required fire-resis-
tive protection.
157.1 General
157.2.4 Lateral Restoring Force. The isolation sys-
The isolation system and the structural system shall com- tem shall be configured to produce a restoring force such
ply with the Requirements of Section 108 and the material that the lateral force at the total design displacement is at
Requirements of Chapters 2 through 6. In addition, the iso- least 0.025W greater than the lateral force at 50 percent of
lation system shall comply with the detailed system re- the total design displacement.
quirements of this section and the structural system shall
comply with the detailed system requirements of this sec- Exception: The isolation system need not be
tion and the applicable portions of Section 108. configured to produce a restoring force, as required
above, provided the isolation system is capable of
157.2 Isolation System remaining stable under full vertical load and
157.2.1 Environmental Conditions. In addition to accommodating a total maximum displacement equal
the requirements for vertical and lateral loads induced by to the greater of either 3.0 times the total design
wind and earthquake, the isolation system shall be de- displacement, or 36 CVM inches.
signed with consideration given to other environmental
157.2.5 Displacement Restraint. The isolation sys-
conditions including aging effects, creep, fatigue, operat-
tem may be configured to include a displacement restraint
ing temperature, and exposure to moisture or damaging
that limits lateral displacement due to the maximum capa-
substances.
ble earthquake to less than CVM /CVD times the total design
157.2.2 Wind Forces. Seismic-isolated structures displacement, provided that the seismic-isolated structure
shall resist design wind loads at all levels above the isola- is designed in accordance with the following criteria when
tion interface in accordance with the general wind design more stringent than the Requirements of Section 153:
requirements. At the isolation interface, a wind restraint
1. Maximum capable earthquake response is calculated
system shall be provided to limit lateral displacement in
in accordance with the dynamic analysis
the isolation system to a value equal to that required be-
Requirements of Sections 106 and 155, explicitly
tween floors of the structure above the isolation interface.
considering the nonlinear characteristics of the
157.2.3 Fire Resistance. Fire resistance for the iso- isolation system and the structure above the isolation
lation system shall meet that required for the building col- system.
umns, walls, or other structural elements in which it is 2. The ultimate capacity of the isolation system and
installed. structural elements below the isolation system shall
Isolator systems required to have a fire-resistive rating exceed the strength and displacement demands of the
shall be protected with approved materials or construction maximum capable earthquake.
assemblies designed to provide the same degree of fire re-
36 September 1999
3. The structure above the isolation system is checked 4. Remodeling, repair, or retrofitting of the isolation
for stability and ductility demand of the maximum system interface, including that of components that
capable earthquake. cross the isolation interface, shall be performed under
4. The displacement restraint does not become effective the direction of an architect or engineer licensed in the
at a displacement less than 0.75 times the total design appropriate disciplines and experienced in the design
displacement unless it is demonstrated by analysis that and construction of seismic-isolated structures.
earlier engagement does not result in unsatisfactory 5. Horizontal displacement recording devices should be
performance. installed at the isolation interface in seismic-isolated
157.2.6 Vertical Load Stability. Each element of buildings.
the isolation system shall be designed to be stable under 157.2.9 Quality Control. A quality control testing
the maximum vertical load, 1.2D +1.0L+|E|max and the program for isolator units shall be established by the engi-
minimum vertical load, 0.8D-|E|min|, at a horizontal dis- neer responsible for the structural design.
placement equal to the total maximum displacement. The 157.3 Structural System
vertical earthquake load on an individual isolation unit due
157.3.1 Horizontal Distribution of Force. A hori-
to overturning, |E|max and |E|min, shall be based on peak
zontal diaphragm or other structural elements shall pro-
response due to the maximum capable earthquake. vide continuity above the isolation interface and shall have
157.2.7 Overturning. The factor of safety against adequate strength and ductility to transmit forces (due to
global structural overturning at the isolation interface shall nonuniform ground motion) from one part of the building
not be less than 1.0 for required load combinations. All to another.
gravity and seismic loading conditions shall be investi- 157.3.2 Building Separations. Minimum separa-
gated. Seismic forces for overturning calculations shall be tions between the isolated building and surrounding retain-
based on the maximum capable earthquake, and W shall be ing walls or other fixed obstructions shall not be less than
used for the vertical restoring force. the total maximum displacement.
Local uplift of individual elements is permitted, pro-
vided the resulting deflections do not cause overstress or 158 UBC §1662 Nonbuilding
instability of the isolator units or other building elements. Seismic-Isolated Structures
157.2.8 Inspection and Replacement Nonbuilding seismic-isolated structures shall be designed
1. Access for inspection and replacement of all in accordance with the Requirements of Section 109 using
components of the isolation system shall be provided. design displacements and forces calculated in accordance
2. The architect or engineer of record, or a person with Sections 154 and 155.
designated by the architect or engineer of record, shall
complete a final series of inspections or observations 159 UBC §1663 Foundations of
of building separation areas and of components that Seismic-Isolated Structures
cross the isolation interface prior to the issuance of the
Foundations of seismic-isolated structures shall be de-
certificate of occupancy for the seismic-isolated
signed and constructed in accordance with the Require-
building. Such inspections and observations shall
ments of Chapter 3 of these Recommendations using
indicate that as-built conditions allow for free and
design forces calculated in accordance with either Section
unhindered displacement of the structure to maximum
154 or Section 155.
design levels and that all components that cross the
isolation interface as installed are able to
accommodate the stipulated displacements.
160 UBC §1664 Design and
3. Seismic-isolated buildings should have a periodic Construction Review for
monitoring inspection and maintenance program for Seismic-Isolated Structures
the isolation system established by the architect or 160.1 General
engineer responsible for the design of the system. The
objective of such a program shall be to ensure that all A design review of the isolation system and related test
elements of the isolation system are able to perform to programs shall be performed by an independent engineer-
minimum design levels at all times. ing team, including persons licensed in the appropriate dis-
September 1999 37
ciplines, experienced in seismic analysis methods, and the systems are used in the design. Specimens satisfactorily
theory and application of seismic isolation. tested may be used for construction, at the discretion of the
Engineer of Record.
160.2 Isolation System
161.2.2 Record. For each cycle of tests, the
Isolation system design review shall include, but not be
force-deflection behavior of the test specimen shall be re-
limited to, the following:
corded.
1. Review of site-specific seismic criteria, including the
development of site-specific spectra and ground 161.2.3 Sequence and Cycles. The following se-
motion time histories, and all other design criteria quence of tests shall be performed for the prescribed num-
developed specifically for the project. ber of cycles at a vertical load equal to the average
D + 0.5L on all isolator units of a common type and size:
2. Review of the preliminary design, including
determination of the total design displacement of the 1. Twenty fully reversed cycles of loading at a lateral
isolation system design displacement and lateral force force corresponding to the design wind force.
design level. 2. Three fully reversed cycles of loading at each of the
3. Overview and observation of prototype testing following increments of displacement: 0.2DD, 0.5DD,
(Section 161). 1.0DD, and 1.0DM.
4. Review of the final design of the entire structural 3. Three fully reversed cycles at the total maximum
system and all supporting analyses. displacement, 1.0DTM.
5. Review of the isolation system quality control testing 4. (15CVD /CAD BD), but not less than 10, fully reversed
program (Section 157.2.9). cycles of loading at 1.0 times the total design
The Engineer of Record shall submit with the plans displacement, 1.0DTD.
and calculations a statement by all members of the inde-
If an isolator unit is also a vertical load-carrying ele-
pendent engineering team stating that the above has been
ment, then Item 2 of the sequence of cyclic tests specified
completed.
above shall be performed for two additional vertical load
cases:
161 UBC §1665 Required Tests of
Isolation System for 1.2D + 0.5LL + |E|
Seismic-Isolated Structures 0.8D - |E|
where D and L are defined in Section 103. The vertical test
161.1 General
load on an individual isolator unit shall include the load in-
161.1.1 The deformation characteristics and damping crement due to earthquake overturning, |E|, and shall be
values of the isolation system used in the design and anal- equal to or greater than the peak earthquake vertical force
ysis of seismic-isolated structures shall be based on the response corresponding to the test displacement being
following tests of a selected sample of the components evaluated. In these tests, the combined vertical load shall
prior to construction. be taken as the typical or average downward force on all
161.1.2 The isolation system components to be tested isolator units of a common type and size.
shall include the wind restraint system, if such systems are 161.2.4 Units Dependent on Loading Rates. If the
used in the design. force-deflection properties of the isolator units are depen-
161.1.3 The tests specified in Section 161 are for es- dent on the rate of loading, then each set of tests specified
tablishing and validating the design properties of the isola- in Section 161.2.3 shall be performed dynamically at a fre-
tion system, and shall not be considered as satisfying the quency equal to the inverse of the effective period, TD, of
manufacturing quality control tests of Section 157.2.9. the isolated structure.
161.2 Prototype Tests If reduced-scale prototype specimens are used to
161.2.1 General. Prototype tests shall be performed quantify rate-dependent properties of isolators, the re-
separately on two full-size specimens or sets of specimens, duced-scale prototype specimens shall be of the same type
as appropriate, of each type and size of isolator unit of the and material and be manufactured with the same processes
isolation system. The test specimens shall include the wind and quality as full-scale prototypes, and shall be tested at
restraint system, as well as individual isolator units, if such
38 September 1999
a frequency that represents full-scale prototype loading procedures as the prototype isolator unit that has been pre-
rates. viously tested using the specified sequence of tests.
The force-deflection properties of an isolator unit 161.3 Determination of Force-Deflection
shall be considered to be dependent on the rate of loading Characteristics
if there is greater than a plus or minus 10 percent differ- 161.3.1 The force-deflection characteristics of the iso-
ence in the effective stiffness at the design displacement lation system shall be based on the cyclic load tests of iso-
when tested at a frequency equal to the inverse of the ef- lator prototypes specified in Section 161.2.3.
fective period TD of the isolated structure, and when tested
161.3.2 As required the effective stiffness of an isola-
at any frequency in the range of 0.1 to 2.0 times the inverse tor unit, keff, shall be calculated for each cycle of loading
of the effective period TD of the isolated structure.
by Equation 161-1.
161.2.5 Units Dependent on Bilateral Load. If the
F + –F –
force-deflection properties of the isolator units are depen- k eff = ------------------ Eqn. 161-1
dent on bilateral load, then the tests specified in Sections ∆+ – ∆-
161.2.3 and 161.2.4 shall be augmented to include bilat-
where F + and F - are the positive and negative forces at
eral load at increments of the total design displacement
0.25 and 1.0, 0.50 and 1.0, 0.75 and 1.0, and 1.0 and 1.0. ∆+ and ∆ -, respectively.
Exception: If reduced-scale prototype specimens As required, the effective damping, ( β eff ), of an iso-
are used to quantify bilateral-load-dependent lator unit shall be calculated for each cycle of loading by
properties, then such scaled specimens shall be of the Equation 161-2.
same type and material, and manufactured with the
same processes and quality as full-scale prototypes. 2 E Loop
β eff = --
π
- ---------------------------------------
+ - 2
- Eqn. 161-2
The force-deflection properties of an isolator unit k eff ( ∆ + ∆ )
shall be considered to be dependent on bilateral load, if the
bilateral and unilateral force-deflection properties have where the energy dissipated per cycle of loading, ELoop,
greater than a plus or minus 10 percent difference in effec- and the effective stiffness, Keff, shall be based on test dis-
tive stiffness at the design displacement. + -
placements of ∆ and ∆ .
161.2.6 Maximum and Minimum Vertical
Load. Isolator units that carry vertical load shall be stat- 161.4 System Adequacy
ically tested for the maximum and minimum vertical load Performance of the test specimens shall be assessed as ad-
at the total maximum displacement. In these tests, the equate if the following conditions are satisfied:
combined vertical loads of 1.2D + 1.0L +|E|max shall be
161.4.1 The force-deflection plots of all tests speci-
taken as the maximum vertical force, and the combined fied in Section 161.2 have a positive incremental
vertical load of 0.8D – |E|min shall be taken as the mini- force-carrying capacity.
mum vertical force on any one isolator unit of a common
161.4.2 For each increment of test displacement spec-
type and size. The vertical load on an individual isolator
ified in Section 161.2.3 Item 2, and for each vertical load
unit shall include the load increment due to earthquake
case specified in Section 161.2.3:
overturning, |E|max and |E|min, and shall be based on peak
1. There is no greater than a plus or minus 10 percent
response due to the maximum capable earthquake.
difference between the effective stiffness at each of
161.2.7 Sacrificial Wind Restraint Systems. If a the three cycles of testing and the average value of
sacrificial wind restraint system is to be utilized, then the effective stiffness for each test specimen.
ultimate capacity of said system shall be established by 2. There is no greater than a plus or minus 10 percent
test. difference in the average value of effective stiffness of
161.2.8 Testing Similar Units. Prototype tests are the two test specimens of a common type and size of
not required if an isolator unit is of similar dimensional the isolator unit over the required three cycles of
characteristics and of the same type and material, and testing.
manufactured with the same processes and quality control 161.4.3 For each specimen, there is no greater than a
plus or minus 20 percent change in the initial effective
September 1999 39
stiffness of each test specimen over the 15CVD /CADBD, 161.5.2 Effective Damping. At the design displace-
but not less than 10, cycles of testing specified in Section ment, the effective damping of the isolation system, β D ,
161.2.3, Item 4. shall be based on the cyclic tests of Section 161.2.3 and
161.4.4 For each specimen, there is no greater than a calculated by Equation 161-7.
20 percent decrease in the initial effective damping over
the 15CVD /CADBD, but not less than 10, cycles of testing 1 ∑ ED
β D = -----
2π k
- -------------------------
2
Eqn. 161-7
specified in Section 161.2.3, Item 4. Dmax D D
161.4.5 All specimens of vertical load-carrying ele-
In Equation 161-7, the total energy dissipated in the isola-
ments of the isolation system remain stable at the total
tion system per cycle of design displacement response,
maximum displacement for static load, as prescribed in
Section 161.2.6. ∑ E D , shall be taken as the sum of the energy dissipated
per cycle in all isolator units measured at test displace-
161.5 Design Properties of the Isolation + -
System ments ∆ and ∆ , that are equal in magnitude to the de-
sign displacement DD.
161.5.1 Maximum and Minimum Effective
Stiffness. At the design displacement, the maximum At the maximum displacement, the effective damping
and minimum effective stiffnesses of the isolation system, of the isolation system, β M , shall be based on the cyclic
kDmax and kDmin, shall be based on the cyclic tests of Sec-
tests of Section 161.2.3 and calculated by Equation 161-8:
tion 161.2.3 and calculated by Equations 161-3 and 161-4.
_ 1 ∑ EM
∑ F D+ + ∑ F D max β M = -----
2π k
- --------------------------
2
Eqn. 161-8
Mmax D M
max
k Dmax = -------------------------------------------------------------- Eqn. 161-3
2D D
In Equation 161-8, the total energy dissipated in the isola-
_
∑ F D+ min + ∑ FD min tion system per cycle of response, EM, shall be taken as the
k Dmin = ------------------------------------------------------------ Eqn. 161-4 sum of the energy dissipated per cycle in all isolator units
2D D + -
measured at test displacements ∆ and ∆ that are equal
At the maximum displacement, the maximum and mini- in magnitude to the maximum displacement DM.
mum effective stiffness of the isolation system, kMmax and
kMmin, shall be based on the cyclic tests of Section 161.2.3
and calculated by Equations 161-5 and 161-6.
_
∑ F M+ max
+ ∑ F M max
k Mmax = --------------------------------------------------------------- Eqn. 161-5
2D D
_
∑ F M+ min
+ ∑ F M min
k Mmin = ------------------------------------------------------------- Eqn. 161-6
2D D
For isolator units that are found by the tests of Sec-
tions 161.2.3 through 161.2.5 to have force-deflection
characteristics that vary with vertical load, rate of loading,
or bilateral load, respectively, the values of kDmax and kM-
max shall be increased and the values of kDmin and kMmin
shall be decreased, as necessary, to bound the effects of
measured variation in effective stiffness.
40 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Requirements Table 104-1
Table 104-1. Seismic Zone Factor Z (UBC Table 16-I)
Zone 1 2A 2B 3 4
Z 0.075 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40
Note: The zone shall be determined from the seismic zone map in Figure 104-1 or UBC Figure 16-2.
Table 104-2. Soil Profile Types (UBC Table 16-J)
Average Soil Properties for Top 100 Feet (30 480 mm) of Soil Profile
Soil Soil Profile
Shear Wave Velocity, Standard Penetration Test, N (or N CH for Undrained Shear Strength, su
Profile Name/Generic
vs feet/second (m/s) cohesionless soil layers) (blows/ft) psf (kPa)
Type Description
SA Hard rock > 5,000
(1500)
SB Rock 2,500 to 5,000
(760 to 1500)
SC Very dense soil 1,200 to 2,500 > 50 > 2,000

and soft rock (360 to 760) (100)
SD Stiff soil profile 600 to 1,200 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000
(180 to 360) (50 to 100)
SE1 Soft soil profile < 600 (180) < 15 < 1,000 (50)
SF Soil requiring site-specific evaluation. See Section 111
1.Soil Profile Type SE also includes any soil profile with more than 10 ft (3048 mm) of soft clay defined as a soil with a
plasticity index, PI > 20, wmc ≥ 40 percent and su < 500 psf (25 kPa). The plasticity index, PI, the moisture content,
wmc, shall be determined in accordance with approved national standards.
September 1999 41
Table 104-3 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
Table 104-3. Occupancy Categories (similar to UBC Table 16-K)
Importance
Importance
Factor Ip 1
Seismic
Seismic
Factor I
Occupancy Category
Occupancy or Function of Structure
I. Essential Facilities 2 Group I, Division 1. Occupancies having surgery and emergency 1.25 1.50
treatment areas. Fire and police stations. Garages and shelters for
emergency vehicles and emergency aircraft. Structures and shelters
in emergency preparedness centers. Aviation control towers. Struc-
tures and equipment in government communication centers and other
facilities required for emergency response. Standby power-generat-
ing equipment for Category I facilities. Tanks or other structures con-
taining housing or supporting water or other fire-suppression material
or equipment required for the protection of Category I, II, or III struc-
tures.
II. Hazardous Facilities 2 Group H, Divisions 1, 2, 6, and 7. Occupancies and structures 1.25 1.50
therein housing or supporting toxic or explosive chemicals or sub-
stances. Nonbuilding structures housing, supporting, or containing
quantities of toxic or explosive substances that, if contained within a
building, would cause that building to be classified as a Group H, Di-
vision 1, 2 or 7 Occupancy.
III. Special Occupancy Structures 2,3 Group A, Divisions 1, 2 and 2.1 Occupancies. Buildings housing 1.00 1.00
Group E, Divisions 1 and 3 occupancies with a capacity greater than
300 students. Buildings housing Group B Occupancies used for col-
lege or adult education with a capacity greater than 500 students.
Group I, Divisions 1 and 2 occupancies with 50 or more resident inca-
pacitated patients, but not included in Category I.
Group I, Division 3 Occupancies. All structures with an occupancy

greater than 5,000 persons. Structures and equipment in power-gen-
erating stations, and other public utility facilities not included in Cate-
gory I or Category II above, and required for continued operation.
IV. Standard Occupancy Structures 3 All structures housing occupancies or having functions not listed in 1.00 1.00
Categories I, II, or III, and Group U Occupancy towers.
V. Miscellaneous Group U occupancies 1.00 1.00
1. The limitation of Ip for panel connections in Section 108.2.4 shall be 1.0 for the entire connector.
2. Structural observation requirements are given in Chapter 2. Special review of the design and construction of structures classified
as Occupancy Categories I, II, and III is required in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4. See Section 201.
3. For anchorage of machinery and equipment required for life safety systems, the value of IP shall be taken as 1.5.
42 September 1999
Table 104-4. Vertical Structural Irregularities (UBC Table 16-L)
Irregularity Type and Definition Reference Section

1. Stiffness irregularity—soft story 104.8.4, Item 2
A soft story is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the story
above or less that 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three stories above.
2. Weight (mass) irregularity 104.8.4, Item 2
Mass irregularity shall be considered to exist where the effective mass of any story is more
than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent story. A roof which is lighter than the
floor below need not be considered.
3. Vertical geometric irregularity 104.8.4, Item 2

Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of
the lateral force-resisting system in any story is more than 130 percent of that in an adjacent
story. One-story penthouses need not be considered.
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral force resisting element 105.8

An in-plane offset of the lateral load-resisting elements greater than the length of those
elements.
5. Discontinuity in capacity—weak story 104.9.1
A weak story is one in which the story strength is less than 80 percent of that in the story
above. The story strength is the total strength of all seismic resisting elements sharing the
story shear for the direction under consideration.
Table 104-5. Plan Structural Irregularities (UBC Table 16-M)
Irregularity Type and Definition Reference Section

1. Torsional irregularity —to be considered when diaphragms are not flexible Section 105.7; Section 108.2.10 Item 6
Torsional irregularity shall be considered to exist when the maximum story drift computed
including accidental torsion, at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is more than
1.2 times the average of the story drifts of the two ends of the structure
2. Reentrant corners Section 108.2.10, Items 6 and 7
Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force-resisting system contain reentrant
corners, where both projections of the structure beyond a reentrant corner are greater than
15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the given direction.
3. Diaphragm discontinuity
Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, including those having
cutout or open areas greater than 50 percent of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragm,
or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the
next.
4. Out-of-plane offsets Section 105.8;
Discontinuities in a lateral force path, such as out-of-plane offsets of the vertical elements.
5. Nonparallel systems Section 108.1

The vertical lateral load-resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major
orthogonal axes of the lateral force-resisting system.
September 1999 43
Table 104-6. Structural Systems1 (UBC Table 16-N)
Height Limit for

Seismic Zones
Basic Structural System2 Lateral Force Resisting System 3 and 4 (X 304.8 R Ωo
Description Rd Ro for mm) (RdRo) (1.1 Ro)
1. Bearing Wall System 1. Light-framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panel walls for 2.2 2.5 65 5.5 2.8
structures three stories or less
b. All other light framed walls 1.8 2.5 65 4.5 2.8
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete 1.8 2.5 160 4.5 2.8
b. Masonry 1.8 2.5 160 4.5 2.8
3. Light steel-framed bearing walls with 1.4 2.0 65 2.8 2.2
tension-only bracing
4. Braced frames where bracing carries
gravity load
a. Steel 2.2 2.0 160 4.4 2.2
b. Concrete3 1.4 2.0 — 2.8 2.2
c. Heavy timber 1.4 2.0 65 2.8 2.2
2. Building Frame System 1. Steel eccentrically braced frame 2.8 2.5 240 7.0 2.8
(EBF)
2. Light-framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panel walls for 2.6 2.5 65 6.5 2.8
structures three stories or less
b. All other light framed walls 2.0 2.5 65 5.0 2.8
3. Shear walls
a. Concrete 2.2 2.5 240 5.5 2.8
b. Masonry 2.2 2.5 160 5.5 2.8
4. Ordinary braced frames
a. Steel 2.8 2.0 160 5.6 2.2
b. Concrete3 2.8 2.0 — 5.6 2.2
c. Heavy timber 2.8 2.0 65 5.6 2.2
5. Special concentrically braced frames
a. Steel 3.2 2.0 240 6.4 2.2
3. Moment Resisting 1. Special moment resisting frame
Frame System (SMRF)
a. Steel 3.4 2.5 N.L. 8.5 2.8
b. Concrete 3.4 2.5 N.L. 8.5 2.8
2. Masonry moment resisting wall 2.6 2.5 160 6.5 2.8
frame
3. Concrete intermediate moment 2.2 2.5 — 5.5 2.8
resisting frame (IMRF)4
4. Ordinary moment resisting frame
(OMRF)
a. Steel5, 9 1.8 2.5 160 4.5 2.8
b. Concrete6 1.4 2.5 — 3.5 2.8
5. Special truss moment frames of steel 2.6 2.5 240 6.5 2.8
(STMF)
44 September 1999
Table 104-6. (Continued) Structural Systems1 (UBC Table 16-N)
Height Limit for

Seismic Zones 3
Basic Structural System2 Lateral Force Resisting System and 4 X 304.8 R Ωo
Description Rd Ro for mm (RdRo) (1.1 Ro)
4. Dual Systems 1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF 3.4 2.5 N.L. 8.5 2.8
b. Concrete with steel OMRF 1.7 2.5 160 4.2 2.8
c. Concrete with concrete IMRF4 2.6 2.5 160 6.5 2.8
d. Masonry with SMRF 2.2 2.5 160 5.5 2.8
e. Masonry with steel OMRF 1.7 2.5 160 4.2 2.8
f. Masonry with concrete IMRF4 1.7 2.5 — 4.2 2.8
g. Masonry with masonry MRWF 2.4 2.5 160 6.0 2.8
2. Steel EBF
a. With steel SMRF 3.4 2.5 N.L. 8.5 2.8
b. With steel OMRF 1.7 2.5 160 4.2 2.8
a. Steel with steel SMRF 2.6 2.5 N.L. 6.5 2.8
b. Steel with steel OMRF 1.7 2.5 160 4.2 2.8
c. Concrete with concrete SMRF3 2.6 2.5 — 6.5 2.8
d. Concrete with concrete IMRF3 1.7 2.5 — 4.2 2.8
a. Steel with steel SMRF 3.0 2.5 N.L. 7.5 2.8
b. Steel with steel OMRF 1.7 2.5 160 4.2 2.8
5. Cantilevered Column 1. Cantilevered column elements 1.2 1.8 357 2.2 2.0
Building Systems
6. Shear Wall-Frame 1. Concrete8 2.2 2.5 160 5.5 2.8
Interaction Systems
7. Undefined Systems See Section 104.6.7 and — — — —
Section 104.9.2
N.L. = no limit
1. See Section 105.4 for combination of structural systems.
2. Basic structural systems are defined in Section 104.6
3. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
4. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4, except as permitted in Section 109.2.
5. Ordinary moment-resisting frames in Seismic Zone 1 meeting the requirements of UBC §2211.6 may
use an R value of 8.
6. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. See Section 108.2.7.
7. Total height of the building including cantilevered columns.
8. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 2A, 2B, 3, and 4.
9. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4 steel OMRFs are permitted as follows:
a. Where the near source factor Na, equals one, structures are permitted to a height of 35 ft. For single story buildings
where the moment joints of field connections are constructed of bolted end plates and the dead load of the roof does
not exceed 15 psf. the height is permitted to be increased to 60 ft.
b. Where the near source factor Na, is greater than one, structures are permitted to a height of 35 feet where the dead
weight of the floors, walls and roof do not exceed 15 psf.
c. The height limit of 160 feet for non-building structures is permitted to be used if the beam-to-column joint inelastic
rotational capacity requirement is taken as 0.03 radians.
September 1999 45
Table 104-7. Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp (UBC Table 16-O)
Elements of Structures and Footnote

Nonstructural Components and Equipment1 ap Rp Number
1. Elements of Structures
a. Walls including the following:
(1) Unbraced (cantilevered) parapets 2.5 3.0
(2) Exterior walls at or above the ground floor and 1.0 3.0 2
parapets braced above their centers of gravity
(3) All interior bearing and nonbearing walls 1.0 3.0 2

b. Penthouse (except when framed by an extension of 2.5 4.0
the structural frame)
c. Connections for prefabricated structural elements 1.0 3.0 3
other than walls. See also Section 107.2
2. Nonstructural Components
a. Exterior and interior ornamentations and 2.5 3.0
appendages
b. Chimneys, stacks and trussed towers supported on
or projecting above the roof
(1) Laterally braced or anchored to the structural 2.5 3.0
frame at a point below their centers of mass
(2) Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame 1.0 3.0
at or above the centers of mass
c. Signs and billboards. 2.5 3.0
d. Storage racks (include contents) over six feet (1829 2.5 4.0 4
mm) tall.
e. Permanent floor-supported cabinets and book stacks 1.0 3.0 5
more than 6 feet (1829 mm) in height (include
contents).
f. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings 1.0 3.0 3, 6, 7, 8
and light fixtures.
g. Access floor systems. 1.0 3.0 4, 5, 9
h. Masonry or concrete fences over 6 feet (1829 mm) 1.0 3.0
high.
i. Partitions. 1.0 3.0
46 September 1999
Table 104-7. (Continued) Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp (UBC Table 16-O)
Elements of Structures and Footnote

Nonstructural Components and Equipment1 ap Rp Number
3. Equipment
a. Tanks and vessels (include contents), including 1.0 3.0
support systems
b. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment and 1.0 3.0 5, 8, 10, 11, 12,
associated conduit, and ductwork and piping. 13, 14, 15, 16
c. Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored 2.5 3.0 5, 10, 14, 15, 16
to the structural frame at a point below their center of
mass.
d. Anchorage of emergency power supply systems and 1.0 3.0 17, 18
essential communications equipment. Anchorage
and support systems for battery racks and fuel tanks
necessary for operation of emergency equipment.
See also Section 107.2
e. Temporary containers with flammable or hazardous 1.0 3.0 19
materials.
4. Other Components
a. Rigid components with ductile material and 1.0 3.0 1
attachments.
b. Rigid components with nonductile material or 1.0 1.5 1
attachments.
c. Flexible components with ductile material and 2.5 3.0 1
attachments.
d. Flexible components with nonductile material or 2.5 1.5 1
attachments.
1. See Section 102 for definitions of flexible components and rigid components.
2. See Section 108.2.4 and 108.2.8 for concrete and masonry walls and Section 107.2 for
connections for panel connectors for panels.
3. Applies to Seismic Zones Nos. 2, 3, and 4 only.
4. Ground supported steel storage racks may be designed using the provisions of Section 109.
UBC Chapter 22, Division VI may be used for design provided seismic design forces are equal
to or greater than those specified in Sections 107.2 or 109.2, as appropriate.
5. Only attachments, anchorages, or restraints need be designed.
6. Ceiling weight shall include all light fixtures and other equipment or partitions that are
laterally supported by the ceiling. For purposes of determining the seismic force, a ceiling
weight of not less than 4 pounds per square foot (19.5 kh/m2) shall be used.
7. Ceilings constructed of lath and plaster or gypsum board screw or nail attached to suspended
members that support a ceiling at one level extending from wall to wall need not be analyzed
provided the walls are not over 50 feet (15 m) apart.
8. Light fixtures and mechanical services installed in metal suspension systems for acoustical tile
and lay-in panel ceilings shall be independently supported from the structure above as
specified in UBC Standard 25-2, Part III.
9. Wp for access floor systems shall be the dead load of the access floor system plus 25 percent of
the floor live load plus a 10 psf (0.5 kPa) partition load allowance.
10. Equipment includes, but is not limited to, boilers, chillers, heat exchangers, pumps,
air-handling units, cooling towers, control panels, motors, switchgear, transformers, and life
safety equipment. It shall include major conduit, ducting, and piping which services such
machinery and equipment and fire sprinkler systems. See Section 107.2 for additional
requirements for determining ap for nonrigid or flexibly mounted equipment.
September 1999 47
11. Seismic restraints may be omitted from piping and duct supports if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
11.1 Lateral motion of the piping or duct will not cause damaging impact with other systems.
11.2 The piping or duct is made of ductile material with ductile connections.
11.3 Lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause impact of fragile appurtenances (e.g.
sprinkler heads) with any other equipment, piping, or structural member.
11.4 Lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause loss of system vertical support.
11.5 Rod-hung supports of less than 12 inches (30 mm) in length have top connections that
cannot develop moments.
11.6 Support members cantilevered up from the floor are checked for stability.
12. Seismic restraints may be omitted from electrical raceways such as cable trays, conduit, and
bus ducts if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
12.1 Lateral motion of the raceway will not cause damaging impact with other systems.
12.2 Lateral motion of the raceway does not cause loss of system vertical support.
12.3 Rod-hung supports of less than 12 inches (30 mm) in length have top connections that
cannot develop moments.
12.4 Support members cantilevered up from the floor are checked for stability.
13. Piping, ducts, and electrical raceways that span between different buildings or structural
systems, and which must be functional following an earthquake, shall be sufficiently flexible
to withstand relative motion of support points assuming out-of-phase motions.
14. Vibration isolators supporting equipment shall be designed for lateral loads or restrained from
displacing laterally by other means. Restraint shall also be provided which limits vertical
displacement, such that lateral restraints do not become disengaged. ap and Rp for equipment
supported on vibration isolators shall be taken as 2.5 and 1.5, respectively, except that if the
isolation mounting frame is supported by shallow or expansion anchors and the isolation
system nominal air gap is greater than 1.25 inches, the design force for the anchors calculated
by Equation 107-2 shall be additionally multiplied by a factor of 2.0 to account for impact
effects.
15. Equipment anchorage shall not be designed such that lateral loads are resisted by gravity
friction (e.g., friction clips).
16. Expansion anchors which are required to resist seismic loads in tension shall not be used where
operational vibrating loads are present.
17. Movement of components within electrical cabinets, rack- and skid-mounted equipment, and
portions of skid-mounted electromechanical equipment that may cause damage to other
components by displacing, shall be restricted by attachment to anchored equipment or support
frames.
18. Batteries on racks shall be restrained against movement in all directions due to earthquake
forces.
19. Seismic restraints may include straps, chains, bolts, barriers, or other mechanisms that prevent
sliding, falling, and breach of containment of flammable and toxic materials. Friction forces
may not be used to resist lateral loads in these restraints unless positive uplift restraint is
provided which ensures that the friction forces act continuously.
48 September 1999
Table 104-8. Ro and Rd Factors for Nonbuilding Structures (UBC Table 16-P)
Structure Type Rd Ro R Ωo
(RdRo) (1.1 Ro)
1. Vessels, including tanks and pressurized spheres on braced or 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.0
unbraced legs.
2. Cast-in-place concrete silos and chimneys having walls continuous 2.0 1.8 3.6 2.0
to the foundations.
3. Distributed mass cantilever structures such as stacks, chimneys, 1.6 1.8 2.9 2.0
silos and skirt-supported vertical vessels.
4. Trussed towers (freestanding or guyed), guyed stacks and 1.6 1.8 2.9 2.0
chimneys.
5. Cantilevered columns type structures. 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.0
6. Cooling towers. 2.0 1.8 3.6 2.0
7. Bins and hoppers on braced or unbraced legs. 1.6 1.8 2.9 2.0
8. Storage racks. 2.0 1.8 3.6 2.0
9. Signs and billboards. 2.0 1.8 3.6 2.0
10. Amusement structures and monuments. 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.0
11. All other self-supporting structures not otherwise covered. 1.6 1.8 2.9 2.0
Table 104-9. Seismic Coefficient Ca (UBC Table 16-Q)
Seismic Zone Factor, Z

Soil Profile
Z=0.075 Z = 0.15 Z = 0.2 Z = 0.3 Z = 0.4
Type
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Na
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Na
SC 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.40Na
SD 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.44Na
SE 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.36Na
SF See Footnote 1
1. Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be

performed to determine seismic coefficients for Soil Profile Type SF.
September 1999 49
Table 104-10. Seismic Coefficient Cv (UBC Table 16-R)
Seismic Zone Factor, Z

Soil Profile
Z=0.075 Z = 0.15 Z = 0.2 Z = 0.3 Z = 0.4
Type
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Nv
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Nv
SC 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.45 0.56Nv
SD 0.18 0.32 0.40 0.54 0.64Nv
SE 0.26 0.50 0.64 0.84 0.96Nv
SF See Footnote 1
1. Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be

performed to determine seismic coefficients for Soil Profile Type SF.
Table 104-11. Near Source Factor Na1 (UBC Table 16-S)
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source2,3

Seismic Source
Type
≤ 2 km 5 km ≥ 10 km
A 1.5 1.2 1.0

B 1.3 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0
1. The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for
distances other than those shown in the table.
2. The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established
based on approved geotechnical data (e.g. most recent mapping of active faults by the
United States Geological Survey or the California Division of Mines and Geology).
3. The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance
between the site and the area described by the vertical projection of the source on the
surface (i.e., surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not
include portions of the source at depths of 10 km, or greater. The largest value of the
near-source factor considering all sources shall be used for design.
50 September 1999
Table 104-12. Near Source Factor Nv1 (UBC Table 16-T)
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source2,3

Seismic Source
Type
≤ 2 km 5 km 10 km ≥ 15 km
A 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.0
B 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1. The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for distances
other than those shown in the table.
2. The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based
on approved geotechnical data (e.g. most recent mapping of active faults by the United
States Geological Survey or the California Division of Mines and Geology).
3. The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the
site and the area described by the vertical projection of the source on the surface (i.e.,
surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not include portions of the
source at depths of 10 km, or greater. The largest value of the near-source factor
considering all sources shall be used for design.
Table 104-13. Seismic Source Type (UBC Table 16-U)
Seismic Source Definition2

Seismic Seismic Source
Maximum Moment Slip Rate, SR
Source Type1 Description
Magnitude, M (mm/year)
A Faults that are capable of M ≥ 7.0 SR ≥ 5
producing large magnitude
events and which have a
high rate of seismic activity
B All faults other than Types A M ≥ 7.0 SR < 5
and C
M < 7.0 SR >2
M ≥ 6.5 SR < 2
C Faults which are not capable M< 6.5 SR ≤ 2

of producing large magni-
tude earthquakes and which
have a relatively low rate of
seismic activity
1. Subduction sources shall be evaluated on a site specific basis.

2. Both maximum moment magnitude and slip rate conditions must be satisfied
concurrently when determining the seismic source type
September 1999 51
Table 152-1. Structural Systems Above the Isolation Interface1 (UBC Table A-16-E)
Height Limit for

Basic Structural Seismic Zones 3 and 4
System 2 Lateral Force Resisting System RI (x304.8 for mm)
A. Bearing Wall 1. Light framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panel walls for structures 2.0 65
three stories or fewer
b. All other light framed walls 2.0 65
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete 2.0 160
b. Masonry 2.0 160
3. Light steel framed bearing walls with tension-only 1.6 65
bracing
4. Braced frames where bracing carries gravity
loads
a. Steel 1.6 160
3 1.6 —
b. Concrete
c. Heavy timber 1.6 65
B. Building Frame 1. Steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) 2.0 240
2. Light framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panel walls for structures 2.0 65
three stories or fewer
b. All other light framed walls 2.0 65
3. Shear walls
a. Concrete 2.0 240
b. Masonry 2.0 160
a. Steel 1.6 160
b. Concrete3 1.6 —
c. Heavy timber 1.6 65
a. Steel 2.0 240
C. Moment 1. Special moment resisting frame (SMRF)
Resisting Frame a. Steel 2.0 NL
b. Concrete 2.0 NL
2. Masonry moment resisting wall frames 2.0 160
(MMRWF)
3. Concrete intermediate moment resisting frames 2.0 —
(IMRF)4
4. Ordinary moment resisting frames (OMRF)
a. Steel5 2.0 160
b. Concrete6 2.0 —
5. Special truss moment frames of steel (STMF) 2.0 240
52 September 1999
Table 152-1. Structural Systems Above the Isolation Interface1 (UBC Table A-16-E)
Height Limit for

Basic Structural Seismic Zones 3 and 4
System 7 Lateral Force Resisting System RI (x304.8 for mm)
D. Dual System 1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF 2.0 NL
b. Concrete with steel OMRF 2.0 160
c. Concrete with IMRF4 2.0 160
d. Masonry with SMRF 2.0 160
e. Masonry with steel OMRF 2.0 160
f. Masonry with concrete IMRF3 2.0 —
g. Masonry with masonry MMRWF 2.0 160
2. Steel EBF
a. With steel SMRF 2.0 NL
b. With steel OMRF 2.0 160
a. Steel with steel SMRF 2.0 NL
b. Steel with steel OMRF 2.0 160
c. Concrete with concrete SMRF3 2.0 —
d. Concrete with concrete IMRF3 2.0 —
4. Special concentrically Braced Frames
a. Steel with Steel SMRF 2.0 NL
b. Steel with Steel OMRF 2.0 160
E. Cantilevered Col- 1. Cantilevered column elements 1.4 358
umn Building System
F. Shear Wall-Frame 1. Concrete6 2.0 —
Interaction
G. Undefined Systems See Sections 104.6.7 and 104.9.2 —
1. See Section 105.4 for combination of structural systems.
2. Basic structural systems are defined in Section 104.6.
3. Prohibited in seismic zones 3 and 4.
4. Prohibited in seismic zones 3 and 4, except as permitted in Section 108.1.
5. Ordinary moment resisting frames in seismic zone 1 meeting the requirements of UBC §2213.6 may us an RI
value of 2.0.
6. Prohibited in seismic zones 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. See Section 108.2.7.
7. Basic structural systems are defined in Section 104.6.
8. Total height of the building including cantilevered columns.
NL = no limit
September 1999 53
Table 152-2. Maximum Capable Earthquake

Response Coefficient, MM (UBC Table A-16-D)
Design Basis Maximum Capable

Earthquake Shaking Earthquake Response
Intensity, ZNV Coefficient, MM
0.075 2.67
0.15 2.0
0.20 1.75
0.30 1.50
0.40 1.25
≥ 0.50 1.20
Table 152-3. Damping Coefficients, BD and BM

(UBC Table A-16-C)
Effective Damping β D
or β M (percentage of BD or BM Factor
critical)1,2
≤2 0.8
5 1.0
10 1.2
20 1.5
30 1.7
40 1.9
≥ 50 2.0
1. The damping coefficient shall be based on the

effective damping of the isolation system
determined in accordance with the requirements of
UBC §1665.5
2. The damping coefficient shall be based on linear
interpolation for effective damping values other
than those given.
54 September 1999
Table 152-4. Seismic Coefficient, CAM1 (UBC Table A-16-F)
Soil Profile Maximum Capable Earthquake Shaking Intensity MMZNa

Type
MM ZNa = 0.075 MM ZNa = 0.15 MM ZNa = 0.20 MM ZNa = 0.30 MM ZNa ≥ 0.40
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.8MMZNa
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 1.0MMZNa
SC 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.33 1.0MMZNa
SD 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.36 1.1MMZNa
SE 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.9MMZNa
SF See footnote 2
1. Linear interpolation may be used to determine the value of CAM for values of MMZNa for other than those shown
in the table.
2. Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients for soil.
Table 152-5. Seismic Coefficient, CVM1 (UBC Table A-16-G)
Soil Profile Maximum Capable Earthquake Shaking Intensity MMZNv

Type
MM ZNv = 0.075 MM ZNv = 0.15 MM ZNv = 0.20 MM ZNv = 0.30 MM ZNv = 0.40
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.8MM ZNv
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 1.0MM ZNv
SC 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.45 1.4MM ZNv
SD 0.18 0.32 0.40 0.54 1.6MM ZNv
SE 0.26 0.50 0.64 0.84 2.4MM ZNv
SF See footnote 2
1. Linear interpolation may be used to determine the value of CVM for values of MMZNv for other than those shown
in the table.
2. Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients for soil.
September 1999 55
Figure 104-1 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
Figure 104-1. Seismic zone map for California
56 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Requirements Figure 104-2
Figure 104-2. Response spectrum shape
September 1999 57
Figure 104-2 Requirements SEAOC Blue Book
58 September 1999
CHAPTER 2
Structural Tests and Inspections
201 General Requirements heads do not penetrate the sheathing surface, and that
hold-downs are properly placed.
Structural inspections and tests for elements of the seismic
force resisting system and nonstructural components and 202.1.3 Add new item: UBC §1701.5, Item 17, Des-
equipment anchorage subject to the requirements of Chap- ignated Seismic Systems
ter 1 shall conform to the requirements of the 1997 edition The following additional special inspection requirements
of UBC, except as modified by Requirements of this chap- shall apply to components of the seismic system desig-
ter. nated as subject to quality assurance in accordance with
Requirements Section 202.6.
All buildings shall have design review and review of
the construction during the progress of the construction. 202.1.3.1 Prestressed Concrete. Continuous
Special review of the design and construction of buildings special inspection required during placement and stressing
housing Occupancy Categories I, II, or III in Seismic of prestressing steel.
Zones 2, 3, or 4 is required.
202.1.3.2 Structural Masonry. Continuous spe-
Where complex or innovative building systems are in- cial inspection required during placement of reinforce-
volved it is advisable, and may be required by the jurisdic- ment and during all grouting operations for masonry that
tion in which the proposed structure will be located, to use is part of the seismic resisting system.
project design peer review.
202.1.3.3 Structural Steel. Continuous special
inspection required during all shop and field welding of all
202 Recommended Modifications
multiple-pass welded connections. Periodic special in-
to 1997 UBC spection may be specified for single-pass fillet welds ac-
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC recording to a procedure outlined in the quality assurance
quirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Com- plan. This procedure must provide explicit instructions re-
mittee. These items may or may not be adopted into future lated to the periodic inspection.
editions of the UBC. 202.1.3.4 Structural Wood. Continuous special
202.1 Special Inspections inspection is required during all field structural gluing op-
erations. Periodic special inspection required for nailing,
202.1.1 Modify: UBC §1701.5, Item 11, Piling,
bolting, or other fastening.
Drilled Piers, and Caissons. Add at end of existing para-
graph as follows: 202.1.3.5 Architectural Components. Special
Piling, drilled piers, and caissons: verify that the soil at the inspection for architectural components as follows:
site is that assumed in the design, when required by the 1. Periodic special inspection required during erection
quality assurance plan. and fastening or exterior panels and interior partitions
202.1.2 Add new item: UBC§1701.5, Item 16, Wood and ceilings.
For diaphragms and shear walls with boundary or panel 2. Periodic special inspection required during the adhe-
edge nail spacing less than 4 inches on centers: the sion or anchoring of veneers.
inspection shall verify nail size and spacing, that nail
September 1999 59
202.1.3.6 Mechanical and Electrical Compo- construction, at least one sample prism shall be
nents. Periodic special inspection required during instal- prepared per day, but not less than one sample
lation of the anchorage of the following components: prism per 5,000 sq. ft. of wall area. Tests shall be
1. Equipment using combustible energy sources. performed for compressive strength in
2. Electrical motors, transformers, switchgear unit sub- accordance with ASTM standards appropriate for
stations, and motor control centers. the type of unit used.
3. Machinery, reciprocating and rotating type. 4. Structural Steel. Special testing of structural steel
shall be as follows:
4. Piping distribution systems 3 inches or larger.
a. Welded connections for special moment frames
5. Tanks, heat exchangers, and pressure vessels.
shall be tested by nondestructive methods
202.2 Special Testing conforming to AWS D1.1. All complete
Modify: UBC §1703 Non Destructive Testing. penetration groove welds contained in joints and
Delete existing text and replace as follows: splices shall be tested 100 percent either by
ultrasonic testing or by other approved equivalent
The special inspector shall be responsible for verifying
methods.
that the special test requirements are performed by an ap-
proved testing agency for the types of work in designated Exception: The nondestructive testing rate for
seismic systems listed below. an individual welder may be reduced to 25 percent
1. Reinforcing and Prestressing Steel. Special test- with the concurrence of the person responsible for
ing of reinforcing and prestressing steel shall be as fol- structural design, provided the reject rate is dem-
lows: onstrated to be 5 percent or less of the welds tested
for that welder. A sampling of at least 40 complet-
a. Sample at fabricator’s plant and test reinforcing
ed welds for a job shall be made for such reduction
steel used in reinforced concrete special moment
evaluation. Reject rate is defined as the number of
frames and boundary members of reinforced
welds containing rejectable defects divided by the
concrete or reinforced masonry shear walls for
number of welds completed. For evaluating the re-
limitations on weldability, elongation, and
ject rate of continuous welds over 3 feet (914 mm)
actual-to-specified yield and ultimate strength
in length where the effective throat thickness is 1
ratios.
inch (25 mm) or less, each 12-inch increment (305
Exception: Certified mill test certificates may mm) or fraction thereof shall be considered as one
be accepted for ASTM A-706 reinforcing steel, weld. For evaluating the reject rate on continuous
provided that the bars have the raised marking welds over 3 feet (914 mm) in length where the ef-
symbol per A-706 or other unique manufacturer fective throat thickness is greater than 1 inch (25
identification. mm), each 6 inches (152 mm) of length or fraction
b. Examine certified mill test reports for each lot of thereof shall be considered one weld.
prestressing steel and determine conformance b. Partial penetration groove welds, when used in
with specification requirements. column splices, shall be tested by ultrasonic
2. Structural Concrete. Sample at job site and test testing or other approved method at a rate
concrete in accordance with requirements of ACI 318. established by the person responsible for the
3. Structural Masonry. Special testing of structural structural design. All such welds designed to
masonry shall be as follows: resist tension resulting form the prescribed
a. Sample and test mortar at the rate of at least once seismic design forces shall be tested.
per day, but not less than once for each 2,000 sq. c. Base metal thicker than 1.5 inches, when subject
ft. of wall area. to through-thickness weld shrinkage strains, shall
b. Sample and test grout during each grout pour, but be ultrasonically tested for discontinuities behind
not less than once for each 2,000 sq. ft. of wall and adjacent to such welds after joint completion.
area. Any material discontinuities shall be accepted or
rejected on the basis of criteria acceptable to the
c. When fm is to be established by prism tests, at
regulatory agency with the concurrence of the
least five representative prisms shall be prepared person responsible for the structural design.
and tested prior to start of work. During
60 September 1999
5. Seismic Isolation Systems, Passive Energy Dissipa- independent engineer licensed in the state in which the
tion Systems. Testing and inspection of seismic iso- building is constructed.
lators and passive energy dissipation devices shall be
202.5 Project Design Peer Review
as follows:
a. All prototype and production phase testing of Add new section: UBC §1706, Project Design
Peer Review
isolators shall be performed in accordance with
For complex or innovative building systems, the owner
the provisions of Sections 157 and 160 and all
may wish to involve a project design peer reviewer or
isolator testing shall be witnessed and reported by
review panel. The jurisdiction where the building is to be
a qualified, independent inspector.
built may require that the owner invoke project design peer
b. All prototype and production phase testing of review. The peer review process should start in the
passive energy dissipation devices shall be conceptual stage and continue through the end of
performed in accordance with the provisions of construction document production and approval by the
Appendix H, Section H8.6 and H10, and all such jurisdiction.
testing shall be witnessed and reported by a
qualified, independent inspector. The project design peer review shall be an indepen-
c. Periodic inspection and maintenance of seismic dent and objective technical review to examine the basic
isolators shall be performed based on the concepts, objectives, and criteria proposed for the project.
Requirements of Section 157.2.8. The design reviewer(s) shall be independent from the de-
sign team, experienced in the type of project being re-
d. Periodic inspection and maintenance of passive
viewed, and led by a structural engineer registered in the
energy dissipating devices shall be performed
state where the project is to be constructed.
based on the requirements of Appendix H,
Section H8.5. 202.6 Quality Assurance
202.3 Structural Observation Add new section: UBC §1707, Quality Assurance
A quality assurance plan shall be prepared by the design
Modify: UBC §1702, Structural Observation. Delete
engineer and shall be made a part of the construction
existing text and replace as follows:
documents. The plan shall specify the type and extent of
Structural observation shall be provided by the design en- materials testing to be performed and the extent of field
gineer(s) of record or their authorized representatives. and shop inspection required to obtain compliance with
Structural observation shall consist of site visits at inter- the design documents. This quality assurance plan shall be
vals appropriate to the stage of construction to observe executed by an independent laboratory or inspector
construction in progress and review testing and inspection accepted by the design engineer and approved by the
reports for general compliance with the construction doc- Building Official. This plan is in addition to the quality
uments relating to the structural work and the nonstruc- control administered by the Contractor for his or her own
tural components and equipment anchorage. Observed operations.
deficiencies shall be reported in writing to the owner’s rep-
resentative, special inspector, contractor, and building of- As a minimum, the quality assurance plan shall com-
ficial. A report to the same parties shall be made at the ply with the following:
completion of the structural work and the nonstructural 1. Details of Quality Assurance Plan. The quality as-
components and equipment anchorage regarding the ob- surance plan (QAP) shall specify the seismic systems
servations that have been made. designated as subject to quality assurance. The person
responsible for the design of a designated seismic sys-
202.4 Design Review tem shall be responsible for specifying the QAP appli-
Add new section: UBC §1705, Design Review cable to that system. The type and frequency of special
The special design review required by Section 201 for inspections and special tests needed to establish that
buildings housing Occupancy Categories I, II or III in construction is in conformance with these Require-
Seismic Zones 2, 3, or 4 shall be by an independent ments shall be included in the portion of the QAP ap-
structural engineer licensed in the state in which the plicable to the designated seismic system. Structural
building is constructed. For other Occupancy Categories, observations to be performed shall be specified. The
the design review required by Section 201 shall be by an frequency and distribution of all reports shall be indi-
cated in the QAP. As a minimum, each special inspec-
September 1999 61
tor shall furnish to the regulatory agency, the owner, 202.6.1 Special Inspection and Testing. The build-
the persons preparing the QAP, and to the constructor, ing owner shall employ an approved special inspector to
copies of regular weekly progress reports of observa- observe construction of all designated seismic systems in
tions, noting thereon any uncorrected deficiencies, accordance with the requirements of UBC §1701.5 and
correction of previously reported deficiencies, and §1703.
changes to the approved plans authorized by the engi- 202.6.2 Completion. At completion of construction,
neer of record. All deficiencies shall be brought to the the building inspector shall submit a final report to the reg-
immediate attention of the contractor for correction. ulatory agency and engineer of record certifying that all
2. Constructor Responsibility. Each constructor reconstruction work incorporated into the designated seis-
sponsible for the construction of a designated seismic mic system was constructed substantially in accordance
system or component listed in the QAP shall submit a with the design documents and applicable workmanship
written statement to the regulatory agency prior to requirements. Work not in compliance shall be noted in
commencement of work on such system or compo- the report.
nent. The statement shall clearly show the following:
a. Acknowledgment that he or she is aware of the
special requirements contained in the QAP.
b. Acknowledgment that he or she will exercise con-
trol to obtain conformance with the design docu-
ments approved by the regulatory agency.
c. Procedures for exercising control within his or her
organization, the method and frequency of report-
ing, and the distribution of the reports.
d. The person exercising such control and his or her
position in the management of the organization.
62 September 1999
CHAPTER 3
Foundations
301 General Requirements 302.2 Requirements for Piles, Pile Caps,

and Grade Beams in Seismic Zones
The design and construction of foundation systems shall 3 and 4
conform to the requirements of the 1997 edition of the
UBC, except as modified by the Requirements of this 302.2.1 Modify: UBC §1809.5.1 General
chapter. The load combinations of Section 101.7.3 may be Requirements. Add the following sentence:
used to evaluate soil bearing, sliding, or overturning at the Piles shall be designed for flexure when displaced by
soil-structure interface regardless of the design method earthquake motions.
used for the structure. 302.2.2 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.5.2.4 Ad-
ditional Requirements for Piles
302 Recommended Modifications 1. Splices of pile segments shall develop the full axial
to 1997 UBC and flexural strength of the pile.
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC re- 2. Concrete piles shall be designed as columns in accor-
quirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Com- dance with UBC §1921.4 using appropriate strength
mittee. reduction factors, φ, from UBC §1909. The percent-
age of longitudinal reinforcement in non-prestressed
302.1 Allowable Foundation and Lateral
concrete piles shall exceed the lesser of one-half of
Pressures
one percent of the gross section area or one percent of
Modify: UBC §1805 Allowable Foundation and the core section area. For piles in competent soils, the
Lateral Pressures. Add new paragraph at beginning of volume of transverse reinforcement for confinement
section to read as follows: of concrete in potential plastic hinge regions may be
The capacity of the soil in bearing, or the capacity of the reduced by multiplying the values in UBC §1921.4 by
soil interface between pile, pier, or caisson and the soil, the following:
shall be sufficient to support the structure with all pre- Pu
scribed loads, other than earthquake forces, taking due ac- 0.5 + 1.4 ------------ Eqn. 302-1
count of the settlement that the structure is capable of f c′ A g
withstanding. For load combinations including earth-
Friction or bond shall not be considered to provide
quake, the soil capacity must be sufficient to resist loads at
load transfer between concrete and steel of metal cased
acceptable deformations considering both the cyclic na-
concrete piles.
ture of loading and the dynamic properties of the soil.
Bearing capacity for total loads, including earthquake 3. Steel piles shall be designed as columns in accordance
forces, for load combinations of Section 101.7.3 may be with AISC-Seismic 97, Part III, Section 8.
increased by more than 33 percent of the capacity for dead 4. Interaction effects of axial and flexure forces for pre-
plus live loads, if substantiated by structural and geotech- cast prestressed concrete piles shall conform to
nical data. UBC §1918.11.1.
5. The strength of concrete piles in axial compression
and flexure shall be multiplied by a factor of 0.70
when hc /h is less than 0.70.
September 1999 63
6. Where batter piles are subject to forces from earth- 302.2.4 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.6 Special
quake ground motions, they shall be fixed to the grade Requirements for Pile Caps and Grade Beams
beam or pile cap. Batter piles and their connection 1. Grade beams shall be designed as beams in accor-
shall be capable of resisting forces from the load com- dance with UBC §1921.3 and §1921.4. When grade
binations of Section 101.7.4. beams have the capacity to resist the forces from the
7. Load factors for reinforced concrete design shall con- load combinations in Section 101.7.4, they need not
form with Section 101.7.2. conform to UBC §1921.3 and §1921.4.
302.2.3 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.5.3 2. Design of anchorage of piles into the pile cap shall
Pile-Soil-Structure Interaction consider combined effect of uplift forces and fixity to
1. Pile moments, shears and lateral deflections used for the pile cap. Anchorage shall develop a minimum of
design shall be established considering the nonlinear 25 percent of the allowable tensile value of the pile.
interaction of the shaft and soil, as recommended by a For piles required to resist uplift forces or provide ro-
geotechnical engineer. Where the ratio of the depth of tational restraint, anchorage into the pile cap shall be
embedment of the pile-to-the-pile diameter or width is capable of developing, at a minimum, the lesser of the
less than or equal to 6, the pile may be assumed to be following:
rigid. a. The tensile strength of the longitudinal
2. Pile group effects from soil on lateral pile capacity reinforcement in a concrete pile or the tensile
shall be considered where pile center-to-center spac- strength of a steel pile.
ing in the direction of lateral force is less than 8 pile b. 1.3 times the pile uplift capacity in the soil.
diameters. Pile group effects on vertical capacity shall 3. Where the vertical lateral force resisting elements are
be considered where pile center-to-center spacing is columns, the grade beam or pile cap flexural strengths
less than 3 pile diameters. shall exceed the column flexural strength by a factor
3. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, flexure due to seismic soil of 1.3. Column longitudinal reinforcing bar hooks in
deformations shall be considered in the design of piles the grade beam or pile cap shall be oriented such that
in soil profile types SD, SE, and SF, and in sites with a the bend induces compression into the joints.
potential for soil liquefaction strength loss. Except for 4. The distance from the face of the pile away from the
piles in Soil Profile Type SD, such piles shall comply cap or grade beam edges shall not be less than 9
with the minimum special detailing requirements for inches.
members subjected to flexure and axial load as speci- 5. The stiffness of the pile cap shall be considered as
fied in UBC §1910 and §1921 for concrete piles, and rigid when the span-to-depth ratio does not exceed 2.
AISC-Seismic 97, Part III, Section 8 for steel piles, Pile cap flexibility and nonuniform distribution of re-
unless it is shown through analysis that lesser require- actions on piles shall be considered for greater ratios.
ments are sufficient.
4. The mass of the grade beams and pile caps shall be
considered as part of the inertial force on the piles.
5. Lateral passive soil resistance at vertical projected
surfaces of pile caps, grade beams, walls, and piles
may be combined to resist inertial forces from the su-
perstructure. The use of frictional resistance, resulting
from soil pressure normal to structural member sur-
faces, shall be neglected where soil settlement or
structure/soil deformations could result in loss of soil
contact.
64 September 1999
CHAPTER 4
Reinforced Concrete
401 General Requirements 1. Type 1 mechanical splices shall conform to UBC

§1912.14.3.4
Design and construction of structural concrete compo-
nents that are subject to seismically induced forces or de- 2. Type 2 mechanical splices shall conform to UBC
formations shall conform to the requirements of the 1997 §1214.3.4 and shall develop the specified tensile
UBC, except as modified by the Requirements of this strength of the spliced bar.
chapter. 402.2.2 UBC §1921.2.6.2. Type 1 mechanical
splices shall not be used within a distance equal to twice
402 Recommended Modifications the member depth from the column or beam face or from
to 1997 UBC sections where yielding of the reinforcement is likely to
occur as a result of inelastic lateral displacements. Type 2
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC re- mechanical splices shall be permitted to be used at any lo-
quirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Com- cation.
mittee. These items may or may not be adopted into future
402.2.3 UBC §1921.2.6.3. Welded splices in rein-
editions of the IBC (International Building Code).
forcement resisting earthquake-induced forces shall con-
402.1 Definitions of ρh and ρv form to 1912.14.3.3 and shall not be used within a distance
Modify: UBC §1921.0 Notations. Modify defini- equal to twice the member depth from the column or beam
tions of ρh and ρv, to read as follows: face or from sections where yielding of the reinforcement
is likely to occur as a result of inelastic lateral displace-
ρh = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement ments.
parallel to the plane of Acv to gross concrete
402.2.4 UBC §1921.2.6.4. Welding of stirrups, ties,
area perpendicular to that reinforcement. inserts, or other similar elements to longitudinal reinforce-
ρv = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement ment required by design shall not be permitted.
perpendicular to the plane of Acv to gross 402.3 Flexural Members of Frames
concrete area Acv.
Modify: UBC §1921.3.1 Scope. To read as follows:
402.2 Welded Splices and Requirements of this section apply to frame members: 1)
Mechanically Connected resisting earthquake-induced forces and 2) proportioned
Reinforcement primarily to resist flexure. Vertical members that resist
Modify: UBC §1921.2.6.1 To read as follows: gravity loads by axial compression shall conform to
UBC §1921.4.
Mechanical splices shall conform to UBC §1921.2.6.1 and
UBC §1921.2.6.2. Welded splices shall conform to UBC
§1921.2.6.3 and UBC §1921.2.6.4.
402.2.1 UBC §1921.2.6.1. Mechanical splices shall
be classified as either Type 1 or Type 2 mechanical
splices, as follows:
September 1999 65
402.4 Frames Members Subjected to 2. Development of vertical reinforcement into the foun-
Bending and Axial Loads dation or other supporting member shall conform to
402.4.1 Modify: UBC §1921.4.1 Scope. To UBC §1912.12.1.
read as follows: 402.8 Shear Demand
The requirements of UBC §1921.4 apply to frame mem- 402.8.1 Modify: UBC §1921.6.3 Design Forces.
bers that resist earthquake-induced forces, and either 1) To read as follows:
have a factored axial force exceeding ( A g f c′ ⁄ 10 ); or 2) For shear walls, the design shear strength φVn shall not be
are vertical members that resist gravity loads by axial com- less than the shear associated with development of nomi-
pression. These frame members shall also satisfy the fol- nal moment strength of the wall, except as permitted be-
lowing conditions: low.
402.5 Strong Column/Weak Beam Exception 1: For walls in bearing wall and building
402.5.1 Modify: UBC §1921.4.2.2. Add Excep- frame systems, the design shear strength, φV n , need
tion paragraph at end of section as follows: not exceed the maximum shear obtained from the de-
Exception: Equation 21-1 need not be satisfied for sign load combinations that include earthquake effect
columns directly below the roof. Eh, with Eh taken as R/2.5 times that prescribed in
402.5.2 Modify: UBC§1921.4.2.2. Add paragraph UBC §1630.1.
at end of section as follows: Exception 2: For walls in dual systems, the design
In T-beam construction, where the slab is in tension under shear strength, φV n , need not exceed the maximum
moments at the face of the joint, slab reinforcement within shear obtained from the design load combinations that
an effective slab width defined in Section 1908.10 shall be include earthquake effect Eh, with Eh taken as R/3.5
assumed to contribute to girder moment strength if the slab times that prescribed in UBC §1630.1.
reinforcement is developed at the critical section for flex-
ure. Exception 3: The design shear strength, φV n , need
402.6 Column Lap Splice Locations not exceed the maximum shear that can be delivered
to the system, considering the upper bound capacity of
Modify: UBC §1921.4.3.2 To read as follows: the foundation or other limiting elements.
Welded splices and mechanical connections shall conform 402.8.2 Modify: UBC §1909.3.4.1. Strength Re-
to UBC §1921.2.6.1. Lap splices shall be permitted only duction Factor for Shear. Add Exception paragraph at
within the center half of the member length, shall be de- end of section as follows:
signed as tension lap splices, and shall be enclosed within
Exception: The shear strength reduction factor for
transverse reinforcement conforming to UBC
walls complying with Section 402.8.1 shall be taken
§§1921.4.4.2 and 1921.4.4.3.
as 0.85.
402.7 Lap Splices and Reinforcement
Development for Shear Walls 402.9 Reinforcement Ratio for Walls and
Diaphragms
Replace: UBC §1921.6.2.4. To read as follows.
Delete: UBC §1921.6.5.5.
Lap splices in shear walls shall conform to UBC §1912.
402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and
Development of vertical reinforcement in shear walls Flanges
need not conform to UBC §§1912.10, 1912.11, and
Modify: UBC §1921.6.6.2 To read as follows:
1912.12 except as indicated below:
1. Over the height of the wall above the base, termina- Connected or intersecting wall sections shall be consid-
tion of vertical reinforcement shall conform to UBC ered as integral units with the strength of flanges,
§§1912.10.3, and 1912.10.4. Termination shall also boundary members, and webs evaluated on the basis of
conform to UBC §1912.10.2, but need not conform to compatible interaction between these elements. The ef-
UBC§1912.11.3. The effective depth of the member fect of wall openings shall be considered. For the mo-
may be taken equal to 0.8lw. ment strength of I-, L-, C-, or T-shaped or similar
66 September 1999
sections, the effective flange width on each side of the curtains of reinforcement are used, and where ρl is greater
wall web shall be taken as the smaller of: than 400/fy, the following shall be satisfied:
1. One-half the distance to an adjacent shear wall web. 1. Boundary transverse reinforcement shall be provided
2. The actual flange width. to satisfy UBC §1921.4.4.1(3) and §1921.4.4.3.
3. 15 percent of total wall height for the flange in com- 2. The maximum longitudinal spacing of transverse rein-
pression or 50 percent of the total wall height for the forcement in the boundary shall not exceed 6 inches.
flange in tension. 3. The length of wall section at the compression bound-
402.11 Boundary Zone Requirements by ary over which boundary transverse reinforcement is
Strain Calculation to be provided shall be taken as cc, equal to the larger
402.11.1 Modify: UBC§1921.6.6.5 Delete defini- of cú – 0.1lw and cú /2.
tion of ∆ E . Add definitions of Mń and ∆ s as follows: ρl is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the wall
Mń = Nominal moment strength corresponding to Pú. boundary region, equal to As /bs1, where As is the area of
vertical wall reinforcement in a layer spaced at s1 along the
∆s = Displacement at the top of the wall using effective
length of the wall, and where b is the width of the wall at
wall stiffness properties and code-specified
the compression boundary. ρl need not exceed the area of
seismic forces. Effective wall stiffness shall not
be taken greater than 0.5 times gross-section longitudinal reinforcement within the length, cc, divided
stiffness. by the gross concrete area within the length cc.
402.11.2 Modify: UBC§1921.6.6.5. Replace defini- 402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling
tions of P 'u , ∆ t , and ∆ y to read as follows: Beam Detailing
Modify: UBC §1921.6.10.4 To read as follows:
P 'u = 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E h
Diagonal reinforcement is designed to resist the entire
∆t = Total deflection at top of wall, taken equal to R∆s. earthquake-induced shear and flexure in the coupling
∆y = Displacement at top of the wall corresponding to beam. Additional reinforcement, at least No. 3 in size,
shall be provided near each face of the coupling beam:
yielding. May be taken as (Mń / Ms)∆s, where Ms
1. Parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coupling beam
equals the moment at the critical section
at a spacing, s2, not to exceed 12 inches. The rein-
corresponding to ∆s.
forcement shall extend a minimum of 6 inches into the
402.11.3 Modify: UBC §1921.6.6.5 Add two wall pier, but need not be developed for tension into
paragraphs at end of section as follows: the wall pier.
Exception 1: Boundary zone details need not be 2. Transverse to the longitudinal axis of the coupling
provided where cú is less than 0.15lw. beam at a spacing, s, not to exceed 6 inches. The rein-
forcement shall be detailed as web reinforcement per
Exception 2: The length of wall section at the com- UBC §1912.13 or as closed hoops per UBC
pression boundary over which boundary zone detail- §1921.3.3.6.
ing is to be provided may be taken as cc, equal to the
larger of cú – 0.1lw and cú /2.
402.12 Wall Areas Where Special
Boundary Zone Detailing is Not
Required
Add: Add new section after: UBC §1921.6.6.6
To read as follows:
At wall boundaries at potential plastic hinge regions, for
walls where special boundary zone detailing is not re-
quired by UBC §1921.6.6.4 or §1921.6.6.5, where two
September 1999 67
68 September 1999
CHAPTER 5
Aluminum
501 UBC §2001 General 502.3.2 Replace: UBC §2004.3 Dissimilar Materi-
Requirements als. Where aluminum alloy parts are in contact with dis-
similar metals, other than stainless, aluminized, or
The design and construction of aluminum framing and galvanized steel, or are in contact with absorbent building
components that resist seismic forces shall conform to the materials likely to be continuously or intermittently wet,
requirements of the 1997 edition of the UBC, except as the faying surfaces shall be painted or mechanically sepa-
modified by the Requirements of this chapter. rated by corrosion-neutral materials in accordance with
Division II.
502 Recommended Modifications
502.3.3 Replace: UBC §2004.5 Welding. Alumi-
to 1997 UBC num parts shall be welded with an inert gas-shielded arc or
502.1 Allowable Stresses for Members resistance welding process. No welding process that re-
and Fasteners quires a welding flux shall be used. Filler alloys comply-
ing with the requirements of Division II shall be used.
Modify: UBC §2002.2 Welded Structural
Refer to AWS D1.2 for welding standards and procedures.
Members. Delete last paragraph and replace with the
following: 502.4 Design
For columns and beams with welds at locations other than Modify: UBC §2007 Design. Delete first para-
within 0.05L from their supported ends, and for cantilever graph and replace with the following:
columns and single-web beams with transverse welds at or Design shall be in accordance with Division I and the fol-
near the supported end (0.05L, as defined above), the ef- lowing Requirements. Structural aluminum shall meet the
fect of welding on allowable stresses shall be determined requirements of UBC §1612.3 for load combinations using
in accordance with the provisions of Division II. allowable stress design (ASD) and UBC §1630 or §1631.
502.2 General Design Requirements Structural aluminum shall also adhere to all requirements
for drift as defined in UBC §1630.9 and §1630.10. Curtain
Replace: UBC §2003.3 Structural Roofing and
walls, storefronts, skylights, and other exterior and interior
Siding. The live load deflection of structural roofing and
elements composed of aluminum members shall conform
siding made of formed sheet shall not exceed 1/360 of the
to the allowable stress requirements of UBC §1612.3 and
clear span length.
§1632.2 and the deformation requirements of UBC
502.3 Fabrication and Erection §1633.2.4.
502.3.1 Replace: UBC §2004.2 Fasteners. Bolts 502.5 Special Design Rules
and other fasteners shall be aluminum, stainless steel, dou-
Modify: UBC §2009.6 Vertical Stiffeners for Shear
ble cadmium-plated AN steel bolts, or aluminized, hot-dip
Webs. Delete 8th paragraph and replace with the fol-
galvanized or electrogalvanized steel. Steel rivets shall not
lowing:
be used except where aluminum is to be joined to steel and
where corrosion resistance of the structure is not a require- Only that part of a stiffener cross-section that lies outside
ment, or where the structure is to be protected against cor- the fillet of the flange angle shall be considered as effec-
rosion. tive in bearing. Bearing stiffeners shall not be joggled
(stiffeners shall not be notched into the parent material nor
September 1999 69
shall any portion of the fillet material be notched or other-

wise removed).
502.6 Fabrication
Modify: UBC §2011.1 Laying Out. Delete 2nd
paragraph and replace with the following:
A temperature correction shall be applied where necessary
in the layout of critical dimensions. The coefficient of ex-
pansion shall be taken as 0.000013 per °F (0.000023
per °C).
502.7 Welded Construction
Replace: UBC §2012.1 Filler Wire. Verification
shall be provided to show that the choice of filler metal for
general purpose welding is appropriate. Refer to AWS
D1.2 for selection of filler material.
70 September 1999
CHAPTER 6
Reinforced Masonry
601 General Requirements 602.4 Strength Design of Masonry

The design and construction of reinforced masonry com- 602.4.1 Modify: UBC §2108.2.2.6 Development.
ponents that resist seismic forces shall conform to the re- Revise to read as follows: The calculated tension or
quirements of the 1997 edition of the UBC, except as compression reinforcement shall be developed in accor-
modified by the Requirements of this chapter. dance with the following Requirements:
The required embedment length of reinforcement
602 Recommended Modifications shall be determined by UBC formula (8-12):
to 1997 UBC l d = l de ⁄ φ (8-12)
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC re-
quirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Com- where:
mittee. These items may or may not be adopted into future 2
0.13d b f y γ
editions of the UBC. l de = ----------------------
- (8-13)
602.1 Standards of Quality K f ′m
Modify: UBC §2102.2, Item 10 Reinforcement 1.56d b f y γ
2
The use of plain bars in reinforced masonry construction is For SI: l de = ----------------------
-
prohibited, except for joint reinforcement. K f ′m
602.2 General Design Requirements where:
Modify: UBC §2106.1.12.4, Item 2.1 Reinforcement. db = diameter of reinforcement, inches (mm)
Add the following paragraph:
fy = specified yield stress of the reinforcement or the
Longitudinal masonry joint reinforcement may be used in
reinforced hollow unit masonry to fulfill minimum anchor bolt, psi (MPa)
reinforcement ratios, but it shall not be considered in the f ′m = specified compressive strength of masonry at age
determination of the shear strength of the member.
of 28 days, psi (MPa)
602.3 Design of Reinforced Masonry ld = required development length of reinforcement,
602.3.1 Delete: UBC §2107.2.2 Reinforcement. inches (mm)
Delete entire section and replace per Section
lde = embedment length of reinforcement, inches (mm)
602.3.3.
602.3.2 Delete: UBC §2107.2.12 Lap Splice K = the lesser of the masonry cover, clear spacing
Increases. Delete entire section. between adjacent reinforcement or 5 times db,
inches (mm)
602.3.3 Add new section: UBC §2107.2.2
Reinforcement. Provisions of UBC §2108.2.2 apply φ = strength reduction factor; φ = 0.8
with the following additional requirement: The maximum
γ = 1.0 for No. 3 through No. 5 reinforcing bars
steel ratio shall not exceed 0.5 times the balanced steel re-
inforcement ratio as defined in UBC §2108.2.3.3. 1.4 for No. 6 and No. 7 reinforcing bars
1.5 for No. 8 through No. 9 reinforcing bars
September 1999 71
K shall not exceed 5db. 1. The minimum length of lap for bars shall be 15 inches
(380 mm) or the length determined by Eq. (8-14),
The embedment length of reinforcement shall not be less
whichever is greater.
than 12 inches (305 mm) for reinforcing bars, nor less than
6 inches (152 mm) for wire. l d = l de ⁄ φ (8-14)
602.4.2 Modify: UBC §2108.2.2.7 Splices. Re- where:
vise to read as follows:
ld = required development length of
Lap Splices. The minimum length of lap splices for reinforcement, inches (mm)
reinforcing bars in tension or compression, ld shall be cal-
lde = embedment length of reinforcement, inches
culated by UBC Eq. (8-13a), but shall not be less than 15
in. (380 mm). (mm)
2 φ = strength reduction factor; φ = 0.8 for UBC

0.16d b f y γ equation (8-14)
l de = ----------------------
- (8-13a)
K f ′m Bars spliced by noncontact lap splices shall be spaced
transversely a distance not greater than one fifth the
2
1.95d b f y γ required length of lap, nor more than 8 inches (203
For SI: l de = ----------------------- mm).
K f ′m 2. A welded splice shall have the bars butted and welded
where: to develop in tension 125% of the yield strength of the
bar, fy.
db = diameter of reinforcement, inches (mm)
3. Mechanical splices shall have the bars connected to
fy = specified yield stress of the reinforcement or the develop in tension or compression, as required, at
anchor bolt, psi (MPa) least 125% of the yield strength of the bar, fy.
fm = specified compressive strength of masonry at age
of 28 days, psi (MPa)
ld = required development length of reinforcement,
inches (mm)
lde = embedment length of reinforcement, inches (mm)
K = the lesser of the masonry cover, clear spacing
between adjacent reinforcement, or 5 times db,
inches (mm)
φ = strength reduction factor; φ = 0.8
γ = 1.0 for No. 3 through No. 5 reinforcing bars
1.4 for No. 6 and No. 7 reinforcing bars
1.5 for No. 8 through No. 9 reinforcing bars
72 September 1999
C HAPTER 7
Steel
Note: Underline indictes changes to AISC-Seismic 97.
701 General used in Chapter 1 of these Requirements and the 1997

UBC, as shown in Table 702-1.
The design and construction of steel framing and
components that resist seismic forces shall conform to 702.2.2 Modify: AISC Part I, §1 Scope. These
requirements of the 1997 edition of the UBC, except as Requirements are intended for the design and construction
modified by the Requirements of this chapter. of structural steel members and connections in the lateral
force resisting systems in buildings for which the design
702 Recommended Modifications forces resulting from earthquake motions have been deter-
to the 1997 UBC mined on the basis of various levels of energy dissipation
in the inelastic range of response. These Requirements
Requirements listed below are modifications to the 1997 shall apply to buildings in Seismic Zone 2 with an impor-
UBC Divisions IV and V provisions. tance factor, I, greater than one, in Seismic Zones 3 and 4
UBC Division IV is replaced with Part I, Structural or when required by the Engineer of Record. These Re-
Steel Buildings (LRFD) of the 1997 Seismic Provisions quirements shall be applied in conjunction with 1997 UBC
for Structural Steel Buildings, published by the American Chapter 22 Div. II, the LRFD Specification. All members
Institute of Steel Construction [AISC, 1997], and hereinaf- and connections in the lateral force resisting system shall
ter referred to as AISC-Seismic 97, modified as required in have a design strength, as provided in the LRFD Specifi-
Section 702.2. cation, to resist load combinations 12-1 through 12-6 in
UBC Chapter 16 or 101-1 through 101-6 in Chapter 1 and
The allowable stress provisions of UBC Division V the Requirements of this Chapter.
have been replaced by Part III, Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) Alternative, of the AISC-Seismic 97 provisions, Part I-LRFD includes a glossary, which is specifically
modified as required in Section 702.4. applicable to AISC-Seismic 97, Appendix S and Part III.
702.2.3 Modify: AISC Part I Glossary
Changes to AISC-Seismic 97 are shown in underline.
702.2.3.1 Modify definitions as follows:
702.1 UBC Division IV
Replace: UBC Division IV, Seismic Provisions for Inelastic Rotation of Beam-to-Column Connection.
Structural Steel Buildings The rotation represented by the plastic chord rotation an-
gle calculated as the plastic deflection of the beam or gird-
With: AISC-Seismic 97, Part I-LRFD.
er, at the center of its span divided by the distance between
702.2 Modifications to the center of the beam span and the centerline of the panel
AISC-Seismic 97—Part I, LRFD zone of the beam column connection.
Except for the modifications set forth in this Section, the Reduced Beam Section. A reduction in cross sec-
design, fabrication, and erection of structural steel shall be tion over a discrete length that promotes a zone of inelas-
in accordance with AISC-Seismic 97—Part I, Structural ticity in the member.
Steel Buildings (LRFD).
702.2.1 Modify: UBC §2210 Amendments.
AISC-Seismic 97 terminology shall be replaced by that
September 1999 73
702.2.3.2 Replace definition of rapid strength de- tion. This requirement for notch toughness shall apply in
terioration as follows: other cases as required in these Requirements.
702.2.8 Modify: AISC Part I, §9.2a. Beam-to-Col-
Rapid Strength Deterioration. A mode of behavior
umn Joints and Connections. Add the following to the
characterized by a sudden loss of strength. In a cyclic test
last paragraph of this section:
with constant or increasing deformation amplitude, a loss
of strength of more than 50 percent of the strength attained Columns and connection elements with a tested yield
in the previous excursion in the same loading direction. strength that is more than 15% above or below Fye shall
not be used in qualification testing.
K-area. In wide flange shapes, the area of the web
immediately adjacent to the flange, extending from the fil- 702.2.9 Delete: AISC Part I, §10 Intermediate Mo-
let to a point approximately 1-1/2 inches beyond the point ment Frames (IMF) including Commentary §C10.
of tangency between the fillet and the web. 702.2.10 Modify: AISC Part I, §11.2a Beam-to-
Column Joints and Connections. Modify the last para-
702.2.3.3 Delete the definition: Intermediate
graph of Item 1. as follows:
Moment Frame (IMF).
702.2.4 Modify: AISC Part I, §2 Referenced Alternatively, the design of all beam to column joints
Specifications Codes and Standards and connections used in the Seismic Force Resisting Sys-
tem shall be based upon qualifying cyclic test results in ac-
Add the following under: American Society of Testing
cordance with Appendix S that demonstrates an inelastic
and Materials: ASTM A992-98.
rotation capacity of at least 0.020 radians. Cyclic test re-
702.2.5 Modify: AISC Part I, §4.1 Loads and sults shall consist of at least two tests and shall be based
Load Combinations. The loads and load combinations upon the procedures described in Section 9.2a.
shall be those in Section 1612.2 and Section 1612.4 of the
702.2.11 Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF)
UBC and Sections 101.7.2 and 101.7.4 of Chapter 1, ex- Requirements
cept as modified throughout these Requirements.
Modify: AISC Part 1, §12.3 Nominal Strength of Spe-
Delete the remainder of Section 4.1.
cial Segment Members. In the fully yielded state, the
702.2.6 Modify: AISC Part I, §6.1 Material special segment shall develop vertical nominal shear
Specifications. Steel used in the seismic force resisting strength through the nominal flexural strength of the chord
system shall meet the requirements in LRFD Specification members and through the nominal axial tensile and com-
Section A3.1a, except as modified in this Section. For pressive strengths of the diagonal web members. Where
buildings over one story in height, the steel used in the web diagonals are provided, the top and bottom chord
Seismic Force Resisting Systems described in Sections 9, members in the special segment shall be made of identical
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 shall meet one of the following sections and shall provide at lease 25 percent of the re-
ASTM Specifications: A36, A53, A500 (Grades B or C), quired vertical shear strength in the fully yielded state. In
A501, A572 (Grades 42 or 50), A588, A992 or A913 Vierendeel special segments, the required shear and flex-
(Grades 50 or 65). Steel used for column base plates shall ural strength shall not exceed the corresponding design
meet one of the preceding ASTM specifications or ASTM strengths of chords and web verticals. The required axial
A283 Grade D. The minimum specified yield strength of strength in the chord members shall not exceed 0.45 times
steel to be used for members in which inelastic behavior is φF y A g , where φ = 0.9.
expected under Load Combinations 4-1 and 4-2 shall not
exceed 50 ksi unless the suitability of the material is deter- Diagonal members in any panel of the special segment
mined by testing or other rational criteria. This limitation shall be made of identical sections and shall have kL/r less
does not apply to columns for which the only expected in- than 1000 ⁄ F y. The required strength of a diagonal
elastic behavior is yielding at the column base and panel
zone or as permitted by the applicable building code. member in axial compression shall not exceed φ cP nc. The
required strength of a diagonal member in axial tension
702.2.7 Modify: AISC Part I, §7.3b. All welds used
in primary members and connections in the seismic force shall not exceed φ tP nt. The end connection of the diagonal
resisting system shall be made with filler metal that has the web members in the special segment shall have a design
CVN toughness of 20 ft-lbs at minus 20 degrees F., as de- strength that is at least equal to the expected nominal axial
termined by AWS classification or manufacturer certifica-
74 September 1999
tensile strength of the web member, R y Fy A g. In the direc- 4. 4 cycles of loading at θ = 0.01
tion that analysis indicates the web diagonal will buckle, 5. 2 cycles of loading at θ = 0.015
the design flexural strength of the connection shall be
equal to or greater than the expected nominal flexural 6. 2 cycles of loading at θ = 0.02
strength 1.1R y Mp of the brace about the critical buckling 7. 2 cycles of loading at θ = 0.03
axis. 8. After completion of loading cycles at 0.03, testing
702.2.12 Modify: AISC Part I, §15.4b Link-to-Col- shall be continued by applying cyclic loads to produce
umn Connections. Add the following to the end of the θ equal to 0.04, 0.05, etc., with two complete loading
paragraph: cycles at each increment.
Cyclic testing of the Link connection to the weak axis Or alternatively, the loading sequence may be the fol-
of a wide flange column is required for any length link. lowing:
702.2.13 Add: AISC Part I, Chapter 16, Quality 1. 3 cycles of loading at 0.25δ y ≤ δ ≤ 0.5δy
Assurance. Add the following before the Exception:
2. 3 cycles of loading at 0.6δy ≤ δ ≤ 0.8δy
When welds from web doubler plates or continuity plates
occur in the k-area of rolled steel columns, the k-area ad- 3. 3 cycles of loading at δ = δ y
jacent to the welds shall be tested after fabrication using
approved nondestructive testing methods conforming to 4. 3 cycles of loading at δ = 2δy
AWS D1.1. 5. 3 cycles of loading at δ = 3δy
702.2.14 Add: AISC Part I, §S2 Symbols. Add the
6. 2 cycles of loading at δ = 4δy
following:
θ Peak deformation (interstory drift angle) in radians 7. After completion of the loading cycles at 4δ y , testing
used to control loading of the test specimen. shall be continued by applying cyclic loads to produce
702.2.15 Modify: AISC Part I, §S3 Definitions. δ equal to 5δy , 6δ y , 7δy , etc. Two cycles of load-
Add the following: ing shall be applied at each incremental value of de-
Complete Loading Cycle. A cycle of rotation taken formation.
from zero force to zero force, including one positive and Other loading sequences are permitted to be used to
one negative peak. qualify the Test Specimen when they are demonstrated to
702.2.16 Modify: AISC Part I, §S5.5 Material be of equivalent severity.
Strength, Item 2 702.2.18 Modify: AISC Part I, §S10 Acceptance
2. The yield stress of the beam shall not be more than 15 Criteria. For each connection used in the actual frame, at
percent below Fye for the grade of steel to be used for least two cyclic tests are required for each condition in
the corresponding elements of the Prototype. Columns which the Essential Variables, as listed in Section S5, re-
and connection elements with a tested yield stress of main within the required limits. All tests shall satisfy the
more than 15% above or below Fye for the grade of criteria stipulated in Sections 9.2, 11.2 or 15.4, as applica-
ble. In order to satisfy Inelastic Rotation requirements,
steel to be used shall not be used for the corresponding
each Test Specimen shall sustain the required rotation for
elements of the Prototype. F ye shall be determined in
at least two complete loading cycles without exhibiting
accordance with Section 6.2. rapid strength deterioration.
702.2.17 Modify: AISC Part I, §S6.3 Basic Load-
702.3 Modification to UBC Division V
ing Sequence. Loads shall be applied to the test speci-
men, up to the completion of the test, to produce the Replace: UBC Division V, “Seismic Provisions for
following deformations: Structural Steel Buildings For Use With
Allowable Stress Design”
1. 6 cycles of loading at θ = 0.00375
With: AISC-Seismic 97, Part III, Allowable Stress
2. 6 cycles of loading at θ = 0.005 Design (ASD) Alternative
3. 6 cycles of loading at θ = 0.0075
September 1999 75
702.4 Modification to AISC-Seismic 97,

Part III-ASD
Except for the modifications as set forth in this Section, the
design, fabrication, and erection of structural steel shall be
in accordance with AISC-Seismic 97 Part III, Allowable
Stress Design (ASD) Alternative.
Division IV (AISC-Seismic 97 Part I-LRFD) Glossa-
ry and Appendix S, as amended, shall apply to this Sec-
tion.
702.4.1 Modify: UBC §2212 Amendments.
Modify terminology as shown in Table 702-2.
702.4.2 Delete: UBC §2213 and §2214.
.
Table702-1. LRFD Terminology
1999 Blue Book 1997 UBC AISC-Seismic 97

Lateral force resisting system Lateral force resisting system Seismic force resisting system
Design basis ground motion Design basis ground motion Design earthquake
Chapter 1 Eq. 101-17 and 101-18 Chapter 16 Eq. 12-17 and 12-18 Load combinations 4-1 and 4-2
Chapter 1 Eq. 101-1 to 101-6 Chapter 16 Eq. 12-1 through 12-6 LRFD Spec. A4-2 to A4-6
Em Em Ωo Q E
Table702-2. ASD Terminology
1999 Blue Book 1997 UBC AISC-Seismic 97

Lateral force resisting system Lateral force resisting system Seismic force resisting system
Design basis ground motion Design basis ground motion Design earthquake
Chapter 1 Eq. 101-17 and 101-18 Chapter 16 Eq. 12-17 and 12-18 Load combinations 4-1 and 4-2
Chapter 1 Eq. 101-1 to 101-6 Chapter 16 Eq. 12-1 through 12-6 Load combinations 4-a to 4-b
Em Em Ωo Q E
76 September 1999
CHAPTER 8
Wood
801 General Requirements 802.2 UBC Table 23-II-G

The design and construction of wood members and their Delete and substitute as follows:
fastenings that resist seismic forces shall conform to the
Table 802-1. Maximum Diaphragm Dimension Ratios
requirements of the 1997 edition of the UBC, except as
(UBC Table 23-II-G)
modified by the requirements of this chapter.
Horizontal
802 Recommended Modifications Diaphragms Vertical
to 1997 UBC
Max. Diaphragms
Span-Width Max. Height/
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC re- Material Ratios Width Ratios
quirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Com- Diagonal sheathing, 3:1 1:11
mittee. These items may or may not be adopted into future conventional
editions of the International Building Code (IBC). Diagonal sheathing, 4:1 2:12
special
802.1 Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms
in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 Wood structural panels
and particle board,
4:1 2:12
802.1.1 Modify: UBC §2315.5.3 Wood nailed all edges

Structural Panels. Add to existing text as Wood structural panels 4:1 ____3
follows: and particle board,
blocking omitted at inter-
Wood shear walls shall not be used to resist seismic forces mediate joints
in concrete or masonry buildings over one story in height.
1. In Seismic Zones 0, 1, and 2, the maximum ratio may
Exception: Wood shear walls shall be permitted to be 2:1.
be used to resist seismic forces from concrete or ma- 2. In Seismic Zones 0, 1, and 2, the maximum ratio may
sonry walls in buildings two stories in height provided be 3.5:1.
3. Not permitted.
that, in addition to the requirements of UBC §2315.2,
Exception 2, the allowable shear in all such shear
walls is limited to 50 percent of that otherwise permit-
ted.
802.1.2 Modify: UBC §2315.5.4 Heavy Wood
Panels. Add to existing text as follows:
Framing members for heavy wood panels shall be of at
least 4-inch (102 mm) nominal width. Board decking shall
be of at least 2-inch (51 mm) nominal thickness; decking
shall be at least 1-1/8 inches (29 mm) thick, or 1-1/8 inch
(29 mm) plywood.
September 1999 77
78 September 1999
CHAPTER 9
Other Materials
901 General Requirements 902 Recommended Modifications

Materials other than those specified in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 to 1997 UBC
and 8 (i.e., reinforced concrete, aluminum, reinforced ma- None.
sonry, steel, and wood) may be used in the lateral force-re-
sisting systems of buildings, nonstructural elements, parts 903 Other Sheathing Materials
and portions of buildings, and in nonbuilding structures.
Such other materials shall meet the following general re- Shear walls constructed with sheathing of fiberboard, lath
quirements: and plaster, or gypsum wallboard may be used. Refer to
UBC Chapter 23 for requirements for fiberboard sheathing
1. The life-safety performance of lateral force-resisting
and to Chapter 25 for requirements for lath and plaster and
systems constructed with “other materials” shall not
for gypsum wallboard assemblies.
be less than that for systems constructed with conven-
tional materials.
2. The structural properties of assemblies and of indi-
vidual components of “other materials” shall be based
on tests, including testing to simulate dynamic behav-
ior in a seismic event.
3. R and Rp values for designs using “other materials”
shall be developed to resist unreduced code level
ground motions by considering both overstrength and
ductility.
4. The use of “other materials” shall be peer reviewed
whenever analysis, design, construction, or inspection
procedures have not been established.
Materials that have had structural properties estab-
lished may be designed by either the allowable stress or
strength methods. Conventional structural analysis and de-
sign methods may be used. For assemblies to be designed
by strength methods, all components shall have had ulti-
mate strength values established, or the entire assembly
shall have been tested for ultimate strength properties.
September 1999 79
80 September 1999
Commentary
SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §C101
CHAPTER 1
General Requirements for Design and
Construction of Earthquake-Resistive
Structures
C101 General the linear elastic analysis of the structure using the design
forces specified in this document.
C101.1 Scope and Objectives
C101.1.1 Damage Levels. Structures designed in
This Commentary provides the users of this Blue Book conformance with these Requirements should, in general,
with an interpretation of the intent of these Requirements, be able to:
the bases for these provisions and their limitations, and
1. Resist a minor level of earthquake ground motion
suggested procedures for cases and conditions outside the
without damage.
limits of regular practice. Since data, knowledge, and/or
experience may not be adequate in some areas, this Com- 2. Resist a moderate level of earthquake ground motion
mentary expresses concerns, alternate points of view, and without structural damage, but possibly experience
proposed future improvements, where appropriate. some nonstructural damage.
3. Resist a major level of earthquake ground motion—of
These Requirements provide minimum standards for an intensity equal to the strongest earthquake, either
use in building design regulation to maintain public safety experienced or forecast, for the building site—without
in the extreme ground shaking likely to occur during an collapse, but possibly with some structural as well as
earthquake. These Requirements are intended primarily to nonstructural damage.
safeguard against major failures and loss of life, not to lim-
it damage, maintain function, or provide for easy repair. It It is expected that structural damage, even in a major
is emphasized that the purpose of these recommended de- design level earthquake, will be limited to a repairable lev-
sign procedures is to provide buildings that are expected to el for most structures that meet these Requirements. In
meet this life safety objective. some instances, damage may not be economically repair-
able. The level of damage depends upon a number of fac-
The specified design forces given herein are based on tors, including the intensity and duration of ground
the assumption that a significant amount of inelastic be- shaking, structure configuration, type of lateral force re-
havior may take place in the structure subjected to extreme sisting system, materials used in the construction, and con-
ground shaking. As a result, these design forces and relat- struction workmanship.
ed elastic deformations are much lower than those that
would occur if the structure were to remain elastic. For a C101.1.2 No Guarantee. Compliance with to these
given structural system, the design Requirements outlined Requirements does not constitute any kind of guarantee or
herein are intended to provide for the necessary inelastic assurance that significant structural damage will not occur
behavior. Representations of the element force levels and in the event of design level earthquake ground motion. To
deformations in the fully responding inelastic structure are fulfill the life safety objective of these Requirements, there
given as appropriate multiples of the values determined by are requirements that provide for structural stability in the
event of extreme structural deformations and requirements
September 1999 83
§C101.2 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
that protect the vertical load-carrying system from fracture gineer must establish criteria appropriate for the particular
or buckling at these extreme states. While damage to the structure and requirements for performance and reliability.
primary structural system may be either negligible or sig- C101.2.1 Regulations That Exceed These
nificant, repairable or virtually irreparable, it is reasonable Requirements. Some regulations have design require-
to expect that a well-planned and constructed structure ments that exceed those set forth in these Requirements.
will not collapse in a major earthquake. The protection of For example, Title 24 of the California Code of Regula-
life is reasonably provided, but not with complete assur- tions gives requirements for providing enhanced life safety
ance. and property protection for schools and hospitals. Addi-
Many factors that significantly affect the performance tionally, hospitals are expected to remain operational after
of a structure are beyond the direct control of the structural an earthquake. However, because of the real variability in
engineer or the building official. These factors include: de- seismic response and the lack of a consensus on criteria,
terioration of the structure due to lack of maintenance, these Requirements do not specifically give provisions for
quality and accuracy of construction, duration and strength damage control since they may not be sufficiently reliable.
of the earthquake shaking at the specific site, and the actu- C101.2.2 Damage Control. Where damage control is
al strength and ductility of the materials. desired, the design must not only provide sufficient
Compliance with these Requirements will not limit or strength to resist the specified seismic forces, but also pro-
prevent damage due to earth movements, including fault- vide the proper stiffness or rigidity. Control of damage is
ing, and earth slides such as those that occurred in Anchor- very complex. Some structural elements are sensitive to
age, Alaska. These Requirements are intended to provide acceleration making floor acceleration the key design con-
minimum required resistance to earthquake ground shak- sideration, while others are sensitive to interstory defor-
ing. mations making drift the key design consideration.
C101.2 Minimum Seismic Design Damage to nonstructural elements may be minimized

by proper limitation of deformations, by careful attention
These Requirements provide minimum design criteria in to detail, and by providing proper clearances for exterior
specific categories stated in broad general terms. It is the cladding, glazing, partitions, and wall panels. Some non-
responsibility of the engineer to interpret and adapt these structural elements can be separated or floated free and al-
basic principles to each structure using experience and lowed to move independently of the structure. If they are
good judgment. tied rigidly to the structure, these elements need to be ca-
Because of the great variability and complexity of in- pable of accommodating the deformations or accelerations
dividual structures, it is impractical and beyond the scope imparted by the elements' base motion; otherwise, damage
of these Requirements to go into the detail necessary to must be expected.
specifically cover all of the possible variations in structure If a performance-based design, such as damage con-
response. The dynamic characteristics of the structure, be- trol, is desired, the engineer is cautioned that project spe-
havior of structural elements, the variability in ground mo- cific design criteria to achieve the desired performance,
tion, and the types of soil all affect building response. e.g. control damage, must be developed as a supplement to
Thus, both latitude and responsibility for the exercise of these Requirements. Guidance can be found in
judgment must be given to the engineer. Appendix I, Tentative Guidelines for Performance-Based
Many types of structures require seismic design pro- Seismic Engineering.
cedures that may differ, possibly substantially, from these C101.3 Seismic and Wind Design
Requirements. These types include, but are not limited to,
bridges, dams, retaining walls, docks, industrial and refin- Wind and seismic forces are fundamentally different.
ery structures, and offshore platforms. Wind force results from aerodynamic pressures applied to
an exterior surface of a structure, whereas seismic forces
Requirements Section 109, Nonbuilding Structures, result from the inertial response of a structure to the accel-
provides guidance for the design of a limited class of these erations and displacements from earthquake ground shak-
nonbuilding structures. Section 109 should be used in con- ing. Wind pressures and the resulting forces tend to have
junction with existing regulations, and/or standard criteria somewhat predictable upper limits; the upper limits of
developed for such structures. When a particular structure seismic inertial forces, on the other hand, tend to be unpre-
is not within the group treated under Section 109, the en- dictable. Furthermore, the seismic design forces set forth
84 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §C101.4
in these Requirements assume inelastic behavior in the scription of the structure model so that the assumptions
structure; the forces resulting from the inelastic behavior made can be understood and so that it is possible to recre-
are much lower than the seismic forces that would occur if ate the results, if necessary.
the structure remained elastic. C101.6.2 Documentation must be sufficient for another
Seismic ground shaking can cause several reversing person (or third-party reviewer) to employ the specified
cycles of inelastic deformation. Thus, even when wind computer program and understand the assumptions made
pressures govern the stress (strength) or drift design, the by the program's developers. Care must be given to iden-
structural lateral force resisting system must conform to tify the version of the software used, along with a state-
the special detailing requirements for seismic systems in ment that the submitter believes the program is
order to accommodate the inertial forces and displace- functioning properly. When standard software is modified,
ments from an earthquake. These detailing requirements these changes must be documented and discussed.
are intended to allow the lateral force resisting system to C101.6.3 Both the input and the computer output must
deform inelastically without catastrophic failure and to be provided, making clear what quantities were generated
provide the necessary inelastic energy absorption and by the program.
toughness necessary to resist actual seismic forces and dis-
C101.6.4 This Requirement that the computer output
placements. Actual seismic forces are expected to exceed
be signed by the engineer of record is to ensure that the en-
the specified seismic design forces.
gineer confirms the appropriateness of the input data for
C101.4 Continuous Load Path the building under consideration and gives the results suf-
While providing a continuous load path is an obvious de- ficient review.
sign requirement for acceptable structural performance, C101.7 UBC §1612 Combinations of Loads
experience shows that this fundamental requirement is of-
C101.7.1 General. The fundamental change from al-
ten overlooked, leading to significant damage and col-
lowable stress design to strength basis is reflected in the
lapse. Because it is one of the most fundamental
load combinations given in Section 101.7.2.1. These are
considerations in seismic design, this requirement is stated
the basic factored load combinations that are intended for
at the beginning of these Requirements to emphasize its
strength design or load and resistance factor design; and
importance. Detailed Requirements for selecting, or iden-
they are consistent with both ASCE-7 and the 1997
tifying and designing this load path are given in the rele-
NEHRP Provisions. To accommodate the preferences of
vant design and material sections.
engineers who wish to continue to work using the allow-
C101.5 Basis for Seismic Design able stress basis, load combinations are given in Subsec-
This Requirement for clearly stating the basis for the struction 101.7.3 for allowable stress design.
ture's seismic design has two main objectives: One significant amendment made to 1997 UBC
1. Ensure that the engineer has fully identified the partic- §1612.2.1 is the elimination of the 1.1 multiplier contained
ular lateral force resisting system and its appropriate in Exception 2. The other substantive amendment to Sec-
design levels. tion 1612.2.1 is the change from quantity “E” in UBC for-
2. Allow the design basis to be fully identified for the mula (12-6) to “ ρE h ” in Eqn. 101-6.
purpose of future modifications and changes in the
structure. It has been found that the 1997 UBC formula (12-6)
makes it more likely than ever before that columns or even
C101.6 Computer Calculations shear walls may have to be designed for net tension. More-
This Requirement is intended to be used where extensive over, the provisions to consider Ev has no effect on shear
computer outputs are obtained from analysis routines. strength requirements, but increases the required moment
When one- or two-page computer outputs only are in- strength because a lower axial force must be considered in
cluded directly in the calculations, these Requirements design. This is more likely to produce walls with shear-
may be modified to fit the circumstances. Documentation critical behavior, which is highly undesirable. The effect
must be sufficient for a third party to understand the basis of vertical earthquake ground motion is adequately ac-
for, and sequence of, the analysis. counted for by Eqn. 101-5, and it alleviates the significant
C101.6.1 The intent, where computerized calculations problem caused by the existing 1997 UBC requirement for
are included in the design data, is to require sufficient de-
September 1999 85
§C101.7.2 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
consideration of Ev in seismic design [Ghosh 1998a, lowable stress method should, in general, not be less than
1998b]. that resulting from the basic strength design method. The
alternative basic set of load combinations is based on the
The intent of the 1.1 multiplier of Exception 2 was to premise that, for Seismic Zone 4 away from near source
resolve differences in the margin of safety between ACI zones, the designs should be about the same as that result-
318 load combinations and ASCE 7 load combinations ing from the previous provisions.
used in the 1997 UBC. The multiplier of 1.1 should not ap-
ply to Eqn. 101-6 (1997 UBC formula (12-6)) because this C101.7.3.1 Basic Load Combinations. For
load combination, without the multiplier, is already identi- wood design, the use of a load-duration factor to obtain the
cal to the corresponding ACI 318 load combination. The allowable stress for the load combinations involving wind
multiplier of 1.1 should not apply to Eqn. 101-5 (UBC for- or earthquake loads is not considered as an increase in al-
mula (12-5)) because this load combination may or may lowable stress because it provides the allowable stress val-
not yield a lower design load than the corresponding grav- ue that is appropriate for these short-time conditions. A
ity and earthquake load combination of ACI 318-95. Even load duration factor is the means of representing the
when it does, the difference is usually small. Eqn. 101-5 unique capability of wood to resist short-time loads with a
typically governs only the flexural design of beams. A higher strength than that for long-time or permanent loads.
slight flexural underdesign of beams has little or no effect Therefore, the allowable shear values for diaphragms and
on structural safety. More detailed background on this top- shear walls given in the 1997 UBC Tables 23-II-H, 23-II-
ic is provided in Ghosh [1998a, 1998b]. I-1 and 23-II-I-2 may be used directly without modifica-
tion.
C101.7.2 Load Combinations Using Strength De-
sign or Load and Resistance Factor Design. The load Similarly, for other wood elements, the appropriate
factor of 1.0 on the earthquake load E reflects the fact that duration factors CD in Table 2.3.2 in the 1997 UBC
the specified forces in Section 105 are at strength design §2316.2, Item 6 may be used. Item 5 of this UBC section
levels, without further amplification. They are typically permits the use of CD concurrently with the UBC Formula
about 1.4 times as high as the allowable stress design lev- (12-11) which is load combination Equation 101-11 in
els given in previous provisions, which essentially pro- these Requirements. This special permission is necessary
vides parity. The earthquake load E is a function of both because Equation 101-11 contains a 0.75 load reduction
horizontal and vertical components of ground motion (Eh factor which is equivalent to a one-third stress increase
and Ev). This is represented in the earthquake load given factor for the live load and wind or seismic load portion of
by Equation 105-1. this equation, and ordinarily for the other load combina-
tions in Section 101.7.3 the load duration factor and the
The component Eh is due to the horizontal forces cor-
one-third increase are not to be used concurrently.
responding to the prescribed base shear V. The component
Ev is due to an additional increment of dead load D and For soil capacity, an increase in allowable pressure is
may be taken as zero for allowable stress design. In Seis- allowed for short-time wind or earthquake load according
mic Zone 4 this component is at least equal to 0.2D, which to UBC §1809.2 and the UBC Table 18-I-A, footnote 2.
when added to 1.2D results in parity with the 1.4D fac- C101.7.3.2 Alternative Basic Load Combina-
tored load in the previous provisions for strength design of tions. A one-third increase in allowable stress values is
reinforced concrete and masonry elements. In allowable typically permitted for all the load combinations that in-
stress design the vertical component is indirectly included clude wind or earthquake loads. However, this one-third
in the load combinations which would need to be multi- increase should not be applied to the allowable shear val-
plied by about 1.4 to compare directly with strength design ues in the 1997 UBC Tables 23-II-H, 23-II-I-1, and 23-II-
requirements, and the resulting 1.4D provides essential I-2 since these values have already been increased for
parity for the two design methods. short-time wind or earthquake load. Also, the one-third in-
C101.7.3 Load Combinations Using Allowable crease should not be used concurrently with a permitted
Stress Design. The two sets of load combinations are load duration factor CD for wood design. Neither should
based on completely different philosophies and specifi- the general one-third increase be applied to allowable soil
cally are not intended to be equivalent to each other. The pressures that have already been increased for short-time
basic set of load combinations (ASCE 7-93) are based on wind or earthquake loads as permitted by UBC §1809.2.
the premise that the design strength resulting from the al-
86 September 1999
SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §C101.7.4
C101.7.4 Factors Related to Wood Design. With of 8 represents a three-times overstrength. This is about
respect to allowable stress design for wood, there are three 1.25 times the overstrength represented by 1.1Ro using an
types of load factor or allowable stress modifications that equivalent Ro value of 2.4. See Appendix C for further dis-
are of interest:
cussion.
1. Load duration factors CD
2. Allowable stress increases (one-third increases) C102 UBC §1627 Definitions
3. Load combination factors
Base. Older editions of the SEAOC Blue Book per-
National Design Specifications (NDS) Section 2.3.2, mitted the first complete floor at grade to be considered as
as adopted in the 1997 UBC §2316 permits use of load du- the base for the structure. The reasoning behind this was
ration factors CD as a general rule. When using the ASD quite direct—most buildings have the first floor at grade.
basic load combinations, the UBC provides a clarification For buildings having basements, even though grade was
of this general rule. This clarification, in UBC §2316.2, considerably below the first floor, the rigid nature of the
Item 5 addresses the use of more than one modification basement structure produced a “dynamic setback” at the
factor at a time. For the ASD basic load combination UBC first floor for the longer period structure above. The base-
Formula (12-11) is the same as Blue Book Equation 101- ment story had very little effect on the period of vibration
11. It permits use of a load combination factor of 0.75 of the total building. The first floor base was used for the
(equivalent to a one-third increase in allowable stress) purpose of computing a building period T from which the
concurrent with a load duration factor. This particular item previous C coefficient and ultimately the base shear V
(applicable for the live load and seismic load combination) were computed. Little guidance was given on the applica-
does not change the rule that load duration factors can be tion of this shear load as applied to the base, but most en-
used with the basic load combinations with wind or earth- gineers provided for a path of sufficient strength to transfer
quake loads. It is permissible to use the appropriate load this base shear between the structure and the soil.
duration factor CD of 1.33 or 1.6 with the UBC formulas The first floor is still the base for the majority of build-
(12-9) and (12-10), which are the same as Blue Book ings. However, it is now mandatory to consider the mech-
Equations 107-9 and 107-10. anism by which earthquake forces are transmitted from the
When using the ASD alternate basic load combina- soil into the building. The interface at which this is accom-
tions of 1997 UBC §1613.3.2, which is the same as Blue plished is now considered the base. Depending on the type
Book Section 10.3.2, a one-third increase in allowable of building under discussion, it may not be unusual to con-
stresses is permitted for the alternate basic load combina- sider a rigid basement floor slab or the bottoms of building
tions with wind or earthquake loads. However, the 1997 footings as the base.
UBC §2316.2, Item 5. states that this one-third increase The selection of a base for a building on a sloping site
may not be used concurrently with an application load du- presents special problems. Usually, very rigid structural
ration factor CD. As a result, for the alternate basic load elements should be utilized below the highest contact with
combinations, the user may use either a load duration fac- the site to equalize the stiffness distribution in the building
tor or a one-third increase in basic allowable stresses, but plan, thereby minimizing torsion.
not both concurrently.
Bearing Wall System. This class of structural sys-
C101.7.5 Special Seismic Load Combinations. The tems includes those that were known as the box system in
special seismic load combinations given in this Section are previous versions of the SEAOC Blue Book. See the de-
intended to cover conditions where ductility is lacking. tails in Requirements Section 104.6.2.
The parameter Em is introduced to represent the maximum
Boundary Element. The function of this element is
earthquake force that can be developed in the structure.
to resist significant tension and compression actions in
Em exceeds the design base shear by a factor of Ω o , shear walls and diaphragms.
which is given as 1.1Ro, a representation of the structural
Collector. Also referred to as a drag member or
overstrength. This is equivalent to the 3/8Rw factor that ap- drag strut.
pears in previous Requirements as a design requirement to
Horizontal Bracing System. A horizontal steel
address such nonductile issues as columns supporting dis-
bracing system acting primarily as a horizontal diaphragm
continuous shear walls. For example, the average Rw value
should be designed for the prescribed seismic forces. The
September 1999 87
§C103 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
design of horizontal bracing need not conform to require- C103 UBC §1628 Symbols and
ments under UBC §2211.9, except for the transfer of seis- Notations
mic forces from in-plane discontinuous lateral force
resisting elements. No Commentary provided.
Special Moment Resisting Frame. A lateral force C104 UBC §1629 Criteria Selection
resisting system made up of designated moment-resisting
frames specially detailed to provide ductile behavior, and This section of the Requirements is intended to provide
that comply with the Requirements given in Chapter 4, guidance to engineers as they make key decisions regard-
Reinforced Concrete, or Chapter 7, Structural Steel. While ing lateral force requirements, analysis, and related param-
not all frame elements of the space frame are required to eters. Such guidance is especially important at the initial
be part of the lateral force resisting system, the designated stages of design, where many options may be under con-
frames should be sufficiently numerous and extensive so sideration.
as to provide adequate redundancy. C104.1 UBC §1629.1 Basis for Design
Strength. Also known as the capacity or the capa- Allowable stress design (ASD) is retained for the design
bility to resist loads when evaluated using the “strength and evaluation of the foundation configuration at the
design” basis for reinforced concrete or the equivalent of soil-foundation interface for sliding and overturning mo-
this basis for other materials. It may be considered as the ment resistance. Designs based on ASD have performed
essential yield or inelastic threshold of an element. well during past strong ground motion earthquakes with
adequate control on sliding and overturning deformation
Weak Story. Given the appropriate design basis
effects. With the option to use ASD, the allowable soil ca-
and the “working stress capacity” or “strength” for the lat-
pacities in UBC §1809.2 can be used directly, whereas
eral load resisting elements of each story, the comparison
strength design would require that a site-specific study be
of the relative capacities or strengths of stories should con-
made to establish the strength capacity of the soil for seis-
sider the individual load-deformation behavior of the ele-
mic loading.
ments and of the diaphragms. For the assumption of rigid
diaphragms, the story strength may be taken as the sum of For strength design of the foundation footing ele-
the individual strengths of resisting elements for the story. ments, the soil pressures resulting from the ASD loads (D,
This sum should be at a consistent deformation level so L and E/1.4) in Section 101.7.3 may be load factored as
that it can be verified that all the elements are able to proper Section 101.7.2 for the evaluation of the strength de-
vide their resistance contribution at the common deforma- sign load actions on the foundation element sections.
tion value. If, for example, some elements are strong but
C104.2 Occupancy Categories
substantially less rigid than the other elements, then the
full strength of these less rigid elements may not contrib- In earlier editions of these Requirements, special occu-
ute to the story strength. For flexible diaphragms, it may pancy consideration was given for only those essential fa-
also be necessary to consider the relative interstory cilities now considered as Occupancy Category I: where
strength of those important resisting elements that support the I-factor increased lateral design forces by 50 percent.
significant amounts of tributary diaphragm area. Two additional categories are now included: hazard-
Whatever method is used to define the weak story ous facilities (Category II) and special occupancy struc-
condition, the primary purpose should be to detect if story tures (Category III). These categories are defined in Table
inelastic demand due to the response effects of the maxi- 104-3 (see Requirements). All three categories require
mum expected level of ground motion would be excessive. special review, inspection, and construction observation
Therefore, the governing criterion for strength comparison (Requirements are provided in Chapter 2). Category I and
should be between the story shear required to fully yield or II facilities have 25 percent increased lateral force require-
create a mechanism in the story being evaluated and the to- ments, through an I factor of 1.25 and an Ip=1.5, while Cat-
tal lateral load required to create a mechanism in the struc- egory III facilities have I=1.0 and Ip=1.0.
tural system above that story (see additional discussion in
It was judged that an increased force factor of 25 per-
Commentary Sections C104.5.2 and C104.9.3.4).
cent for structures in Categories I and II, coupled with spe-
cial design and construction review/inspection/
observation, should provide the same level of overall seis-
88 September 1999
mic performance that was intended by the former 50 per- they propagated from rock to soil for rock accelerations
cent increase in load. In the judgment of SEAOC, the greater than 0.1g. There was insufficient data for soft soils,
details of design and construction often dominate seismic so the relationships were extrapolated from firm soil data.
performance. Therefore, increasing these aspects for es- Data from the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and the 1989
sential facilities can improve performance more effective- Loma Prieta earthquake show that earthquake motions can
ly than relying solely on increased design force levels to be significantly amplified, not attenuated, for soft sites and
achieve this end. The higher Ip used for elements, equip- moderate accelerations. The largest amplification typical-
ment, and components reflects lower redundancy, damp- ly occurs at the natural period of the soft soil deposit.
ing, and ductility in these items relative to the structure. For example, in the Mexico City shaking, the rock ac-
When describing Category I, II, or III facilities, recall celeration was amplified four times by the soft clay deposit
that the Requirements are intended as minimum require- at T=0 sec. while the spectral amplitude at approximately
ments only. Additional levels of protection may be ob- T=2 seconds indicated an amplification of 15 to 20 times
tained by providing additional energy dissipation capacity, the rock acceleration. Data from the Loma Prieta earth-
increasing lateral system stiffness, providing redundancy quake also indicate an amplification at long-period spec-
in lateral force resisting systems, special detailing for dam- tral amplitudes of three to six times. The largest
age control, construction quality assurance, and by in- amplification occurred at the natural period of the soil de-
creasing design force levels (see Commentary Section posit. However, at stronger levels of ground shaking, the
C105.2.1 on Importance Factor I). Mexico City and Loma Prieta data corroborate the results
of previous studies that show that earthquake motions at-
C104.3 Soil Profile Types tenuate in soft soils as the strength of the soil is exceeded
The site categorization procedure used in the l994 UBC and the soil behaves in a highly nonlinear manner.
was based on work completed in the 1970s. The “site fac-
As the ground motion propagates from rock through
tors” were constants independent of the level of ground
the overlying soil medium, the rock motion is amplified or
shaking. Sites were characterized by a subjective qualita-
attenuated as discussed above. Nonhomogeneous layered
tive description. The site characterization procedure rec-
sites with soft layers between the rock and the stiffer soils
ommended in Table 104-2 (see Requirements) is based on
complicate the problem.
more recent data [Rinne, 1994; Martin and Dobry, 1994].
In Table 104-2, the site factors are nonlinear and are a The parameters necessary to characterize the site and
function of the expected input acceleration—the zone fac- analytically determine the amplification or attenuation and
tor, and the site soil characterization. Site characterization frequency modification are:
in Table 104-2 is based on easily obtainable quantitative n Thickness of the soft and stiff soil layers.
geotechnical parameters rather than qualitative descrip- n Shear wave velocities of the rock and soil layers.
tions. Soil Profile Type A is a very hard rock that occurs in n Soil/rock impedance ratio.
the eastern United States. Most of the rock in the western n Layering and properties of the soil layers, including
United States will be typically Soil Profile Type B. modulus and damping properties.
The extensive strong motion instrumentation program The amplification ratio is a function of:
undertaken since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake has n Rock/soil impedance contrast ratio (which is a
made much more data available and enabled development function of shear wave velocity)
of a wide range of ground shaking and site characteristics. n Soil damping
Data from the 1985 Mexico City and 1989 Loma Prieta n Ratio of the frequencies of the layers.
earthquakes have contributed to development of the new The impedance contrast must consider the whole soil
site categorization procedure and coefficients used in Ta- profile, and thus both the soft and stiff soil layers play a
ble 104-2. The site characterization procedure used in Ta- role in determining the damping and amplification (or at-
ble 104-2 was adapted from the procedure in the 1997 tenuation). The maximum amplification generally occurs
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regula- at or close to the natural frequency of the soil deposit, but
tions for New Buildings, which were developed at the may occur at the natural frequency of the soil layer, the
1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC Site Response Workshop. natural frequency of the whole soil deposit, or some other
Prior to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, studies had frequency. In all cases, the shear wave velocity of the rock
shown that, in general, earthquake motions attenuated as
September 1999 89
and soil deposit has a dominant role. Hence, the site is average shear wave velocity, vs, in accordance with Equa-
characterized primarily by the shear wave velocity. tion 111-1; the average SPT value, N, for the site as a
In shallow or moderate soil depth sites, where the soil whole in accordance with Equation 111-2; or the average
depth is less than 30 m (100 ft), the entire soil deposit is SPT, Nch, for the cohesionless layers in accordance with
important to the overall response. In deep soil (greater than Equation 111-3 and the average undrained shear strength,
30 m) sites having stiff soil profiles, the motion at the sur- su, in accordance with Equation 111-4. (Note that these
face tends to be dominated by the soils in the upper 30-50 equations average the reciprocal of the value, since the
meters; hence, the site can be characterized by the average travel time through the soil is more directly related to the
shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m (100 ft). Deep soil site response and amplification than to the shear wave ve-
(greater than 30 m) sites having thick (greater than 35m) locity itself.) Select the appropriate Soil Profile Type from
soft-medium stiff clays, or highly plastic or organic clays Table 104-2.
and peats of any thickness, cannot be characterized in this
See Appendix B and the 1997 NEHRP Recommended
manner and must be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings for
Similarly, sites having liquefiable soils, e.g., loose sands,
further discussion.
or highly sensitive soils that may loose strength during an
earthquake, e.g., bay muds, must be evaluated on a site- C104.4 Site Seismic Hazard
specific basis. Characteristics
In many cases, shear wave velocities will not be avail- The seismic hazard of a site depends on both the intensity
able and the size of the project may not warrant the ex- of ground shaking in an earthquake and the frequency of
pense of obtaining them. Hence, alternative methods of occurrence of the earthquake. The earliest seismic hazard
site characterization are also included. These methods use maps incorporated into building codes were based on the
the Standard Penetration Resistance, N, for the soil deposit maximum ground shaking likely in a region. The difficulty
as a whole, or alternatively, the Standard Penetration Re- with this approach was that it conveyed no information
sistance (SPR), N, for cohesionless soil layers and und- about the frequency of occurrence, and thereby placed ar-
rained shear strength, su, for cohesive soil layers. These eas with very different earthquake experiences in the same
zone. The next generation of maps incorporated frequency
soil parameters can be routinely obtained from field tests
into the mapping process, thereby jointly considering the
done during site borings and are relatively inexpensive.
intensity of ground motion and the frequency of occur-
Correlation of site amplification using these alternative pa-
rence in a consistent manner. A smoothed version of this
rameters is more uncertain than data obtained using aver-
map, with a maximum design value, has been the basis for
age shear wave velocity input. For important or large
SEAOC recommendations in prior editions of the Blue
projects, site characterization should be obtained from
Book, and remains so, with modifications as discussed in
shear wave velocity data.
Sections 104.4.2 and 3.
The procedure for characterizing a site is as follows:
It has been recognized for some time that the ground
Step 1. Check the four categories of soils set forth in motions near a fault rupture can have significantly higher
Soil Profile Type F that require site-specific evaluation. If acceleration than those used in design based on the Z co-
the site soils correspond to any of these categories, charac- efficient of prior editions. For the first time, Blue Book
terize the site as Soil Profile Type F and conduct a site-spe- Requirements provide specific means to quantify these
cific evaluation. differences for design. The changes are significant and
Step 2. Check the total thickness of soft clay layers. warrant careful study prior to their use. The technical is-
Soft clay is defined as a clay with an undrained shear sues on ground motion representation and the reasons for
strength, su, less than 25 kPa (su< 500 psf), a water content, the significant changes in this edition are discussed in Ap-
pendix A.
w, equal to or greater than 40 percent, and a Plasticity In-
dex (PI) greater than 20. If the total thickness of the soft C104.4.1 Seismic Zone. Within California there are
clay layers is greater than 3 m (greater than 10 ft), charac- two zones. These zones and the boundaries between them
terize the site as Soil Profile Type E. were determined based on a probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis of ground motions, with decisions to limit the up-
Step 3. Depending on geotechnical data available per values and lower values to ensure that the uncertainties
for the site, for the top 30 m (100 ft) determine either the in the underlying science do not lead to design require-
90 September 1999
ments that would either overstate or understate the seismic figuration characteristics that are to be avoided wherever
hazard. possible. Earlier Requirements have required the “consid-
C104.4.2 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factor. In eration of the dynamic characteristics” or dynamic analy-
past editions of the Blue Book, the Z coefficient was deter- sis of structures that have significant irregularities.
mined from Table 104-1, or its equivalent, and used However, neither the approach to dynamic analysis, nor
throughout the zone. With this 1999 edition, a near-source the level of irregularity that requires such analysis was
factor is introduced to reflect the fact that the seismic haz- specified.
ard is well documented to be greater near faults capable of Extensive engineering experience and judgment are
significant earthquakes than it is away from these faults. required to quantify irregularities and provide guidance for
To accommodate this condition, a near-source factor is in- special analysis. As yet, there is no complete prescription
corporated into the representation of the site ground mo- for all special analysis considerations for irregularities.
tion determination, as discussed in Appendix A. However, guidelines for quantifying irregularities and for
C104.4.3 Seismic Response Coefficients. Tables special analysis are outlined in Sections C104.5.1 and
104-9 and 104-10 specific seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, C104.5.2 below. These guidelines are especially benefi-
respectively, in terms of the seismic zone factor Z, the cial considering that buildings are becoming increasingly
near-source factors, Na and Nv, and the soil profile type. complex, and their design requires additional care to
achieve the seismic performance called for in Commen-
For construction of design response spectra, Ca is the EPA
tary Section C101.1. These guidelines reflect the increase
and Cv is the value of acceleration response at a 1.0-second in engineering knowledge and the understanding of build-
period. In Tables 104-9 and 104-10, the seismic zone facing response and the effect of irregularities. Much of the
tor, Z (or the product, ZNa or ZNv, for sites in Seismic Zone increase in knowledge has come through the increasingly
4 that have a near-source factors Na or Nv, greater than 1.0) common use of computer analysis.
represents the shaking intensity for rock site conditions In reviewing the requirements for dealing with irregu-
(Soil Profile Type B). The tables specify seismic coeffi- larities, it was recognized that the use of the elastic model
cients for Soil Profile Types C. D and E that include the ef- in dynamic analysis can detect and correct the response ef-
fect of soil amplification on site response. Seismic fects of only certain types of irregularities. The vertical ir-
coefficients for Soil Profile type F are not provided and regularities covered in Table 104-4 (see Requirements),
must be determined by a site-specific hazard analysis. Soil Types 1, 2, and 3 are cases in point. Other irregularity ef-
Profile Type A (hard rock) is extremely rare at California fects are mitigated through design details and other analyt-
building sites and is considered appropriate only for clas- ical considerations such as limitations on story drift ratio
sification of sites in the eastern United States. See Appen- differences and torsional effects (Tables 104-4 and 104-5
dix B for the technical bases concerning soil coefficients. in Requirements).
The values of Ca and Cv are based on the 1997 C104.5.2 Regular Structures. Regular structures,
NEHRP as referenced in Section C104.3. Additional back- designed to the prescribed seismic design load levels, are
ground on the development of the new seismic criteria in expected to meet the objectives of Commentary Section
these Requirements and the 1997 UBC may be found in C101.1. Two important concepts or assumptions apply to
Kircher [1998]. The permission to limit the value of Na to regular structures.
1.1 for structures that comply with the listed conditions 1 1. The linearly varying lateral force distribution given by
through 5 is intended to encourage the use of designs and Equations 105-14, 105-15, and 105-16 is a reasonable
configurations that have the capability of resisting strong and conservative representation of the actual dynamic
near-source ground motion. response inertia force distribution due to earthquake
C104.5 Configuration Requirements ground motions. Given a common base shear value,
the equivalent static force distribution provides a rea-
C104.5.1 General. Irregularities in load paths and in sonable envelope of the forces and deformations due
structural configuration are major contributors to struc- to the actual dynamic response.
tural damage and failure due to strong earthquake ground
2. When design of the elements in the lateral force resist-
motion [Stratta, 1987].
ing system is governed by the specified seismic load
Commentaries to earlier editions of these Require- combinations, then the cyclic inelastic deformation
ments and to ATC 3-06 have described undesirable con- demands during a major level of earthquake ground
September 1999 91
motion will be reasonably uniform in all elements, native structural forms, or a manual for their design. These
without large concentrations in any particular part of Requirements are intended only to make designers aware
the system. It is assumed that the inelastic deformation of the existence and potential detrimental effects of irreg-
demands are proportional to and reasonably approxi- ularities, and to provide minimum requirements for their
mated by the deformations of a fully elastic (nonyield- accommodation.
ing) model of the structure when subject to major
If an irregularity cannot be avoided or eliminated by
levels of ground motion. The acceptable level of in-
design changes, then the engineer must not only apply the
elastic deformation demand for a given material and
provisions given in these Requirements, but also consider
system is, therefore, represented by the R value for the
the ability of the structural system to provide the objective
system, and the seismic design level at the strength de-
of life safety protection at a major level of earthquake
sign basis is given by the fully elastic response divided
ground motion; this is particularly necessary for cases of
by the R value, as given by the base shear Equation
force transfer path irregularity. While incorporating re-
105-4. When a structure has irregularities, then these
quirements for irregularity runs the risk of their misuse as
concepts, assumptions, and approximations may not
a “design manual” for these undesirable structural fea-
be reasonable or valid, and corrective design factors
tures, they do serve to correct a far more serious danger.
and procedures are necessary to meet the design ob-
Designers must be aware of the existence and effects of ir-
jectives.
regularities. They must not employ conventional methods,
The reduction of column size, wall size, and reinforc- as if the building were regular, without accommodating
ing and/or bracing, as the required story shear resistance dynamic response and/or force transfer deficiencies in-
decreases with the height level of the story, can sometimes duced by these irregularities.
result in an abrupt change in story strength, and a large
The various ratios and related criteria stated to define
concentration of inelastic behavior can occur at the level of
irregularity in Tables 104-4 and 104-5 (see Requirements)
element reduction. It is recommended that these reduc-
have been assigned by judgment based on the interpreta-
tions be staggered or distributed over different levels so as
tion of past earthquake damage effects and design experi-
to avoid this inelastic concentration that holds potential for
ence. In many cases there is no way, short of an inelastic
story failure.
dynamic analysis of the complete structural and nonstruc-
C104.5.3 Irregular Structures. Vertical and plan ir- tural system, to assess or quantify the effects of these irreg-
regularities can result in loads and deformations signifi- ularities. It is also essential that sound professional
cantly different from those assumed by equivalent static judgment be used to formulate these analyses and to inter-
procedures; those distributions of mass, stiffness, or pret their results. However, since such detailed types of
strength that result in earthquake forces and/or deforma- analysis are generally not economically justifiable, it is the
tions over the height of the structure, which are signifi- intent of these guidelines to assist the engineer in detecting
cantly different from linearly varying distributions, are particular problem areas and correcting their detrimental
designated as vertical irregularities. Those plan or dia- effects. For this reason the guidelines given for the assess-
phragm characteristics that result in significant amounts of ment of irregularities are qualitative in nature and must be
torsional response, diaphragm deformations, or diaphragm interpreted with sound engineering judgment. Further, it is
stress concentrations are designated as plan irregularities. of foremost importance in the design process to eliminate,
The lack of a direct path for force transfer is referred or at least minimize, significant irregularities.
to as an irregularity in force transfer, and an example Extended commentary on the description and re-
would be where a lateral force resisting element is offset sponse effects of irregularities is given in Commentary
or discontinuous. This condition can cause a concentration Section C104.9.3.
of inelastic demand, and can occur even when no irregu-
larities in plan or elevation exist. C104.6 Structural Systems
C104.6.1 General. This section defines the general
It is most important for the engineer to understand that
types of structural systems that may be used to resist earth-
irregularities create great uncertainties in the ability of the
quake forces. These systems are further classified in Table
structure to meet the design objectives of Commentary
104-6 (see Requirements), and maximum values of Rd and
Section C101.1. Therefore, the presence of requirements
to accommodate irregularities shall not be construed as an Ro are specified for each classification. The Rd values have
endorsement of irregular structures, a “catalog” of imagi- been assigned according to the relative capabilities of
92 September 1999
building systems to provide energy dissipation in the in- large openings, such as lower level garage spaces having
elastic range (see structural system factor R in Commen- only columns and narrow wall piers supporting the upper
tary Section C105.2.1 and in Appendix C). Ro indicates the stories, should use the Rd =1.8 or a lower value.
ratio of expected strength of the system to the force neces-
The prescribed limitations for the height-to-width ra-
sary to cause the first yield. Rd and Ro values for structures
tio for shear panels should be as shown in the 1997 UBC
other than buildings are given in Table 104-8 in Require- Figure 23-II-1.
ments.
In Table 104-6 (see Requirements), the system Type
In any structural system, it is preferable that the indi- 1.4.a, “Braced frames where bracing carries gravity
vidual lateral force resisting elements be located on sepa- loads—steel,” is distinctly different from Type 2.4.a,
rate vertical planes for each direction of loading. It is “Concentric braced frames—steel.” In system Type 1.4.a,
important that adequate resistance to torsion be provided the bracing elements perform the dual function of resisting
both by the strength and arrangement of these elements in both gravity loads and lateral seismic loads. If inelastic be-
the plan of the structure. havior and energy dissipation occur in the bracing ele-
R is the product of Rd and Ro. The particular requirements, then their ability to carry tributary gravity loads
ments necessary to qualify for a given structural system may be lost. In the Type 2.4.a system, the gravity load is
type and its corresponding R value follow. carried by the columns, and the vertical load capacity of
the system is not endangered by energy dissipation in the
C104.6.2 Bearing Wall System. This type of struc- braces. Refer to Chapter 7 for Requirements intended to
tural system is characterized by shear wall or braced frame maintain the load-carrying capacity of columns after brac-
lateral force resisting elements that carry substantial verti- ing elements have yielded.
cal loads which, if they fail, eliminate the vertical load ca-
pacity of a substantial portion of the structure and/or lead Chevron bracing was an example of the Type 1.4.a
to vertical instability. The presence of minor load bearing system in previous editions of these Requirements. In the
walls in a building that would normally be classified as a current Requirements, chevron bracing is a Type 2.4.a sys-
Building Frame System (Section C104.6.2) does not nec- tem. If the beam hangs from braces above (e.g., an inverted
essarily mean that the building should be categorized as a chevron), energy dissipation in the braces does not endan-
Bearing Wall System. The reasoning is that the action of a ger the gravity load capacity of the braces; if the braces
multi-storied building is not significantly influenced by support the beam from below (e.g., an inverted V), the
the presence of minor bearing walls around a stairwell, for beam must be capable of carrying the tributary gravity
example. Also, in a tall building with setbacks, the com- loads without the support of the braces.
pleteness of the frame for the tower, when carried through C104.6.3 Building Frame System. This system con-
to the foundation, is not adversely affected by bearing sists of a vertical load-carrying space frame with lateral
walls in the base structure below the tower. load resistance provided by braced frames or nonbearing
Note that an Rd =2.2 is given for buildings that are of shear walls. This definition does not require that abso-
lutely all the vertical load be carried by the vertical load-
repetitive stud and joist frame construction, do not exceed
carrying frame (see Commentary Section C104.6.1,
three stories in height, and use horizontal diaphragms and
above, relative to the presence of minor load-bearing
plywood vertical shear panels to resist lateral forces. These
walls).
buildings have demonstrated excellent resistance to strong
ground shaking when designed, detailed, and constructed While there is no requirement to provide lateral resis-
to good engineering standards. To qualify, the diaphragms tance in the vertical load framing, it is strongly recom-
and shear panels for this type of building must be made of mended that nominal moment resistance be incorporated
a combination of joists, studs, and plywood sheathing ma- into the vertical load frame design. In structural steel, this
terials with an established record of acceptable perfor- might be in the form of nominal moment-resisting beam
mance as shear elements. Walls and diaphragms with flange and/or web connections to the columns. In rein-
concentric diagonal bracing do not qualify for this value. forced concrete, the nominal moment resistance inherent
Also, this value is based on the condition that the dia- in cast-in-place concrete may be considered sufficient to
phragm does not have excessive openings and/or disconti- qualify for this system, while most types of precast con-
nuities and the wall system is reasonably continuous and crete systems would not. In reinforced concrete, continuity
complete down to the foundation level. Structures with and full development and anchorage of longitudinal steel,
September 1999 93
along with stirrups over the full length of beams would be frame. With the availability of computer programs for
good design practice. (Refer to Chapter 4 for specific Re- the analysis of the complete structure model, the walls
quirements for frames not designated as a part of the lateral or braced frames can be designed for more realistic in-
force resisting system.) teraction forces, and the 100 percent rule is no longer
needed. While this may result in a somewhat reduced
The vertical load frame provides a nominal secondary
loading when compared to previous Requirements,
line of defense, even though all specified lateral forces are
there are extra design Requirements set forth in Sec-
resisted by other seismic resisting structural systems. In
tion 104.6.5 to ensure attainment of the performance
addition, the deformation compatibility Requirements of
objectives for the structure.
Section 108.2.4 must be met. The presence of a frame can
provide vertical stability to the building and prevent col- 2. The special moment-resisting frame acting indepen-
lapse after damage to the shear walls or braced frames. The dently shall be designed to resist not less than 25 per-
frame also acts to tie the building together and redistribute cent of the total required lateral force, including
the lateral force to undamaged elements of the lateral force torsion effects. Columns of the frame system may also
resisting system. function as the boundary elements of shear walls. As
such, these columns must be designed to resist the ver-
C104.6.4 Moment Resisting Frame System. As in tical forces resulting from overturning moment in the
the case of the building frame system, it is not necessary shear wall along with the load effects associated with
that all the vertical load be carried by the vertical load-car- the frame system.
rying frame. The entire lateral force stipulated must be ca-
pable of being resisted by moment-resisting frames. To C104.6.6 Cantilevered Column System. A cantile-
qualify as a “special moment-resisting frame,” the frame vered column system consists of an assemblage of cantile-
shall be a special moment-resisting frame of structural ver column elements. The cantilevered column system is
steel conforming to Chapter 7, Structural Steel, or of spe- essentially an inverted pendulum. The Rd of 1.2 and Ro of
cially detailed reinforced concrete conforming to 1.8 were selected to be compatible with the inverted pen-
Chapter 4, Reinforced Concrete. dulum system allowed for nonbuilding structures.
C104.6.5 Dual System. A structural system with the The inverted pendulum-type system listed in Table
following features: 104-8 (see Requirements) is not limited to nonbuilding
structures, as implied by the table. In fact, this type of
C104.6.5.1 The vertical load-carrying space frame
structural system is common for multi-family residential
shall be substantially complete. Special details are re-
occupancies over carports, strip shopping center store-
quired according to the R value and seismic zone.
fronts, and single family dwellings on ocean or hillside
C104.6.5.2 and C104.6.5.3 The shear walls or lots. Inclusion of this class of structures does not imply
braced frames and moment-resisting frames of the lateral that this is a preferred type of system, but rather recognizes
force resisting system shall comply with both of the fol- the existence of the cantilever column system as a separate
lowing criteria: category with unique characteristics.
1. The frame and shear walls or braced frames shall re- Unlike some of the other seismic force resisting sys-
sist the total required lateral force in accordance with tems, cantilevered columns have very limited redundancy.
relative rigidities considering the interaction of the Typically, this system does not have redundant elements
walls and frames as a single system. This analysis and multiple load paths, nor does the system have added
shall be made in accordance with the principles of damping, strength, or rotational stiffness developed by the
structural mechanics that consider the relative rigidi- nonstructural elements.
ties of the elements and torsion effects in the system.
Deformations imposed on members of the frame by In cantilever column systems, the column elements
the interaction with the shear wall or braced frame acting in cantilever action often resist all lateral forces as
shall be considered in this analysis. In previous edi- well as provide support for the gravity (vertical) loads.
tions of these Requirements, shear walls or braced Hence, there is no independent vertical load-carrying sys-
frames were required to be designed for 100 percent of tem and the failure of the primary lateral system compro-
the required lateral force. This was a simple rule that mises the ability of the structure to carry gravity loads.
permitted design without the necessity of evaluating Overstrength in cantilevered column systems is mini-
the interaction effects with the moment-resisting mal because the ability to form a progression of plastic
94 September 1999
hinges is limited. Hence, design for higher strength and hazard; otherwise, the risk may not be acceptable. In areas
stiffness (by use of a low R) is necessary to reduce the high of high seismicity, seismic Zones 3 and 4, this problem
ductility demands imposed on the columns. does not exist for two reasons:
This type of system should be used only when the use 1. Only systems with high energy dissipation capabili-
of other more desirable systems is not feasible. If this type ties are allowed.
of system must be used, care should be used to ensure that 2. The largest capable event (with, say, a 25,000-year re-
deformation compatibility is checked at ultimate seismic turn period) may produce ground motion levels that
induced displacements for both structural and nonstructur- are approximately 1.5 times higher than the level con-
al elements. Deformation compatibility checks are partic- sidered in preparing these Requirements.
ularly important if the cantilever column system is used as Concrete braced frames are restricted to lower seismic
part of a mixed system, e.g., cantilever columns with plas- zones: There is a lack of experience with this system, and
ter or gypsum board shear walls. little research exists on which to base detailing require-
C104.6.7 Undefined Structural System. Undefined ments for higher zones.
structural systems are those not listed in Table 104-6 (see C104.6.10 Damage Control Considerations. Damage
Requirements) and must have their design basis justified to, and repairability of, the structure was not a direct
in accordance with Section 104.9.2. consideration in development of the R factors. Thus, it
C104.6.8 Nonbuilding Structural System. Section may be appropriate for the engineer to consider damage
109 and Table 104-8 (see Requirements) prescribe design control and increase the level of loading, stiffness, and de-
procedures and bases for various types of nonbuilding tailing requirements if damage control and/or decreasing
structures. the cost of repairing the damage is a consideration (see Ap-
C104.6.9 Comments Related to Systems in Section pendix G).
104.6 and Table 104-6. Requirements for Seismic Zones C104.6.11 Space Frames. Several aspects of the
1 and 2: Table 104-6 (see Requirements) and its system space frame and the moment-resisting or special moment-
Requirements now apply to all Zones 1 through 4. Previ- resisting frames require discussion. For a system to qualify
ous Requirements applied only to Zones 3 and 4. as a “moment-resisting frame system,” it is necessary to
In Zones 1 and 2, the expected ground motion having have a substantially complete vertical load-carrying space
the same probability of exceedance as in Zones 3 and 4 frame. The engineer should have the latitude to designate
will not produce the same large inelastic response de- selected portions of the space frame as the moment-resist-
mands that would occur in Zones 3 and 4. When the seis- ing or special moment-resisting frame, as long as these
mic force is small compared to the gravity load and wind portions satisfy the design requirements and provide the
load requirements, there is more reserve strength to resist intended behavior of the selected type of lateral force re-
seismic forces. Therefore, in Zones 1 and 2, it is permitted sisting system. The purpose is to allow the engineer to se-
to use systems and configurations with lower energy dissi- lect the most effective configuration for the lateral force
pation capabilities, with appropriately reduced R values— resisting system. However, the need for redundancy
such as concrete intermediate and ordinary moment-resist- should be a primary consideration in this selection process.
ing frames, and concrete braced frames. For those portions of the space frame that are not part
It must be recognized, however, that major earth- of the designated lateral force resisting system, the defor-
quakes with very low probability of occurrence can occur mation compatibility Requirements of Section 108.2.4
in some areas of Zones 1 and 2. The level of ground mo- must be complied with. Also, if the materials, type, or con-
tion from the largest capable event in these Zones may be figuration of these portions of the space frame are such that
of the order of two or more times the level of the expected brittle failure and/or collapse could occur if the inelastic
ground motion having 10 percent risk of exceedance in 50 displacements were to exceed the factored values pre-
years. Therefore, the decision to reduce special detailing scribed by Section 108.2.4, then extra reinforcing details
requirements and permit the use of systems with low in- should be provided to prevent brittle failure, or the amount
herent energy dissipation capabilities entails a risk of very of inelastic displacement must be controlled by extra stiff-
serious damage or collapse if the very rare, but large, event ness and strength in the designated lateral force resisting
were to occur. This decision may be economically feasible system. See related Commentary Sections C108.2.4,
in those instances involving only a small amount of life C408, and Appendix E.
September 1999 95
C104.7 Height Limits feet, stories having lateral resistance less than 65 per-
Building codes have long prescribed height limits, princi- cent of the story above are prohibited (Section
pally for purposes of fire protection. A single 160-foot 104.9.1).
level height limit was imposed on many systems for seis- 2. Discontinuous lateral force resisting systems, such as
mic protection by previous editions of these Require- discontinuous shear walls, require special design of
ments. In this edition, the limits of some systems were supporting columns (Section 105.8.2).
reduced and others were raised. In general, special mo- 3. The higher mode overturning effect represented by the
ment-resisting frame systems have no height limits as they quantity Ft may be omitted at the soil interface for reg-
have had in the past. Dual systems have either a 160-foot ular structures. It may not be omitted for irregular
limit, or no limit, depending on the combination consid- structures (Section 105.8.3 and UBC §1809.4).
ered. 4. Plan irregularity Type 1 in Table 104-5 represents a
Many systems where lower limits have been pre- torsional irregularity that occurs when the center of
scribed are of materials where the practice of the industry mass has a large eccentricity relative to the lateral
has been, in general, to limit height approximately to the force resisting elements. This irregularity carries a
values provided. penalty of increased accidental torsion, in which an
amplified accidental eccentricity must be used in de-
C104.8 Selection of Lateral Force
sign (Equation 105-17).
Procedure
5. More stringent stress limits are required for connec-
The philosophy underlying this section is that dynamic tions of diaphragms to vertical elements and to drag
analysis is always acceptable for design. The static force members when plan irregularities exist (Section
procedure (Section 105.2) is allowed only under certain 108.2.10).
conditions of regularity, occupancy, and height. For exam-
6. Concurrent application of earthquake forces in two or-
ple, regular buildings under 240 feet in height may be de-
thogonal directions is required when torsional irregu-
signed using the static force procedure. The following
larity Type 1 of Table 104-5 exists in both principal
considerations apply for cases where it is not immediately
horizontal directions. There is a similar Requirement
obvious whether the structure requires dynamic analysis or
for application of earthquake forces in two orthogonal
may use the static force procedure.
directions when the structure has plan irregularity
Assessment of Irregularity. It must first be deter- Type 5 in Table 104-5. This latter type of irregularity
mined whether the system qualifies for the vertical irregu- exists when the vertical elements are neither parallel
larity exception in Section 104.5.3.1, and/or whether the to, nor symmetric about, a set of principal horizontal
displacements due to torsional effects are below the plan orthogonal axes (Section 108.1).
irregularity limits of Type 1 in Table 104-5 (see Require- 7. The prescribed base shear may be reduced by 10 per-
ments). Given the preliminary trial configuration and cent for regular structures when a dynamic analysis is
member sizes for the structural system, the appropriate performed. This reduction is not permitted for struc-
equivalent static force levels should be applied to the tures with irregular features (Section 106.5.4).
structure, along with the corresponding vertical load com-
C104.8.1 General. In these Requirements, the results
binations. This analysis provides the displacement or drift
of a dynamic analysis are normalized or scaled (Section
information to make this determination.
106.5.4) to the levels required by the static force procedure
If at all possible, the design and/or configuration of Section 105.2. Therefore, the basic information pro-
should be modified to conform to the displacement limits vided by dynamic analysis consists of the particular distri-
required for regularity, and, of course, any of the other ir- butions of forces and deformations as they might differ
regularity features of Table s 104-4 and 104-5 (see Re- from those provided by the static load distribution of Sec-
quirements) should be eliminated if possible. Otherwise, tion 105.5.
the design is subject to the following penalties and restric-
For the structures described in Sections 104.8.2 and
tions:
104.8.3, the static lateral force procedure is judged to pro-
1. Vertical irregularity Type 5 in Table 104-4, known as vide an adequate envelope for the pattern of load distribu-
a weak story, represents the existence of any story tion and the corresponding deformations. Note that
whose lateral resistance is less than 80 percent of the irregular structures are included in the height limited
story above. For structures whose height exceeds 30 group of Section 104.8.3, Item 3. However, the engineer
96 September 1999
should still recognize the significance of the effects of ir- Item 4. In September 1985, Mexico City was shak-
regularity and take appropriate measures to ensure perfor- en by a great earthquake centered some 400 kilometers to
mance consistent with the objectives of this document. the southwest. The shaking experienced in Mexico City
C104.8.2 Simplified Static. The Seismology Commit- during this event varied markedly with subsurface soil
tee responded to the need to provide a conservative, simple conditions. This shaking was most intense within a region
method to determine design forces for certain simple underlain by an ancient lakebed comprised of soft clay de-
buildings. Single family dwellings not over two stories posits. The recorded ground motions within this lakebed
may be of construction other than light frame. region had peak accelerations that were only moderately
strong (0.17g); however, these motions lasted nearly 2
The simplified static method is an attempt by the Seis- minutes and exhibited nearly harmonic behavior with a pe-
mology Committee to provide an easier method of finding riod of about 2 seconds. As a result, the spectral ampli-
the design forces in simple buildings. This method is fully tudes in this period range for motions recorded on the lake
described in Section 105.2.3 of the Requirements and bed were much larger (by factors of 15 to 20) than the cor-
Commentary. It is limited to: single family dwellings not responding spectral amplitudes for motions recorded on
over two stories; buildings not more than three stories that rock sites at comparable epicentral distances [Bertero,
are built of light frame shear wall construction; regular 1986].
buildings that are not more than two stories in height.
Buildings falling under these categories probably repre- Because of this, the most significant damage was con-
sent 90 percent of the buildings constructed in the United fined to the lakebed region and occurred in buildings that
States. were 5 to 15 stories in height with small-strain natural pe-
riods of about 0.8-1.0 seconds. When these buildings be-
It is not allowed to use this simplified static approach gan to crack and yield during the shaking, their natural
for moment-resisting frames and cantilevered column sys- period began to lengthen. As this lengthening period ap-
tems because the deflection limits do not apply to build- proached the dominant period of the lakebed motions (ap-
ings designed under the simplified static method. proximately 2 seconds), the structural response intensified
Although the exemption of moment-resisting frame build- as it entered into resonance with these ground motions.
ings is not implicit in the 1997 UBC, it is intended by the The long duration of the nearly harmonic ground motions
Seismology Committee. provided ample time for development of resonance condi-
C104.8.3 Static Procedure tions, resulting in many cycles of intense shaking of the
Item 3. While these Requirements exempt short buildings. This, in turn, led to a progressive increase in
irregular buildings from the dynamic analysis require- building damage and to eventual collapse in many cases.
ments, the engineer should be aware of the need to evalu-
It is important to recognize that the volcanic origin,
ate the dynamic characteristics of irregular buildings not
mineralogy, and extremely high water content (100-500
more than 65 feet in height where properties and/or char-
percent) of the lakebed clay deposits are unique to the
acteristics may create dynamic force and deformation pat-
Mexico City area. These factors have contributed to the es-
terns that differ significantly from those resulting from the
sentially linear and lightly damped nature of the lakebed's
load distribution of Section 105.5.
earthquake motions and to their extremely large amplifica-
Item 4. Refer to Section 105.4.2, Item 2 for a design tion characteristics. In addition, the location of the lakebed
procedure that may be used for structures meeting the lim- soil deposits in a basin of rock-like material contributed to
itations of this section. Here, structures having the same R the usually high long-period amplifications that were ob-
value for both the platform and tower portions may be con- served [Singh, 1988; Dobry and Vucetic, 1987].
sidered as a special case of a mixed R value system.
The geologic characteristics of the Mexico City lake-
C104.8.4 Dynamic Procedure bed deposits are not typical of most Type SF sites in Cali-
Item 1. Dynamic analysis is required for tall struc- fornia. Therefore, it is unlikely that Type SF California
tures over 240 feet in height in order to determine the pos-
sites would exhibit ground response characteristics com-
sible effects of higher mode response on the force
parable to those observed in Mexico City. Nevertheless,
distribution and deformations.
because of the limited understanding of the behavior of
Items 2 and 3. Dynamic analysis is required be- soft clay (Type SF) sites in a strong motion environment,
cause the cited irregularities invalidate the assumptions there is concern about the possible occurrence of extensive
applicable for equivalent static force analysis. damage to structures located on such clay deposits due to
September 1999 97
resonant response of the type observed in Mexico City. needed for any purpose, it can also serve for all required
For this reason, special dynamic analysis procedures have loading conditions, including seismic loading in each prin-
been adopted for certain classes of structures judged to be cipal direction, other selected directions, and for orthogo-
susceptible to such damage (see Section 106.2, Item 4). nal effects.
The purpose of the requirements of this section is to define
C104.9 System Limitations
the conditions under which these special analysis proce-
dures are to be applied. It is recognized that the Requirements of this document are
based on certain assumptions regarding the configuration
From evaluation of the observed damage in Mexico of the structure and performance of members. Since these
City, it is judged that damage to structures on Type SF soils assumptions may not always be justified, the engineer may
is unlikely if the natural period of the structure is short or perform more exact analyses. Care should be taken to en-
long compared to that of the site. Therefore, structures sure that all relevant phenomena have been considered.
with natural periods less than or equal to 0.7 seconds have Requirements of this section shall not be used for the pur-
been excluded as candidates for these special analysis pro- pose of reducing the prescribed requirements.
cedures. Dynamic analysis is already required for build-
C104.9.1 Discontinuity. While this section addresses
ings taller than 240 feet, therefore this condition does not
the weak story problem in translational directions, it is also
change the requirement for dynamic analysis.
important to detect and correct conditions of weak tor-
C104.8.5 General Commentary on Methods of Anal- sional resistance in any story. For example, a single strong
ysis and Related Structural Models (refers to Require- element could result in compliance with the 65 percent
ments Sections 104.8 and 106.3). Since the writing of story strength requirement, but its location could be such
previous versions of these Requirements, there have been that the particular story has less than 65 percent of the tor-
significant advances in the development of analytical pro- sional resistance of the story above.
cedures and in their availability to the design profession.
Specifically, programs for analysis of three-dimensional Weak stories have been one of the principal causes of
structural models for frames, braced frames, and shear structural failures in past earthquakes. For structures with
wall combinations are commonly available and widely a weak story (less than the 80 percent limit) no mitigating
used for both static and dynamic loading conditions. requirements are required (other than the limits resulting
from the classification as an irregular structure) unless the
However, it is important to recognize that the manual story strength is less than 65 percent of the story above. It
analysis methods, such as assumed inflection point loca- should be recognized that the allowed 65 percent limit is
tions, portal method, cantilever method, moment coeffi- quite liberal and is meant to give the engineer some flexi-
cients, etc., still have an essential role. In many cases they bility in handling difficult architectural configurations.
are adequate for final design. In other cases they are useful However, the engineer should verify that the permissible
for preliminary design, initial member sizing, and the ap- level of story strength variation does not lead to a collapse
proximate checking of the results from more detailed ana- mechanism under the maximum level of ground motion.
lytical procedures. Equilibrium checks of the static lateral The 80 and 65 percent limit values were assigned by judg-
force and individual mode dynamic response results are ment; and, as such, are subject to future modifications as
also valuable. experience develops from the use of these Requirements.
C104.8.6 Choice of Two- or Three-Dimensional
The exception, where a weak story is allowed if the
Structural Models. Current professional practice and
computational capabilities may lead to the choice of the members and elements are capable of resisting Ω 0 times
three dimensional model for both static and dynamic anal- the design force, is intended to ensure that the structure can
yses. Although three-dimensional models are not specifi- survive the force levels induced in the inelastic structure
cally required for static force procedures, nor for dynamic by the maximum expected level of ground motion. The ca-
analysis procedures for structures having only vertical ir- pability to resist may be evaluated on the strength design
regularity, they often have important advantages over basis, and at a factor of 1.7 times the basic allowable stress
two-dimensional models. resistance.
A three-dimensional model is appropriate for the anal- These weak story Requirements are intended to avoid
ysis of torsional effects (actual plus accidental), dia- concentration of excessive inelastic deformation behavior
phragm deformability, and systems having nonrectangular at one level that could result in possible collapse. This con-
plan configurations. When the three-dimensional model is cept should be applied to the entire structural system, e.g.,
98 September 1999
abrupt reductions in lateral and/or torsional capacity create a virtual rigid frame configuration; moment-resist-
should be avoided. When resistance requirements at a lev- ing or special moment-resisting steel frames where all or
el allow framing, bracing, or wall elements to be reduced, most columns in a story are weaker in flexure than the
this reduction should be uniformly distributed over several beam elements. In these examples, either the redundancy
levels to preclude the possibility of concentrated inelastic of the system has been significantly reduced, or the loca-
deformation at one level. tion and mode of inelastic energy dissipation is changed
C104.9.2 Undefined Structural Systems. New or from that considered in the related system as defined in
unusual structural systems that have not had a proven good these Requirements.
performance record in seismic events should be evaluated C104.9.3 Irregular Features. Discussion of specific
with special care to ensure that they can perform according irregular features is as follows.
to the objectives of this document.
C104.9.3.1 Vertical Irregularity. Examples of
An investigation of both the elastic and inelastic de- vertical irregularities are shown in Figure C104-5. Some
formation demands in the system and in the individual el- of these irregularities (e.g., Figure C104-5a) are evident by
ements should be made at the level of maximum ground inspection but may not have a significant effect on the
motion. This should include consideration of the possible seismic response, either in the elastic or the inelastic range.
differences between the response of the all elastic model Other irregularities may be difficult to detect in the initial
and the response of the inelastic structure. It is suggested design process but may be created by the addition of non-
that the story and structure yield mechanisms of the struc- structural but stiff infill walls above the first story.
ture be determined as a part of this investigation. Some
C104.9.3.2 Assessment of Irregularity. A
guidelines are given in Seismic Design Guidelines for Es-
quantitative assessment of most of the irregularities shown
sential Buildings [U.S. Army, 1986; ATC-40, 1997].
in Figure C104-5 can be achieved by means of either a sto-
Use of any new system proposed for regions of strong ry-by-story stiffness evaluation or a deflection analysis of
seismicity presents special concerns. It is not sufficient to the complete structure. Such an analysis will identify the
show only strength capability at an appropriate design lev- irregularities shown in Figures C104-5a through C104-5f,
el. There must also be special details for the inelastic be- possibly that shown in Figure C104-5g, but not those
havior of the system, along with a verification of stability shown in Figures C104-5h and C104-5i. The mass irregu-
at deformations corresponding to the maximum expected larity of Figure C104-5h will, however, have an effect on
ground motion. Additionally, there must be provisions for the modes of vibration and on the distribution of equiva-
redundancies, or backup systems, to provide for extra un- lent lateral forces.
known deformations due to uncertainties in structural re-
C104.9.3.3 Irregular Plan. Examples of plan ir-
sponse and ground motion. For example, for the defined
regularities are shown in Figure C104-6. Such irregulari-
systems: the Requirements specify that special concrete
ties may arise from nonsymmetric (Figures C104-6
columns must be designed not to have yield hinges and
through C104-6e) or even symmetric (Figure C104-6d)
shear failures; concrete shear walls require special bound-
plan configurations with re-entrant corners, nonsymmetric
ary elements when highly stressed; steel bracing requires
distributions of lateral rigidities (C104-6e through
special strength for connections and protection against
C104-6g), nonsymmetric mass distribution (Figure
fracture and excess inelastic buckling. In other words,
C104-6h), or any combination of these. In most of these
there must always be something to support vertical loads
cases, torsional modes of vibration may be excited whose
even when maximum expected deformations are exceed-
effects may not be adequately represented in the equiva-
ed. The details used in new systems should be carefully as-
lent lateral force procedure. The irregularity in the config-
sessed to ensure they provide an equivalent level of
urations shown in Figures C104-6c through C104-6d is
performance to that of defined systems.
caused primarily by the existence of re-entrant corners that
Exaggerated forms of the defined systems may require form coupled wings, which may respond in an opening or
use of a reduced R value along with special details for the closing fashion. This may give rise to high stresses in the
particular configurations of elements and their connec- horizontal diaphragms in the vicinity of the re-entrant cor-
tions. Examples include, but are not limited to, special mo- ners.
ment-resisting frames reduced down to a few separated,
In Figure C104-6, it should be recognized that the
single bay bents; shear walls, usually either of tilt-up con-
configurations a, b, and c are geometric irregularities that
crete or plywood-stud construction, where large openings
September 1999 99
§C104.9.3.4 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
can be made to have a regular (nearly uniform translation) nearly fully elastic response forces. This assumes there is
deformation behavior by an appropriate distribution of no significant yielding in the other portions of the structure
stiffness elements in the plan. under major earthquake input.
If the structure is irregular in plan only, then it is as- The weak story condition is defined in Table 104-4
sumed that the equivalent static force method that includes (see Requirements), Irregularity Type 5. A weak story is a
the accidental eccentricity in mass center locations, will discontinuity in capacity that may result in inelastic behav-
provide a reasonable upper bound on the force distribution ior being concentrated in the particular story. This can
and deformations due to torsional mode effects. However, cause subsequent deterioration and failure of vertical load
in the case of extreme or unusual configurations, it is ad- bearing elements in a major level of earthquake ground
visable to perform a dynamic analysis on a three-dimen- motion. Examples are:
sional model of the structure. 1. A story that has a weak column/strong beam condition
When the structure has both plan and vertical irregu- at all or most columns, with a strong braced frame in
larity, then a three-dimensional model is necessary for the the stories above.
dynamic analysis in order to best evaluate the force distri- 2. A bearing wall system that has many openings and
bution and deformations due to the three-dimensional slender wall piers in the weak story with few or no
mode combinations for a given direction of seismic input. openings in the walls of the stories above.
C104.9.3.4 Irregular Force Transfers. Figure In the first example, a yield mechanism in the weak
C104-5i shows a severe irregularity in force transfer that story could form, deteriorate, and develop sufficient P-del-
would not be identified by a stiffness or deflection analy- ta effect to lead to collapse. In the second example, the
sis. Under the deformation response due to major seismic wall piers in the weak story could suffer shear and/or flex-
ground motion, the axial load demand on the exterior col- ure damage, leading to loss of vertical load-carrying ca-
umn may be much higher than that resulting from speci- pacity.
fied design loads, and this has necessitated the extra design The strength comparison method used in the defini-
Requirements in Section 105.7.2. tion of Type 5 in Table 104-4 (see Requirements) is in-
Irregularities in force transfer, such as those caused by tended for cases such as the foregoing examples. If,
discontinuous columns (Figure C104-7a through C104- however, the system is a strong column/weak beam frame,
7c), discontinuous or offset shear walls or bracing (Figure or coupled shear walls where inelastic behavior can
C104-7d), weak stories in shear and/or torsion, large open- progress away from a story into the upper story beam con-
ings in horizontal framing systems at any level, and the in- nections or wall spandrels, then the story strength compar-
fluence of stiff nonstructural elements can cause ison must consider the particular highest stressed elements
destructive concentrations of inelastic behavior at the dis- that may initiate inelastic behavior. It should then be deter-
continuities. The use of the R value for a given structural mined if a story mechanism could occur.
system assumes that the inelastic behavior is reasonably One of the most impressive actual cases of a weak sto-
well distributed throughout the entire structural system. ry failure was the Olive View hospital in the 1971 San
Therefore, if irregularities or discontinuities create con- Fernando earthquake. The structural system was a mo-
centrations of inelastic behavior, then the irregularities or ment-resisting concrete frame supporting a rigid concrete
discontinuities and resulting concentrations of inelastic box wall system. Subsequent design requirements have
behavior must either be corrected or strengthened, or the R virtually prohibited this type of mixed system: specifical-
value must be decreased to reflect the limited and concen- ly, concrete SMRFs must have strong column/weak beam
trated amount of inelastic behavior in the structural sys- conditions; and in mixed systems the R value of the system
tem. in any story must not be greater than that of the system
If the relative strengths of the adjoining elements are above the story.
large, inelastic behavior could be concentrated in the shad- The specific irregularity Type 5 and related Require-
ed elements of the systems shown in Figure C104-7. The ments in Section 104.9.1 are intended to prevent system
column in (a), the support girder in (b), the cantilever configurations that would have concentrations of inelastic
beam segment of (c), and the columns and transfer dia- deformations within a story and lead to life-endangering
phragm in (d) all could experience high force levels rang- damage or collapse of that story. The object of corrective
ing from about an Ω 0 multiple of specified forces to (extra strength) provisions is to force inelastic behavior
100 September 1999

beyond the weak story, preferably into other portions of equivalent story forces are based on simplifying assump-
the lateral force resisting system and away from the prima- tions for mode shapes and modal participation. For the
ry vertical load-carrying elements. equivalent lateral force procedure, it is assumed that the
story drift ratios and masses are reasonably uniform over
It is important that the engineer understand the intent
the height of the building, and that the governing modes of
and objective of weak story requirements, which is to pre-
vibration are primarily translational, not torsional.
vent localized inelastic deterioration leading to serious
damage or collapse. The simple comparison of story 105.1.1 Earthquake Loads. The earthquake load,
strength, the irregularity penalties, and the extra strength E, is defined as a function of both horizontal, Eh, and ver-
requirements are intended to alert the engineer to the fact tical, Ev, components of the ground motion. The horizontal
that there may be a serious deficiency in the system and to component of the earthquake load is further multiplied by
give minimum corrective measures that must be taken. the “redundancy factor” to account for redundancy in each
There may be some cases where these corrective mea- building’s lateral bracing elements.
sures are not sufficient and better design is left to the judg- For sites farther than 15km away from known active
ment and expertise of the engineer. Therefore, whenever faults (i.e., near-source factor=1.0), Eh is typically equal to
the comparative story strength or configuration of a sys- about 1.4 times the load due to the base shear calculated
tem indicates the possible existence of a weak story, the using the 1994 UBC. However, the actual difference can
engineer should proceed to investigate and provide for ex- vary throughout the spectral range. For short period build-
tra strength in the apparent weak story and/or provide al- ings, the coefficient 2.5 in Equation 105-6 as compared to
terations in the upper stories to force inelastic demand into the value of 2.75 in the previous version results in a 10 per-
the other stories. Special detailing is, of course, required if cent reduction in base shear for buildings located away
significant inelastic behavior is indicated in the weak sto- from near-source zones. In addition, for longer period
ry. buildings, the spectral decrease based on 1/T in the con-
ATC-40 [1997] and the Seismic Design Guidelines for stant velocity range results in a reduced demand for some
Essential Buildings [U.S. Army, 1986] provide procedures buildings located outside the near-source zones. The 1.4
for estimating inelastic demands due to a major level factor is the load combination factor that was used with
earthquake. prior code design base shear to convert allowable design
seismic load to that used for strength design. Note that the
C104.10 Alternative Procedures strength design load combination factor used with the seis-
Several alternative design concepts in seismic design, such mic base shear of these Requirements is 1.0.
as seismic isolation, energy dissipation and damping sys-
A small vertical component, Ev, is introduced into the
tems, have been developed in recent years and new devel-
opments will continue to advance in the foreseeable future. earthquake load, E, for the strength design combination,
Through the efforts of an Ad Hoc Committee, General Re- Equation 101-5, only. This concept of a vertical earth-
quirements for the design of seismic-isolated structures quake load is introduced to maintain about the same repre-
have been developed based on the current state of practice sentation of vertical acceleration effects on dead load as
in seismic isolation (see Section 150 et seq.). given in the strength design load combination of the previ-
ous provisions. Ev is set equal to 0.5CaID. For typical case
Similarly, the SEAOC Energy Dissipation Committee where I=1.0 and Ca=0.40, this yields 0.2D, which when
has provided the minimum design requirements for pas-
added to the 1.2D factor in Equation 101-5, results in par-
sive energy dissipation systems (see Appendix H).
ity with the 1.4D factor of the previous strength design
provisions.
C105 UBC §1630 Minimum Design
Lateral Forces and Related Equation 105-2 defines the estimated maximum earth-
Effects quake force, Em, that can be developed in the structure.
This estimated maximum earthquake force is intended to
C105.1 Earthquake Loads and Modeling be used with the special seismic load combinations in Sec-
Requirements tion 101.7.4. These load combinations combine gravity
In the equivalent lateral force procedure, the time-varying loads with the quantity Em defined as E m = Ω 0 E h where
inertia forces are replaced by equivalent static forces ap- Eh is the earthquake load due to the design base shear and
plied at the story levels. The relative magnitudes of these
September 1999 101

Ω 0 is the seismic force amplification factor required to It is intended that ρ be calculated separately for each
account for structural overstrength. Ω 0 is determined by principal direction of lateral loading.
Equation 105-13. Past Blue Book Commentaries have strongly encour-
aged making the lateral load resisting system as redundant
The special seismic load combinations using the over- as possible, but nothing in the Provisions encouraged re-
strength factor are needed to establish design loads for spe- dundancy and no guidance was given as to what constitut-
cific elements of the structure that are expected or required ed a redundant system. Redundancy is a rather difficult
to remain elastic during the design basis ground motion. In concept to quantify. It is emphasized that in developing the
previous versions of the Blue Book, overstrength effects
Provisions for the ρ factor, efforts were made to specify
were approximated by the 3(Rw /8) factor. Further discus-
rather liberal values in order to avoid making the Provi-
sion is offered in Commentary Section C105.3.
sions too onerous. A calculated ρ value of 1.0 for a struc-
C105.1.1.1 Reliability/Redundancy Factor ture does not necessarily indicate an optimally redundant
(Equation 105-3). Redundancy is a characteristic of structure. Engineers are encouraged to provide as much re-
structures in which multiple paths of resistance to loads are dundancy as practical in their structures and to consider a
provided. The advantages of incorporating redundancy in ρ value greater than 1.0 to be an indication that the level
a structure have long been recognized, especially when the
of redundancy is beginning to be of concern. As more test-
structure is subjected to loads that cause inelastic deforma-
ing and verification is done in the future it is anticipated
tions. A structure with multiple load paths is less suscepti-
that the ρ factor determination may well become more
ble to problems caused by design and/or construction
errors. Well distributed inelastic action in a structure will conservative for some cases. It should be clearly under-
likely result in the gradual formation of a structural mech- stood that a computed value of ρ less than 1.0 is not in-
anism and will help to control inelastic deformations and dicative of an over-conservative design, and should not be
the effects of strength degradation. The early development used as a basis for criticism of a structure’s design.
of the “K” factor (the predecessor of the “R” factor) as-
The formula for the ρ factor is strictly empirical. Its
sumed much more redundancy than present designs are
providing. form was not derived from principles of the study of reli-
ability, but formulated by the Seismology Committee to
Past earthquakes have shown repeatedly that redun- encourage the designer to provide a layout of lateral force
dant structures perform better than structures with few lat- resisting elements that would have the minimum level of
eral load resisting elements. The Northridge event was no redundancy the Committee felt was appropriate.
exception, as findings by the SAC joint venture have indi-
cated. Recently, however, economic pressures have en- Determination of the ρ factor is based not only on the
couraged engineers and owners to limit the number of number of resisting elements but also on the distribution of
lateral load resisting elements in structures. In an effort to loads. This is so the ρ factor will affect all structures that
reverse this trend, the redundancy factor was developed to would be severely impacted by the failure of one or a small
increase the seismic design loads for structures in which a number of elements. Torsion in the structure, including ac-
large percentage of the total lateral load is resisted by a cidental torsion, is to be accounted for in the determination
small number of elements. This is intended to encourage of ρ .
engineers to design redundant structures. It will also re-
duce the magnitude of the inelastic response and therefore Calculation of ρ is dependent on the rmax value for
the ductility demand of structures with few lateral load re- the lower two thirds of the building. This is to allow for a
sisting elements. reduction in the number of lateral load resisting elements
in the upper stories of the building, as is commonly done,
The maximum value of the redundancy factor ρ need
without affecting the value of ρ . Given story x that exists
not be taken as greater than 1.5. However it is strongly rec-
between floor levels x and (x-1): if the two-thirds height of
ommended that the calculated value of ρ be as small as
the building occurs either at the upper level x or between
practical. Where ρ is calculated to be greater than 1.5, in- the floor levels x and (x-1), then story x and all stories be-
elastic response capacities, quality control for both design low it are to be considered in the determination of rmax. For
and construction, and careful detailing of the structure example, for a typical four-story building, the two-thirds
should receive special consideration. height will occur between the third and second floor lev-
102 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §C105.1.1.2
els. Based on the interpretation above, the third, second, force resisting system are considered regardless of length.
and first stories must be considered in determining rmax. Considering Figure C105-1c, the maximum of the values
of VA (10)/10', VB (10)/6', VC (10)/10', VD (10)/8', and VE
Braced Frames: The value of ri is determined by
(10)/12', divided by VX gives the value of rx for story x. For
the lateral load resisting brace element with the largest
this formulation, buildings with longer wall piers, all other
horizontal force component. This applies to eccentric as
things being equal, will be considered more redundant.
well as concentric braced frames. However, where eccen-
trically braced frames include bays with single diagonal Dual Systems: All lateral load resisting elements are
braces and links adjacent to columns, the value of ri may used in the determination of the redundancy factor. Where
be taken as one-half of the value otherwise computed. The stiff elements are combined with flexible elements, the
maximum value of the horizontal forces, VHA through value will be somewhat more conservative than the case
VHF, as indicated in Figure C105-1a, divided by VX gives where all elements have similar stiffnesses. Because dual
the value of rx for story x. systems are inherently redundant, the ρ factor may be tak-
en as 80 percent of the value calculated by Equation 105-3.
Moment Frames: The total shear in two columns of
a bay are used to determine ri. For columns common to It may be argued that column shear in moment frames
and horizontal force in braced frames, especially eccentric
two bays with moment connections on opposite sides, 70
braced frames, are not the most appropriate measure of the
percent of the shear in the common column is to be used.
system redundancy. However the primary focus of the de-
This accounts for the additional hinges capable of being
velopment of the redundancy factor was to have a formu-
formed in a multi-bay frame as compared with several sin-
lation that gives reasonable results and is fairly easy to
gle-bay frames, each with the same number of columns.
determine. It is felt that the current provisions accomplish
For Figure C105-1b, the maximum of VA+VB, VC +0.7VD,
this.
0.7VD +VE, VF +0.7VG, 0.7VG +0.7VH, and 0.7VH+VJ di-
vided by VX gives the value of rx for story x. Design of Cantilevered column elements were first introduced
into the 1996 UBC supplement after failure of many wood
special moment-resisting frame systems is typically con-
framed apartments with tuck-under parking garages dur-
trolled by drift criteria. Since the ρ factor does not affect ing the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Due to its inherent
the drift calculation, current design practice for this system lack of redundancy, this system was assigned a very low
would not usually be affected by the redundancy factor. force reduction factor (R=2.2). This is why the Seismolo-
For this reason, an upper limit of 1.25 was established for gy Committee felt that ρ of one is sufficient and no addi-
SMRF systems. This will result in a minimum number of
tional penalty was required.
lateral load resisting frames for SMRFs.
Drag and collector element design for the special load
In order to facilitate calculation of the ρ factor for combination is considered adequate to transfer any ampli-
moment frames the values for single columns may be used fied shear forces (due to ρ > 1.0) between lateral force re-
to determine the ri value, provided 2.0 times the shear in a
sisting elements and the diaphragm with no further
column with moment connections on one side and 1.4 amplification necessary for diaphragm design. However,
times the shear in a column with moment connections on
application of ρ > 1.0 to the transfer diaphragm design is
both sides is used in lieu of the column shear summation
aimed to envelop the demand between the offset or discon-
specified above. For frames with unusual configurations,
tinuous lateral force resisting elements and the diaphragm
for example with widely varying adjacent span lengths or
in irregular structures.
column stiffnesses, the value of ri should be spot checked
to verify that it is within 10 percent of the value calculated C105.1.1.2 It should be noted that when orthogonal
using the summation of column shears for two columns in effects are to be considered, as specified in Section 108.1.
a bay. (see Requirements), the requirement to consider the ran-
dom direction of seismic input may be assumed to have
Shear Wall Systems: The wall with the largest
been satisfied.
shear per foot is used to determine the value of ri. The total
lateral load in the wall is multiplied by 10/lw and divided The direction of earthquake ground motion is random.
by the story shear to give a result which has the units of 1/ It bears no relationship to the axes of the structure. A
feet. All walls and wall piers designed as part of the lateral building's response to earthquake ground motions is a
September 1999 103

composite response of concurrent motion in relation to the C105.1.2 Modeling Requirements. The mathemati-
several axes about which the structure can vibrate. Nor- cal model of the physical structure used should include all
mally, this will include translational motion about two elements of the lateral force resisting system. The stiffness
principal orthogonal axes in plan, plus torsional motions. and strength of elements that significantly affect the distri-
bution of forces should also be included. The model will
Nevertheless, for buildings, it is implied that the inde-
need to adequately represent the spatial distribution of the
pendent design about each of the principal axes will gen-
mass and stiffness of the structure.
erally provide adequate resistance for forces applied in any
direction. One cautionary note is worth emphasizing: exte- For concrete and masonry buildings, the present Pro-
rior and re-entrant corners of buildings are especially vul- visions have also added the requirements that the stiffness
nerable to the effects of concurrent motions about both properties of the elements consider the effects of cracked
principal axes. The engineer should pay particular atten- sections.
tion to the effect of combined forces on members common
In previous editions of the Blue Book, the stiffness
to systems along both axes.
modeling requirements were not explicitly stated. As a re-
For structures other than buildings, the requirement sult, some engineers were using gross stiffness properties
that the earthquake force be considered to come from any while others were using effective stiffness.
direction should be respected more rigorously. For struc-
It is widely known that the effective stiffnesses of
tures circular in plan such as tanks, towers and stacks, the
structural components are typically considerably less than
design should be equally resistant in all directions.
the gross-section properties. The actual stiffness for a giv-
C105.1.1.3 For strength design, the response ef- en component will depend on several factors including,
fects due to the vertical component of ground motion are but not limited to, deformation and anticipated stress lev-
represented by the Ev component of the seismic load E. For els, whether element is a flexure-dominated or shear-dom-
allowable stress design, these vertical response effects are inated element, and the axial load on the element.
considered accommodated in the difference between de- For steel moment frame systems, the present Provi-
sign and actual vertical loads and in special requirements sions require that the contribution of panel zone deforma-
relating to reduced dead load where such reduction may tions to overall story drift be considered. It is now widely
produce important effects. Also, see Requirements Section acknowledged that the deformation experienced within the
105.11. joint contributes to frame deflection and interstory drift.
C105.1.1.4 For the purpose of designing individu- Story drift associated with the shearing deformation,
al members of a floor system for vertical loads, a 20 psf which takes place in the panel zone, is difficult to quantify
load is used to represent localized partition loads that may analytically, especially when the elastic limit of the panel
occur over the span of a given floor member. However, zone is approached or exceeded because shear stresses are
since this 20 psf value does not occur at all locations at the not uniformly distributed across the panel zone.
same time, a 10 psf load is used to represent the average Panel zone deformation is also affected by the size of
weight of partitions for seismic load evaluation. This load the column, axial loads, and the amount of imposed mo-
is appropriate for normal partitions; other cases may re- ment. Column panel zones are often reinforced with dou-
quire higher values. In determining the seismic dead load bler plates to reduce shearing stresses and strains.
to be used, consideration should be given to the duration Consequently, behavior within the panel zone is often pre-
of snow and live loads. When these loads are expected to sumed to be elastic and based on that, analytical proce-
act for a significant length of time, they should be included dures have been developed that are believed to predict
in the seismic dead load used to determine seismic forces. behavior to an acceptable degree of accuracy.
Since these loads may not always be present, they shall not
be used in the calculation of period according to Method C105.1.3 P-delta Effects. The P-delta Requirements
B. remain unchanged from previous editions of the Blue
Book. The drift ratio value of 0.02I/RdRo serves to define
For snow loads, in addition to duration, consideration the threshold of deformation beyond which there may be
should be given to roof configuration and distribution of significant P-delta effects. Further analysis is necessary to
loads. When roof configuration and/or siting is such that determine if the actual combination of vertical load and
the snow could be shaken from the roof in a seismic event, lateral deformation is cause for concern. The P-delta ef-
a large reduction may be justified. fects in a given story are due to the horizontal offset or ec-
104 September 1999

centricity of the gravity load above that story. Referring to For example, if the lateral load system was a perimeter
Figure C105-3, if the story drift due to the lateral forces moment-resisting frame, the augmented P-delta loads
prescribed in Section 105 were ∆, the bending moments in coming from the interior vertical load bearing col-
the story would be augmented by an amount equal to ∆ umns should be adequately transferred by the dia-
times the gravity load above the story. The ratio of the phragms to the perimeter frames.
P-delta moment to the lateral force story moment is desig-
The columns of moment frames designed with P-delta
nated as the stability coefficient θ in Figure C105-3 and in
effects included need not have their bending stresses am-
Equation C105-1 below. This coefficient may also be con-
plified by the term (1 - fa /Fé ) in AISC Formula H1-1, or
sidered as the ratio of the increased shear demand Px∆/hsx
to the design story shear Vx. If the stability coefficient θ is δ s in ACI Formula 10-18, since these factors were intend-
less than 0.10 for every story, then the P-delta effects on ed to account for P-delta effects.
story shears and moments and member forces may be ig- It should be noted that P-delta effects are potentially
nored. If, however, the stability coefficient θ exceeds 0.10 much more significant in lower seismic zones than in high-
for any story, then the P-delta effects on story drifts, er seismic zones, because the lateral load resisting systems
shears, member forces, etc., for the whole building should in higher seismic zones are required to be designed for a
be determined by a rational analysis. larger base shear, Vx, than those in lower seismic zones.
Stability coefficient θ is given by: Similarly, long period (flexible) structures and structures
using high R values are more affected by P-delta effects
Px ∆
θ = ------------------
- Eqn. C105-1 than structures designed for higher base shears.
V x • h sx
Some computer programs for frame analysis state that
where: frame P-delta effects are included directly in the analysis.
∆ = design story drift The engineer should verify that the total gravity load em-
ployed and the method used in these programs will provide
Vx = seismic design shear force acting between level x
results that are essentially equivalent to the augmented sto-
and level x-1 ry shear method described herein [Wilson and Habibullah,
hsx = story height below level x 1987; Clough and Penzien, 1975].
n C105.2 Static Force Procedure
P x = ∑ ( D + L ) i =total design gravity load at and
i = x C105.2.1 Design Base Shear. The design base shear
(Equations 105-4 and 105-6; see Requirements) provides
above level x
the level of seismic design forces for a given structural
An acceptable P-delta analysis, when required, is as fol- system. Equation 105-4 represents the constant velocity
lows: portion of the spectrum and Equation 105-6 represents the
1. Compute for each story the P-delta amplification fac- constant acceleration portion.The resulting force level is
tor, ad = θ/(1 - θ). This factor accounts for the multi- based on the assumption that the structure will undergo
plier effect due to the initial story drift, leading to several cycles of inelastic deformation during major earth-
another increment of drift, which would lead to yet an- quake ground motion, and, therefore, the level is related to
other increment, etc. Thus, both the effective shear in the type of structural system and its estimated ability to
the story and the computed eccentricity would be aug- sustain these deformations and dissipate energy without
mented by a factor 1 + θ + θ2 + θ3..., which is 1/(1 - θ) collapse. The force level determined by the spectrum is
or (1 + ad). used not only for the static lateral force procedure, but also
as the lower bound for the dynamic lateral force procedure
2. Multiply the story shear Vx in each story by the factor under Section 106. Therefore it is appropriate to discuss
(1 + ad) for that story and recompute the story shears, the physical relationship between the design base shear
overturning moments, and other seismic force effects and the spectral representation of major earthquake ground
corresponding to these augmented story shears. Note motion, as well as the idealization of the inelastic behavior
that the portion of the augmented shear due to the of the structure due to this ground motion.
P-delta effect on columns that are not part of the lat-
eral load resisting system should be transferred by di-
aphragm action to the lateral load resisting system.
September 1999 105

For a given fundamental period T, the base shear equa- Designs are also based on minimum expected yield or
tions 105-4 and 105-6 provide values that are equal to the strength values, whereas the average strength of a material
fundamental mode ordinate of the acceleration response could be significantly higher. Preliminary investigations
spectrum (Cv / T and 2.5Ca respectively) given in Figure of various materials/system combinations indicated that
104-2 times the total structure weight W, divided by R. Ro can vary from about 2.25 to 4.5. However, the Ro values
While only the fundamental mode period is employed, the selected were placed at either 2.0 or 2.5. It may be possible
additional response due to higher modes of vibration is in the future, by pushover analysis and other methods, to
represented and approximated by use of the total weight, uniquely determine the Ro for a structure.
W. Equations AppD-8 and AppD-9 in Appendix D illus-
trate that the first or fundamental mode base shear is the ef- Rd is the portion of the R factor that represents the re-
fective mass of the first mode times the first mode spectral duction in the seismic response due to the inelastic action
ordinate Sa. This effective mass is on the order of 0.7 times of the structure. This factor is proportional to the overall
the total mass, W/g. Therefore the use of the total W in the ductility of a system and its materials, and varies from 1.2
base shear equations is intended to provide an upper- for systems with low ductility to 3.4 for the special sys-
bound value of the combined mode (SRSS or CQC) base tems with high ductility.
shear response. The I factor is used in the base shear equations to em-
For the types of soil conditions existing in California, phasize its role in raising the yield level for important
the use of total W, along with the appropriate Cv and Ca structures. There has been much discussion over the years
as to the role of the I factor. Many engineers hold that the
values, and the long period plateau Equations 105-7a and
best way to maintain operability in an essential structure is
105-7b, the use of the 1/T version of base shear Equation
to reduce the inter-floor drift. However, it is the consensus
105-4 provides reasonable parity with that of the previous
of the Seismology Committee that the increase of design
Blue Book Requirements that used the 1/T2/3 relation to force levels for structures of this sort, along with special
represent the multi-mode response. drift requirements, is a better solution. In essence, the I
Equations 105-4 and 105-6 contain the following vari- factor provides lower inelastic demand.
ables: Ca and Cv are the seismic response coefficients and Equations 105-7a and 105-7b represent minimum val-
are discussed in Commentary Section C104.4.3. W is the ues of design force levels. Because of the uncertainty and
effective dead weight of the structure as defined in Re- the lack of knowledge of actual structural response for
quirements Section 105.1.1. R is the reduction factor used long period buildings, the Seismology Committee felt that
to reduce the dynamic force level that would exist if the these equations are appropriate and are roughly equivalent
structure remained elastic to a design force level that in- to the 3 percent g (working stress design) required by the
cludes the effect of ductility and overstrength. This force 1933 Reily Act in California.
level is now at the strength level, rather that the working
In most cases, it would be economically prohibitive to
stress level as it was in previous editions of the Blue Book.
This R is compatible with the R used in the 1997 NEHRP design buildings to remain elastic for all levels of earth-
provisions. quake ground motions. A fundamental tenet of seismic de-
sign is that inelastic yielding is allowed to accommodate
The Seismology Committee felt that in order to better seismic loadings as long as such yielding does not impair
quantify the R factor for future systems and the review of the vertical load capacity of the structure. In other words,
the R factor for present systems, it would be appropriate to damage is allowed in the maximum expected earthquake
break R into its separate components Ro and Rd. Ro repre- loading case only if it does not pose a significant probabil-
sents the overstrength portion of the R factor. This over- ity of the structure's collapse and/or hazard to life safety.
strength is partially material-dependent and partially The utilization of design based on linear analysis methods
system-dependent. Since design levels are based on first is reconciled with the allowance of damage from inelastic
yield of the highest stressed element of the system, the response by using base shears for linear design that are re-
maximum force level that the system can resist after the duced by a factor 1/R from those that would be expected to
formation of successive hinges, bracing yield, or shear occur in the fully elastic structure.
wall yield or cracking will be somewhat higher than the
These Requirements are primarily intended to provide
initial yield value.
life safety, not property protection at the maximum expect-
ed earthquake level. Thus, Ro and Rd values are assigned
106 September 1999

so that each system is expected to provide the same degree Critical elements required for the stability and integri-
of life safety in the case of the maximum expected ground ty of the structure, such as columns under discontinuous
motion. Many factors contribute to the actual selection of shear walls or bracing systems and other elements in irreg-
the values of Ro and Rd, as discussed below and in Com- ular force transfer paths, must have the strength capacity to
mentary Section C105.3 and Appendix C. Among these is resist the total yield mechanism force unless the yield ca-
the degree of certainty in performance at limiting loads. pacity of adjacent elements is less than this level. The Ω 0
When two systems have similar mean expected perfor- factor is therefore applied to the design of elements and
mance, but one has a greater degree of uncertainty in per- connections whose yield or failure could result in local or
formance, then that system is assigned a lower value of Ro general collapse (see Section 105.8.2 for discontinuous
and/or Rd. In this way, comparable liabilities of noncol- columns; Section 104.9.1 for weak stories; Section 108.2.6
lapse are maintained. for collector elements; and Chapter 7 for related steel col-
umn, bracing, and connection requirements).
Observations of structural systems responding in the
inelastic range indicate that as the structure yields, the pe- The load combinations and capacity requirements in-
riod, damping, and other dynamic properties change, often volving the Ω 0 factored seismic loads apply only to the
substantially. The effect of these changes is that while the specified structural elements and their connections to the
force levels actually experienced in the structure are great- adjoining elements. The adjoining elements need not be
er than those employed in design, they are less than those designed for the forces due to these factored loads. It is in-
that would occur in a fully elastic response. The more duc- tended by these Requirements that forces resulting from
tile the system's performance, the greater is its capacity to load combinations involving the Ω 0 factored seismic
accommodate inelastic displacements and forces. These loads may be resisted on a strength basis.
relationships are not easily represented; however, to a first
order, they are proportional to Rd, a coarse representation C105.2.2 Structure Period
of the inelastic energy dissipation capacity of the structural C105.2.2.1 Method A. The form of the period
system. Equation 105-8 was taken from the ATC 3-06 document,
where it was originally applicable only to moment-resist-
Design provisions and related material detailing meth-
ing frame systems. The modifications make it applicable
ods recognize the energy dissipation capacity requirement,
to systems with shear walls and bracing elements.
as represented by Rd, and are intended to ensure that this
inelastic behavior can take place without major failure or Moment Resisting Frame Systems. The use of to-
collapse of the structural system. For a given structural tal height hn was judged to be more appropriate than the
system having a design level as determined by the Ro and number of stories N, as used in the frame period equation
Rd values, the following factors could produce a structure given in earlier editions of these Requirements. Many
having a total yield mechanism resistance significantly building configurations tend to have considerable varia-
larger than the specified design base shear value. Contrib- tions in story heights, therefore the number of stories is not
utors to Ro are: a good indicator of period. Where ATC 3-06 originally
gave values of Ct equal to 0.035 and 0.025 for steel and
1. Design must satisfy multiple load combinations.
concrete frames, respectively, these Requirements give
2. System redundancy. 0.035 and 0.030. The data upon which the ATC 3-06 val-
3. Participation of other structural and nonstructural ues were based were reexamined for concrete frames and
elements in resisting lateral forces. the 0.030 value judged to be more appropriate
4. Strain hardening.
The values for Ct given in these Requirements are in-
5. As-built member configurations.
tended to be reasonable lower bound (not mean) values for
As a result of these combined “overstrength” contri- structures designed according to the Requirements given
butions to the lateral force versus deformation behavior of herein. Recent surveys and studies of the particular build-
the structure, individual members and elements can be ings that provided the period data for the ATC 3-06 equa-
subjected to forces significantly larger than the specified tions [Bertero et al., 1988] have shown that these original
design force level when the structure accommodates the equations, even with the modified Ct for concrete, provide
inelastic deformations caused by the maximum expected predictions that are about 80 to 90 percent of the lower
level of ground motion.
September 1999 107

bound values of measured periods at deformation values Ac value given by Equation 105-9. In this equation, the
near first yield of the structural elements. summation is with respect to the index “e” for all the shear
While this might indicate a large, perhaps excessive, walls having their planes parallel to the direction of the ap-
degree of conservatism, it is most important to recognize plied forces. A method of defining Ac and Ct for braced
that the buildings involved were designed for lateral force frames has yet to be developed. The use of the 0.02 value
level requirements prior to those of the 1976 UBC, which for Ct does not specifically represent the bracing configu-
are significantly lower than those in the 1976 UBC, as well ration; the engineer may wish to consider use of Method B.
as those given in these Requirements. Furthermore, the
Further discussion of the development of Equation
controls on interstory drift for all elements, on irregularity
105-9 is given below. It will be possible to better calibrate
and member detailing provisions, as given in these Re-
this equation and its coefficients as more data become
quirements, are generally more restrictive than those used
available.
for the buildings in the period evaluation study. Therefore,
given reasonably similar nonstructural elements, the pop- For buildings with other than moment-resisting
ulation of structures that conform to the drift provisions of frames, the previous edition of these Requirements and the
these Requirements will have increased stiffness and cor- 1985 UBC determine the approximate period from the fol-
responding lower period values than the structures de- lowing equation
signed according to previous codes.
T = 0.05h n ⁄ D Eqn. C105-1
It is recognized that the values for Ct provide period
estimates that are lower than most measured values in the During the development of approximate period for-
elastic range, and definitely much lower than nearly all mulas for the ATC 3-06 project, the measured periods of a
measured values in the cracked section state for concrete number of buildings were obtained. These measured peri-
buildings and the partially yielded state for steel buildings. ods were used to establish the revised equation for mo-
However, these estimated period values for each material, ment-resisting frames in ATC 3-06 and for these
when used in the C factor, provide design values that Requirements and the 1988 UBC. There was a proposal
SEAOC judges to be appropriate and consistent with past made during the development of ATC 3-06 to substitute
design experience. For the usual case of a descending Ls, the length of the longest element of the vertical resist-
spectrum, the decrease in demand due to the increase in ing system, for D in Formula 1-3A in editions of these Re-
period as the structure deforms into the inelastic range is quirements prior to 1990. This obviously does not account
already included in the Rd value of a given structural sys- for the stiffness contribution of all of the other vertical re-
tem (Figure AppC-1). Therefore, period formulas should sisting elements in the system.
provide the period of the structure in its elastic state. Im- The stiffness of a shear wall is inversely related to the
proved formulas, similar to Equation 105-9, need to be de- deformation of the wall, and the deformation consists of
veloped to represent the type, configuration, and amount shear and flexural contributions. The shear deformation is
of lateral force resisting elements, as well as other building governed by the wall area, D × t. The flexural deformation
characteristics, that govern the period value. However, un- is governed by the moment of inertia of the wall.
til these relationships are available, the engineer may em-
ploy Method B in order to better incorporate the building Equation 105-9 in these Requirements for shear wall
properties in the evaluation of the period. structures was developed using some simplifying assump-
tions. The impetus for this effort resulted from the difficul-
Lateral Force Resisting Systems With Shear Walls. ties encountered in the trial design effort for the ATC 3-06
The format of Equation 105-8 with Ct has been adapted to document. In regions where wind loads should be larger
represent the configuration and material properties of than seismic design loads, reasonable calculated estimates
these systems. The corresponding equation in earlier edi- of the true period of the structures (as governed by wind
tions of these Requirements considered only the gross design) were several times larger than the periods given by
building dimensions (rather than the amount and configu- the approximate equation. The approximated (short) peri-
ration) of the shear wall elements, and as a result had wide od values gave seismic design loads erroneously in excess
discrepancy between real and computed period. A reason- of the wind load requirements. By the same token, Formu-
able agreement with available building period data is la 1-3A, as set forth in editions of these Requirements prior
achieved with the modification of the Ct coefficient by the to the 1990 edition, can in some cases overestimate the cal-
culated period of a shear wall structure. Hence, this formu-
108 September 1999

la was revised based on available data for shear wall sequence, the code has become increasingly complex and
buildings. The revised equation (Equation 105-9 in Re- necessarily difficult to use. Although this added complex-
quirements) yields reasonable agreement between calcu- ity is necessary to maintain safety in buildings that are
lated and observed period values. large, complex, or important, 90 percent of the structures
built in this country are much simpler. As a consequence,
The approximate period for “all other structures” is to
the Seismology Committee felt it necessary to provide an
be determined from Equation 105-8 in the Requirements.
alternate design method that would significantly reduce
The formulas presented for approximate period are the complexity of the seismic provisions.
appropriate only for structures with rigid diaphragms.
Therefore, by limiting the scope of the simplified pro-
Structures, especially lowrise structures with flexible dia-
cedure to relatively simple low buildings, it was possible
phragms, will generally have periods related to the stiff-
to develop a conservative formula that envelopes all the
ness of the diaphragm rather than the stiffness of the
possible variables and produce a conservative, but simpli-
vertical resisting elements. There are, at present, no pro-
fied design.
posals for considering this phenomena in determining the
approximate periods for such structures. Moment-resisting frame systems and cantilevered
column systems are excluded because there is no require-
C105.2.2.2 Method B. Method B permits the
ment to check compliance with story drift limits. The as-
evaluation of period T by either the Rayleigh type of Equa-
sumed drift limits are only 40 percent of the drifts allowed
tion 105-10 or by any other properly substantiated analy-
for a frame system. Irregular buildings, other than light
sis. If a mathematical model has been formulated for the
frame shear panel construction and SFDs, were excluded
dynamic analysis of Section 106, then the period of the
for performance.
first mode of vibration in a given principal direction can be
used for this T value. The base shear is determined from Equation 105-11,
which has a single variable, Ca. The value of Ca is ob-
The period, T, as determined by Method B, cannot be
more than 30 percent greater than the period determined tained from Table 104-9 and is a function of both the seis-
by Method A (Equation 105-8) in Seismic Zone 4 and 40 mic factor Z and the soil profile type. In place of
percent greater in other zones. Reasonable mathematical determining the soil type, the simplified provisions allow
modeling rules should be followed such that this increase the use of soil profile type SD in Zones 3 and 4 and soil pro-
in period is not obtained when the actual structure does not file type SE in Zones 1 and 2. In effect, this means that
merit it. Some suggested rules are given in the Commen- there is only one variable other than the weight of the
tary to Section 106.3. Although it would have been prefer- structure required for the simplified static base shear. This
able to specify modeling rules in these Requirements, variable, Z, is the seismic zone. In addition, the Require-
rather than impose the 30 percent and 40 percent limit, it ments allow for the use of uniform distribution of lateral
was not possible to obtain a SEAOC consensus on a com- force for the height of the structure, unlike the triangular
plete set of rules to meet all the possible variations and distribution required for the static force procedure. This re-
conditions encountered in design. Note that the period lim- sults in overturning moments that are about 10-15 percent
itation results in a base shear from Method B that must be lower than the triangular distribution. However, the gener-
at least 77 percent of that determined using Method A al conservatism of the supplied base shear outweighs this
( ( 1 ⁄ 1.3 ) = 0.77 ) for structures in Seismic Zone 4 and effect. This simplified procedure does not require defini-
71 percent for all other zones. tion of the lateral force-resisting system, detail analysis,
period calculations, drift calculations, or dynamic analy-
C105.2.2.3 Special Period Evaluation for Top sis.
Force Ft. When Method B is used to determine period,
the value of T used to determine the top force, Ft, is subject In general, the procedure results in forces approxi-
mately 20 to 35 percent higher than the force calculated by
to the same period increase limitations of 30 percent in
the static force procedure. The more frequent user of these
Seismic Zone 4 and 40 percent in all other zones.
Requirements may choose to use the more complex static
C105.2.3 Simplified Base Shear. In the sixty or sev- force procedure. However, it is felt that the casual or occa-
enty years since the first base shear equation, V=CW, was sional user would be willing to accept the increase in de-
developed, an enormous amount has been learned about sign forces for a simpler formulation. While a viable
earthquakes and their impact on real structures. As a con- lateral load-resisting system must be provided, there is no
September 1999 109

need to identify any specific system and R value. It is im- used to calculate overstrength may be established as fol-
portant to note that the simplified equation in this edition lows:
of the Blue Book is different than that found in the 1997
The lateral strength, VM, is determined by inelastic
UBC. The equation found in the 1997 UBC was a compro-
mise developed with building officials at the September analysis. In this calculation, probable material over-
1996 Annual Business Meeting of ICBO in St. Paul, Min- strength and strain hardening effects should be included in
nesota. It is not as conservative as the approach found in establishing the member strengths. Also, to determine an
these Requirements. upper bound on the lateral strength, live loads less than re-
quired by design would be used. These two factors would
C105.3 Determination of Seismic Factors produce a lateral strength greater than the strength deter-
C105.3.1 Determination of Ω 0 . In Equation 105-13, mined as described in the procedure for the determination
Ω 0 =1.1 Ro yields overstrength values ranging from about of Ro below. The overstrength factor, Ω 0 is then estab-
2.2 to 3.5, depending on the value of Ro. Ro is defined in lished as the ratio of the upper bound lateral strength to the
Requirements Section 105.3.2. The difference between Ro strength level design base shear.
and Ω 0 is as follows: Ro reflects the lower bound strength In these provisions, Ω 0 is used to estimate the maxi-
of the lateral system and is appropriate for use in establish- mum loads in individual elements of the structure. Howev-
ing safe design base shears. Ω 0 reflects the upper bound er, a global value of Ω 0 determined by inelastic analysis
lateral strength and is appropriate for use in estimating the may be overly conservative for distinct elements. The
maximum forces developed in nonyielding elements of the above procedure can be expanded to permit peak forces in
lateral system during the design basis ground motion. individual elements to be extracted directly from the in-
elastic analysis. For example, column axial loads in a
Figure C105-2 provides the relationship between the frame building could be taken directly from the results of
design base shear value VS and the fully elastic response the inelastic analysis, rather than be factoring the design
base shear VE in terms of the factors Ro and Rd. The change seismic forces by Ω 0 .
in the definition and value of the seismic force amplifica-
tion factor from the previous 3Rw /8 to Ω o =1.1Ro can best However, care should be taken when using reduced
demands from such analyses so as to avoid unconservative
be described in terms of VE. In previous Requirements, the results due to particular modeling assumptions or lateral
use of 3Rw /8 was equivalent to the seismic load at a con- force distributions.
stant value of 3VE/8=0.375VE for all systems irrespective C105.3.2 Determination of Ro and Rd . These Re-
of their required design value Vs. This was not realistic quirements use prescribed values of Ro and Rd . However,
since the maximum system strength and force level at future Requirements may permit explicit calculation of the
maximum response depends on the prescribed yield level Ro factor. Figure C105-2 shows the typical relationship be-
of the system, which in turn depends on the Rw value. For tween base shear and displacement. The lateral strength of
example, a bearing wall system with Rw=6 would have the structure, VM, is determined by inelastic analysis and
yield and maximum load level equal to twice that for a spe- is defined as the base shear developed by the complete lat-
cial; moment resisting frame with Rw=12. In these current
eral system at the maximum inelastic displacement, ∆ M .
provisions where the maximum load is given by:
In this calculation, specified material strengths are used,
Ω o V S = 1.1R o V E ⁄ R o R d = 1.1V E ⁄ R d full factored gravity loads (1.2D + 0.5L) are used, and the
distribution of load over height is taken as the normal tri-
a bearing wall system with Rd=1.8 has Ω o V s = 0.61V E , angular distribution. Ro is then calculated as the ratio of
and a special moment resisting frame with Rd=3.4 has VM to the design seismic forces, Vs, used to proportion the
Ω o V s = 0.32V E . These results provide the desired system. In the process, the engineer guesses Vs, designs
consistency with the system yield levels. the structure, computes VM and determines Ro. The accep-
In the future, these provisions may allow the explicit tance criteria is that the ratio of VE /Ro should be less than
determination of Ω 0 by calculation, as opposed to the pre- or equal to the tabulated values of Rd (Figure C105-2).
scriptive values contained in this version. The procedure
110 September 1999

In both cases, the analysis must confirm that the yield- C105.6 Horizontal Distribution of Shear
ing elements of the structure can sustain the inelastic de- Consideration should be given in the modeling of struc-
formations needed to attain the maximum inelastic tures where vertical resisting elements are tall enough to
response displacement, ∆ M . Otherwise, the lateral have significant flexural deformations. The rigidity of
strength computed is not valid. In other words, the lateral these elements can be substantially different from rigidi-
strength, VM, must be consistent with the deformational ties calculated by the simple story-by-story method. Also,
capacity of each yielding element. considerable differences in the distribution of shears can
occur when the diaphragm deformations have been con-
C105.4 Combinations of Structural sidered, compared to results obtained for fully rigid dia-
Systems phragms.
C105.4.1 Vertical Combinations. The provision re- The location and distribution of all of the weights re-
quiring the smallest R is intended to prevent mixed sys- quired to be considered for earthquake motion response
tems that may have concentrations of inelastic behavior in cannot be determined with complete certainty. The Re-
the lower stories. This type of behavior results from put- quirement for displacement of the mass at each level was
ting a stiff shear wall system, Rd=1.8 or 2.2, on top of a introduced to account for this condition, along with others
SMRF system, Rd=3.4 (e.g., Olive View hospital). Note listed in Commentary Section C105.7 below.
that this concentration of inelastic behavior can also result
Where orthogonal forces are applied simultaneously,
from using a bearing wall, Rd=1.8, or a braced frame,
such as in time history analysis, the required 5 percent dis-
Rd=2.2, structural system on top of a steel OMRF with an placement of the center of mass should be applied for only
Rd=1.8. one of the orthogonal forces at a time. An analysis where
This section also has Requirements for designing the 5 percent displacement is applied for both orthogonal
directions concurrently would result in a double applica-
structures with certain setback configurations such that the
tion of the torsional effect of accidental eccentricity and
structure may be treated as two independent structures—a
would not be consistent with the original intent for the use
tower and a platform or base. The procedure set forth in
of accidental eccentricity.
Section 105.4.2, Item 2 is also applicable for structures
having the same R values for both their tower and platform C105.7 Horizontal Torsional Moments
portions. When the diaphragm deformation is more than two times
C105.4.2 Combinations Along Different Axes, the associated story drift, then the diaphragm is considered
Item 1. This provision is intended to limit the inelastic to be flexible. Here the term “flexible” implies that the di-
yielding deformations that may occur perpendicular to the aphragm may be modeled as a simple beam between ver-
bearing wall. The vertical load capacity of the bearing wall tical resisting elements. When the diaphragm deformation
system may be destroyed if this orthogonal deformation is is less than or equal to twice the story drift, then the Re-
not controlled. The requirement for an equal R value is for quirements of this section apply. In most cases, the dia-
determination of the design load level to be used for the or- phragm may be modeled as “fully rigid” without in-plane
thogonal system; the details of the orthogonal system deformability. However, there are structural configura-
should conform to those required for the orthogonal sys- tions—such as vertical resisting elements that have large
tem's actual R value. differences in stiffness or offsets between stories, and dia-
phragms with irregular shapes and/or openings—where
C105.5 Vertical Distribution of Force
the engineer should investigate the effects of diaphragm
Equation 105-6 is based on a linear mode shape, and the Ft deformability. The use of the most critical results obtained
in Equation 105-7 (see Requirements) is to account for from the “fully rigid” and the “flexible” models would be
higher modal effects at the top of the structure. acceptable For wood diaphragms, see Commentary Sec-
When the structure deformation differs significantly tion C805.3.
from the assumed linear mode behavior, consideration The accidental horizontal torsional moments are spec-
should be given to alternate methods of distributing the ified to account for:
forces such as those described in Section 106. 1. Differences between the analytical model and the ac-
tual structure.
September 1999 111

2. The real nonuniform distribution of both dead and live The statement “The most severe load combination for
load. each element shall be considered in design” is intended to
3. Eccentricities in the structural stiffness due to non- permit torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load
structural elements such as stairs and interior parti- shear when the torsional shear is opposite to the direction
tions; and/or of the seismic load. In that case, the torsional shear must
4. Torsional input loading on the structure due to differ- be due to the smaller torsion that is reduced by the acciden-
ences in the seismic ground motion over the extent of tal torsion requirements. For the case where the torsional
the foundation. shear is in the same sense and direction of the direct load
shear, then the more severe loading would be due to the
For example, traveling wave effects can induce tor- larger torsion that is increased by the accidental torsion re-
sional motions in structures having a long plan dimension quirements and shear added to the direct load.
[Werner et al., 1979]. Furthermore, when such structures
are located close to the causative fault, the two compo- One practical reason for subtracting torsional shear is
nents of horizontal ground motion in this near fault region that computer programs evaluate the shear effects in this
can be significantly different, and this condition can ac- statically consistent manner; these programs do not ignore
centuate the torsional motions. the negative shear. The theoretical and conceptual reason
to subtract torsional shear is to maintain a reasonable uni-
The eccentricity amplification factor Ax is intended to formity of inelastic deformation demand in all of the re-
represent the increased eccentricity caused by the yielding sisting elements in the building plan. Neglect of actual
of perimeter elements. This factor provides a simple yet negative torsional shear results in an increase in the design
effective control on systems that might otherwise have ex- yield level of the associated element over that which
cessive torsional yield in a given story. would be required if torsional shear were to be subtracted.
The result is a decrease in the inelastic deformation de-
These Requirements are intended to avoid potential
mand for the elements subject to the actual negative tor-
torsional failure mechanisms by ensuring that the structure
sional shear loads.
has the stiffness and the strength to resist both calculated
and accidental torsion effects. In the calculation of Ax by Given a story where the stiffer resisting elements are
Equation 105-9, the value of δavg should be found from the on the right side of the plan, such that the center of rigidity
displacements resulting from the same torsional moment is located to the right of the center of the story mass, the
used to evaluate δmax. Equation 105-17 is an empirical for- actual torsional shears subtract from the stiffer elements
mula that was developed by the Seismology Committee to on the right side and add to the more flexible elements on
encourage buildings with good torsional stiffness. the left side. Similarly, the torsional components of the
maximum inelastic response deformation demands ∆ M
For the cases where large eccentricity and low torsion-
subtract from the right side and add to the right side.
al rigidity result in a negative displacement on one side of
a given level when the static forces are applied, the value If the resisting elements on the right side were to be
of δavg in Equation 105-17 shall be calculated as the alge- designed (as in older versions of the code) by neglecting
braic average. the actual subtractive torsional shears, then their resulting
strength and yield threshold would be larger than required
For dynamic analysis, this algebraic average should by the actual design load demand, while the flexible ele-
be found for each mode and then properly combined to de- ments on the left would be designed for their actual load
termine the total modal response value for δavg. demand. As a result, when the actual inelastic deforma-
Torsional analysis using the amplified accidental tions ∆ M are applied, the inelastic demand ratio (IDR =
torsion need not be repeated beyond that for the initial Ax the ratio of the element maximum deformation ∆ M to
value.
strength design deformation ∆ S ) for these right side ele-
Similar procedures as described above for δavg should
ments would be smaller than for the left side elements.
be used for the calculation of the average of the story drifts
required for the determination of the Plan Irregularity The equivalent secant stiffness of an element de-
Type 1. Torsional Irregularity in Table 104-5. formed in the inelastic range is proportional to its IDR val-
ue, therefore the right side elements with their lower IDRs
will have a higher secant stiffness than the left side ele-
112 September 1999

ments with the higher IDRs. The center of rigidity for the ing the design basis earthquake. Any provision involving
inelastically deformed elements will therefore shift farther drift (such as drift limits, seismic separations, deformation
to the right and inelastic torsional deformation demands compatibility, EBF link rotations, SMRF joint rotations)
will be increased on the flexible left side elements. In order requires that the drift value used be representative of the
to mitigate this progressive inelastic “unscrewing” of the drift that would occur when the structure responds elasti-
story resisting elements, it is necessary to base the design cally or inelastically to the design basis earthquake. This
strength for the stiffer right side elements on shear loads section defines the terms, ∆ s and ∆ M , prescribes how
that are reduced by the torsional shears.
these drifts are to be computed, and prescribes drift limita-
C105.8 Overturning tions for the structure.
C105.8.2.1 These Requirements for stiffness and The user will note that the term ∆ M is used throughout
strength are intended to prevent local failure or collapse in
the Requirements wherever previous editions of the Blue
elements provided either for redistribution or at disconti-
Book cited the “3(Rw /8)” amplification of the working
nuities in the lateral load resisting system. Elements used
to redistribute or transfer the effects of overturning mo- stress level displacements. The present version now sim-
ments should be designed so as to have either: ply cites “ ∆ M ” and leaves the definition of this level of
1. Special details compatible with those of the elements displacement to the Requirements.
adjacent to the discontinuities; or: C105.9.1 Determination of ∆ s . Drifts, ∆ s , are
2. Strength capacity necessary to develop the strength of computed from the lateral displacements of the structure
the adjacent elements; or: when loaded with the strength level design seismic forces.
3. Capacity to resist the loads due to maximum level of These may be computed using the equivalent static force
ground motion, at least Ω 0 times the seismic design method or the dynamic analysis procedures. Regardless of
load. whether the structure is designed using allowable stress
design or strength design, the displacements must be com-
The magnified load need not be considered at the puted using the strength design load combinations. Also,
foundation-soil interface. the mathematical model of the structure used in the calcu-
C105.8.2.2 This provision pertains to columns and lation of drift must comply with the requirements of Re-
other elements such as transfer girders (Figure C104-4b), quirements Section 105.1.2, and Section 108.2.4 when
and girders with offset columns (Figure C104-4c), where applicable.
these girders support columns carrying axial seismic C105.9.2 Determination of ∆ M . The inelastic drift,
loads. ∆ M , may be approximated by factoring the design level
C105.9 Drift drift, ∆ s , using Equation 105-18 (which reads ∆ M = 0.7
In the 1996 edition of the Blue Book, structural displace- RdRo ∆ s). Equation 105-18 provides a reasonable approx-
ments or drifts are computed using working stress level
imation of the maximum inelastic response displacement
lateral forces. These displacements may be denoted as
for regular buildings. This relation is based on the accumu-
“ ∆ W .” In these Requirements, lateral forces are specified lated research of the past 30 years and on the intent (for the
at the strength level, and the corresponding displacements present time) to maintain parity with the previous drift lim-
are denoted as ∆ s . When a structure responds to the design itation requirements. Figure105-2 illustrates the terms ∆ s
basis ground motion, it will experience forces larger than and ∆ M .
both the working stress and strength level design forces,
C105.9.3 Background. Nearly 30 years ago, New-
and will thus likely respond in the inelastic range. The cor-
mark postulated that the maximum inelastic response dis-
responding displacements, denoted as ∆ M , will be several
placement (or the “inelastic drift”) could be reasonably
times larger than either ∆ W or ∆ s . This amplified dis- predicted as the drift of an elastic structure (or the “elastic
placement, ∆ M , is estimated as 0.7R o R d ∆ s . drift”) subjected to the same ground motion. Referring to
Figure C105-2, this would suggest that the inelastic dis-
Wherever the Requirements call for the use or consid- placement may be approximated by the displacement ∆ E
eration of seismic building drifts, the displacements used
or considered must be the drift, ∆ M , that would occur dur-
September 1999 113

in the figure. Newmark's statement can also be represented comparable to lateral stiffness Requirements in the 1994
by the equation: version of the NEHRP provisions.
∆ M = 1.0R ∆ s While these drift limits provide reasonable parity with
previous code requirements, several factors are worthy of
where: R is the total response reduction factor note:
Over the past 30 years, extensive research on this topic 1. This parity is achieved primarily for structures de-
has shown that it is a reasonable approximation, but that signed using the equivalent static force method. Parity
for some structures the inelastic drift will be significantly may not be obtained for structures analyzed using
larger than the elastic drift and for other structures, the in- nonlinear time-history analysis, particularly when
elastic drift will be less than the elastic drift. Miranda and there are localized concentrations of inelastic defor-
Bertero [Spectra, 1994] provide a summary of this re- mations in the structure.
search. 2. A story drift ratio of 0.025 radian corresponds to a
The Seismology Committee selected the value of 0.70 story drift of 3.9 inches for a 13-foot story height. This
in Equation 105-18, in lieu of Newmark's value of 1.0, as level of interstory displacement is large and may pose
a better “average” representation of the inelastic drift. extreme difficulties when attempting to comply with
Thus, while some structures will see less and some more drift related requirements such as deformation com-
total drift, the 0.70 factor provides a reasonable patibility. For example, the deformation compatibility
across-the-board approximation for the types of buildings requirements for precast cladding panels require the
designed under these Provisions. This also approximates connectors be capable of surviving a ∆ M level story
the design drift required by the NEHRP provisions. drift, and the panel joint dimensions are typically
based on ∆ M level drifts. The previous version pro-
This section permits the alternative calculation of ∆ M
duces 3(Rw /8) level drift ratios of about 0.015 radian,
by nonlinear time-history analysis. Where, in the judgment
and much of the industry standard details have been
of the engineer, the accurate calculation of seismic dis-
developed for this level of drift.
placements is needed, nonlinear time-history analysis will
provide a more reliable estimation of the inelastic drift 3. It should be noted that the total story drift ∆ M is made
than does Equation 105-18. This more sophisticated level up of shear drift and flexural rotation drift. Shear drift
of analysis may be prudent when stability, P-delta effects, is the displacement within the story under consider-
building separations, magnitude of inelastic joint or plastic ation. Flexural rotation drift is due to the cantilever
hinge rotations, or the effect of drift on portions not part of bending of the structure that causes the plane of a story
the lateral system (deformation compatibility) are deemed level to rotate from the horizontal. The flexural rota-
to be critical values to know for the overall performance tion drift of a given story is equal to the rotation of the
and design of the building. bottom level of the story times the story height. This
rigid body rotation does not cause additional shear
This section requires that analysis used to com-
distortion in the story under consideration.
pute ∆ M consider P-delta effects. This means that if Re-
4. Engineers may elect to invoke stricter drift limits for
quirements Section 105.1.3 requires a P-delta analysis, or the structural design, or may utilize more sophisti-
if the engineer determines that a P-delta analysis is pru- cated methods of analysis such as nonlinear time-his-
dent, the computed value of ∆ M must include displace- tory analysis to determine the ∆ M level
ments associated with secondary P-delta effects. P-delta displacements.
effects at ∆ M should use forces (story shears) in the inelas- 5. If an engineer elects to prove compliance with the drift
tic (pushover) structure at the ∆ M deformation. limits by nonlinear analysis, and “pushes” the design
to the limits of the Requirements, the design may
C105.10 Story Drift Limitations prove unsatisfactory. An inelastic drift ratio of 0.025
The story drift limits of 0.020 and 0.025 times the story radian is, as stated above, extremely large and repre-
height, combined with the 0.70 factor in Equation 105-18, sents possibly the physical drift capacity of many
provide approximately equal stiffness for buildings de- structural systems. Given that the design basis ground
signed to previous versions of these Provisions, and are motion represents an average hazard for a relatively
large geographic area, and given that a larger earth-
114 September 1999

quake is possible for a given site, using advanced consistent with actual earthquake performance, nor will it
analysis methods to push the liberal drift limit of give all the answers or solutions to a seismic design prob-
0.025 may not be prudent. If the structures lateral drift lem. The accuracy of the results depends on many things,
capacity is exhausted for the design basis ground mo- among which are:
tion, a larger earthquake may produce catastrophic re- 1. The simplifying assumptions made to produce the
sults. A maximum inelastic drift ratio of 0.010 to computational procedures.
0.015 has for some time been considered a conserva- 2. Appropriate assignment of material property values,
tive value [ATC-03; Tri-Services Manual]. This level building dimensions, damping coefficients, and other
of story drift would be a more appropriate limit when characterizations of the structure.
sophisticated analysis techniques such as nonlinear
3. How close the model reflects the real structure and its
time-history are used.
foundation conditions.
In summary, the drift limits of this section are appro- 4. The representation of the maximum expected earth-
priate for structures analyzed using the equivalent static quake input for the site.
force and response spectrum analysis procedures. Howev- 5. The correct interpretation of the analysis.
er, the engineer must provide design details such that the
resulting story drifts can be sustained by all structural and Dynamic analysis can, however, greatly aid the seis-
nonstructural elements so as to meet the life safety objec- mic design process by clarifying certain important aspects
tive. The engineer must also treat these drift limits with of the structure's dynamic response characteristics that
caution when more sophisticated analysis techniques are may not be apparent from the static lateral force procedure
used. of Section 105. For example:
1. The effects of the structure's dynamic characteristics
C105.11 Vertical Component of Seismic
on the distribution of lateral force along its height,
Forces
which could differ from the linear distribution consid-
Design for dead load in members will usually ensure ered in the static lateral force procedure.
against problems resulting from downward accelerations, 2. The existence of normal modes with significant com-
while the typical load factors will provide assurance ponents of torsional motion that can lead to increased
against failure resulting from upward accelerations. dynamic loads in the structure's lateral force resisting
Since cantilevers do not have redundancy, it was system.
deemed necessary that some additional assurance against 3. The effects of the structure's higher modes of response
failure from upward and downward accelerations be pro- that could contribute substantially to individual story
vided. Also, both simply supported and continuous pre- shears and deformations.
stressed beams should be checked for the reduced vertical
The dynamic lateral force analysis procedures pre-
load combination.
sented in these Requirements were developed to address
C106 UBC §1631 Dynamic Analysis
the fact that the distribution of forces on some structures is
often considerably different from those that would be giv-
Procedures en by the static lateral force procedure of Section 105.2. As
This section provides minimum Requirements, limita- an example, such differences can occur in buildings with
tions, and guidelines for performing dynamic analyses. It severe setbacks, buildings of unusual configuration, and
is not intended to be a complete coverage and should not buildings with significant variation in drift from one story
be used as a “how-to” manual for the performance of dy- to another. Implicit in these Requirements on dynamic
namic analysis. The engineer should consult appropriate analysis is the assumption that the analysis will normally
references on dynamic analysis for detailed procedures be performed using a computer program. Consequently,
[e.g., Clough and Penzien, 1975; Chopra, 1980; U.S. the Requirements are formulated in a manner suitable for
Army, 1986; Biggs, 1964; SEAOSC, 1977]. such implementation.
C106.1 General Design force values as obtained from the base shear
Use of the analysis procedures outlined in this section and are employed at the strength stress level, which corre-
discussed in Appendix D incorporate dynamic aspects of sponds to about yield strength. Linear elastic analysis can,
seismic response in the design process. A dynamic analy- therefore, be used at this level to obtain member forces and
sis, per se, will not necessarily provide response estimates displacements. Since fully elastic structure response could
September 1999 115

result in a larger base shear, it is evident that structural dis- cause the structural response is reduced as noted in Section
placements due to the maximum expected earthquake will 106.5.4. The duration of the ground motion, which also is
be well into the inelastic range. With the controls on struc- an important factor in building response, is not directly
tural irregularity given in these Requirements, it is as- represented by the response spectrum procedures. How-
sumed that the displacements in the inelastic structure can ever, within these Requirements, duration representative
be estimated by an appropriate factor times the displace- of major earthquake ground motion is recognized implic-
ment response of the elastic structure. Therefore, linear itly by the special Requirements for systems and elements.
elastic analysis may be used for member design forces at These Requirements are intended to provide stable levels
load levels below yield, and for member displacements for of resistance under multiple reversed cycles of inelastic
loads beyond yield. The energy dissipation capability of deformations.
the structure to sustain these inelastic displacements will
Item 1. Response Spectra. The response spec-
be a function of the type of structural system selected from
trum shape given in Figure 104-2 is a basic form that is
Table 104-6 and the details used by the engineer to accom-
scaled by the seismic coefficients Ca and Cv from Tables
plish this design. The details and concepts used by the en-
gineer are the critical elements in seismic resistant designs 104-9 and 104-10, respectively. These seismic coefficients
and must be so recognized. provide a representation of the site seismicity level, the
soil profile type, and the near-source effects due to the
The guidelines of this section provide the engineer causative fault type and distance. The resulting shape as
with a method for dealing with structures that have charac- factored by the values of Ca and Cv corresponding to the
teristics that may violate the assumptions inherent in use of structure site conditions provides the 5 percent damped ac-
the static approach of Section 105. Regular and symmetric celeration response spectrum description of the design ba-
structures generally exhibit much more favorable and pre- sis ground motion having essentially a 10 percent
dictable seismic response characteristics than do irregular probability of being exceeded in 50 years. Further discus-
structures; therefore, the use of regular structures is en- sion is given in Appendices A and B. Where there are es-
couraged and irregular structures should be avoided when- tablished indications that the site conditions are
ever possible. significantly different from those corresponding to the giv-
Implementation of dynamic lateral force procedures en standard site-dependent spectrum, then a site-specific
involves: study should be performed to better define the ground mo-
1. Identification of appropriate ground motion represen- tion: this would apply to cases where the site-specific
tations for use as input to the analysis. ground motion can cause significantly different structural
response. For example, Section 106.2 Item 4 requires a
2. Development of an elastic mathematical model of the
site-specific study for Soil Profile Type SF.
structure that represents its important geometric, stiff-
ness, inertial, and damping characteristics. In order to be more representative of response spec-
3. Computation of the model’s dynamic response to the trum shapes in the longer period ranges, the 1/T portion of
seismic input motions, using response spectrum or the spectrum should have a transition to a “constant dis-
time-history methods and established structural anal- placement” relation proportional to 1/T 2 at the displace-
ysis computer programs. ment transition period. For sites not located in near-source
4. Careful interpretation and application of the results of zones, this period is about 4 seconds. Within near-source
the analysis. zones, this period may be considerably greater than 4 sec-
C106.2 Ground Motion
onds. However, because of the scaling Requirements of
Section 106.5.4, this modification would not have any sig-
This subsection describes the types of representation of nificant effect on design forces, and is therefore left for
seismic ground motion, principally by a response spec- consideration in future revisions of these Requirements.
trum, that can be used in a dynamic analysis. The results
of a dynamic analysis are normally sensitive to the esti- Items 2 and 3. Site-Specific Response Spectra
mated intensity and frequency content of the seismic and Time Histories. The use of “site-specific” response
ground motion. The spectrum can be considered to have spectra and time histories are mentioned to allow the engi-
two characteristics: shape and amplitude. For design of neer to make use of these tools when it is desirable or nec-
structures using these Requirements, the shape of the re- essary to go beyond the standard spectrum, or where a
sponse spectra is more important than the amplitude be-
116 September 1999

specific spectrum is required for an SF site. For further dis- Item 4. Structures on Soil Profile Type SF. See
cussion, see Appendix B. Commentary Section C104.8.4, Item 4 for a discussion of
the particular site response effects that require special
The representations of site-specific ground motion
analysis.
should be reflective of all the parameters—such as earth-
quake source, source-site travel path, (i.e., directivity, to- Resonance occurs:
pography, basins, etc.), and local soil conditions—that 1. When the building's elastic period is close to, but
influence the ground shaking at a site. slightly less than, that of the predominant period of the
ground shaking.
The individual site-specific time histories used should
be selected to best represent the regional and local geolog- 2. As the building's response becomes inelastic, its pe-
ic conditions at the site. If the time histories have spectra riod lengthens and coincides with a predominant pe-
with significant valleys at periods important to the struc- riod of the ground shaking.
ture's response, the Requirements of Section 106.2 Item 3 3. When the duration of the ground shaking at this period
require that the composite spectra from the selected time is sufficiently long to allow the development of the
histories should approximate the site-specific spectra de- amplified building motions that will occur when the
veloped in accordance with Section 106.2 Item 2. Recog- building and ground motion periods approach coinci-
nizing that no recorded time-history will match the entire dence.
site-specific response spectrum, it is particularly important The response of the building is amplified by these res-
to select an ensemble of recorded or synthetic motions that onance conditions, and the resulting increases in the build-
best represent the conditions of earthquake source, travel ing's earthquake-induced forces and deformations must be
path, and local geologic conditions that exist at the site. considered in its design. The building's amplified response
The scaling of selected time histories should attempt to under resonant conditions may be conservatively approxi-
provide a match with the site-specific spectrum at the sig- mated by using a constant level acceleration response
nificant periods of the structure. The time variation of re- spectrum equal to 100 percent of the maximum accelera-
corded earthquake motions typically exhibits an initial tion ordinate of the site-specific design spectrum for a
rise, a central segment of strong shaking, and a decaying damping ratio of 5 percent. The damping ratio is held at 5
tail. The duration of each of these segments is dependent percent because any reduced response effects due to the in-
on the nature of the faulting and surrounding geologic con- creased damping in the inelastic structure are already in-
ditions. The engineer should recognize this fact and should cluded in the R factor used in Section 106.5.4 to convert
therefore select site-specific time histories whose time the all-elastic response to the design force level. The max-
variation is reasonably consistent with the time variation imum constant level may be taken from a smoothed aver-
of actual ground motions that have been recorded under age representation of the site-specific acceleration
comparable geologic conditions. response spectrum.
When time-history analyses are performed, good It is likely that the representation of the SF ground mo-
practice requires that independent time histories be used in
tion will have unique characteristics that differ significant-
each of the orthogonal directions of input and that at least
ly from those represented by the spectrum shape of Figure
three time histories be used in each direction to ensure that
104-2. Division of the resulting base shear by R is consis-
the responses are characteristic of those that may occur,
tent with the design philosophy for inelastic design. The
and to provide a sufficient number of response estimates to
result is a design that exhibits a reasonably uniform pattern
ensure that the possible response of the structure is ade-
of inelastic demand throughout the structure. However, the
quately represented. Multiple responses provide a basis for
minimum design value required by Section 106.5.4 must
estimating the appropriate values of the dynamic forces
be met.
and deformations in the structure's critical elements.
Item 5. Vertical Ground Motion. Statistical anal-
Again, when complying with these Requirements, the
yses of ground motion records at distances greater than
frequency content of the input is important over the signif-
about 10 kilometers from the seismic source have shown
icant period range of the structural response. The magni-
that it is generally reasonable for design purposes to use a
tude is less important because the final forces must be
vertical component of ground motion whose peak ampli-
scaled up, and may be scaled down in accordance with
tude is two-thirds of the peak amplitude of the horizontal
Section 106.5.4.
motion. However, for sites located close to active faults,
September 1999 117

the peak amplitude of the vertical component of ground Three-dimensional models are required when the use
motion can equal or exceed the peak amplitude of the hor- of a two-dimensional model would obscure some signifi-
izontal ground motion. For such sites, or for any sites with cant information. It should be noted that by themselves,
unusual conditions, a site-specific evaluation should be two-dimensional models are unable to reflect orthogonal
performed to specify vertical motions for seismic design. effects and torsion in the structure (see Appendix D).
In all cases, it is important to note that the peaks of the ver- 1. Finite Joint Size. In modeling beams and/or col-
tical and horizontal components of motion may be associ- umns of frame structures, beam elements are usually
ated with different wave arrivals and therefore may not considered as concentrated about their principal axes
occur at the same time (see also Section 106.5.5). and then geometrically represented as lines. Intersec-
C106.3 Mathematical Model tions of such lines at model node points are the physi-
cal connection points in the real structure. In
A mathematical model is an idealized, simplified repre- mathematical models, these physical connection
sentation of a complex building structure to facilitate com- points (called nodes or joints) are normally treated as
putation of the structure's response for design purposes. single point locations that have no size dimension. For
Modeling is an art in which the most important character- relatively slender beam or column elements, the as-
istics of the structure are synthesized into a mathematical sumption that the joints are dimensionless or of negli-
representation for computation of the dynamic response. gible size is satisfactory. However, where beams and
Regular structures can usually be adequately represented columns have significant depth at intersections, the
with a one- or two-dimensional model, where accidental overall structure is stiffer than as represented by the
torsion is included with additional “hand” calculation. assumption of zero joint size, and this must be consid-
Very complex, irregularly framed structures, or those with ered in the model formulation.
large eccentricities between centers of mass and resis-
2. Diaphragm Flexibility. Diaphragms are generally
tance, will require a three-dimensional analysis. Only an
classified into three groups: rigid, semi-rigid, and
outline of some of the elements of modeling will be dis-
flexible. These terms are relative and depend on the
cussed in this Commentary [Clough and Penzien, 1975;
stiffness of the lateral force resisting vertical ele-
Chopra, 1980; U.S. Army, 1986; Biggs, 1964, SEAOSC,
ments. For example, a rigid diaphragm in a frame
1977; Wilson and Button, 1982].
structure may be semi-rigid in a shear wall structure.
There is a series of key assumptions that are common The response of a structure with a large plan eccentric-
to most analysis models: the structure is assumed to be lin- ity could be very sensitive to the diaphragm flexibility
early elastic; small deformation theory applies; structural and appropriate evaluations of stiffness should be
mass is commonly lumped at a few selected joints or made to model this element correctly. See Section
nodes; and energy dissipation (damping) is assumed to be C105.6 for discussion of diaphragm rigidity/flexibil-
viscous or velocity proportional. ity.
C106.3.1 General Stiffness Modeling Consider- 3. Section Properties. The selection of section prop-
ations. Great care must be exercised in developing a erties for the structural model is complex and requires
model for the structure because a structure is necessarily considerable judgment to properly understand and
represented by an idealization containing fewer, conceptu- represent the structure's expected performance. Rein-
ally simpler, elements than actually exist in the structure. forced concrete and masonry are particularly difficult
The engineer must ascertain that the model adequately because they are nonhomogeneous materials with
represents the structure such that the desired behavior and properties that can vary significantly at different lev-
response will be obtained, and that no extraneous or artifi- els of response.
cial responses occur from use of the simplified model. For concrete and masonry, a first approximation
These artificial responses can result from arithmetic errors would be to use gross uncracked section properties
introduced by truncation, often caused by large differences and the code modulus of elasticity. Assuming cracked
in stiffness; the introduction of rigid elements (stiff ends); sections and transformed steel area throughout, or
improper stiffness assignments (particularly where differ- using the moments of inertia specified in the ACI code
ent types of elements intersect at joints); and from not rec- for deflection calculations, may be an excessive
ognizing the fundamental behavior pattern of the structure refinement because the modal response results may
in preparing the model. have to be scaled by Section 106.5.4 of this section,
and the period is limited by Section 105.2.2, Item 2.
118 September 1999

However, where deformations are of concern in For convenience, damping is generally stated as a percent-
either meeting the limitation on drift, or P-delta age of critical damping or as a ratio of damping to critical
provisions, it is recommended that a representation of damping; hence the term damping ratio. The response
cracked section stiffness be used. All significant spectrum shape given in these Requirements is based on
resisting elements should be included in the stiffness damping that is 5 percent of critical damping; other spectra
model, such as steel members embedded in concrete that may be used should also have this 5 percent damping
or cast-in-place concrete beams and columns that may value. Damping in time-history analysis should not exceed
not be part of the lateral force resisting system. Stiff 5 percent, unless a higher value can be substantiated by
dummy members should not be used without checking data.
the impact this may have on the results because of
C106.4 Description of Analysis Procedures
potential numerical difficulties.
4. Boundary Conditions. Boundary conditions are While two methods of dynamic analysis are presented, it
the constraints in a model designed to match physical is expected that a majority of engineers will use the re-
conditions at the edges of a structure or component. sponse spectrum analysis procedures (see Section 106.4
Boundaries for models required for seismic response and Appendix D). The time-history analysis procedure
are usually those that move with the ground at the lo- (Section 106.6) is included for use where it is important to
cation of the specified base motions. Boundary ele- represent inelastic response characteristics or to incorpo-
ments or nodes may be utilized in response analyses to rate time-dependent effects when computing the struc-
model several conditions or effects. Base elements or ture's dynamic response.
nodes may be fully or partially constrained to model C106.5 Response Spectrum Analysis
the support stiffness of a structure, including its foun- The response spectrum analysis is the preferred method
dations. Most commonly, nodes at “ground” are fixed for most buildings. It is strongly recommended that the en-
in rotation or translation (or both) in order to model gineer first perform an equivalent static analysis to help
boundary restraint. Where the fixed base assumption verify the model and to provide a basis for comparison of
produces significantly unconservative results, soil the response spectrum results. It is considered good prac-
flexibility should be considered in the analysis. tice to plot the significant mode shapes as a means of both
C106.3.2 Mass Representation. Distributed mass checking the model and gaining insight into how the struc-
commonly will be either lumped at the nodes in some fash- ture performs. Appendix D provides the necessary rela-
ion, or placed as a single mass lumped at each floor level. tions and concepts for application of the minimum
Where lumped mass is used, as is the case in most com- requirements.
puter programs, care must be taken to ensure: C106.5.1 No Commentary.
1. Any mass eccentricity of the real structure is properly
C106.5.2 Number of Modes. See Appendix D for an
retained.
analytical approach to determining the required number of
2. Application of the resulting forces on the structural modes. Demonstration that 90 percent of the participating
model does not cause erroneous beam shortening. mass of the structure is included in the calculation of re-
The mass of mechanical equipment, curtain walls, and sponse for each principal horizontal direction is, in
other nonstructural elements must be considered. Story SEAOC's judgment, an acceptable procedure.
masses should be lumped only when the diaphragm is rig- C106.5.3 Combining Modes. Each required re-
id; otherwise they should be distributed. sponse quantity, such as the peak member forces and dis-
There are computer programs that permit an actual placements, element forces and deformations, or the story
mass distribution within individual finite elements. These shears and drifts shall be evaluated for each significant
programs use the consistent mass formulation. Care must mode and these individual mode response quantities may
be taken to understand the method used in the computer be combined to evaluate the total structural response ac-
program selected for the analysis. cording to the modal combination procedures described in
this section of the Commentary. The same method of
C106.3.3 Damping. Energy dissipation is normally
modal combination should be used for each response
idealized as viscous or velocity-proportional damping in quantity. It must be noted that in modal analysis, when the
order to allow the equations of motion to be uncoupled and individual modal force quantities are combined, the re-
solved as a set of linearly independent equations. Each in- lated structural components are no longer in equilibrium.
dependent equation determines the response for one mode.
September 1999 119

This result occurs because the individual modal maxi- ious structural systems. Because it is difficult to reflect
mums do not all occur at the same time. Equilibrium and these influences on a consistent basis for dynamic analysis
the consistency of displacements with forces can be design, SEAOC included a procedure for scaling or reduc-
checked only on an individual mode basis [Wilson et al., ing the dynamic response. This scaling is used to make dy-
1981; Der Kiureghian, 1981; Wilson and Button, 1982; namic analysis results consistent with the results of the
Biggs, 1964; U.S. NRC, 1976]. See also Appendix D. static design approach. The static design approach has
gained approval since regular buildings designed by this
Methods such as square-root-sum-of-the-squares
approach have, in general, performed acceptably in earth-
(SRSS) and Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) (see
quakes. SEAOC has determined that this scaling proce-
Appendix D), used to combine the effects of the several
dure is appropriate for design, but it is an interim
modes, are approximate and account for the fact that all
procedure subject to future replacement. Care should be
modal maximums do not occur at the same time. There is
exercised in interpreting scaled results to ensure that they
no assurance that either method will produce conservative
are physically reasonable and appropriate, since many
results; however, under the proper conditions, each meth-
quantities may not actually scale linearly with base shear.
od will produce results of acceptable accuracy.
For example, it is possible that certain characteristics of a
The adequacy of the SRSS method depends on the ra- particular ground motion and/or building system may lead
tio of the modal periods and the modal damping ratios. to either systematically high or low values of dynamic re-
This method will be acceptable when the modal damping sponse. Such aspects of building response could be lost
ratios are no greater than 5 percent, and the ratio of the pe- when current scaling procedures are employed. Further-
riods of any higher mode to any lower mode is 0.75 or less. more, scale factors obtained using base shear will not nec-
For larger damping ratios or larger modal period ratios essarily be the same as scale factors based on maximum
(approaching 1.0), modal coupling effects may become drift, member forces, or other quantities of importance for
important. Such effects are not accounted for in the SRSS seismic design.
method, but are incorporated when the CQC method is
The limitation that the reduction of the elastic re-
used. The CQC method (described in Appendix D) is a
sponse parameters shall not be less than that correspond-
general and theoretically well-based modal combination
ing to the elastic response base shear divided by the value
method that reduces to the SRSS method when the modal
of R provides a control on the inelastic demands on the
periods are well spaced and the modal damping ratios are
structural elements. This control is necessary when a site-
small. Thus, the CQC method will always be an acceptable
specific spectrum is used that has acceleration values high-
modal combination method. The damping ratio employed
er than the standard spectrum for the site given by Section
in the CQC evaluation should correspond to that used for
106.2, Item 1.
the response spectrum input.
The base shear that results from the dynamic analysis
Modal combinations present several important prob-
may be reduced to the bases shear required by Section
lems in the interpretation of results. First, all computed
105.2. The dynamic response parameters are then ratioed
terms are positive. Second, the value associated with each
down to correspond with the applicable percentages of this
term may correspond to a different point in time. Thus
reduced base shear, as given in Section 106.5.4, Items 1, 2,
member and joint equilibrium cannot be checked; mo-
and 3. For the purpose of evaluating the base shear re-
ments, shears, and deformations at points between the
quired by Section 105.2, the period of the first or funda-
nodes in the model cannot be directly calculated. The en-
mental mode of response may be used as the computed
gineer needs to consider these conditions when using the
value of period, as allowed by Section 105.2.2, Item 2,
terms, and should assign signs to the individual terms to
Method B. Limits on this Method B period may not exceed
ensure that the results are conservative. An examination of
values 30 and 40 percent greater than the period obtained
individual modes may be useful in those assessments.
by Section 105.2.2, Item 1, Method A. The resulting re-
Where it is necessary to know if a column is in single or
duced base shear shall not be less than the following per-
double curvature, the predominant mode of response may
centages of the base shear obtained by use of the period
be used to determine this condition.
from Method A: 77 percent for Seismic Zone 4 and 71 per-
C106.5.4 Reduction of Elastic Response Parame- cent for Zones 1, 2, and 3. These limits need not apply to
ters for Design. The earthquake force levels of Section the reduction of displacements, as allowed by Section
105.2 for static analysis reflect the influence of structural 105.10.3.
period, ductility and damping (energy dissipation) for var-
120 September 1999

Item 1. Regular structures that use the standard large eccentricities exist between the centers of story resis-
spectrum in Figure 106-1. The use of dynamic analysis tance and the centers of floor mass, and if the natural fre-
is considered to provide a more accurate pattern of lateral quencies of the building's normal modes are closely
force distribution. Therefore, a reduced base shear of 90 spaced [Der Kiureghian, 1981; Kan and Chopra, 1977].
percent of the base shear required by Section 105.2 is per- For such conditions, a three-dimensional model should be
mitted for a regular structure when a dynamic analysis is used to conduct the dynamic analysis (as discussed in
performed. The lower limits on this reduced base shear are Commentary Section C106.3) and the CQC approach is
0.9(77) = 69 percent and 0.9(71) = 64 percent of the Meth- recommended for combining the maximum modal re-
od A base shear value for the corresponding seismic zones. sponses (see Commentary Section C106.5.3 and Appendix
Item 2. Regular structures using a site-specific D, Part 3).
spectrum given by Section 106.2. To allow credit for Accidental torsional effects prescribed in Section
the more accurate representation of ground motion as pro- 105.6 are also required for the dynamic analysis proce-
vided by a site-specific spectrum the reduced base shear dures. Torsional motions can occur in a building even if its
may be 80 percent of the base shear required by Section centers of mass and resistance are coincident and the nat-
105.2. The lower limits on this reduced base shear become ural frequencies of its predominant modes of vibration are
0.8(77) = 62 percent and 0.8(71) = 57 percent of the Meth- well spaced. Such torsional motions, termed accidental
od A base shear value for the corresponding seismic zones. torsion, can arise from several factors not typically consid-
Item 3. Irregular structures regardless of ground ered in the dynamic analysis of buildings, such as:
motion representation. The extra uncertainty in the re- 1. Spatial variations of horizontal input motions.
sponse characteristics of irregular structures requires that 2. Rotational components of the ground motions.
the reduced base shear be not less than 100 percent of the 3. Effects of nonstructural elements (e.g., partitions,
base shear required by Section 105.2. The lower limits are stairs, etc.) on the building's stiffness and inertial char-
therefore the 77 and 71 percent values of the Method A acteristics.
base shear for the corresponding seismic zones. 4. Actual distribution of dead and live loads.
Supplementary Item 4. A recommended lower 5. Uncertainties in defining the building's material prop-
limit on reduced base shear. In the previous Blue erties for the dynamic analysis.
Book, the lower limit on the reduced base shear was 80
To account for such effects, torsional moments due to
percent of the Method A base shear, which was signifi-
accidental torsion can be computed using the static proce-
cantly larger than the lower limits allowed by the above
dures given in Section 105.6, and then distributed to the
Items 1 and 2. In order to provide reasonable consistency
various members of the building's lateral force resisting
with previous accepted designs, it is recommended that the
system to obtain the corresponding member forces. This
lower limit be held to the 77 percent value of the Method
distribution can be accomplished by either an equivalent
A base shear unless a detailed analysis of the stability of
static load method or a dynamic analysis method. In the
the inelastic structure is performed at the maximum esti-
static method, the accidental torsional moments at each
mated deformation demand of the design ground motion.
level may be calculated as the product of the equivalent
C106.5.5 Directional Effects. See Commentary Sec- static force from Section 105.5 times the 5 percent eccen-
tions C105.1.1.2 and C108.1.2 for details. Effects of verti- tricity specified in Section 105.6. The resulting moments
cal ground motion on horizontal cantilevers and are applied as pure couple loadings, all of the same sense,
prestressed elements can be accommodated by using the at their corresponding levels. The effects of these couple
static design procedures of Section 105.11 or by using a loads are then added, a positive increase, to the results of
dynamic analysis with a vertical component, as noted in the dynamic analysis that have been reduced according to
Section 106, Item 5. However, the resulting forces shall the Requirements of Section 106.5.4.
not be less than those required by the static force proce-
dure. For the dynamic method and nonflexible diaphragms,
it is required to displace the mass in the dynamic model to
C106.5.6 Torsion. The occurrence of significant tor-
alternate sides of the calculated center of mass and use a
sional motions can lead to increased loads in the building's three-dimensional analysis to calculate the effects directly.
lateral force resisting system and is therefore an important Where forces are applied concurrently in two orthogonal
seismic design consideration. Such torsional motions can directions, the required 5 percent displacement of the cen-
be strongly coupled with the building's lateral motions if
September 1999 121

ter of mass should be applied for only one of the orthogo- based on professional opinion and the current state of
nal directions at a time. For highly eccentric structures, structural dynamic analysis methods used for constructed
care should be taken to ensure the critical location of this structures.
mass displacement to obtain the highest load effect. C106.6.3 Nonlinear Time-History Analysis. The
C106.5.7 Dual Systems. The dual system Require- nonlinear response of the structure incorporates energy
ments presented in this section are, by reference, the same dissipation from inelastic material behavior and load redis-
as those described in Section 104.6.5. The determination tribution from nonlinear element force versus deformation
of base shear for the dual system is for the combined sys- behavior. Special care must be taken to ensure that the de-
tem. Section 104.6.5, Item 2 requires a special moment-re- formations, including material strains and curvatures, of
sisting frame capable of resisting at least 25 percent of the the elements do not exceed their capacities and thus lead
total base shear, in effect providing a “backup” capacity. to element failure that will compromise system perfor-
There is no theoretical justification to perform a response mance.
spectrum analysis on the frame by itself, since it is fully
The same limitations are placed on the inelastic re-
connected to the shear walls or bracing elements. Conse-
sponse displacements of the structure as are placed on the
quently, permission is given to the engineer to perform a
displacements from the elastic analysis methods. This lim-
static analysis of the frame to ensure it is capable of carry-
itation has received considerable discussion because even
ing the specified base shear.
if the nonlinear analysis demonstrates that larger displace-
C106.6 Time-History Analysis ments can be accommodated, it cannot be used to provide
Elastic and nonlinear time-history analysis requirements economic benefits to the design (see Section C105.10).
are presented in this section. Both analyses require the de- Design review is required for a nonlinear time-history
velopment of an ensemble of earthquake ground motion analysis because of the many assumptions that must be
acceleration time histories for the specific building site. made in the development of the structural model. The im-
C106.6.1 Time-History. The requirements for the de- proved modeling of structural elements for nonlinear and
velopment of building site-specific earthquake ground inelastic performance requires in most cases many more
motion time-histories are the same as the requirements for structural modeling parameters where values are based on
a base isolated building. The requirement for using the recent research and professional experience. Design re-
maximum response of three time-histories or the average view is also required because the nonlinear analysis meth-
of seven or more time histories has undergone consider- ods are often very complex and require education and
able discussion. The computational effort required for an- training for their correct usage special. These complex
alyzing the design states for columns with axial shear and methods are also subject to human errors in input prepara-
bending moment could be very time consuming.There is a tion and output data processing.
need to improve the current requirements as they exist in The design review shall include several important
this section and in Requirements Section 150 et seq. parts, and the first is the site-specific earthquake spectra
C106.6.2 Elastic Time-History Analysis. The earth- and ground motion time histories. These time-histories are
quake ground motion time histories as required in Section expected to incorporate, where appropriate, any vertical
106.2 are for a ground motion having a 10 percent proba- and near-field considerations at the specific site. They are
bility of being exceeded in 50 years. These time-histories expected to include as a minimum the three time histories
must have response spectra that approximate the corre- required in Section 106.6.1.
sponding site-specific response spectrum. Therefore, most
Maximum benefits from structural review are attained
of the requirements of the elastic response spectrum anal-
when the review starts early in the design process. Conse-
ysis in Section 106.5 are directly applicable for the dy-
quently, a review of the preliminary design of the lateral
namic analysis. Of particular note is the limitation on the
force resisting system is required to ensure that the design
reduction in the elastic response parameters from Require-
review starts early in the design process.
ments Section 106.5.4, which recognizes the theoretical
and economic benefits to be obtained from a dynamic A review of the final design of the lateral force resist-
analysis. However, the limitations in Requirements Sec- ing system is required to ensure quality control. Also re-
tion 106.5.4 serve as a design barrier that places a limit on quired is a review of all supporting analyses. This requires
the magnitude of the economic benefits. The 80, 90, and that the review encompass each page of the calculations,
100 percent limits in Section 106.5.4, Items 1, 2, and 3 are including all computer input and output. This requirement
122 September 1999

is imposed because of the complexity of nonlinear analy- 6. Access floor systems.

sis. 7. Masonry or concrete fences over 6 feet tall.
The design review shall be complete prior to the sub- 8. Partitions.
mittal of the plans and calculations to the building depart- Equipment. Consists of mechanical, plumbing, and
ment or regulatory agency. The Engineer of Record must electrical assemblies attached directly, or by means of one
submit written documentation of this complete review or more equipment supports, to the structure and include
with the plans and calculations. Discussion of this require- but are not limited to:
ment focused on the probable impact on the project sched-
1. Tanks and vessels.
ules. However, such delays should be minimal, if any, if
the design review starts at the beginning of the project and 2. Boilers, heat exchangers, fired and unfired pressure
actively continues throughout the project. This extra qual- vessels, tanks, turbines, chillers, pumps, motors,
ity control in plans and calculations may reduce plan check air-handling units, cooling towers, transformers, and
approval times. switchgear and control panels.
3. Piping, conduits, ducts, and cable trays.
C107 UBC §1632 Lateral Force on 4. Emergency power supply systems and essential com-
Elements of Structures, munications equipment.
Nonstructural Components, 5. Temporary containers of flammable or hazardous ma-
terials.
and Equipment Supported by
Structures Some large equipment, such as boilers and turbines,
may be constructed within a structure but be isolated from
Section C107 provides new design Requirements for mis- that structure, or built on ground level. In such cases the
cellaneous elements of structures, nonstructural compo- equipment should be considered as a nonbuilding structure
nents, and equipment supported by structures. Included are (see Requirements Section 109).
requirements for the items themselves, requirements for
the means by which such items are attached to the support- Special Safety-Related Equipment. Equipment
ing structure, and special requirements for items that could needed after an earthquake, fire, or other emergency, or
be defined as safety related. equipment that contains a sufficient quantity of explosive
or toxic substances which, if released, would threaten the
The following definitions are provided here to better life safety of the general public. Special safety-related
distinguish the various categories of items covered by this equipment does not include equipment that threatens life
section. They apply only to the discussions of Section safety solely through structural failure.
C107.
Equipment Supports. Those structural members or
Elements. Miscellaneous assemblies or portions of assemblies of members, that include, but are not limited to,
structures having a structural function related to the struc- baseplates, frames, skirts, skids, hangers, springs, legs,
ture and include but are not limited to: lugs, or saddles that transmit gravity loads between the
1. Walls, including parapets, exterior walls, and interior equipment and the structure. Equipment supports also in-
bearing and nonbearing walls. clude members, such as braces, struts, snubbers, and
2. Penthouses, except where framed by an extension of bumpers, that transmit lateral forces and provide structural
the structural frame. stability for the equipment to which they connect.
3. Prefabricated structural elements other than walls. Attachments. The means by which elements, com-
Components. Permanent assemblies not having a ponents, equipment, and/or equipment supports are se-
structural function and include but are not limited to: cured to the seismic resisting system of the structure. Such
1. Exterior and interior ornamentation and appendages. attachments include, but are not limited to, anchor bolts,
welded connections, clamps, clips, cables, and fasteners.
2. Chimneys, stacks, and towers.
3. Signs and billboards. Rigid. Equipment is considered rigid when the
4. Storage racks, cabinets, and book shelves, including equipment, its supports, and its attachments considered as
contents, over 6 feet tall. a single dynamic system, has a fundamental mode of vi-
bration with a natural period less than 0.06 seconds (natu-
5. Suspended ceilings and light fixtures.
ral frequency greater than 16.7 Hz). A rigid piece of
September 1999 123

equipment supported on vibration isolation devices or oth- mit the overturning forces, and the supports and founda-
er flexible supports shall be considered flexible. For com- tions (especially edge portions) in the friction load path
plex equipment, evaluation of the vibratory characteristics must be designed to resist the apportioned seismic shear
may be difficult. However, if the equipment can be reason- transferred by friction.
ably modeled or tested, the fundamental mode of vibration
It is not the intent of Requirements Section 107 to pro-
may be characterized as that mode that has the greatest
hibit unrestrained components and equipment. Unre-
mass participation.
strained components and equipment may be permitted,
C107.1 General particularly temporary and moveable items, such as heavy
This section applies to items such as elements, compo- furnishings, provided that the safety of occupants and the
nents, and equipment attached to structures whose dy- public will not be compromised. Items with low ratios of
namic behavior does not substantially alter the structure's height-to-base width or length that are inherently stable
response. The design lateral force coefficients for items at- against overturning may be unrestrained. In such cases,
tached to structures are generally higher than the force co- lateral movement may be limited by friction forces based
efficients used for the structure's design. There are four on gravity forces with reductions due to vertical earth-
basic reasons to provide higher lateral force coefficients quake accelerations, as considered appropriate by the de-
for attached items: sign engineer. Also, mechanical equipment, such as heat
exchangers, in which one end is fixed and the other is free
1. Absolute accelerations acting on items supported by
to thermally expand is also allowed to consider reductions
the structure above ground level are generally greater
considering friction as appropriate (see also Section
than at ground level.
C109.5.1). The maximum lateral movement of compo-
2. Additional amplified response can occur within items nents and equipment that may occur under maximum ex-
unless they themselves are quite rigid. pected ground motions should be estimated and
3. The items themselves, except when manufactured incorporated into the design of utility connections, seismic
from and supported by ductile materials, may lack the restraints, and space shall be provided to accommodate
redundancy or energy absorption properties that allow component or equipment movement.
the rational reduction of force levels used for design of
C107.1.2 Equipment Design. This provision re-
the items.
quires that for some equipment, not only the attachments,
4. Attachment failures should be minimized. but also the equipment itself must be designed to resist
Requirements Section 107 is focused on the design of seismic forces. This provision states that nonrigid equip-
attachments that transfer from a supported item to the seis- ment, for which “structural failure of the lateral force re-
mic resisting system of the structure. Diaphragms are now sisting system... would cause a life hazard,” must also be
considered as part of the structural system and are no long- designed to resist lateral forces. Although the goal of all
er covered by this section (see Requirements Section seismic design is to minimize hazards to life, these Re-
108.2.9). The design of exterior elements also includes de- quirements intend that a special category of concern be de-
formation Requirements as outlined in Section 108.2.4. fined where the perceived hazard is greater than normal.
The design of nonbuilding structures is now considered in Several complex interrelated considerations are raised by
Section 109. this new requirement that seismic design must sometimes
C107.1.1 Friction. Usually friction resulting from extend to the equipment itself, and not be limited to attach-
gravity loads should not be used to resist seismic forces. ments. These considerations, which include equipment
However, friction achieved by clamping and friction function, scope of covered equipment, rugged equipment,
caused by seismic overturning forces may be used. Fric- and responsibility, are discussed in Section C107.1.3
tion clips and beam clamps have historically performed through C107.1.8, below.
poorly in earthquakes. Where friction provided by me- C107.1.3 Equipment Support Design. It is intended
chanical clamping (e.g., a beam clamp) is used to resist lat- that Requirements Section 107 address equipment sup-
eral loads, the engineer should verify that an adequate load ports that transfer seismic forces from the equipment
transfer mechanism exists. Eccentricities in the load path, through attachments to the seismic resisting system of the
prying forces, etc., must not be overlooked. If friction structure. Equipment supports, even when supplied by the
caused by seismic overturning forces is used, the structural manufacturer, should be designed in accordance with
system must have sufficient strength and rigidity to trans- these Requirements. Equipment supports may include
equipment appurtenances that are compact or integrally
124 September 1999

connected to and manufactured with the equipment, and ence that if structural integrity (connectivity and contain-
may transfer seismic as well as weight and functional ment) and stability are maintained, function (operability)
forces to the structure. When reviewed however, these after an earthquake is probable for most types of equip-
equipment appurtenances should be of sufficient strength ment, although by no means assured. Also, these Require-
to adequately transfer the combined seismic, weight, and ments are not intended to ensure that mechanical joints in
functional forces to the equipment supports and attach- equipment providing containment, such as flanged joints,
ments, as appropriate. will remain leak-tight in an earthquake. It is assumed that
C107.1.4 Equipment Function. One consideration future editions of these Requirements will include provi-
necessitated by Section 107.1 is whether equipment func- sions that more directly address function and operation of
tion is to be addressed. There are two situations where safety-related equipment.
equipment “structural” failure or loss of “function” could C107.1.5 Scope of Covered Equipment. It is not in-
pose a hazard. tended that all equipment, or that all parts of equipment, be
designed for seismic forces. For example, it is not the in-
One special category is where loss of structural integ-
tent of these Requirements to require the seismic design of
rity causes a loss in physical connectivity or restraint under
shafts, buckets, cranks, pistons, plungers, impellers, ro-
seismic motions, resulting in a direct life hazard. An exam-
tors, stators, bearings, switches, gears, nonpressure retain-
ple is where the entire item or a part of the item breaks off
ing casings and castings, or similar items. Determination
and falls, topples, slides, or otherwise moves, posing a
of whether the Requirements of Section 107 should be ap-
threat to occupants, or blocks a means of egress or an ex-
plied to the seismic design of a specific piece of nonrigid
itway. In these cases, the use of bumpers, braces, guys, or
equipment will sometimes be complex, and even unclear.
gapped restraints may protect the occupant, even if the
Judgment will be required if the intent of these Require-
item itself is damaged.
ments is to be fulfilled. The following discussion may
The second situation is where the failure of equipment serve as guidance.
to perform a required function could cause a more indirect
Since the threat to life is the primary consideration in
life hazard. Such equipment could be defined as “special
seismic design, it should be clear that a nonessential air
safety-related.” Examples include fire protection piping or
handler package unit that is bolted to a mechanical room
a standby power system in a hospital. Another example is
floor and stands less than 3 feet above the floor is not a
a vessel or piping that contains sufficient quantities of
threat to life safety as long as adequate anchorage is pro-
highly toxic or explosive substances such that a release
vided. Therefore, the air handler itself need not be de-
would be hazardous to building occupants or the general
signed for seismic forces. Only the attachments (anchor
public. Emergency equipment should be located where
bolts) need be designed to restrain the movement of the air
there is the least likelihood of damage due to an earth-
handler during an earthquake so as to not harm any occu-
quake. Such equipment should be located at or below
pant of the mechanical room. On the other hand, a
ground level, and where it can be easily maintained to en-
10-foot-tall tank on 6-foot-high angle legs (braced or un-
sure its operation during an emergency. Judgment may
braced) mounted on the roof or near a building exitway
also suggest a more conservative design than would other-
does pose a hazard. It is the intent of these Requirements
wise be required by these Requirements, related in some
that the tank legs, the connections between the roof and the
manner to the perceived hazard. A list of substances con-
legs, and the connections between the legs and the tank be
sidered acutely hazardous (highly toxic or explosive) by
designed to resist seismic forces. Alternately, restraint of
the State of California is provided in Appendix C of Guid-
the tank by guys or additional bracing could be acceptable.
ance for the Preparation of a Risk Management and Pre-
If the tank contained a highly toxic substance, the tank it-
vention Program [OES, 1989].
self would likely require seismic design.
It is intended that the Requirements of Section 107 ap- C107.1.6 Rugged Equipment. Some equipment con-
ply to the design of both of the above categories of equip- sists of complex assemblies of mechanical and electrical
ment. However, these Requirements only explicitly parts that typically are manufactured in an industrial pro-
address structural integrity (connectivity and containment cess that produces similar or identical items. Such equip-
of contents) and stability. Equipment function (operabili- ment may include manufacturer's catalog items and is
ty), although obviously important, is not specifically ad- often designed by empirical (trial and error) means for
dressed. Although function is not explicitly addressed, it functional and transportation loads. A characteristic of this
may be concluded on the basis of past earthquake experi- equipment is that it may be inherently rugged. Rugged, as
September 1999 125

used herein, refers to an ampleness of construction that quacy may be determined. This section categorizes many
gives such equipment the ability to survive strong motions different types of equipment to assist the seismic designer
without significant loss of function. By examining such of equipment in assessing the seismic attributes of equip-
equipment, an experienced design professional should ment. These lists are by no means complete. The designer
usually be able to confirm such ruggedness, as well as as- should not be too literal in the assessment of equipment at-
sess whether the equipment is rigid or not. The assessment tributes. For example, chillers are listed below as both
of the ruggedness and rigidity of the equipment will then rigid and rugged. But, one chiller may be rigid, while an-
determine the need for and the appropriate method and ex- other may not. Both chillers may be rugged and can be rea-
tent of the seismic design or qualification efforts. The dis- sonably expected to survive earthquake motions without
cussion in Section C107.1.7 regarding design attributes of loss of integrity. However, the attachments for the non-
certain equipment may provide guidance in this assess- rigid chiller should be designed to withstand the seismic
ment. amplification of the equipment. Thus, these lists should be
viewed as qualitative only.
From the above, it may be concluded that it is not gen-
erally intended that these Requirements be applied to the The first group is equipment that may usually and rea-
design (other than for anchorage) of most air handlers; sonably be analyzed for seismic forces. Also, this class of
compressors; pumps; motors; engines; generators; valves; equipment would often be designed in accordance with es-
pneumatic, hydraulic or motor operators; fans; chillers; tablished national codes or standards, which may have ac-
small horizontal vessels or heat exchangers; evaporators; ceptance criteria for seismic loads. This equipment may
heaters; condensers; motor control centers; low or medium include, but not be limited to, those items listed in Equip-
voltage switchgear; transformers with anchored internal ment Lists C107-1 through C107-3. Also note that several
coils; small factory manufactured boilers; inverters; bat- of the items listed in Equipment Lists C107-1 and C107-2
teries; battery chargers; and distribution panels. In general, would normally be designed in accordance with Require-
such equipment has been found to be rugged. ments Section 109.
These Requirements are intended to require the design The second group of equipment consists of complex
of nonrigid special safety-related equipment, whether the assemblies of mechanical and electrical parts, including
equipment is placed in Occupancy Category I (Essential), manufacturer's catalog items. This class of equipment may
Category II (Hazardous), Category III (Special), or Cate- not be easily designed for seismic forces and motions, but
gory IV (Standard) structures. For example, whether or not observed performance of similar equipment during seis-
a structure is Occupancy Category II (Hazardous), a tank mic events may provide an adequate level of confidence
or vessel and associated transfer piping that contains high- for the experienced design professional to reasonably pre-
ly toxic or explosive materials must be designed to resist dict the seismic performance of the equipment being con-
seismic forces. Conversely, not all equipment in an Occu- sidered. This equipment may include, but not be limited to,
pancy Category II (Hazardous) structure should be re- those items in Equipment Lists C107-4 and C107-5.
quired to meet seismic requirement commensurate with
It may be necessary to design for higher seismic loads
the structure's classification.
than provided for in these Requirements to ensure that spe-
C107.1.7 Equipment Lists According to Design cial safety-related equipment maintains structural integrity
Attributes. Equipment covered by Requirements Sec- or can function following a seismic event.
tion 107 may be divided into two general groups. One
group consisting of assemblies of simpler shapes and
forms for which national codes and standards often exist Equipment List C107-1. Equipment that may in part or as
for their analysis or qualification for seismic motions. The a whole be subject to seismic amplification
second group consists of complex mechanical and electri- Chimneys and stacks Tall vertical pressure
cal assemblies whose primary function is a mechanical or vessels
electrical process for which national codes and standards Large field-erected Guyed and freestanding
may not exist. In the design and analysis of both groups of boilers towers
equipment, the concepts of rigidity and ruggedness can of-
Tall flat bottom storage High voltage switchyard
ten assist the seismic designer of equipment in determin-
tanks equipment
ing the necessity for analysis and, given that analysis is
necessary, the extent and methods by which seismic ade- Tall bins and silos
126 September 1999

Equipment List C107-2. Equipment that may not be sub- Equipment List C107- 5. Complex equipment that may
ject to seismic amplification because it is rigid typically be considered rugged, but not necessarily rigid
Heat exchangers Short vertical pressure Vertical pumps Air handling equipment and
vessels fans
Heaters Broad flat bottom storage Distribution panels Low and medium voltage
tanks switchgear
Evaporators Horizontal pressure vessels Battery chargers Instrumentation cabinets
Condensers Short bins and silos Motor control centers
Note: Some equipment, which by itself may be considered rugged,
may nonetheless be vulnerable to seismic amplification
because it is supported by flexible legs, frames, racks, or
Equipment List C107-3. Equipment in which the potential other assemblies of structural shapes.
for seismic amplification is reduced by ductile behavior C107.1.8 Responsibility. Responsibility is another
(when fabricated from steel and steel alloys, copper and consideration necessitated by the Requirements of Section
copper alloys, and aluminum)
107.1 that some equipment be designed to resist seismic
Piping HVAC and process ducts forces. These Requirements provide forces to be used in
Tubing Electrical conduit the design of equipment and equipment attachments. They
do not specify, and they make no judgment as to which de-
Plumbing Electrical cable trays
sign professional is responsible for the seismic design (or
Note: Piping and cable trays that are supported on the ground review) of any specific piece of equipment or its attach-
using flexible cantilever supports have a history of ments. For equipment installed at the time of construction,
performing poorly during seismic events; amplified forces responsibility could be that of the structural engineer who
should be considered in the design of these supports.
designs the structure, a mechanical engineer employed by
the manufacturer who fabricates the equipment, another
engineer retained by the mechanical contractor, or perhaps
Equipment List C107-4. Complex equipment that may still another design professional. Historically, design of
typically be considered both rigid and rugged
equipment has usually not been the responsibility of the
Valves Horizontal pumps structural engineer responsible for the design of the struc-
Engines Pneumatic operators ture. It is not the intent of these Requirements to change
any current contractual practices.
Motors Hydraulic operators
Generators Motor operators Typically, on new construction, the lead design pro-
fessional on a project will negotiate or otherwise deter-
Turbines Air and gas compressors mine, in conjunction with the design professional
Batteries Small factory manufactured boilers responsible for the functional design of the equipment,
Chillers Transformers with anchored internal how such seismic design of covered equipment will be
coils performed, which design professional will have responsi-
bility for its performance, and whether on a contractual or
Inverters fee basis. These Requirements do not deal with these is-
Note: Some complex equipment, such as valves and valve sues.
operators, turbines and generators, pumps and motors, may
be functionally connected by mechanical links not capable
For equipment installed at some time after completion
of transferring the seismic loads or accommodating the of construction, the original project team may no longer be
seismic displacements, and may require special design available. Thus, the owner, manufacturer, or mechanical
considerations such as a common rigid support or skid. contractor may need to obtain assistance in determining
the need to apply these Requirements.
Recent postearthquake surveys have revealed poor
quality control with respect to attaching equipment to
September 1999 127

structures. It is important that a design professional or a In addition, the design force equations are calibrated
qualified inspector check that the attachments are provided to a strength design approach, which translates to an ap-
in general conformance with the design documents. proximate 1.4 increase in force levels compared to those
from previous years in which allowable stress design was
Requirements Section 107.1 exempts the attachments
used. Equations 107-1 and 107-2 are repeated below for
for floor- or roof-mounted equipment weighing less than
reference.
400 pounds (181 kg) from design (note that Section 107.1
does not say that the equipment does not need to be de- F p = 4.0C a I p W p Eqn. 107-1
signed). An item of special safety-related equipment
apCa Ip hx
F p = -----------------  1 + 3 ----- W p
should not be exempt from being seismically designed or
Eqn. 107-2
restrained, or conforming to the other Requirements of Rp  h r
Section 107 just because its weight is less than 400
pounds. Also, although it is not specifically required that It should be noted the Requirements permit either
equipment and furniture weighing less than 400 pounds be equation to be used, so in effect, Equation 107-1 is an up-
attached to the structure, an evaluation of the inherent fra- per limit. These equations originated from a study and
gility or ruggedness of equipment or furniture, or the haz- workshop sponsored by the National Center for Earth-
ard created if the item slides, topples, or otherwise moves quake Engineering Research (NCEER) with funding from
as a result of earthquake effects, may require the design of the National Science Foundation (NSF) [Bachman et al.,
seismic restraints. 1993]. The participants examined recorded in-structure ac-
celeration data in response to strong earthquake motions.
Many equipment items are designed in accordance The objective was to develop a “supportable” design force
with national codes and standards. For example, pressure equation that considered actual earthquake data as well as
vessels and pressure piping are typically designed in ac- component location in the structure, component anchorage
cordance with codes and standards sponsored by the ductility, component importance, component safety haz-
American Society of Mechanical Engineers and approved ard upon separation from the structure, structural response,
by the American National Standards Institute. Many na- site conditions, and seismic zone.
tional codes and standards have allowable design stresses
and other acceptance criteria for the variety of operating Workshop participants also wanted to provide for a
and environmental loads, including earthquake loads, to reasonable transition of design requirements between a
which the equipment item may be subjected. However, ground-supported item and an item supported within a
these same codes and standards may or may not contain structure. Additional studies have further revised the equa-
seismic force requirements. It is intended that these Re- tion to its present form [Drake & Bachman, 1994, 1995].
quirements be used to develop seismic forces to be accom- It is believed that Equations 107-1 and 107-2 achieve the
modated by the allowable stress and other acceptance stated objectives without unduly burdening the practitio-
criteria of appropriate national codes and standards ap- ner with complicated formulations.
proved by the design professional responsible for the func- The component amplification factor ap represents the
tional design of the equipment.
dynamic amplification of the component relative to the
C107.2 UBC §1632.2 Design for Total fundamental period of the structure T. It is recognized that
Lateral Force at the time the components are designed or selected, the
New equations are recommended for determining the de- fundamental period of the structure is not always defined
sign seismic force Fp for elements, components, and or readily available. It is also recognized that for many
equipment are dependent on: components, the component fundamental period Tp is
n Weight of the system or component, Wp usually only accurately obtained by expensive shake-table
n Component amplification factor, ap or pull-back tests.
n Horizontal acceleration of the structure for the design A listing is provided of ap values based on the expec-
ground motion at the point of component attachment tation that the component will usually behave in either a
to the structure, the component importance factor, Ip rigid or flexible manner. In general, if the fundamental pe-
n Component response modification factor, Rp riod of the component is less than 0.06 sec, no dynamic
amplification is expected. It should be noted that the com-
ponent amplification factor was effectively 2.0 in the 1994
128 September 1999

UBC. It has been increased to 2.5 in these Requirements equals the maximum of four times the ground acceleration.
based on the NCEER recommendations. This new value Therefore, the maximum design equation will bound ap-
provides consistency with ground-supported structures proximately 84 percent of the recorded data. This was
where the maximum amplification factor is also 2.5. It is judged to be reasonable for design.
not the intention of these Requirements to preclude a more
Examination of the same data indicates that the in-
accurate determination of the component amplification
structure accelerations do not decrease with larger build-
factor when reasonably accurate values of both the struc-
ing periods as might be expected from reviewing typical
tural and component fundamental periods are available.
response spectra. One reason the response may be greater
The component response modification factor Rp rep- than expected at long periods is that buildings with longer
resents the energy absorption capability of the compo- fundamental periods may have designs governed by drift
nent's structure and attachments. Conceptually, the Rp requirements. These buildings would be stiffer, have more
elastic capacity, and may also have lower damping at high-
value considers both the overstrength and ductility of the
er acceleration responses. Also, higher mode effects may
component's structure and attachments. It is believed that
create higher responses. As a result of these studies, the
in the absence of current research, these separate consider-
structural period effect introduced into the 1994 NEHRP
ations can be adequately combined into a single factor for
Provisions for components has been removed (Figure
nonstructural components. In the absence of comprehen-
C107-2).
sive research and recorded data, these values are deter-
mined by judgment. In general, the following benchmark A lower limit for Fp is set to ensure a minimal seismic
values were used: design force. The minimum value for Fp determined by
Rp = 1.5 brittle or buckling failure mode expected setting the quantity (1+3hx /hr) ap /Rp equal to 0.7 is consis-
Rp = 3.0 moderately ductile materials and detailing tent with the previous code minimum value of 0.50Z times
1.4 to convert from allowable stress design to strength de-
Rp = 4.0 highly ductile materials and detailing
sign.
Minor adjustments from the 1994 NEHRP Provisions To meet the need for a simpler formulation, a conser-
have been made in the tabulated Rp values presented vative maximum value for Fp also was set. Equation 107-1
above. The values were adjusted to provide relative parity prescribes the maximum value for Fp determined by set-
with the 1994 UBC. ting the quantity (1+3hx /hr) ap /Rp equal to 4.0. Equation
The low value of Rp for shallow expansion anchor 107-1 also serves as a reasonable “cutoff” equation to en-
bolts and shallow chemical anchors is assigned due to poor sure that the multiplication of the individual factors does
performance and lack of cyclic testing. “Adhesive” is in- not yield an unreasonably high design force. It should be
tended to describe systems such as glued pedestals. recognized that there is little information about in-struc-
ture accelerations for Seismic Zones 2 and 3 and for build-
C107.2.1 In-Structure Acceleration. Equation 107-2
ings distant from Zone 4 faults. In the absence of sufficient
represents a trapezoidal distribution of floor accelerations
data, the provisions are selected to be conservative for all
within the structure, linearly varying from the acceleration
seismic zones.
at the ground Ca to the acceleration at the roof (4.0Ca). The
ground acceleration Ca is intended to be the same acceler- The redundancy factor ρ was set equal to unity since
ation used as design input for the structure itself and will the limiting redundancy of nonstructural components has
include site effects. already been accommodated in the selection of Rp factors.
Examination of recorded in-structure acceleration C107.2.2 Impact on Design Levels. Typically, in
data in response to recent and past large California earth- Seismic Zone 4 on firm soil / soft rock sites and away from
quakes reveals that a reasonable maximum value for the near fault sites, values for these Requirements are slightly
roof acceleration is four times the input ground accelera- higher at the roof than the previous Requirements, slightly
tion to the structure [Drake & Bachman, 1994, 1995, lower at mid-height, and about the same at grade. For sites
1996]. Figure C107-1 indicates the recorded data average on hard rock, soft soil, near large faults, or in lower seismic
and the recorded data average plus one standard deviation. zones, differences in Fp are principally attributable to the
Equation 107-2 approximates the recorded data average differences between the Ca factor in these Requirements
plus one standard deviation when the roof acceleration and the Z factor from the previous edition.
September 1999 129

The required anchorage forces, however, are signifi- When anchors are installed into “housekeeping” pads,
cantly higher when common shallow expansion anchors these pads should be adequately reinforced and positively
are used. This issue is being studied by BSSC Committee anchored to the supporting structural system.
TS-8 and may be modified in the near future.
C107.3 Specifying Lateral Forces
C107.2.3 Exterior Walls or Wall Panels. For exterior
As explained in Section C107.1.8, the design of equipment
walls or wall panels that have points of attachment at two
is usually not controlled by the engineer responsible for
or more different elevations, the loading normal to the wall
the structural design of the structure. To ensure under-
may be determined as follows. For the vertical span of a
standing of the required design basis, the specifications for
wall between two successive attachment elevations hx and
equipment should either specify design lateral forces pre-
hx+1, evaluate the seismic force coefficients Fp /Wp at each scribed by these Requirements, identify and reference
of the two points, observing the minimum and maximum these Requirements, or identify and reference other Re-
limits, and compute the average of the two values. The av- quirements to be used in lieu of these Requirements.
erage seismic coefficient times the unit weight of the wall
C107.4 Relative Motion of Equipment
provides the distributed load for the span between the
Attachments
given attachment points, and it should extend to the top of
any wall parapet above the roof attachment point at hr. A significant failure mechanism for items connected by
means of multiple attachment points to one or more struc-
For a single-story exterior wall, the seismic force co- tures is differential seismic motion of the attachment
efficient at the base is 0.7Ca Ip, and at the roof is 1.33CaIp. points. Thus, while current Requirements consider drift
An average value of 1.02Ca Ip applies to the unit weight of only for nonductile elements and special safety-related
the wall for the distributed load over the entire wall. equipment in all seismic zones, nonductile elements and
other important equipment in the higher seismic zones
Cantilever parapets that are part of a continuous ele-
should be evaluated for the effects of any significant dif-
ment should be separately checked for the required parapet
ferential seismic attachment point motions.
forces at the parapet centroid.
C107.2.4 Chemical and Adhesive Anchors. For the Differential seismic attachment point motions can oc-
purpose of these Requirements, chemical anchors are de- cur when equipment is connected to separate foundations;
fined as post-installed metal fasteners, which are inserted separate structures; separate substructures or floors within
into holes in concrete or masonry and held in place by an a structure; and on equipment, such as piping entering the
epoxy, resins, or other chemicals. Adhesive anchorages structure from the soil beneath or beside the structure. Val-
are defined as plates glued to surfaces such as computer ues for differential seismic attachment point motions may
access floor base plates. be provided or coordinated by the design professional hav-
ing overall design responsibility for the structure. It should
C107.2.5 Reduced Rp Value for Shallow Embedded be noted that the differential displacement is specified in
Anchors. The reduced Rp values, 1.5 for shallow em- terms of the maximum drift ∆ M , which may be as much as
bedment (post installed and cast) anchors, and 1.0 for ad-
twice as great as that previously specified.
hesive anchors are intended to account for poor anchor
performance observed after the Northridge earthquake. C107.5 UBC §1632.5 Alternative Designs
After the 1997 provisions were adopted in St. Paul, For some types of equipment, nonstructural components
ICBO Evaluation Services issued revised evaluation re- and elements of structures, there are national standards
ports severely limiting the use of post installed anchors to that are used to provide a basis for earthquake design or
resist wind or seismic forces until dynamic test criteria physical qualification. These Requirements do not pre-
were established to better ensure adequate performance. clude the use of such national standards, as long as the lat-
Revised Acceptance Criteria (AC01 and AC58) for expan- eral force, Fp, and overturning moment are not less than 80
sion-type and adhesive anchors now incorporate seismic percent of the values that would be obtained using these
qualification test procedures. Requirements. When using standards that are based on al-
lowable stress design, this factor would be 80/1.4=57 per-
Anchors in compliance with AC01 and AC58, includ- cent. The concern expressed by these Requirements is that
ing the seismic qualification testing, may warrant a higher some standards, based on insufficient seismic experience,
Rp value not to exceed the component under consideration, will not provide adequate protection from seismic hazards.
in consultation with and approval of the building official.
130 September 1999

However, it is not the intent to deny legitimate research or forth herein aid the dialogue between specifier/procurer
responsible national standards based on that research. and designer.
Examples of national standards for design and physi-
cal qualification include, but are not limited to:
C108 UBC §1633 Detailed Systems
1. American Water Works Association, Standard D100 Design Requirements
for Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, ANSI/ C108.1 General
AWWA D100-84 and D100a-89.
Detailing and material requirements are at least as impor-
2. American Petroleum Institute, Welded Steel Tanks for tant as those for force and displacement. For a given lateral
Oil Storage, API Standard 650, 9th Edition, 1993. force-resisting system, the level of the design forces is
3. American Concrete Institute, Recommended Practice based on the inelastic deformation capability of that sys-
for the Design and Construction of Concrete Bins, Si- tem. In order to provide this capability, it is necessary that
los and Bunkers for Storage of Granular Materials, the corresponding Requirements of this section are satis-
ACI-313R-1977 (Revised 1983). fied; failure to follow these Requirements invalidates the
4. Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors' National force formulas. Failure to follow all the provisions of these
Association, Guidelines for Seismic Restraints of Me- Requirements for any element can result in a brittle link in
chanical and Plumbing Systems, 1992. the structure and thereby compromise the stability of the
5. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE entire structure, possibly resulting in collapse or excessive
Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of damage.
Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating C108.1.1 Combined Vertical and Horizontal
Stations, IEEE Std. 344- 1987. Forces. Floor live loads and snow loads must be as-
6. National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 13, In- sumed to act concurrently with the seismic forces speci-
stallation of Sprinkler Systems, 1996. fied, since they are likely to be acting on members during
7. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME the earthquake. The seismic load combinations set forth in
A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, Section 101.7 include these effects. Roof live loads and
1993. design wind loads are not expected to be significant during
8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME the expected earthquake, and they are not considered to act
B31, Code for Pressure Piping, including addenda concurrently with the seismic loads.
through 1993. C108.1.2 Uplift Effects. Seismic loads are cyclic in
nature, producing both tension and compressive loads in
C107.6 Additional Comments
elements as they resist overturning forces. Consequently,
The seismic demands imposed on equipment are a func- the designer must consider both. This requirement for
tion of the ground shaking, the supporting structure, the overturning moment stability is satisfied by compliance
equipment attachment, and the equipment. Determination with the appropriate load combinations of Section 101.7.
of these demands is complex and requires a dialogue be-
tween equipment designer/manufacturer and structural en- As discussed in Commentary Section C105.2.1, the
gineer. In the nuclear power industry, seismic demands on seismic forces in the inelastic structure due to major earth-
equipment are determined by a complex dynamic analysis quake response are represented by the factor of Ω o times
of the structure that results in “floor” spectra. These specified forces. Therefore, while uplift may not be indi-
“floor” spectra then become part of the procedure to de- cated by the load combinations in Section 101.7.2 or 1.7.3,
velop equipment in typical structures. Hence, a more sim- it could occur due to the real earthquake loading effects. If
plified procedure is used herein where the demand is the consequences of this possible uplift would be detri-
determined more or less independently of the structural mental to the design objectives, the engineer should pro-
characteristics. This simplified method is more easily un- vide for tensile hold-down resistance for lateral forces
derstood and implemented by design professionals respon- greater than those specified.
sible for equipment design, e.g., mechanical and electrical However, most structures can undergo a limited
engineers and architects. amount to uplift without detrimental effects. In fact, a lim-
This Commentary should be referenced in any pro- ited amount of uplift can absorb a significant amount of re-
curement specifications. Use of common definitions as set sponse energy and thereby improve building performance.
September 1999 131

C108.1.2 Orthogonal Effects. These Requirements Where forces are applied concurrently in two orthog-
are intended to cover those loading conditions where dif- onal directions, the 5 percent displacement of the center of
ferent directional loadings could overstress members of mass as required by Section 105.6 should be applied for
the lateral force resisting system. This can occur where only one of the orthogonal directions at a time.
there is torsional irregularity, a nonparallel structural sys-
Both approaches for considering orthogonal effects
tem, or where a given member (usually a corner column)
are approximations. They were developed with consider-
is a part of intersecting lateral force resisting systems. Of
ation of results for a square building.
special concern are structures with plan irregularities that
can cause the structure to deform in a direction perpendic- C108.2 Structural Framing Systems
ular to the direction of input ground motion, and structures C108.2.1 No Commentary provided.
that do not have orthogonal lateral force resisting systems
C108.2.2 Detailing Requirements for Combinations
such as triangular shaped portions of buildings. The word
of Systems. The more restrictive detailing ensures that
orthogonal is used, since any horizontal loading can be
the component has the energy absorption capability re-
represented by two orthogonal components, one of which
quired for the system having the highest applicable value
can be chosen to be parallel to the principal axis of the
for R. Since the design requirements set upper limits on R,
structure.
a system can be designed with a few elements that have
C108.1.2.1 The exception recognizes that the error more capacity than others. Care must be exercised to en-
resulting from ignoring the orthogonal effects is accept- sure that elements of individual lateral force resisting sys-
ably small if the axial load in the column due to seismic tems do not become incompatible by adopting a smaller R
forces is small; using the Requirements in Section 108.1, for a preponderance of elements. For example, if the end
0.20 x Fax.3 = 0.06 x Fa corresponds to the maximum er- members of a two-bay frame have lower R values due to
ror that could occur. For strength design of reinforced con- their participation in other systems, then the other ele-
crete, this exception may be applied when the ments of the frame should be designed to the lower R value
load-factored axial load due to seismic forces is less than to preserve acceptable behavior of the frame system.
20 percent of the column axial strength. C108.2.3 Connections. In some geographical re-
While specific Requirements have been provided for gions, particularly those with low seismicity, a practice
columns, the designer should also consider orthogonal ef- has evolved that leaves the design and detailing of connec-
fects when critical members other than columns are sensi- tions to the fabricator or constructor (notwithstanding its
tive to orthogonal loadings. criticism by the American Society of Civil Engineers).
This practice is absolutely prohibited by this provision.
C108.1.2.2 Two methods for combining orthogo- Connection failures have been a common cause of severe
nal loadings are provided. The use of 100 percent of the damage and collapse in structures during past earthquakes.
member forces due to loads applied in one direction and 30 It is essential that the engineer design the connections and
percent of the member forces due to loads applied in the present the detailed requirements on the construction doc-
orthogonal direction is most likely to be used. It should be uments. Also, it is recommended that there be a thorough
noted that the terms can be positive and negative at differ- detailed review of the related connection details of manu-
ent times. factured elements when these are used within the struc-
The use of the SRSS methodology for combining or- tural system.
thogonal load effects is most likely to be implemented by C108.2.4 Deformation Compatibility. Commentary
computer. Here the squared values of effects in each of the Section C105.9 states that the structure's actual deforma-
two orthogonal directions are added and the square root of tion may be several times the displacements estimated
the sum is obtained. Note that for the case of modal re- from elastic action of the forces prescribed in these Re-
sponse spectrum analysis, the effects from each orthogo- quirements. Actual deformations are judged by SEAOC to
nal direction are the SRSS (or CQC) values of the be approximately 0.7RoRd times the elastic displacements
individual modal response values. Because the SRSS determined from prescribed seismic lateral forces. This
methodology loses the signs of the terms, use of its results factor may be unconservative in some circumstances (for
require great care, since knowledge about member equilib- example, very flexible frames with few internal partitions,
rium has been suppressed. or at locations of structural irregularity where concentra-
tions of inelastic behavior may occur) and should be in-
132 September 1999

creased when the engineer has reason to believe the transverse reinforcement of stirrup ties should not exceed
particular building warrants a higher value. The intent is to 0.003 inches per inch, and the shear strength of the mem-
provide an added degree of safety for members of the bers should be greater than that resulting from moments
framing system not specially detailed, so as to ensure that induced at the ends of the members by the displacements.
they can also withstand the anticipated deformation with- If the induced moments resulting from the magnified dis-
out losing vertical load-carrying capacity. placements exceed the moment capacity of the elements,
then inelastic behavior is required to accommodate the
Deformation compatibility provisions have been
loads and appropriate special detailing must be provided.
largely ignored by the design community. In the
See Appendix E for further discussion.
Northridge earthquake, deformation-induced damage to
elements considered not part of the design lateral force re- C108.2.4.1 Adjoining Rigid Elements. This is a
sisting system resulted in structural collapse. Damage to very important provision that should be applied, not only
elements of the lateral framing system, whose behavior to the frame elements that are not part of the designated
was affected by adjoining rigid elements, was also ob- lateral force resisting system, but to all structural elements
served. This has demonstrated a need for stronger and that support gravity loads. The adjoining rigid elements,
clearer provisions. such as stairways, sloping ramps, infill walls both at full
and partial story height, can restrict the flexibility of the
These Requirements emphasize the need for specific
structural element such that the imposed seismic deforma-
design and detailing of elements not part of the lateral
tions can cause actions beyond the strength of the element.
force resisting system to accommodate expected seismic
“Captive” or short column failures are an example that has
deformations. Ideally, deformation compatibility would
commonly occurred in past earthquakes. The actual,
be dealt with by improving design and detailing require-
as-built constraints or end conditions should also be repre-
ments on a material by material basis so that deformation
sented. For example, the original analysis may have as-
ductility is improved and an unrealistic calculation burden
sumed pinned-end conditions for columns, where the
is not placed on the design engineer. Concrete provisions
actual slab and/or beam framing details may create nearly
in the 1997 UBC provisions, as initially proposed by ACI
fixed-end conditions.
and PCA, take this approach for concrete systems.
It is also most essential to consider the possible added
The minimum deformation Requirement is intended
deformation effects due to flexible or deformable dia-
to address concerns that deformations in shear wall type
phragms. Assumed rigid diaphragm conditions may not be
structures are often significantly underestimated, largely
valid for large or irregular diaphragms responding in the
due to neglect of foundation softness and realistic element
inelastic range (see Appendix E).
properties in the cracked state. More guidance is offered
on computation of deformations, including the Require- C108.2.4.2 Exterior Elements. For determining
ment that “cracked section” stiffness values be used. The loading for panels attached at two or more height levels,
50 percent of gross section value is admittedly conserva- see Section C107.2.3. The listed Requirements 1 through
tive, but such conservatism was deemed appropriate by the 6 are to ensure that the connections do not fail and prevent
SEAOC Seismology Committee until further research is the element from carrying the applied loads.
performed. The designer can replace this value with a “ra- C108.2.5 Ties and Continuity. Requirements are
tional” analysis. Foundation flexibility and diaphragm de- given to ensure that all parts of the structure act as a unit
formation caused by cracking and inelastic behavior without localized separations, loss of support, or collapse.
should also be considered.
C108.2.6 Collector Elements. The collector (also
Beams and columns not part of the lateral force resist- called drag strut or drag element) includes the connections
ing system must be checked to confirm that they are capa- between the floor or roof diaphragms and the vertical shear
ble of resisting the stresses or strains induced by the resisting elements. It is important that these joints or con-
magnified displacement, including the effects of service nections be designed to prevent localized slip failure (or
vertical loads. For steel members, it is usually sufficient to rupture), which would in turn prevent inelastic energy dis-
determine that instability will not occur due to buckling sipation from developing in the lateral force resisting sys-
modes. The possibility of tensile rupture at points of stress tem as assumed. Particular attention to this problem is
concentrations, such as partial penetration welds, must required for post-tensioned slab connections to shear
also be investigated. For reinforced concrete members, walls, and for precast concrete floor and/or wall panel con-
compressive strains in columns or beams without special nections.
September 1999 133

It is required that collector elements and their connec- The computed design loads should be used for the full
tions be designed to have the strength to resist Ω o times length of the diaphragm. The 1991 and 1994 editions of
the UBC required a larger design loading in the center half
the specified seismic design forces. The purpose is to en-
of the diaphragm only. However, nonlinear analyses of
sure that inelastic energy dissipation occurs in the ductile
flexible roof diaphragms have determined [Harris, et al.,
lateral force resisting elements (frames, braces, walls)
1997] that this approach is unconservative because the
rather than in the collectors and connections.
flexible diaphragm is a shear yielding beam, not a flexural
C108.2.7 Concrete Frames. Previous editions of beam. Yielding of the diaphragm tends to create a some-
these Requirements required that concrete frames in re- what uniform pattern of maximum response along the
gions of strong seismicity have special details to resist lat- length of the diaphragm, rather than a clear peak in the
eral loads. This Requirement has certainly been justified center of the span. Second- and third-mode response of the
by damage to concrete frames experienced in the 1967 Ca- diaphragm also increases the anchorage force adjacent to
racas, Venezuela, 1971 San Fernando, 1985 Mexico City, the supports.
and other subsequent earthquakes. Adequate details are
now available for moderate seismic loading, Zone 2, and Elements of the wall anchorage system are intended to
are given for intermediate moment-resisting frames in resist brittle failure when subjected to the design accelera-
Chapter 19 of the 1997 UBC. tion level. If the expected acceleration of up to 4 times Ca
C108.2.8 UBC §1631.2.8 Anchorage of Concrete or
is compared to the design loading of Fp=2.0 Ca IpWp, it is
Masonry Walls. Many observed failures of concrete or apparent that a nominal material overstrength of approxi-
masonry walls in the 1971 San Fernando and the 1994 mately 2.0 is required. Material-specific load factors are
Northridge earthquakes (see Appendix F) were attribut- applied in order to accomplish this nominal overstrength
able to inadequate anchorage between the walls and roof throughout the wall anchorage system.
system. The previous observations were confirmed by re- Concrete Elements. The concrete elements of the
search [Bouwkamp et al., 1991; Celebi et al., 1989] and by wall anchorage system typically consist of the embedment
the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These Requirements are of the strap or bolt in the wall. The basic strength-level
added to correct this deficiency in former design practice. loading required in Section 108.2.8.1 is intended to be
C108.2.8.1 UBC §1633.2.8.1 Out-of-Plane Wall used to design the embedment. The capacity of the embed-
Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms. In response to nu- ment should be computed according to UBC §1923, which
merous wall anchorage failures in tilt-up and similar build- requires a load factor of 1.3 and a φ factor of 0.65. Com-
ings in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the wall bining these factors yields a nominal overstrength of
anchorage design provisions of the UBC were significant- 1.3/0.65 = 2.0. Where tabulated working-stress loads from
ly revised, beginning with the 1996 Supplement. The cur- a hardware manufacturer's catalog are used to design the
rent Requirements are intended to provide parity with the embedment, the design load should be divided by 1.4. The
1996 Supplement, but are expressed in the context of working-stress capacities tabulated are typically limited
strength design. Elements of the wall anchorage system by the “average ultimate” test value divided by 3.0. The re-
are required to be designed with ap=1.5 and Rp=3.0. For sulting nominal overstrength for the pullout would then be
elements at the roof level of a structure, this corresponds 3.0/1.4 = 2.14. Note that a one-third increase should not be
to Fp=2.0 Ca IpWp. applied to the tabulated capacity, since these tabulated val-
ues include a 33 percent increase for earthquake or wind
Note that these Requirements apply only to the an- loading.
chorage of walls to flexible diaphragms. The walls them-
selves should be designed according to Section 108.2.4.2 When double-sided connectors are used to avoid an-
with ap and Rp according to Table 16-O. chor eccentricity, the anchor bolts for each side are likely
to have a spacing that would result in overlapping pullout
The acceleration level implicit in the design is intend- cones in the concrete. This condition must be considered
ed to represent the maximum expected roof accelerations in the calculation of the anchor resistance.
of approximately 3 to 4 times the short-period ground ac-
Masonry Elements. The masonry elements of the
celeration Ca. These amplifications have been directly
wall anchorage system similarly consist of the embedment
measured in instrumented buildings and have been con- of the strap or bolt in the wall. Where tabulated working-
firmed by analyses [Celebi et al., 1989; Bouwkamp, et al., stress design is used for the embedment in masonry, the
1991; Harris et al., 1997].
134 September 1999

design load should be divided by 1.4. The allowable values single allowable-stress capacity for the component, which
given in UBC Table 21-E-1 for embedded bolts in mason- likely includes concrete (or masonry) steel and wood ele-
ry are approximately one-fifth of the expected failure load. ments. In order to properly apply the 1997 UBC require-
A 1/3 increase in capacity is allowed for working-stress ments, the design engineer must compute the capacity of
design. Thus, the nominal overstrength provided by the each component separately. The pullout value may be as-
design is (5.0/1.33)/1.4 = 2.7. sessed based on the reported “average ultimate” test value
reported in the catalog divided by 3.0. The nail or bolt val-
Steel Elements, Item 4. The steel elements of the
ues may be computed as specified in Chapter 23 of the
wall anchorage system typically consist of the anchor bolt
UBC. The steel capacity should be computed based on the
and the steel hold-down bracket or strap. The basic
specified gross and net areas of the steel element and ap-
strength-level loading required in Section 108.2.8.1 must
propriate values of Fy and Fu. Most wall anchorage hard-
be multiplied by a factor of 1.4 for the design of the steel
elements. The capacity of the steel elements should be ware is built with A446 grade A steel (Fy = 33, Fu = 45)
computed using standard steel design practices. If work- however the design engineer should verify this informa-
ing-stress design is used for the steel elements, the design tion with the manufacturer.
load should be divided by 1.4 (the 1.4 increase and de- Anchor Eccentricity. Wall anchors are often load-
crease then cancel each other). A 1/3 increase in capacity ed eccentrically, either because the anchorage mechanism
is allowed for working-stress design. For LRFD design, allows eccentricity, or because of anchor bolt or strap mis-
the resulting nominal overstrength for fracture of the net alignment. This eccentricity reduces the anchorage con-
section is 1.4/( φ =0.75) = 1.9. nection capacity and hence must be explicitly considered
Wood Elements, Item 5. The wood elements of the
in the design of the anchorage. Concentric designs are rec-
wall anchorage system typically consist of the wood fram- ommended (such as double-sided connections).
ing and the nails or bolts connecting the bracket or strap to Anchorage at Pilasters. The anchorage force at pi-
the wood. The basic strength-level loading required in lasters is to be calculated considering two-way bending in
Section 108.2.8.1 may be multiplied by a factor of 0.85 for the wall panels. It is customary to anchor the walls to the
the design of the wood elements. If working-stress design diaphragms assuming one-way bending and simple sup-
is used for the wood elements, the design load should be ports at the ground and roof. However, when pilasters are
divided by 1.4. A 1/3 increase in capacity is allowed for present in the walls, their stiffening effect must be taken
working-stress design. The 1996 edition of the AF&PA into account. Each panel between pilasters is supported on
LRFD Manual for Engineered Wood Construction four sides. The reaction at the pilaster top is the result of
[AF&PA, 1996] indicates that the nominal strength of con- the two-way action of the panel and is applied directly to
nectors in wood may be taken as 3.32 times the allowable the beam or girder anchorage to the top of the pilaster.
strength level given in manufacturers' catalogs or in the (Figure C108-1 shows the tributary area recommended for
UBC. The resulting nominal overstrength provided by the anchorage at pilasters, relative to that for a typical anchor
design is 3.32 x 0.85/1.4 = 2.0. point.) The anchor load at the pilaster is generally larger
Experimental data given in the Wood Handbook than the typical anchor load, which is based on the as-
shows that the behavior of slender wood connectors is sim- sumption that the distribution of load is uniform along the
ilar to that of a ductile material. However, connector be- length of the wall. It is recommended that the anchor
havior only remains ductile when the connection behavior points adjacent to the pilaster be designed for their full
is limited by yielding of the nails or bolts. In general, this tributary load, i.e., conservatively ignoring the stiffness of
will occur with all nails and with bolts that are long rela- the adjacent pilaster.
tive to their diameter. For Douglas Fir-Larch, this will oc- Ductile Anchorage Design. It is recommended that
cur when the wood member thickness is at least 4½ times the wall anchorage system be designed such that the brittle
the bolt diameter. It is recommended that bolt diameters be elements of the system (embedment in concrete, fracture
limited to maintain this minimum ratio. of steel at net sections) are always stronger than the ductile
Use of Proprietary Manufactured Hardware. The
elements (yielding of steel, or connections to wood). This
UBC requires that different loads be applied to the various will allow the system to withstand loading beyond the de-
materials involved in the wall anchorage system. Howev- sign-basis shaking without catastrophic failure.
er, most hardware manufacturer's catalogs provide only a
September 1999 135

Stiffness of Anchors. The wall anchorage system loads specified for concrete elements. Designers should
and all of its connections should have adequate stiffness to verify the validity of this approach by checking the factor
ensure that alternate load paths that may include cross- of safety specified for any specific product. In order to
grain tension are avoided. The SEAOSC/COLA Task maintain a nominal overstrength of 2.0 for the specified
force report [Nghiem, 1994] recommends that the defor- design loads, the minimum required safety factor (the ratio
mation of the wall anchorage system be limited to “well of ultimate to working-stress loads) would be 2.0 x 1.4 =
under one-half inch” at the design force level. This limita- 2.8. Additional data regarding the behavior of these an-
tion would include all elements of the system, including chors is available in Cook, et al., 1998.
anchor elongation, straightening of twisted straps, bolt slip
Construction Quality Assurance. In the
within holes in wood, etc. It is recommended that the steel
Northridge earthquake, it was observed that some instanc-
connectors be limited to 1/8- inch deformation at design
es of wall anchorage failure could be directly attributed to
loads, since many other sources of deformation are not
improper installations. The most common construction er-
quantifiable.
rors included twisted straps installed at extreme angles
Design of Anchors for Compression and from the horizontal, misaligned straps, poorly applied
Tension. Anchors should be designed to accommodate shims, and improperly drilled bolt holes. It is recommend-
both compression and tension. This may be accomplished ed that design engineers prepare details that are very ex-
by designing the anchor itself to resist both loading direc- plicit in describing the required installation and
tions, or by providing shims to allow the framing to resist dimensional tolerances. Owners should be advised to re-
the compressive loads. However, in the latter case, post- tain the services of the engineer to perform construction
construction shrinkage of the wood should also be consid- observation in order to best ensure that details are built as
ered. There is typically a gap between the edge of the ply- required.
wood and the concrete wall. If direct design for C108.2.9 Diaphragms. Most lateral force resisting
compressive loads is not accomplished, cross-grain bend- systems are composed of two distinct parts: the vertical
ing of the ledger may occur during compressive loading. system that transmits lateral forces between the levels of
Another concern is specific to strap-type connectors. If a the masses and the base of the structure, and a horizontal
thin strap is yielded (and stretched) under tensile loads and system that distributes lateral forces to the vertical ele-
is then subjected to compressive loads, it will buckle and ments.
will potentially be subject to low-cycle fatigue, leading to
failure. Note that if a cast-in-place embedded bolt (with a The horizontal system may consist of a diaphragm or
bolt-head or hook near the outside face of the wall) is em- a horizontal bracing system. For the majority of buildings,
ployed to resist compressive loading, an extra nut and diaphragms offer the most economical and positive meth-
washer should be provided on the inside face of the wall to od of resisting and distributing lateral forces in the hori-
prevent the bolt from punching through the outside face of zontal plane. The economy in utilizing a diaphragm is
the wall. It is recommended that compression in the con- obvious, since it is ordinarily included in a building to sup-
tinuous tie elements beyond the wall anchorage connec- port vertical loads. Further detailed discussion of dia-
tion should also be considered. phragms can be found in Celebi et al. [1989], and in the
ATC report on diaphragms [ATC-7, 1981].
Shallow Anchors, Nonductile Materials. Section
107.2 requires lower values of Rp to be employed for shal- A diaphragm may be regarded, in simplest terms, as a
low anchors, nonductile materials, etc. The intent of Sec- horizontal girder with several unique features. Like a gird-
tion 108.2.8.1 is that it is a stand-alone section and these er, it is composed of connected web and flange elements.
more restrictive requirements on Rp stated in Section 107.2 The web, or shear resisting element, is provided by the
floor or roof deck; chord or boundary members serve as
do not apply.
flanges to resist the axial tension or compression resulting
Use of Chemical Anchors. The UBC does not from flexural action. Also, like a girder, it transfers hori-
specify a design force level to be used with chemical an- zontal (in plane of web) loads to its supports (vertical re-
chors (drilled-in anchors that rely on epoxy or other chem- sisting elements). However, the girder analogy should not
ical adhesives, see C107.2.4). Considering that the factors be regarded as complete and should only be considered as
of safety employed by the manufacturers are typically an approximation. Diaphragms have special properties
close to 4 (for working stress design) it would be reason- compared to normal girders that must be considered in de-
able (and in most cases conservative) to apply the design sign, including:
136 September 1999

1. The span is usually very short relative to depth; there- boundary members are all considerations in addition to the
fore, plane sections are not likely to remain plane, strength and rigidity of the diaphragm. A prudent inspec-
contrary to the usual assumption in the analysis of tion program is recommended to ensure that diaphragm
bending. details will be properly constructed.
2. Web shear stresses and deflections due to shear are Selection of the type of diaphragm must consider,
relatively more significant than stresses and deflec- among other issues, its interaction with the vertical resist-
tions due to flexural action. ing system. In lowrise concrete or masonry buildings, de-
3. The diaphragm's components (flange, web, and con- flections that can cause secondary failures in structural and
nection devices) often are made of different materials. nonstructural walls should be considered. For taller struc-
The “flanges” may be the walls normal to the direction tures that have vertical resisting elements that will deflect
of loading of the diaphragm, and the “flange” forces at significantly, it is important that a rigid diaphragm or brac-
the midspan of the diaphragm would be progressively ing system be used to distribute the horizontal forces, since
diminished by the reduction in bending moment to- a more flexible system could permit elements of the resist-
ward the diaphragm ends. It is intended that the chord ing system to vibrate out of phase with each other.
or boundary members that resist these “flange” forces
be located near the vicinity of the plane of the dia- As discussed in Section C105.9, deformations sub-
phragm. stantially larger than those corresponding to the specified
design forces can occur due to major earthquake ground
4. Relative and absolute deflections under prescribed lat-
motion. For elements necessary for support of gravity
eral loading are often important design limitations.
loads, the engineer should consider the ability of these at-
Diaphragms may be designed and constructed of tached elements to sustain loads at the ∆ M deformations.
many different materials: concrete, gypsum, metal, wood,
combinations of materials, and other tested and approved Item 2 Diaphragm Forces. The actual seismic
proprietary systems. They may have flat, inclined, curved, loading in the plane of a diaphragm includes the distribut-
warped, or folded configurations and may have openings. ed inertia force equal to the response acceleration at the
level of the diaphragm times its distributed mass. Equation
The diaphragm may function as a very stiff element, a
108-1 gives the recommended approximate method for de-
very flexible element or somewhere between, depending
termining the resultant of this distributed loading for the
upon its physical properties and those of the vertical resist-
purposes of design. The prescribed lower limit prevents
ing system. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the di-
the effective diaphragm design force coefficient from be-
aphragm deflection relative to the deflections of the
ing less than the building base shear coefficient. The de-
associated vertical resisting elements. Likewise, a knowl-
tails of diaphragms are generally independent of the type
edge of absolute deflections of diaphragms is necessary to
of lateral force resisting system selected for a building;
achieve drift control and thereby reduce damage potential.
therefore, the system R factor does not appear in the upper
Item 1 Deflections. Concrete diaphragm deflec- and lower limit formulas of Requirements Section 108.2.9,
tions (both shear and flexural) may be determined by the Item 2.
usual mechanics of materials analyses that include all the
The upper and lower limits are based on consideration
elastic properties of the diaphragm and chord. Deflections
of higher mode responses at various levels of the structure
for diaphragms of metal, wood, composite materials and
and were selected consistent with the forces, Fp, assigned
proprietary items are generally established by empirical
formulas determined by tests and analytical studies. The to other elements. The diaphragm must also be designed to
empirical formulas account for connection distortion, con- transfer the concentrated shear forces from vertical resist-
nection pattern, vertical load span, and other properties ing elements above the diaphragm to vertical resisting el-
that contribute to the overall diaphragm flexibility and that ements below the diaphragm whenever there are changes
cannot be confidently predicted by a normal analytical ap- either in rigidities or in the lateral location of these ele-
proach. ments. Where a discontinuity in a vertical resisting ele-
ment occurs at a diaphragm level, the redistribution of the
Particular care is needed in the design of the details of force from the element above the diaphragm to the ele-
diaphragms. Connections between diaphragms and the ments below the diaphragm shall be provided for in addi-
vertical resisting elements, construction joints, the effect tion to the force Fpx.
of openings and re-entrant angles, and continuity of
September 1999 137

The reliability/redundancy factor, ρ , may be taken as Item 4 Diaphragm Ties. After the 1971 San
equal to 1.0 for the seismic load effects in the diaphragm Fernando earthquake, extensive damage was observed to
due to Fpx. However, when the diaphragm is required to low buildings having flexible diaphragms and rigid walls
transfer design seismic forces from the vertical-resisting of concrete or masonry. The Requirements for continuous
elements above the diaphragm to other vertical-resisting ties between the diaphragm chords and for positive an-
elements below the diaphragm due to offset in the place- chorage between the diaphragm and walls were a result of
ment of the elements or to changes in stiffness in the ver- these observations. The concept of a subdiaphragm or
tical elements, the resulting transfer loads shall be minidiaphragm, within the full diaphragm, has been al-
lowed to reduce the length and number of ties required to
determined by Equation 105-1 using the ρ factor for the
achieve continuity between chords. As written in these Re-
vertical lateral force-resisting system. The basis for this in- quirements, ties need only extend from the wall anchorage
terpretation is that forces in addition to Fpx in the dia- point to the chord of the subdiaphragm. However, there is
phragm are essentially those of the vertical lateral force- strong evidence from recent earthquakes that this may not
resisting system that are subject to the reliability/redun- provide adequate development length to resist the real an-
dancy factor ρ . chorage forces. The depth of the subdiaphragm should
therefore be large enough to allow full transfer of the pre-
Consideration also should be given to preventing in-
scribed anchorage force by development into the sheath-
elastic behavior in the transfer portion of the diaphragm
ing. The required length-to-width ratio of 2-1/2:1 is
when its section proportions and reinforcing details are not
intended to achieve this transfer.
equivalent to those of the shear walls.
The subdiaphragm, which must meet all prescribed
Item 3 The R values for structural systems have typ-
criteria for diaphragms, is considered to span between con-
ically been selected based on the characteristics of vertical
tinuous ties of the main diaphragm or to sidewalls, but the
elements of the gravity and lateral force-resisting systems
interdependent deflection between the subdiaphragm and
including walls, frames, and bracing systems. For some
the main diaphragm may be ignored. The subdiaphragm
classes of structures—those with relatively rigid vertical
must have the shear capacity to resist the loads resulting
elements in the lateral force-resisting system but flexible
from wall anchorage. Further discussion of the subdia-
diaphragms—recent research has demonstrated that the re-
phragm concept is found in the Commentary to Chapter 8,
sponse of the system and a significant portion of the in-
Wood.
elastic energy dissipation occurs in with the flexible
diaphragm elements. Many lowrise commercial and in- Item 5 No Commentary provided.
dustrial buildings, including masonry and concrete wall
Item 6 Plan Irregularity. This provision does not
buildings with wood diaphragms, are of this type.
apply to plywood edge nailing but does apply to anchor
Historically, such buildings have been designed using bolts and other connections of the diaphragm. Plywood
restrictive R values based on the relatively limited ductility edge nailing values from UBC tables 23-I-J-1 and 23-I-J-2
of these bearing wall systems. With the introduction of the may be used directly. For strength design, this Require-
ductile masonry wall frame system, it is likely that many ment may be satisfied by the use of a load factor of 1.33
such buildings will be designed with ductile vertical ele- for seismic load E.
ments while using the same diaphragm systems that have
Item 7 Re-Entrant Corners. Movement or canti-
contributed to past poor performance. Similar structures
lever deformation of the projecting wings of the dia-
could be constructed using special moment-resisting con-
phragm may be controlled by shear walls or braced frames
crete frames as the vertical elements. In order to encourage
at the ends of the wings. These resisting elements should
the use of the improved detailing practice for the vertical
be relatively rigid with respect to the diaphragm, such that
elements, an adjustment in the R value for structures with
the diaphragm wing is supported by an end wall or brace
masonry wall frames was adopted. However, to limit the
element and the parallel collector or resisting element at
inelastic demands on the flexible diaphragms, these ele-
the re-entrant corner.
ments must still be designed using the more restrictive val-
ues commonly used in the past. Therefore, a limiting value Exception: The exception may be used if the
of RdRo = 4 is to be used in proportioning wood dia- three-dimensional model includes a representation of
phragms that support concrete or masonry walls. the diaphragm flexibility. A model that employs a rig-
id diaphragm condition will not provide the response
138 September 1999

of the projecting wings and their response amplifica- pounding are detailed to retain vertical load-carrying capa-
tion effects. bility if they are damaged.
C108.2.10 Framing Below the Base. The objective
of this section is to ensure that the structural system below C109 UBC §1634 Nonbuilding
the base has adequate ductility and capacity to develop the Structures
forces and deformations induced by the structure above.
C109.1 General
Without such requirements, there is a possibility of major
damage. For buildings utilizing special moment-resisting Nonbuilding structures are structures that generally do not
frames, braced frames or shear wall systems, the framing have the features of buildings, but come under the purview
from the base to the foundation must have the same degree of building officials. Examples of these types of structures
of special detailing or have significantly greater capacity include tanks, pipeways, and storage racks. The specific
than the framing above the base. Consideration should be types, however, can vary among jurisdictions. Some struc-
given to development of the full capacity of the framing tures, although not buildings, have features similar to
above the base. Columns supporting special moment-re- buildings. These are referred to as “building-like struc-
sisting frames should have the same details as the columns tures.” Examples include pipe racks and multi-level equip-
above the base level; and the beams of these frames at the ment service platforms. Certain structures are specifically
base level should have the same details as the beams above exempt from local review and therefore are not considered
the base. Shear walls continuing below the base should in this section. These include, but are not limited to: off-
have the same boundary element details as the wall ele- shore platforms, wharves, electrical transmission towers,
ment immediately above the base. Columns below the dams, and highway and railroad bridges.
base supporting discontinuous shear walls or braced C109.1.1 Scope. Nonbuilding structures are defined
frames are subject to the load and detail Requirements of as self-supporting structures (i.e., not supported by other
Section 105.8.2.2. structures) that carry gravity loads and resist earthquake
Overturning effects must be carried into the founda- forces.
tions and the structural elements of the foundation should Many nonbuilding structures support nonstructural
have the strength to develop either the capacity of the sup- items that can weigh significantly more than the weight of
ported elements or the maximum forces that would occur the structure. These nonstructural items are considered
in the fully yielded structural system. (See Commentary to flexible when their fixed base period T is greater than 0.06
Chapter 3 for further discussion of the foundation and re- seconds. Special consideration is required for these condi-
lated soil conditions.) tions.
C108.2.11 Building Separations. Building separa- The primary change to the nonbuilding structure re-
tion is the distance between two adjoining buildings, or quirement was to convert the force reduction factors from
parts of the same building, with or without frangible clo- an allowable stress basis to a strength basis. This conver-
sures. Its purpose is to permit adjoining buildings, or parts, sion was effectively accomplished by dividing the previ-
to respond to earthquake ground motion independently. ous Rw factors by 1.4. The R factors were also split with
The effects of building impacts (or pounding) have been
the overstrength factor (Ro) taken as 1.8 and the ductility
observed in all recent major and moderate earthquakes.
factor (Rd) adjusted to obtain parity with the previous val-
A separation of the combined design displacements of
ues. The Rd values range from 1.2 to 2.0. This compares
the two units or buildings given by Equation 108-2 would
appear to be appropriate until further studies are complet- with a range of 1.2 to 3.4 for building structures. Because
ed. Seismic separation is critical for the design of new limited redundancy of nonbuilding structures had already
buildings adjacent to existing ones. Since the specific dy- been accommodated in the Rd factor, the redundancy fac-
namic behavior of the existing building usually is un- tor ( ρ ) is taken as unity.
known, the engineer should be conservative in estimating
its motion. Pounding is particularly important in cases The minimum value of 0.56CaIW is equivalent to the
where adjacent structures have diaphragms at different minimum value of and is obtained as follows:
levels. Special care must be taken to protect elements of C
V min = ZI  ------ W = ZI ( 0.40 )W
the lateral force resisting system from damage due to  R w min
pounding and to ensure that elements potentially subject to
September 1999 139

( V s ) min = 1.4V min = 1.4ZI ( 0.40 )W C109.1.2.1 Criteria other than those included in
the Requirements in Section 109 may be applicable to non-
Since Ca replaces Z in the current base shear equation, building structures. The engineer is expected to review the
substituting Ca for Z yields: parameters related to these criteria to ensure that they are
applicable to features of the nonbuilding structures.
( V s ) min = 1.4C a I ( 0.40 )W = 0.56C a IW
C109.1.2.2 Specific standards may be available for
Eqn. C109-2a some types of nonbuilding structures that are more appro-
Alternatively, a response spectrum analysis that in- priate for the given application than those in Requirements
cludes consideration of the actual ground motion anticipat- Section 109. An approved standard is one that has been
ed at the site may be used. The definition of the “actual formally adopted for general use by an appropriate nation-
ground motion at the site” may be taken as the site spec- al organization and is based on fundamental principles of
trum shape in Figure 104-2 or a site-specific spectrum hav- earthquake engineering practice. It should be noted that
ing a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. such a standard must also satisfy the limitations of Section
Note that the Figure 104-2 spectrum shape is for a 109.5, Item 3. Examples of such standards include AW-
5 percent damping factor. WA, 1984 and 1986; ACI, 1983 and 1989.
C109.1.3 Weight W. The mass of the operating con-
In general, the R values assigned to nonbuilding struc-
tures are less than those assigned to buildings. This is be- tents can be substantial for many types of nonbuilding
cause buildings tend to have structural redundancy due to structures, and can be the major contributor to seismic
multiple bays and frame lines and contain nonstructural loads. It is necessary, therefore, that the operating contents
and nonconsidered resisting elements that effectively pro- be considered in addition to the dead load. The mass, type,
vide greater damping and strength during strong ground and location of contents may vary in time. The locations
motion response. Hence, nonbuilding structures generally and masses used for design should be that distribution,
have lower lateral force resisting capacities than buildings. from among those possible, that is most critical for the spe-
The assumed lower capacity level inherent in the values of cific structure. This is to ensure that seismic performance
Table 104-8, however, should not be taken for granted. is satisfactory for all operational use conditions of the
The structural engineer, therefore, must evaluate the seis- structure.
mic response characteristics of the specific structure to de- C109.1.4 Period. The period calculated by use of
termine if a more conservative R value is appropriate for Equation 105-8 is intended for buildings, and does not ap-
design. ply to structural systems that differ from usual building
configurations and characteristics. Therefore, for non-
The vertical distribution of the lateral seismic forces
building structures, Method B procedures should be used
may be determined by the static or dynamic lateral force
(see Requirements Section 105.2.2), and the resulting
procedures. Some nonbuilding structures are distinctly
value of base shear is not subject to the 77 and 71 percent
different than building structures. Consequently, determi-
limit value of base shear from Method A. It is intended that
nation of vertical force distribution may become very dif-
the use of this base shear without the limit value should ap-
ficult. In such cases, computer methods may be the only
ply to both nonbuilding and building-like structures. How-
alternative available to obtain a realistic force distribution.
ever, the calculated period should be representative of the
Such analyses will also identify critical areas where ductil-
structural behavior and should not result in inappropriately
ity demand may be concentrated, and it is essential that ad-
low design loads. The fundamental period of the structural
equate ductility be provided at these locations. These
system must include consideration of the contents. It
reasons led to the exception in Requirements Section
should be determined by rational methods that consider
109.5, which require irregular nonbuilding structures in
the stiffness and mass of the structure and the effective
Occupancy Categories I and II to be analyzed using dy-
mass(es) of any operating contents. Two distinct funda-
namic analysis procedures, regardless of their height.
mental periods may need to be determined for some non-
C109.1.2 Criteria. The design lateral forces for nonbuilding structures. For example, with tanks, ground
building structures are specified at a strength level, consis- motion may induce sloshing of the fluid, as well as a cou-
tent with the Requirements for building structures. Like pled structure-fluid interaction.
building structures, these earthquake loads may also be
C109.1.5 Drift. Drift limitations for building struc-
used with allowable stress design in accordance with the
tures serve to control both P-delta effects and nonstruc-
load combinations of Section 101.7.3.
140 September 1999

tural (including glazing) damage potential. Since drift C109.4 No Commentary provided.
sensitive nonstructural elements are not present in most C109.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures
nonbuilding structures, SEAOC considers such limits as
overly restrictive. Therefore, building drift limitations of There are a number of nonbuilding structures in common
Requirements Section 105.9 may be exceeded provided use that have special characteristics. The following guide-
that P-delta effects of actual drifts (see Commentary Sec- lines address some of the items to be taken under consid-
tion C105.1.3) are considered in the design. However, if eration when designing these structures.
actual drifts are within the limits of Requirements Section C109.5.1 Tanks. Tanks are structures used for the
105.9, the P-delta effects need not be considered. For ele- storage of liquids. Tanks can be supported at or below
ments whose failure would cause life safety hazards, drift grade, on skirts, on pedestals, or on braced or unbraced
limits should be set to preclude element failure when sub- legs.
jected to the design forces multiplied by Ω 0 and design In the design of tanks, the lateral force V may be dis-
displacements are based on ∆ M . tributed according to the distribution of the mass. Alterna-
tively, the effect of sloshing on mass distribution can be
C109.2 Lateral Force considered by assuming that part of the mass of the con-
Nonbuilding structures that are similar to building struc- tents moves in unison with the motion of the tank, and part
tures should be designed using the appropriate R values of is assumed to move with its own frequency of vibration.
Table 104-6. The rationale for the exception regarding the This sloshing method tends to reduce the calculated lateral
use of intermediate moment-resisting frames may be ex- loads and overturning movements [U.S. AEC, 1963].
plained as follows: the size of nonbuilding frame struc- Tanks with supported bottoms founded at or below
tures often is not governed by traditional loadings. Rather, grade can be designed to resist the seismic forces as calcu-
their size may be controlled by the footprint of the equip- lated in accordance with Requirements Section 109.3 or by
ment they support, vibration limitations, or other opera- any other approved method. All tanks with supported bot-
tional considerations. In many cases, the resulting toms should be anchored to the foundation, and tanks with
building-like nonbuilding structures are much stronger a height-to-diameter ratio greater than 1.5 will normally
than required. Therefore, their ductility demand is gener- need anchor bolts to resist overturning. Often large diam-
ally much lower than a corresponding building structure. eter tanks need to be anchored to prevent local lifting and
For this reason, these Requirements allow the use of inter- dropping of the wall, which can cause the deformation
mediate moment-resisting frames (IMRF) in certain appli- known as the “elephant foot” buckling. A method for de-
cations in Zones 3 and 4, provided that R=2.6 termining the forces to be resisted can be found in API
(corresponding to low ductility demand during severe [1988]. The anchors need not be designed for shear forces
earthquake ground motion) is used for design. that result from the seismic motion. The shear resistance to
C109.3 Rigid Structures seismic lateral load on large tanks not subject to “walking”
may be considered to be provided by the frictional resis-
Rigid structures do not amplify the earthquake ground mo-
tance of the base course against the foundation, provided
tions, and the response accelerations are nearly the same as
that the integrity of the tank and its attached piping will not
the ground accelerations. The coefficient of 0.7 specified
be adversely damaged as a result of sliding. Piping and
for the rigid structures in Equation 109-1 thus corresponds
other appurtenances should be attached to the tank with
to an R factor of 1.5, (if the spectral acceleration is taken
sufficient flexibility to prevent unacceptable damage to the
as the peak ground acceleration), implying that rigid struc-
tank or attached appurtenance as a result of seismic in-
tures have some inherent overstrength, ductility, and a ca-
duced movement such as ovaling, sliding, and/or uplift.
pacity to absorb energy. This is reasonable considering the
expected strength of rigid structures under seismic condi- A horizontal tank should be anchored to at least one of
tions. The widely used and codified standard details in the the piers. If anchorage is provided at only one end, it
steel and concrete structures have shown inelastic defor- would be appropriate to take “credit” for friction at the pier
mation capability in excess of the demand. at the free end in determining the overturning and shear
forces on the pier where anchorage is provided. Similarly,
the free end should also be evaluated for shear and over-
turning effects due to “friction.”
September 1999 141

It is only necessary to use an I factor greater than 1.0 In the transverse direction, if the bents are steel, they
when the contents of the tank are acutely hazardous, safe- are normally designed as ordinary moment-resisting
ty-related (i.e. nonredundant fire water supply), or when frames (R=4.5) for the seismic lateral loads. If made of
directed otherwise by the owner of the tank. In the State of concrete, they would normally be designed as intermediate
California materials that are considered acutely hazardous moment-resisting frames (R=2.8).
have been identified [OES, 1989]. For example, ammonia,
In the longitudinal direction, pipe racks are normally
benzene, and hydrofluoric acid are acutely hazardous; gas-
braced intermittently. In these cases, an R=5.6 would be
oline, and similar products are not.
used. Concrete braced frames are not permitted in seismic
C109.5.2 Bins and Silos. Bins and silos are struc- Zones 3 and 4 (Table 104-7). Therefore, in these zones,
tures used for storing solids, e.g., powder and granular ma- concrete pipe racks have to be designed as intermediate
terials. Silos are by definition tall bins. In bins and silos, moment-resisting frames in both directions.
the lateral forces are mitigated by friction in the material
stored in the bin. Research has shown the equivalent vis- Small pipe racks may be designed as individual verti-
cous damping may be as much as 20 percent. Also, the cal “T” supports. In these cases, a value for R=2.2 is appro-
center of gravity can be considered at the center of mass priate.
rather than at the centroid of the more familiar triangular For earthquake loading, the bents are designed for the
distribution [ACI, 1983]. full contributing weight of the pipes and their contents in
Table 104-8 assigns a value of R=2.9 to almost all the transverse direction. In the longitudinal direction, a
bins, including silos, hoppers, and bunkers, but line two similar approach is acceptable, but may be too conserva-
permits a larger value of R (R=3.6) for cast-in-place con- tive. For a more realistic design, the friction forces be-
crete silos with walls that extend down to the foundation. tween the pipes and sliding supports may be deducted in
Even though R=3.6 is not intended to apply to silos sup- computing the longitudinal anchor support load. If the pipe
ported on columns, it is applicable to silos, in which the is not anchored, the seismic force need not exceed the
vertical loads are carried in part by columns directly under maximum pipe friction force. No more than 10 spans need
the silo, and the seismic shear is resisted by cast-in-place be considered as tributary to a longitudinal support design.
concrete walls meeting the Requirements of entry 2 in Ta- Alternatively, a dynamic analysis may be performed tak-
ble 104-8. This higher value of R applies only to ing into account the fluid properties of the pipe contents.
cast-in-place concrete silos, and does not apply to silos of C109.5.4 Structures With Heavy Loads. There is a
other materials or to precast (staved) concrete silos. The wide range of structures in which the weight of the equip-
bottom of the silo need not be at grade. The only requirement is significant compared to the weight of the structure.
ment for use of R=3.6 is that the base shear resisting wall Four discrete cases must be considered.
be continuous and be without discontinuities in strength or 1. The weight of the equipment is less than 25 percent of
stiffness and not have concentrations of strength or ductil- the weight of the supporting structure, and the equip-
ity demand. R=3.6 should not be used if: ment is rigid.
1. The lower silo support wall has excessive openings 2. The weight of the equipment is less than 25 percent of
(i.e., greater than 20 percent of the perimeter at a given the weight of the supporting structure, and the equip-
level) so as to behave like an irregular structure in a ment is flexible.
seismic event. 3. The weight of the equipment is greater than 25 percent
2. The silo does not have adequate vertical reinforce- of the weight of the supporting structure, and the
ment that is properly anchored to the foundation. equipment is rigid.
C109.5.3 Pipe Racks. Pipe racks, alternately called 4. The weight of the equipment is greater than 25 percent
pipe ways, are major structures that consist of a series of of the weight of the supporting structure, and the
bents, usually interconnected, carrying one or more levels equipment is flexible.
of pipe and/or electrical conduit commonly found in in-
When a flexible nonstructural item with significant
dustrial facilities. The space beneath the pipe rack is nor-
weight interacts with the supporting structure, it may in-
mally left clear for vehicle and pedestrian access. They are
duce amplified seismic forces in the supporting structure.
made either of steel or concrete, the former being the most
Therefore, to account for these interaction effects, it is rec-
common.
ommended that flexible equipment with weights more
142 September 1999

than 25 percent of that of the supporting structure be prop- storage rack design provisions were originally intended for
erly analyzed considering the dynamic interaction. racks located in low occupancy warehouses. The increased
use of racks in stores open to the public suggests more con-
Methods for calculating the lateral load V for each of
servative provisions are appropriate. Note that some re-
these cases are shown in Figures C109-1 and C109-2. In
duction in live load is permitted, unlike for most other
the fourth case, R may alternatively be computed using the
nonbuilding structures, where W includes all normal oper-
formula:
ating contents. This reduction acknowledges that it is typ-
R s K s D 2s + R e K e D 2e ically unlikely that all levels of a rack will be loaded
R = -------------------------------------------------
- Eqn. C109-1 simultaneously in all bays. If such loading is possible, 100
K s D 2s + K e D 2e
percent of the live load should be used. Some reduction in
where Rs and Re are the R values for the support structure load is also believed appropriate because the stored items
and the equipment respectively, and Ks and Ke are the re- are not typically attached to the supporting support beams,
spective stiffnesses of the support structure and the equip- and it is judged that the total live load will not contribute
ment. Ds and De are the relative displacements at the to any response at the fundamental frequency of the rack
system.
center of mass of the support structure and the equipment
respectively, resulting from a force distribution given by The discussion of the low R value for nonbuilding
the equation: structures relative to building structures due to low redun-
dancy does not apply to all installations, some of which are
Wx hx
F x = ----------------- Eqn. C109-2 highly redundant. Often racks are arranged in
∑ iWi h i back-to-back rows with a large number of bays in the lon-
gitudinal direction. Certainly these racks are highly redun-
C109.5.5 Storage Racks. Storage racks are typically
mass-produced elements that are assembled on site. The dant in the longitudinal direction, and have some
geometry and strength requirements are quite varied, and redundancy in the transverse direction, depending on how
standard components are mixed appropriately to provide the adjacent rows are interconnected. However, the same
the required performance. Many racks are made of rela- rack components can be used to assemble a single bay, sin-
tively slender or cold formed elements, which require spe- gle row rack that has no redundancy.
cial evaluation procedures. Machine-loaded storage racks The low R value reflects the lowered ductility of the
are typically quite heavy and are supported by a typical rack structure, which is often snapped together and
slab-on-grade. Racks supported by a building structure are braced with slender cold-formed elements with little in-
by definition not nonbuilding structures, and should either elastic reserve. Connection strength and stiffness are usu-
be designed using the Requirements of Section 107, or ally determined by testing, and are fairly consistent within
should be carefully investigated for dynamic interaction, types. The behavior of these unique elements must be con-
preferably in conjunction with the design of the building sidered in any dynamic analysis. For this reason, a storage
itself. This Commentary does not address storage rack is almost always a Type 2 or 3 structure (or semi-rig-
“rack-supported buildings.” “Rack-supported buildings,” id, as defined by UBC §2208 et seq, Division III). Unusual
are essentially racks with cladding and a roof added. The or slender racks should be investigated more carefully,
normal procedure is to design these structures as storage particularly for P-delta effects, which can be considerable
racks with due consideration of the unique seismic behav- in Zones 3 and 4 when unsupported lengths exceed about
iors possible as noted below, as well as normal environ- 40 times the column dimension perpendicular to the bend-
mental loads such as wind and snow. ing axis.
The design of free standing (i.e., not supported by an- As an acceptable alternative to the use of the Require-
other structure that filters the seismic accelerations) stor- ments of Section 109.5, storage racks can be designed us-
age racks per Requirements Section 109 is appropriate for ing UBC §2222 et seq., Div. X, subject to the restriction
the typical configuration of selective, drive-in, and canti- that the value of Cv /RT not be less that 0.7Ca in UBC for-
lever racks if W is determined by including at least two- mula 30-4 and 2.5/R taken equal to 0.70 in UBC formula
thirds of the rated capacity in the base shear computation. 30-5. The standard allows for the design of racks that are
This is an increase with respect to previous versions of interconnected such that there are a minimum of four col-
these Requirements, reflecting the relatively poor perfor- umns in any direction on each column line using a reduced
mance of some racks in recent earthquakes. In addition, load of 50 percent of the rack-rated capacity. In order to
September 1999 143

take advantage of this reduction, the connection between C110-C111 Reserved

columns of adjacent racks must be capable of resisting the
shear required to provide coupled flexural action of the C112 UBC §3400 Existing
racks.
Structures
The engineer should be cognizant of the fact that stor- There are no clear criteria in the UBC on how to repair
age racks are easily reconfigured, which may result in con- buildings and structures damaged in earthquakes. Building
figurations substantially different than those intended by officials are left with either having to interpret “repairs” in
the engineer. The engineer should also recognize that a the UBC definition section to include damage from the
typical owner may not be sophisticated enough to accu- event, or taking the time to develop a repair ordinance for
rately estimate the loads to which the racks may be sub- adoption by their jurisdiction. According to UBC §219, re-
jected. Some conservatism in design loads may be pair is defined as, “. . . the reconstruction or renewal of any
appropriate. part of an existing building for the purpose of its mainte-
Past storage rack failures in earthquakes have resulted nance.” This provision is difficult to apply to a building
from poor construction procedures and overloading. Poor damaged by a disaster. Further, UBC §3403 does not give
installation of expansion anchors is common. In large in- guidance on the repairs required.
stallations, especially in areas where public access is per- When federal assistance is available, federal regula-
mitted, the engineer should consider establishing a testing tions require that repair requirements be adopted and in
and/or inspection program for bolts required to act in ten- place prior to the beginning of work so that the assistance
sion. will apply to the developed criteria. If the requirements are
C109.5.6 Vertical Vessels. Ductile response for ver- not put in place in a timely fashion, federal assistance pro-
tical vessels is achieved through inelastic stretching of the vided will be limited to simply restoring the building to its
anchor bolts. In order to ensure that ductile response is pre-event condition. Repairs to this level simply leave the
achieved by way of anchor bolt stretching, the anchor bolts building vulnerable to repeat damage from future events.
should be designed so that the concrete embedment is sub-
The criteria contained in these Requirements are
stantially stronger than the forces required to stretch the
based on a memorandum of understanding between the
bolt. A procedure such as described in Appendix B of ACI
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the
349 [ACI, 1985] may be used to design anchor bolt em-
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) devel-
bedments to ensure full bolt capacity and a ductile failure
oped shortly after the Northridge earthquake. By this
mode. The bolt lengths and patterns should be designed so
memorandum, FEMA agreed to fund repairs to public
that the total energy of bolt stretching beyond yield under
buildings to this level, as a minimum, unless the jurisdic-
seismic and other forces is consistent with the energy ab-
tion had adopted by ordinance other standards for repair.
sorption level needed to achieve the specified level of duc-
In many cases, jurisdictions accepted this criteria and
tility for the overall structure. The integrity of the bolts
eliminated the need to pass specific repair ordinances.
should be checked for deformations at least Ω 0 times Available guidelines for building evaluation, repair, and
those developed under design forces. retrofit include:
C109.5.7 Other Structures. Some nonbuilding n “Earthquake Evaluation and Design for Retrofit of
structures, such as concrete pedestal type structures, may Existing State-Owned Buildings,” California
inherently be so strong in some cases that they will remain Building Code, Division III-R, Sacramento,
in the elastic range, even during maximum ground motions California, 1997.
anticipated at the site. The engineer may use an ordinary n NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
space frame design, provided an R=1 is used for the design Buildings, FEMA 273, Federal Emergency
loading by the same logic that permits IMRF. However, it Management Agency, Washington DC, 1998.
is recommended that the engineer always include some n Uniform Code for Building Conservation, UCBC,
ductile capacity. In this case, it is necessary to provide for International Conference of Building Officials,
continuity and development of longitudinal reinforcing Whittier, California, 1994.
and to provide sufficient transverse reinforcement to avoid n Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
brittle shear and/or development failures. Buildings, ATC-40. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California, 1997.
144 September 1999

C113–C149 Reserved Section 155.4.2 Time Histories. This section has

been reworded to clarify the intent of the Requirements
pertaining to the establishment of site-specific ground mo-
tion time histories. Simulated ground motion time histo-
C150 UBC §1654 General ries are now allowed in situations where an adequate
Requirements for number of appropriate actual ground motion records can-
Seismic-Isolated Structures not be found for the site in question. These simulated time
histories must satisfy the same criteria applicable to natu-
C150.1 Important Changes in the 1999
ral records when judging their validity and appropriateness
Blue Book Seismic Isolation
for the site and are also subject to independent review per
Requirements
Requirements Section 160. The time period range for the
The revisions in the seismic isolated structures design reg- required matching of spectra are now more logically based
ulations section of the Blue Book (corresponding to the on a multiple and a fraction of the target period, as opposed
1997 UBC, Appendix Chapter 16, Division IV) generally to the old system of an arithmetical shift from the target
fall under two broad categories, with some exceptions ex- period.
plained below. These two major categories are:
Section 157.2.6 Vertical Load Stability. This im-
1. Revisions to integrate and make the section consistent
portant requirement has been reworded for clarity, partic-
with the main body of regulations in these Provisions
ularly with respect to the earthquake load (overturning
with respect to the strength design changes. These in-
forces) to be used in the maximum load combination.
clude new concepts such as redundancy and revised
concepts such as the “split” R factor, new soil factors, Section 157.2.8 Inspection and Replacement.
etc. Requirements for proper inspection and monitoring of the
2. Revisions to clarify and amplify the existing regula- “rattle space” or “moat” space around the structure, which
tions with respect to terminology and symbols as well make it possible for the structure to move as an isolated
as more precise and clearer wording of some sections. structure, have been added [UBC 1996 Supplement] in re-
sponse to observed behavior of isolated buildings after the
Specific changes include:
1994 Northridge earthquake. These requirements aim to
Sections 151 Definitions and Section 152 ensure the free movement of the structure as designed.
Symbols and Notations. Definitions and new notation Displacement recordings which represent critical data in
have been added to clearly define and delineate the param- the post-earthquake evaluation of isolated structures are
eters that pertain to the two distinct levels of design ground also now required.
motion, i.e., the design basis earthquake (DBE) and the
maximum capable earthquake (MCE). Section 160 Design and Construction Review.
Submission of a statement of compliance with the inde-
Section 154.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements. pendent review Requirements of this section has been add-
The static procedure formulas for the calculation of isolated in order to provide an enforcement mechanism for such
ed structure displacements now reflect the new seismic co- a review process early enough in the project implementa-
efficients, CVD and CVM, as well as the explicit tion process so as to make the design review process a
formulation for the factor “10” in the old formula. meaningful and valuable tool for the project participants
an the building official.
Section 154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces. The
new superstructure design base shear formula is based on Section 161 Required Tests of the Isolation
the original premise that the superstructure is expected to System. Testing Requirements have been reworded in
remain essentially elastic under the design basis earth- many instances where additional clarity of intent was
quake forces. As such, Rd=1.0. However, the Seismology needed. A more meaningful range of test displacement re-
Committee decided to be somewhat conservative in apply- quirements replaces the old set of Requirements. Notation
ing the overstrength factor to this formula, hence the 0.8 has been clarified and made consistent. The definition of
factor in the denominator. This also provides a significant loading requirements has been made more precise. Effec-
degree of consistency in the base shear forces calculated tive damping is now more clearly defined in terms of total
by the old formula using Rwi factors and the new formula system energy dissipation.
using RI=0.8Ro.
September 1999 145

§150.2 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
Table 152-2 Maximum Capable Earthquake Re- tral Sections of SEAOC developed design requirements
sponse Coefficient, Mm. Mm has now been defined for entitled: “General Requirements for the Design and Con-
seismic zones other than 3 and 4. It is expected that the ra- struction of Seismic-Isolated Structures.” Those Require-
tio between the MCE and DBE will be much larger for ments were approved by the Seismology Committee and
these areas of relatively low seismicity. This is reflected in published as Appendix 1L of the 1990 edition of the Blue
the higher Mm values for Seismic Zones 1 and 2A. Book. Those Requirements were also adopted (with minor
editorial changes) by the International Conference of
C150.2 Introduction Building Officials (ICBO) and published as a nonmanage-
Seismic isolation, commonly referred to as base isolation, rial appendix to Chapter 23 of the 1991 edition of UBC.
is a design concept based on the premise that a structure Improvements to the 1990 edition of the Requirements for
can be substantially “decoupled” from potentially damag- isolated structures were incorporated by the Seismology
ing earthquake ground motions. By decoupling the struc- Committee into the 1996 edition of the Blue Book, and
ture from ground shaking, isolation reduces the level of similar revisions were adopted by ICBO for the 1994 edi-
response in the structure from the level which would oth- tion of the UBC. Additional improvements were made in
erwise occur in a conventional, fixed-base building. It is these Provisions for inclusion in the 1997 UBC, as sum-
assumed that decoupling will be accomplished using an marized at the beginning of this Commentary section.
isolation system that makes the effective period of the iso- Commentary covering the major improvements is given
lated structure several times greater than the period of the above.
structure above the isolation system.
C150.3 General
The potential advantages of seismic isolation and ad- The underlying philosophy guiding the development of
vancements in isolation system products has lead to the de- these Requirements for isolated structures may be charac-
sign and construction of a number of isolated buildings terized as a combination of SEAOC’s primary perfor-
and bridges in the last decade. This has created a need to mance objective for fixed-base buildings, which is the
supplement existing codes with design requirements de- provision of life safety in a major earthquake, and the ad-
veloped specifically for such structures. This need is ditional performance objective of damage protection, an
shared by the public, which requires assurance that isolat- attribute provided by isolated structures. The design crite-
ed buildings are “safe” and by the engineering profession, ria of the isolation Requirements are based on this combi-
which requires a minimum standard upon which design nation of life safety and damage protection goals. These
and construction can be based. Accordingly, the SEAOC criteria are summarized as follows:
Seismology Committee has developed these Require-
1. These Requirements specify two levels of earthquake:
ments for isolated structures to supplement the Require-
the design basis earthquake (DBE) and the maximum
ments for fixed-base structures.
capable earthquake (MCE). DBE is the same level of
The seismic isolation concept and criteria that would ground shaking as that recommended for design of
be appropriate for design and construction of isolated fixed-base structures. The MCE is a higher level of
structures have been considered by various SEAOC com- earthquake ground motion defined as the maximum
mittees, active since the early 1980s. In 1986, the first col- level of ground shaking that may be expected at the
lection of design requirements for base isolated structures, building site within the known geological framework.
Tentative Seismic Isolation Design Requirements [SEA- 2. These Requirements state that isolators must be capa-
ONC, 1986], were published. These Requirements were ble of sustaining loads and displacements correspond-
developed using the same seismic criteria as the 1990 Blue ing to the MCE without failure.
Book, and incorporated similar design concepts, such as 3. These Requirements state that the structure above the
the prescription of minimum design forces and displace- isolation system remain “essentially elastic” for the
ments by simple formulas. DBE.
Recognizing the need for a document that would rep- The performance objectives and design requirements
resent a consensus opinion of all sections of SEAOC, the for fixed-base and isolated buildings vary significantly.
Seismology Committee formed the Ad Hoc Base Isolation The performance objective for fixed-base construction is
Subcommittee in early 1988 to synthesize a single seismic life safety in a design earthquake; the intent is to prevent
isolation design document from existing material. Accord- substantial loss of life rather than control damage. For iso-
ingly, representatives of the Northern, Southern, and Cen- lated buildings, the performance objectives are:
146 September 1999

1. Minimal to no damage in the design earthquake (thus units include bearings that support the building’s weight
providing life safety). and provide lateral flexibility. Typically, isolation system
2. A stable isolation system in the maximum capable bearings provide damping and wind restraint as integral
earthquake. part of the bearing. Isolator systems may also include sup-
plemental damping devices.
The performance of an isolated building in a design
earthquake will likely be much better (less interstory drift, Structural elements that are required for structural sta-
smaller floor accelerations) than its fixed-base counter- bility include all structural elements necessary to resist de-
part. Further, isolated buildings can be designed to provide sign forces at the connection of the structure to isolator
continued function following a design earthquake; a level units. For example, in Figure C151-1, the column segment
of performance that is very difficult to achieve with con- and beam immediately above the isolator are shown as el-
ventional fixed-base construction. ements of the isolation system because they are necessary
to resist forces due to the lateral earthquake displacement
Fixed-base buildings are generally designed using of the isolators.
large response modification factors to reduce elastic spec-
tral demands to a design level, a strategy predicated on sig- C151.2 Effective Stiffness and Damping
nificant damage to the framing system. Such buildings are Typically, isolation systems are nonlinear and the effec-
checked for response in the design earthquake only; there tive stiffness of the isolation system is displacement- and/
is no design check for the maximum capable earthquake. or velocity-dependent. Idealized force-deflection relation-
In contrast, isolated buildings are designed using a dual ships for seismic isolators are shown in Figure C151-2.
level approach, namely, the framing system is designed to Note that the maximum and minimum forces do not nec-
remain essentially elastic (no damage) in the design earth- essarily correspond to the maximum and minimum dis-
quake, and the isolators are designed (and tested) to re- placements, respectively, contrary to the assumptions
main stable in the maximum capable earthquake. currently made in these Requirements.
These Requirements are intended to be applicable to The effective stiffness keff of a seismic isolator is cal-
most types of isolation systems currently in use. However, culated using the forces in the isolator at the maximum and
these Requirements may not apply to nontypical isolation minimum displacements (Equation C151-1).
systems. In such cases, it is recommended that a complete
and detailed nonlinear dynamic analysis be performed, F+ – F -
k eff = ------------------- Eqn. C151-1
and that such analysis and resulting designs be subjected ∆+ – ∆-
to independent design review per Section C160 (UBC
For isolators whose properties are independent of ve-
§1664).
locity, the forces in the isolator at the maximum and min-
C151 Definitions for imum displacements will generally be maximum and
minimum forces, respectively. For isolators whose proper-
Seismic-Isolated Structures ties exhibit velocity dependence, the forces in the isolator
C151.1 Isolation System/Interface at the maximum and minimum displacements will gener-
ally be less than the maximum and minimum forces, re-
Isolation system terminology is shown in Figure C151-1.
spectively. These Requirements assume that maximum
Isolation interface is assumed to be a boundary between
and minimum forces in an isolator are realized at maxi-
the upper portion of the building, which is isolated, and the
mum and minimum displacements, respectively. For most
lower portion, which is rigidly attached to the foundation
types of isolator, this assumption is reasonable.
or ground. The isolation interface can be assumed to pass
through the mid-height of elastomeric bearings or the slid- For the purpose of design, energy dissipation is char-
ing surface of sliding bearings. The isolation interface acterized as equivalent viscous damping.
need not be a horizontal plane, but could change elevation Equation C151-2 defines the equivalent viscous damping
if the isolators were positioned at different elevations ( β eff ) for a single isolator; this equation is correct for true
throughout the building. viscoelastic behavior but is only an approximation for hys-
The isolation system includes the isolator units, con- teretic behavior. In this equation, ELoop is the area en-
nections of isolator units to the structural system, and all closed by the force-displacement loop of a single isolator
structural elements required for isolator stability. Isolator + _
in a complete cycle of loading to displacement ∆ to ∆ .
September 1999 147

The effective stiffness (keff) of the isolator is calculated us- procedure is based on a spectral shape proportional to 1/T,
ing Equation C151-1. consistent with the constant velocity domain. The static
procedure cannot be used when the spectral demands may
2 E Loop
β eff = --
- ---------------------------------------
- Eqn. C151-2
not be adequately characterized using the assumed spectral
π + - 2 shape, namely, for:
k eff ( ∆ + ∆ )
1. Isolated buildings located in the near-field.
2. Isolated buildings on soft soil sites.
C152 UBC §1652 Symbols and
3. Long-period isolated buildings (beyond the constant
Notations for velocity domain).
Seismic-Isolated Structures
Further, the static procedure cannot be used for non-
The definitions of design displacement, total design dis- regular superstructures or for highly nonlinear isolation
placement, and total maximum displacement, are depicted systems. The restrictions placed on the use of the static
in Figure C151-3. procedure for design preclude its widespread use in Cali-
fornia.
C153 UBC §1657 Criteria Selection
Response spectrum analysis is permitted for the de-
for Seismic-Isolated Structures
sign of all isolated buildings except for those buildings lo-
C153.1 Basis for Design cated on very soft soil sites (for which site-specific spectra
No Commentary provided. should be established) and buildings supported by highly
nonlinear isolation systems for which the assumptions im-
C153.2 Stability of the Isolation System plicit in the definitions of effective stiffness and damping
These Requirements specify verification of the stability of break down, or for buildings located in the very near field
the isolators for the MCE displacement. Analysis is re- of major active faults where response spectrum analysis
quired to determine the maximum and minimum vertical may not capture pulse effects adequately.
loads on isolators, and tests of prototype isolators are re- Time-history analysis is the default analysis proce-
quired to verify the stability of isolators for the calculated dure; it must be used when the restrictions set forth for
loads at the MCE displacement. static and response spectrum analysis cannot be satisfied
C153.3 Occupancy Categories and may be used for the analysis of any isolated building.
The importance factor, I, for a seismic-isolated building Arguably the most detailed of the analysis procedures, the
shall be taken as 1.0, regardless of the occupancy category, results of time-history analysis must be carefully reviewed
to avoid any gross design errors or over-design.
since there is no design ductility demand on the structure.
C153.4 Configuration Requirements C154 UBC §1658 Static Lateral
Each structure shall be designated as either regular or ir- Response Procedure for
regular on the basis of the type of structural framing above Seismic-Isolated Structures
the isolation system.
C154.1 No Commentary provided.
C153.5 Selection of Lateral Response
Procedure C154.2 Deformational Characteristics of
the Isolation System
Three procedures are addressed in these Requirements:
static analysis, response spectrum analysis, and time-his- The deformational characteristics of the isolation system
tory analysis. The static analysis procedure is generally determine: 1) the design displacements and 2) the maxi-
used to start the design process and to calculate benchmark mum forces transmitted to the isolated structure. Deforma-
values for key design parameters (displacement and base tional characteristics are represented by the effective
shear) evaluated using either response spectrum or (secant) stiffness of the isolation system at the response
time-history analysis procedures. amplitude of interest. Recognizing that force-displace-
ment hysteresis of an isolation system may change over
The static analysis procedure is straightforward. Cor- the course of an earthquake, the maximum effective stiff-
rect use of this procedure will generally produce reason- ness is used to calculate the maximum force transmitted by
able estimates of design forces and displacements. The the isolators, and the minimum effective stiffness is used
148 September 1999

to evaluate the fundamental period of the isolated building Hall, 1982]. As shown in Table C154-1, the damping fac-
(likely producing conservative estimates of the design dis- tor for values of β exceeding 20 percent include a slight
placement). The limiting values are generally established (i.e., conservative) reduction with respect to the spectral
during the design phase and are required to be confirmed amplification factors of Newmark and Hall [1982]. Cau-
by prototype testing. tion should be exercised in using values of β exceeding 20
C154.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements percent of critical if the isolators exhibit true viscous
C154.3.1 Design Displacement. Equation 154-1 damping. In this instance, the viscous damping forces
prescribes the design displacement, D, at the center of should be calculated and appropriately added to the hyster-
mass of the isolated building. This equation is based on the etic forces in the isolation system.
assumptions: 1) that the framing above the isolators is es- C154.3.2 Isolated Structure Period. Maximum dis-
sentially rigid; and 2) the centers of mass and stiffness of placement, DM is calculated similarly using the coefficient
the isolated building are coincident. Equation 154-1 is de- CM, period TM at DM, and damping factor β M . The period,
rived as follows.
TI, of the isolated structure is defined by Equation C154-3
The spectral shape is inversely proportional to the pe- in terms of the minimum effective stiffness of the isolation
riod. The 5 percent damped spectral ordinate is obtained as system kmin as follows:
Cv/T at a period of T second. The base shear is calculated
at the isolated period, TD, assuming 100 percent of the W
building mass participates in the isolated mode. The T I = 2π --------------- Eqn. C154-3
k Imin g
5 percent damped base shear is reduced by a damping fac-
tor, B, to reflect the effective damping, β , in the isolation where g is the gravity constant (e.g., 386 in./sec.2). The
system, resulting in a base shear of: subscript I may be replaced by D for design displacement-
based values and replace by M for maximum displace-
C VD
ment-based values.
V I = -------------- W I Eqn. C154-1
BD TD C154.3.3 Total Design Displacement. The design of
where WI is the weight of the superstructure. isolated structures must consider additional displacement
due to actual and accidental eccentricity, similar to the ad-
The base shear given by Equation C154-1 is convert- ditional loads prescribed for fixed-base structures.
ed into a design displacement, DD, through the simple re- Equation C154-4 provides a simple means to combine
lation between pseudoacceleration (expressed herein as translational and torsional displacement in terms of the
base shear divided by the reactive mass) and spectral dis- gross plan dimensions of the building (i.e., dimensions b
placement (equal to the design displacement in this in- and d), the distance from the center of the building to the
stance): point of interest (i.e., dimension y) and the actual plus ac-
cidental eccentricity, as follows [Kelly, 1993]:
g 
 --------
2 - C T 12e
VI T 2 gC W T  2 VD D
D TD = D D 1 + y ----------------
- Eqn. C154-4
D D = ------------------  ------
D VD I D 4π
= --------------------- --------- = ---------------------------------
( WI ⁄ g )  2π W I B D T D 4π 2 BD b + d2
2
Eqn. C154-2 where e is equal to the sum of the actual eccentricity and
The near-field factor, N, the soil factor, and the seismic the accidental eccentricity.
zone factor are all accounted for in the spectral coefficient Equation C154-4 factors the design displacement, DD,
CVD. at the center of the building to account for additional dis-
The damping factor, B, is used to reduce the displace- placement at the corners or edges of the building due to
ment response of an isolation system. This factor is a func- torsion, assuming that the stiffness of the isolation system
tion of the amount of damping afforded by the isolation is distributed in plan proportional to the distribution of the
supported weight of the building. The reader is referred to
system (measured as a percentage of critical damping, β ).
Kelly [1993] for additional information.
The values for the damping factor are based on the median
spectrum amplification factors in the velocity domain as Smaller values of DTD can be used for design if the
given in Earthquake Spectra and Design [Newmark and isolation system is configured to resist torsion (e.g., stiffer
September 1999 149

isolator units are positioned near the edges and corners of C154.4.3 Limits on Vs. Three lower bound limits are
the building). The minimum value of DTD is set equal to set on the minimum seismic shear to be used for the design
1.1DD for all types of isolation systems. of the framing above the isolation system. The first limit
requires design base shear to be at least that of a fixed-base
C154.3.4 Total Maximum Displacement. The total building of comparable period. The second limit ensures
maximum displacement, DTM, is calculated in a similar that the elements above the isolation system remain elastic
manner to the calculation of DTD.. during the design wind storm. The third limit is designed
C154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces to prevent the elements above the isolation system deform-
ing inelastically before the isolation system is activated.
C154.4.1 Isolation System and Structural Elements
at or Below the Isolation Interface. The design actions C154.5 Vertical Distribution of Force
for elements at or below the isolation interface (see Figure The vertical distribution of the seismic base shear is simi-
C151-1) are based on the maximum forces delivered by lar to that used for fixed-base buildings, namely, a distri-
the isolation system during the design basis earthquake. bution that approximates the first mode shape of the
The maximum force, Vb, is the product of the maxi- fixed-base building. This distribution conservatively ap-
proximates the inertia force distributions measured from
mum stiffness of the isolation system at the design dis-
time-history analyses.
placement, kDmax, and the design displacement, DD. The
design force, Vb, (Equation 154-7) represents strength lev- C154.6 Drift Limits
el forces. The maximum interstory drift ratio limit of 0.010/RI for
Equation 154-7 was developed specifically for use in isolated structures is consistent with the corresponding
regions of high seismicity (Zone 4) wherein the difference drift ratio limit of 0.040/R for fixed-base buildings since
between the total design displacement and total maximum the ratio R /RI is approximately 4 for common framing sys-
displacement is relatively small; that is, if a supporting el- tems.
ement was designed for design basis earthquake forces at
the strength level, it is probable that such a supporting el- C155 UBC §1659 Dynamic Lateral
ement could resist the forces associated the maximum ca- Response Procedure for
pable earthquake without failure. Seismic-Isolated Structures
There are significant differences in values of MM be- C155.1 General
tween regions of high and low seismicity: values of MM
The restrictions placed on the use of the static lateral re-
may be less than 1.25 in regions of high seismicity, but sponse procedures (Section 153.5.1) effectively require
may exceed 2.5 in regions of low seismicity. As such, in a dynamic analysis for most isolated structures. However,
region of low seismicity, a supporting element designed lower bound limits on design displacements and design
for design basis earthquake-induced forces may be unable forces are specified in Requirements Section 155 as a per-
to sustain forces associated with the maximum capable centage of the values prescribed by the static procedure.
earthquake without significant distress or failure. There- These lower bound limits on key design parameters ensure
fore in these regions, the Engineer of Record may wish to consistency in the design of isolated structures and serve
consider MCE level forces to check the design of the iso- as a safety net against gross underdesign. Table C155-1
lation system and the structural elements at or below the provides a summary of the lower bound limits on dynamic
isolation interface. analysis specified by these Requirements.
C154.4.2 Structural Elements Above the Isolation
C155.2 Isolation System and Structural
System. The design of the framing above the isolation
Elements at or Below the Isolation
system is based on the maximum force delivered by the
Interface
isolation system divided by a response reduction factor,
RI. The values assigned to RI reflect system overstrength The limits set on key design parameters are based on the
only and no expected ductility demand. By using these design displacement, DD. This displacement reflects the
values for RI, a significant measure of damage control is response of a single degree of freedom system to the pre-
afforded in the design earthquake, since the structure re- scribed seismic input. If the isolated superstructure is
mains essentially elastic. rigid, the roof displacement, isolator displacement, and de-
sign displacement are all equal. If the isolated superstruc-
150 September 1999

ture is flexible, the roof displacement is greater than the C155.5 Mathematical Model for
design displacement, and the isolator displacement, D´D is Seismic-Isolated Structures
less than the design displacement. Equation 155-1 relates C155.5.1 General. Several modeling procedures have
the isolator displacement to: 1) the design displacement, 2) been developed for the analysis and design of seismic-iso-
the period of the fixed-base building, T, and 3) the period lated buildings. These procedures may not adequately cap-
of the isolated building, TD. A similar rationale applies to ture the secondary forces that develop as a function of the
the calculation of D´M (Equation 155-2) for maximum dis- horizontal displacement (often large) of the isolators. One
placement. The reader is referred to Winters and Constan- key example is the moment, equal to the product of the
tinou [1993] for the details of this derivation. load on the isolator and the isolator displacement (known
to many as the P-delta effect), that must be resisted by the
C155.3 No Commentary provided. isolator, the connections of the isolator to the structural
C155.4 Ground Motion framing above and/or below the isolator, and the structural
framing above and/or below the isolator.
C155.4.1 Design Spectra. Site-specific spectra must
be prepared for the design of long-period base isolation Three-dimensional elastic models of isolated build-
systems, base isolated buildings on soft soils, and base iso- ings are commonly used for response spectrum analysis.
lated buildings located either near an active fault or in The model of the superstructure should include all signifi-
lower seismic zones. This Requirement for site-specific cant structural members in the building frame and accu-
spectra stems from the uncertainties associated with the rately account for their stiffness and mass for both static
standard spectral shapes set forth in these Requirements and response spectrum analysis. The isolators are modeled
and in the UBC. as linear springs with stiffness equal to the effective stiff-
ness, requiring an a priori estimate of the likely displace-
The standard design spectrum is developed based on
ment in the isolators.
Figure 104-2. The development of a site-specific spectrum
for the design basis earthquake is encouraged by these Re- Another common procedure used for the design of
quirements. However, the ordinates of the spectrum are isolated buildings using time-history analysis assumes
not permitted to be less than 80 percent of the ordinates of nonlinear isolators and a linear elastic superstructure. The
the design spectrum to guard against the use of inappropri- procedure is appropriate for buildings in which the super-
ately generated site-specific spectra. (A similar limit is im- structure is assumed to undergo none to minimal inelastic
posed on the ordinates of a site-specific maximum capable response. The recent development of analysis software
earthquake spectrum.) packages that include three-dimensional elastic modeling
of the superstructure and three-dimensional nonlinear
A design spectrum must be constructed for the maxi-
modeling of the isolators has made the analysis of such
mum capable earthquake (MCE). The MCE spectrum may
structures simpler and more efficient.
be taken as the spectral shape of Figure 104-2 based on the
appropriate spectral coefficients from Tables 104-9 and Another procedure involves the development of a
104-10. complete three-dimensional nonlinear model of the build-
C155.4.2 Time Histories. Rules for the development ing. This level of effort is computationally intensive and
of ground motion records for analysis of isolated buildings likely rarely justified. This procedure should probably be
are provided in these Requirements. The use of recorded used only for isolated buildings in which the superstruc-
ground motion component pairs is encouraged to retain the ture is likely to experience substantial inelastic response,
phasing between the components. an assumption at odds with the stated performance goals
for seismic-isolated buildings.
Arbitrary scaling of ground motion records in ampli-
tude or frequency so as to achieve specified spectral ordi- C155.6 Description of Analysis Procedures
nates should be avoided. Ground motion pairs that: 1) are C155.6.1–C155.6.2 No Commentary provided.
consistent with magnitude and source characteristics of the C155.6.3 Response Spectrum Analysis. The iso-
design (or maximum capable) earthquake, and 2) require lated building should be represented by a three-dimen-
minimal amplitude and frequency scaling, should be used sional, linear elastic structural model. The isolators should
for analysis and design. be represented by linear springs with stiffness keff. (The
calculation of keff may require multiple iterations, as keff
will be a function of the target displacement.) The first
September 1999 151

mode damping ratio should be set equal to β for the isola- C155.7.3 Scaling of Results. Table C155-1 (Com-
tion system. The reader is referred to Kelly [1993] for ad- mentary Section C155.1) provides a summary of the lower
ditional information. bound limits on the results of dynamic analysis that can be
used for design.
C155.6.4 Time-History Analysis. Time-history anal-
ysis shall be performed with at least three matched pairs of
C156 UBC §1660 Lateral Load on
horizontal time-history components, as defined in Re-
quirements Section 155.4.2. Parameters of interest should Elements of Structures and
be calculated for each time-history analysis pair. The pa- Nonstructural Components
rameters of interest should include member forces, con- Supported by Seismic-Isolated
nection forces, interstory drift, isolator displacements, and Structures
overturning forces.
The Exception to Requirements Section 156.2.1 provides
Each matched pair of horizontal ground motion for a straightforward and usually conservative manner in
records should be simultaneously applied to the mathemat- which to design nonstructural components and restraints
ical model, considering the most disadvantageous location for such components. However, in order to obtain the full
of mass eccentricity, to calculate the maximum displace- benefits of a seismic isolated building, it is necessary to
ments in the isolation system. Where orthogonal forces are base the design of these elements, and their anchorage to
applied simultaneously, such as in time history analysis, the primary structure, on the dynamic response of the iso-
the required 5 percent displacement of the center of mass lated structure, e.g., via the generation of floor spectra for
should be applied for only one of the orthogonal forces at the building. For critical buildings being designed to re-
a time. An analysis where the 5 percent displacement is ap- main operational after a major earthquake, this approach to
plied for both orthogonal directions concurrently would the design of nonstructural elements and equipment may
result in a double application of the torsional effect of ac- be necessary.
cidental eccentricity and would not be consistent with the
original intent for the use of accidental eccentricity. C157 UBC §1661 Detailed Systems
Common design practice is to: 1) impose the orthog- Requirements for
onal components along each of the principal axes of the Seismic-Isolated Structures
building separately, and 2) repeat step 1 after changing the
signs of the ground motion components (separately), for a C157.1–C157.2.2 No Commentary provided.
total of eight analyses per matched pair, per mass eccen- C157.2.3 Fire Resistance. It is expected that, in gen-
tricity. eral, the fire resistance of isolators (particularly those iso-
To reduce the computational effort, preliminary anal- lators that carry gravity loads), be equivalent to those
ysis may be undertaken to identify: 1) the most disadvan- structural elements to which they are connected. As such,
tageous location of the mass eccentricity, 2) the critical an isolator in a column or supporting a column would need
matched pair of ground motion records, and 3) the critical to have the same fire resistance as that required for the col-
orientation of the matched pair identified in Item 2, above. umns of the building. However, in some situations, the iso-
lators may be fully enclosed within areas protected by
Much of the analysis and design work may be com- adequate fire barriers, with little or no chance of combus-
pleted with this substantially reduced set of parameters. tion occurring or spreading within that area. In such cases,
Once the analysis and design effort is near completion, the jurisdictional agencies have been known to waive the need
final design(s) may be analyzed using the unreduced set of for fire resistance requirements for the isolator or isolator
parameters if deemed necessary. assembly.
C155.7 Design Lateral Force C157.2.4 No Commentary provided.
C155.7.1 Isolation System and Structural Elements C157.2.5 Displacement Restraint. The use of a dis-
at or Below the Isolation Interface. See Commentary placement restraint system is not encouraged by these Re-
Section C154.4.1. quirements. Should a displacement restraint system be
C155.7.2 Structural Elements Above the Isolation implemented, explicit analysis of the isolated building ac-
System. See Commentary Section C154.4.2. counting for the displacement restraint system is mandated
for earthquake demand based on the MCE.
152 September 1999

C157.2.6 Vertical Load Stability. The design vertical to the development of ground motion criteria and isolator
load to be used in checking the stability of any given iso- design options. Further, the review team should be given
lator shall be calculated using the maximum DL and LL complete access to all pertinent information such that the
and the peak MCE earthquake-induced axial load on that review team can work closely with all consultants and reg-
particular type of isolator. ulatory agencies involved in the project.
C157.2.7 No Commentary provided. It must be noted that this required design review is not,
C157.2.8 See Commentary Section C150.1. and must not be thought of, as a substitute for a complete
and appropriate design of the isolation system performed
C157.2.9 Quality Control. The implementation of a
by appropriately qualified design professionals experi-
rigorous quality control program (such as that assigned an
enced in the analysis and design of seismic-isolated struc-
ISO rating) is key to the production of isolators of uniform
tures. Also see Section C150.1.
quality with consistent mechanical properties. This quality
control program should be implemented for both prototype
and production isolators. If the production (quality con-
C161 UBC §1665 Required Tests of
trol) testing results are to be based in any part on the results Isolation System for
of the prototype tests, the production testing program Seismic-Isolated Structures
should be completed on each of the prototype isolators
C161.1 General
prior to starting the prototype tests. Qualified and indepen-
dent inspection/monitoring of the testing and manufactur- All isolator testing should be witnessed and reported by a
ing process is an important element of an adequate quality qualified, independent inspector.
control program. C161.2 Prototype Tests
C161.2.1
C158–C159 No Commentary provided. No Commentary provided.
C161.2.2 Record. For each cycle of test the force-de-
C160 UBC §1664 Design and flection behavior of the prototype test specimen must be
Construction Review for recorded so that the data can be used to determine whether
the isolation system complies with both these Require-
Seismic-Isolated Structures ments and the specification prepared by the engineer of
Design review of 1) the analysis and design of the isolation record. The engineer of record and the independent review
system, and 2) the isolator testing program, is mandated by team (see Requirements Section 160) should review all
these Requirements for three key reasons: raw data from the prototype tests.
1. The consequences of isolator failure could be cata- C161.2.3 Sequence and Cycles, Item 4. The total
strophic. As such, detailed review is warranted. number of testing cycles specified in Item 4 is related to
2. Isolator design, fabrication, testing methods and tech- the site coefficient and isolation system damping, because
nology are evolving rapidly, perhaps utilizing technol- the number of cycles of substantial response will likely be
ogies unfamiliar to many design professionals. greater for soft sites and systems with small damping val-
3. Isolation system analysis and design often involve use ues.
of complex procedures, e.g., nonlinear time-history C161.2.4 Units Dependent on Loading Rates. If the
analysis, which can be highly sensitive to assumptions mechanical characteristics of the isolation system are de-
and idealizations made during the analysis and design pendent on the rate of loading, additional dynamic tests
process. Design review aims to minimize the possibil- must be performed to characterize this dependence.
ity of inappropriate assumptions and procedures in the Rate-dependence behavior will be exhibited by most slid-
analysis and design process. This is also consistent ing isolation systems (velocity-dependent) and selected
with the Requirements of Section 106.6.3.2. elastomeric isolation systems (strain rate-dependent). Re-
duced-scale models of isolators can be used to capture rate
Requirements Section 160.1 requires that such review
effects on stiffness and damping values, provided that the
be performed by 1) a team independent of the design team
reduced-scale isolators are fabricated using the same pro-
and the project contractors, and 2) that the review team be
cesses and quality control procedures as the full-size isola-
composed of individuals with special expertise in one or
tors. Dimensional relationships between full and reduced
more aspects of the design and implementation of seismic
isolation systems. The review team should be formed prior
September 1999 153

scale units should be established and verified prior to final- C161.3 Determination of Force-Deflection
izing the testing program. Characteristics
The criteria to be used to judge whether the properties The force-deflection characteristics of the isolation system
of an isolation system are dependent on the rate of loading shall be based on the results of cyclic testing of a selected
are specified, namely, the isolators are to be considered sample of isolators.
rate-dependent if the test data demonstrates that the effec- The effective stiffness of an isolator shall be calculat-
tive stiffness of the isolator changes by more than plus or
ed for each cycle of loading from displacement ∆ + to
minus 10 percent when the cycling rate is varied from the
+ -
effective frequency (1/TI) at the design displacement to ∆ – (where ∆ = ∆ = ∆ ) using Equation 161-3:
any frequency within the range of 0.1 to 2.0 times the ef- +
fective frequency. F – F-
k eff = ------------------ Eqn. C161-3
+
C161.2.5 Units Dependent on Bilateral Load. If the ∆ – ∆-
effective stiffness and damping of any of the isolators in +
the isolation system are dependent on the magnitude of the where F is the lateral force in the isolator at ∆ + ; and F -
imposed bilateral (orthogonal) displacement, additional is the lateral force in the isolator at ∆ – , assuming
testing is required to quantify this dependence. maximum force to occur at maximum displacement.
Reduced-scale isolators may be used to capture this C161.4 No Commentary provided.
dependence, provided that the reduced-scale isolators are
fabricated using the same processes and quality control C161.5 Design Properties of the Isolation
System
procedures as the full-size isolators. Dimensional relation-
ships between full and reduced scale units should be estab- C161.5.1 Effective Stiffness. Effective stiffness of
lished and verified prior to finalizing the testing program. the isolation system is determined from the force-displace-
ment (hysteresis) loops for individual isolators as shown in
The criteria to be used to judge whether the properties Figure C151-2. The values of maximum effective stiffness
of an isolation system are dependent on bilateral loading and minimum effective stiffness can be calculated as noted
are specified; namely, the isolators are to be considered to in this figure for both design and maximum displacement
be dependent on bilateral displacement if the effective levels.
stiffness at 100 percent bilateral displacement differs from
the effective stiffness at 0 percent bilateral displacement C161.5.2 Effective Damping. The effective damping
by more than plus or minus 10 percent. ( β ) given by Equations 161-7 and 161-8 is used to char-
C161.2.6 Maximum and Minimum Vertical acterize the energy dissipation afforded by the isolation
Load. The static vertical load test is used to verify isola- system. The maximum effective stiffness of the isolation
tor stability at the total maximum displacement under system is used to provide a lower bound (conservative) es-
maximum and minimum vertical loads. The maximum timate of the effective damping.
vertical load is calculated using 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL and the
maximum downward seismic overturning load from the
MCE. The minimum vertical load is calculated using
0.8 DL and maximum upward seismic overturning load References
from the MCE. This is a static stability test; no cycling is
ACI-318, 1995. American Concrete Institute, Building
required.
Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, ACI-318-
C161.2.7 No Commentary provided. 95.
C161.2.8 Testing Similar Units. Prototype tests are ACI, 1983. American Concrete Institute, Recommended
not required if the isolator unit is of similar dimensional Practice for the Design and Construction of Concrete
characteristics, of the same type and material, and con- Bins, Silos and Bunkers for Storage of Granular
structed using the same processes as a prototype isolator Materials, ACI-313R-1977 (Revised 1983).
unit that has been previously tested using the specified se-
quence of tests. The independent engineering team should ACI, 1985. American Concrete Institute, Code
determine whether the results of previously tested units are Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete
suitable, sufficient, and acceptable. Structures. ACI-349-85/349R-85.
154 September 1999

ACI, 1989. American Concrete Institute, Concrete Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 87,
Environmental Engineering Structures. ACI Stanford University, Stanford, California.
35OR-89.
Biggs, J. M., 1964. Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
AIJ, 1995. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report of the McGraw-Hill Book Company.
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Architectural
Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner and T.E. Fumal, 1993.
Institute of Japan, Tokyo.
Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
American Forest and Paper Association, 1996. LRFD Accelerations from Western North American
Manual for Engineered Wood Construction. Earthquakes: An Interim Report,” Open File Report
93-509. (Menlo Park, CA: United States Geological
API, 1988. American Petroleum Institute, API Standard
Survey).
650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, 8th Edition.
Bouwkamp, R.O. Hamburger, and J. Gillengerten, 1991.
ATC 3-06, 1987. “ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions for the
Degradation of Plywood Roof Diaphragms Under
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings.”
Multiple Earthquake Loading, SMIP 90, May, CDMG
NBS SP-510, June 1978. “NEHRP Recommended
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Sacramento,
Provisions for the Development of Seismic
California.
Regulations for New Buildings.” FEMA 95, February
1986. CDMG, 1997. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California. California Division of
ATC-7, 1981. Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal
Mines and Geology Special Publication 117.
Wood Diaphragms. Applied Technology Council, 555
Sacramento, California.
Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, California,
94065. CDMG, 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
for the State of California. California Division of
ATC-40, 1997. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08,
Concrete Buildings. Applied Technology Council, 555
Sacramento, California
Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, California,
94065. CDMG-SMIP records, OSMS 84-7 and later. CDMG
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Sacramento,
AWWA, 1984. American Water Works Association,
California.
Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, ANSI/AWWA
D100-84. Celebi, H., G. Bongiovanni, E. Safak, and A.G. Brady,
1989. “Seismic Response of Large-Span Roof
AWWA, 1986. American Water Works Association,
Diaphragms,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, no. 2,
Wire-Wound Circular Prestressed Concrete Tanks,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
AWWA D110-86.
California.
Bachman, R. E., R. M. Drake, and P. J. Richter. 1993.
Chopra, A. K., 1980. Dynamics of Structures, A Primer,
1994 Update to 1991 NEHRP Provisions for
Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical
California.
Components, and Systems, letter report to the National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Clough, R. W., and J. Penzien, 1975. Dynamics of
February 22 Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bertero, V. V., 1986. “Lessons Learned from Recent Cook, Ronald A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W., and Konz, R.C.,
Earthquakes and Research and Implications for 1998. “Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive
Earthquake-Resistant Design of Building Structures in Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete.”
the United States,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2, no. 4. ACI Structural Journal, January-February 1998.
Der Kiureghian, A., 1980. “Structural Response to
California.
Stationary Excitation,” Journal of the Engineering
Bertero, V. V., F.M. Bendimerad, and H.C. Shah, 1988. Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. EMO.
Fundamental Period of Reinforced Concrete Moment
Der Kiureghian, A., 1981. “A Response Spectrum Method
Resisting Frame Structures, The John A. Blume
for Random Vibration Analysis of MDF Systems,”
September 1999 155

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, International Conference of Building Officials,

Vol. 9, John Wiley & Sons. Whittier, California.
Drake, R. M. and R. E. Bachman. 1996. “NEHRP Joyner, William B. and David M. Boore, 1988.
Provisions for 1994 For Nonstructural Components”, “Measurement, Characterization, and Prediction of
ASCE Journal Of Architectural Engineering, March, Strong Ground Motion,” Proceedings of Earthquake
1996 Engineering & Soil Dynamics II, GT Division/ASCE,
Park City, Utah, June 27-30, 1988. ASCE,
Drake, R. M. and R. E. Bachman. 1995. “Interpretation
Washington DC.
of Instrumented Building Seismic Data and
Implications for Building Codes,” Proceedings of Kan, C. L., and A.K. Chopra, 1977. “Elastic Earthquake
1995 SEAOC Annual Convention. Sacramento, Analysis of Torsionally Coupled Multi-Story
California. Buildings,” in Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 5, John Wiley & Sons.
Drake, R. M. and R. E. Bachman. 1994. 1994 NEHRP
Provisions for Architectural, Mechanical, and Kelley, J., 1993. Earthquake-Resistant Design in
Electrical Components, 5th United States National Rubber, Springer-Verlag.
Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Kircher, C.A., 1998. “New Ground Shaking Design
Dobry, R. and M. Vucetic, 1987. “Dynamic Properties and Criteria,” Proceedings of the SEWC Structural
Response of Soft Clay Deposits” State-of-the-Art Engineers World Congress, July 18-23, 1998, San
Paper, International Symposium on Geotechnical Francisco, California.
Engineering of Soft Soils, Mexico City, August 13-14.
Kircher, C.A. 1996. “The Kobe earthquake: Ground
EERI, 1995. The Hyogo-Ken-Nanbu Earthquake, Great Shaking, Damage and Loss,” ASCE Structures
Hanshin Earthquake Disaster, January 17, 1995, Congress '96, April 15-19, 1996, American Society of
Preliminary Reconnaissance Report. Earthquake Civil Engineers, Washington DC.
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Liu, S.C., L.W. Fogel, and M.R. Dougherty, 1977.
Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E.V. “Earthquake-Induced In-Building Motion Criteria,”
Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, M. Hopper, Structural Journal, ASCE, January.
1996. Interim National Seismic Hazard Maps:
Martin, G.R. and R. Dobry, 1994. Earthquake Site
Documentation, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver,
Response and Seismic Code Provisions,” NCEER
Colorado, draft: January 18, 1996.
Bulletin. Vol. 8, no. 4.
Ghosh, S.K., “Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Miranda, E. and V.V. Bertero, 1994. “Evaluation of
under the 1997 UBC,” Building Standards,
Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake-Resistant
International Conference of Building Officials,
Design,” Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake
Whittier, CA, May-June 1998, pp. 20-24.
Ghosh, S.K. “Needed Adjustments in 1997 UBC,” Vol.10, no 2.
Proceedings, 1998 Convention, Structural Engineers
NEHRP, 1997. Recommended Provisions for the
Association of California, October 7-10, 1998, Reno/
Development of Seismic Regulations for New
Sparks, Nevada, pp. T9.1-T9.15
Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Harris, S. K., R.O. Hamburger, S.C. Martin, D. L. Washington D.C.
McCormick, and P. G. Somerville, 1997. “Response
Newmark, N.M. and W. J. Hall, 1982. Earthquake
of Tilt-up Buildings to Seismic Demands: Case
Spectra and Design. Earthquake Engineering
Studies From the 1994 Northridge Earthquake,”
Research Institute Oakland, California.
Proceedings of the Northridge Earthquake Research
Conference, August 20-22, 1997. CUREE, Richmond, Nghiem, D. X., Chair. 1994. 1994 Northridge EQ
California. SEAOSC/COLA Special Investigation Task Force
Tilt-up Subcommittee. Final Report 10/25/94.
ICBO, 1998. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. OES, 1989. Guidance for the Preparation of a Risk
Management and Prevention Program, State of
156 September 1999

California Office of Emergency Services, Hazardous Construction Practices, Lessons Learned from Kobe
Materials Division, Sacramento, California. and Northridge, January 18-20, 1996, Kobe Japan.
Rinne, E.E., 1994. “Development of New Site Stratta, J. L., 1987. Manual of Seismic Design,
Coefficients for Building Codes,” in Proceedings of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
the Fifth U.S. Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tena-Colunga, 1992. “Seismic Evaluation of
Vol. 3. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Unreinforced Masonry Structures with Flexible
Oakland, California.
Diaphragms,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Rinne, E.E., and Dobry, 1992. Memorandum to Sharpe Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 8, no. 2, Oakland,
(Chairman TS-12,NEHRP PUC), dated December 11, California.
1992, “Preliminary Site Response
Tri-Services Manual. See U.S. Army, 1992.
Recommendations,” based on NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC
Site Response Workshop, University of Southern UCBC, 1994. Uniform Code for Building Conservation,
California, November 18-20. International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, California.
Sadigh, K., J. Egan, R. Youngs, 1986, “Specification of
Ground Motion for Seismic Design of Long Period U.S. AEC, 1963. Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, U.S.
Structures” (abs.), Earthquake Notes, 57, 13. Atomic Energy Commission, TID 7094.
Sadigh, K., J. Egan, R. Youngs, 1986, “Specification of U.S. Army, 1986. Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential
Ground Motion for Seismic Design of Long Period Buildings, Technical Manual, Army TM 5-809-10-1.
Structures” (abs.), Earthquake Notes, 57, 13.
U.S. Army, 1992. Seismic Design for Buildings, Technical
SEAOC, 1986. Tentative Seismic Isolation Design Manual: Army TM 5-809-10; Navy NAVFAC P-355;
Requirements, Structural Engineers Association of Air Force AFM 88-3, Chapter 13.
Northern California, Sacramento, California.
U.S. Navy, 1982. Foundations and Earth Structures,
SEAOSC, 1977. Seismic Analysis by Computer. Design Manual, Chapter 5. Navy NAVFAC DM-7.2.
Electronic Computation Committee of the Structural
U.S. NRC, 1976. Regulatory Guide 1.92, Combining
Engineers Association of Southern California, 1977,
Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic
SEAOSC, 2550 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles,
Response Analysis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
California, 90057.
Commission, Revision 1.
Seed, H. B., and I.M. Idriss, 1982. Ground Motions and
Werner, S. D. et al., 1979. “Structural Response to
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Traveling Seismic Waves,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. ST 12.
Singh, J. P., 1988. “Strong Ground Motion and
Wilson, E. L. and A. Habibullah, 1987. “A Static and
Geotechnical Aspects of Mexico, Chile, and El
Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Buildings Including
Salvador Earthquakes — A Review,” Proceedings of
P-Delta Effects,” Earthquake Spectra, Journal of the
EERI Seminar entitled Evolving Earthquake Hazard
EERI, Vol. 3, no. 2.
Mitigation Practices, Implications from the Recent
Chile, Mexico, and El Salvador Earthquakes, Mesa, Wilson, E. L., et al., 1981. “A Replacement for the SRSS
Arizona, February 4, 1988. Method in Seismic Analysis,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, John
Somerville, Paul, 1998. “Emerging Art: Earthquake
Wiley & Sons.
Ground Motions,” in Proceedings of Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. ASCE Wilson, E.L. and M.R. Button, 1982. “Three-Dimensional
Geoinstitute, Seattle, Washington. Dynamic Analysis for Multi-Component Earthquake
Spectra,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Somerville, Paul, “Forward Rupture Directivity in the
Dynamics, Vol. 10, John Wiley & Sons.
Kobe and Northridge Earthquakes, and Implications
for Structural Engineers,” Seventh U.S.-Japan Winters, C.W. and M.C. Constantinou, 1993. Evaluation
Workshop on Improvement of Structural Design and of Static Response Spectrum Analysis Procedures of
SEAOC/UBC for Seismic Isolated Structures.
September 1999 157

Table C104-1 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
Winters, C.W. and M.C. Constantinou, 1993. Evaluation of

Static Response Spectrum Analysis Procedures of
SEAOC/UBC for Seismic Isolated Structures.NECCR-
93-0004, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.
Winters, C.W. and M.C. Constantinou, 1993. Evaluation
of Static Response Spectrum Analysis Procedures of
SEAOC/UBC for Seismic Isolated Structures.
NCEER-93-0004, State University of New York at
Buffalo, NY.
Table C104-1. Pre-Northridge Earthquake Records Close to Fault Rupture
Instrument Name/ Location Magnitude Earthquake/Year

Pacoima Dam M = 6.6 1971 San Fernando, CA
Karakyr Point MS = 7.0 1976 Gazli, Russia
El Centro Array Nos. 5, 6, and 7 ML = 6.6 1979 Imperial Valley, CA
Tabas M = 7.4 1979 Tabas, Iran

Site 1 MS = 6.9 1985 Nahanni, Canada
Corralitos MS = 7.1 1989 Loma Prieta, CA
Cape Mendocino MS = 6.9 1992 Petrolia, CA
Lucerne Valley MS = 7.5 1992 Landers, CA
158 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary Table C104-2
Table C104-2. 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (sites <= 15 km of fault rupture)
Instrument Station Information Peak Response Distance to

Fault Rupture
(km)
Name Site PGA (g) SA1.0(g)
Jensen Filter Plant - Generator Bldg. N/A 0.98/0.56 >0.90 0

Newhall - County Fire Station Soil 0.63/0.61 >0.90 0
Rinaldi Receiving Station Soil 0.85/0.48 >0.90 0

Sylmar Converter Station (East) Rock 0.79/0.45 >0.90 0
Sepulveda VA Hospital N/A 0.94/0.74 0.7 0
Sylmar County Hospital Soil 0.91/0.61 0.75 2

Arleta - Nordoff Ave. Fire Station0.35/0.290.67 Soil 0.35/0.29 0.6 7
Pacoima - Kagel Canyon Rock 0.44/0.30 0.45 9

Castaic - Old Ridge Route Rock 0.59/0.54 0.35 10
Lake Hughes 12 Soil A0.26/0.18 0.35 12
Energy Control Center Rock 0.23/0.21 0.4 12
Santa Susana -ETEC N/A 0.29/0.23 0.25 14
Table C104-3. Equations for Determining Near-Source Factors Na and Nv
Horizontal Distance, d, to Near-Source Zone (km)

Fault
0 to 2km 2km to 5km 5km to 10km 10 km to 15km
Type
Na = 1.5 Na = 1.7-0.1d Na = 1.4-0.04d Na = 1.0
A
Nv = 2.0 Nv = 2.266-0.133d Nv = 1.6-0.8d Nv = 1.6-0.4d
Na = 1.3 Na = 1.5-0.1d Na = 1.0 Na = 1.0

B
Nv = 1.6 Nv = 1.866-0.133d Nv = 1.4-0.4d Nv = 1.0
September 1999 159

Table C154-1. Damping Coefficients
Effective Velocity-Domain
Damping, β (%) B Spectra Ratio1
≤2 0.8 ≤ 0.81
5 1.0 1.00
10 1.2 1.20
20 1.5 1.53
30 1.7 1.80
40 1.9 2.07
≥ 50 2.0 ≥ 2.34
1. Based on the median spectrum amplification factors, velocity
domain, Table 2 of Newmark and Hall, 1982
Table C155-1. Limits on Key Design Parameters
Dynamic Analysis
Response
Design Parameter Static Analysis Spectrum Time-History
Design Displacement g 
 --------- C T — —
 4π 2  VD D
DD = --------------------------------
BD
Total Design Displacement DTD ≥ 1.1 DD ≥ 0.9 DTD ≥ 0.9 DTD
Maximum Displacement g 
 --------- C T — —
 4π 2  VM M
DM = ---------------------------------
BM
Total Maximum Displacement DTM ≥ 1.1DM ≥ 0.8 DTM ≥ 0.8 DTM
Design Shear (at or below V b = k Dmax D D ≥ 0.9 Vb ≥ 0.9 Vb
isolation system)
Design Shear (“regular”
k Dmax D D ≥ 0.8 Vs ≥ 0.6 Vs
superstructure) V s = ----------------------
-
RI
Design Shear (“irregular”
k Dmax D D ≥ 1.0 Vs ≥ 0.8 Vs
superstructure) V s = ----------------------
-
RI
Drift 0.010/RI 0.015/RIi 0.020/RI
160 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary Figure C104-1
Aa=EPA in g's
Av=EPV/30 in g's; EPV is
in inches/seconds
Av=velocity related
acceleration value
Figure C104-1. Schematic representation showing how effective peak acceleration and effective peak velocity are obtained
from a response spectrum
Figure C104-2. Determination of distance from nonvertical fault for use in establishing near-source factor.
The closest distance to known seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the site and the
area described by the vertical projection of the source on the surface. The surface projection need not include
portions of the source at depths of 10 km or greater
September 1999 161

Figure C104-3 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
Figure C104-3. Graphical relationship for determining Na
Figure C104-4. Graphical relationship for determining Nv
162 September 1999

Figure C104-5. Vertical structural irregularities
September 1999 163

Figure C104-6. Plan structural irregularities
164 September 1999

Figure C104-7. Irregularities in force transfer
September 1999 165

Figure 105-1 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
Figure C105-1. Horizontal force conditions for determination of ri
166 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary Figure 105-2
Figure C105-2. Relationship between base shear and displacement
∆ = design story drift

Vx = seismic design shear force acting between level
x and level x-1
hsx = story height below level x
n
Px = ∑ ( D + L )i total design gravity load at and
i=x
above level x
Px ∆
Stability coefficient: Θ = ------------------
- Eqn. C105-1
V x • h sx
Figure C105-3. P-delta symbols and notations
September 1999 167

Figure C107-1. Comparison of Equation 107-2 with recorded data. (Note: The recorded
data come largely from near-source records in Seismic Zone 4. In-structure acceleration
records are not available from the other seismic zones.)
Figure C107-2. Comparison of Equation 107-2 with

the recorded data average at roof level
168 September 1999

Figure C108-1. Tributary area for pilaster anchorage
September 1999 169

Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-6 or 104-8
( R ⁄ I )T
with Vmin > 0.56CaIw
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
R⁄I
T based on combined system T
(combine weight of item with weight of support)
Nonbuilding Item and Anchorage

Use the larger of: Fp = 0.70CaIpWp
ap Ca Ip 3h
or: - 1 + -------x-  W
----------------
Rp  h  p
r
with ap and Rp from Table 104-7
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-
( R ⁄ I )T
6 or 104-8
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
R⁄I

ap Ca Ip 3h
or: ----------------- 1 + -------x-  W
Rp  h  p
r
Figure C109-1. Nonbuilding structures supported above grade (Wp < 0.25Ws )
170 September 1999

Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-6
( R ⁄ I )T
or 104-8
with: Vmin>0.56CaIW
2.5C a
Vmax = -------------- W
R⁄I
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-
( R ⁄ I )T
6 or 104-8
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
R⁄I

ap Ca Ip 3h
or: Fp = ----------------- 1 + --------  W p
x
Rp  hr 
Figure C109-2. Nonbuilding structures supported above grade (Wp> 0.25Ws )
September 1999 171

Figure C151-1. Isolation system terminology
172 September 1999

Figure C151-2. Idealized isolation system force-displacement relationships
September 1999 173

Figure C151-3. Displacement terminology
174 September 1999

CHAPTER 2
Structural Tests and Inspections
C201 General Requirements nents are required to undergo during an earthquake. Build-
ings such as publicly funded schools and hospitals that
Past earthquakes have repeatedly demonstrated that good
receive a higher level of quality assurance during con-
structural performance depends on good design and on
struction have consistently performed better during seis-
having the construction done in conformance therewith.
mic events than typical buildings. Many of the additional
California public schools are an example that good perfor-
inspection requirements in this section address areas in
mance can be achieved by buildings that are constructed in
which problems have been observed in the past. Their im-
conformance with a good design.
plementation will result in structures that are more likely
to perform as intended by the design engineer.
C202 Recommended Modifications
to the 1997 UBC Every type of construction can benefit from more
thorough quality control and assurance, but wood and ma-
C202.1 Special Inspections sonry constructed without special inspection in the past
C202.1.1 Modify: UBC §1701.5, Item 11, Piling, have had extensive problems that would be addressed by
Drilled Piers, and Caissons. The special inspections increased inspection requirements. In particular, inspec-
listing is provided as a guide to minimum requirements tion of connections in wood construction needs additional
and should be augmented and made comprehensive in the attention, as demonstrated by the 1994 Northridge earth-
quality assurance plan. quake. Inspections are required for nailing of shear panels
and diaphragms to ensure proper installation, including
C202.1.2 Add new item: UBC §1701.5, Item 16,
edge and end distances. Inspection is also required for
Wood. It has been common knowledge that lack of qual-
tightening of connectors and of the condition of members
ity control of connections in wood frame construction,
at connections to address splitting, crushing, and oversized
both heavy timber and light frame, has been responsible
bolt holes.
for heavy damage to structures from earthquake and wind
in past natural disasters. Major segments of the construc- The Northridge earthquake exposed problems with
tion industry, however, have objected to introduction of steel construction, particularly welding, that have been at-
quality control measures on the installation of these contributed in part to construction practices. Tighter quality
nectors. These measures, along with those in Section assurance measures are required for welding.
202.1.3, are introduced specifically in these Requirements
Extensive nonstructural damage has occurred in every
because there are no specific provisions in the UBC. Qual-
major earthquake in the past. Typically the nonstructural
ity assurance measures based on the special inspections
components of a building have not received the necessary
called for in this item will mitigate damage in future natu-
attention from both designers and inspectors. These provi-
ral disasters.
sions will help ensure that design provisions are construct-
C202.1.3 Add new item: UBC §170I.5, Item 17, Des- ed correctly.
ignated Seismic Systems. In addition to the special in-
spections required for the gravity and wind load resisting C202.2 Nondestructive Testing
systems, additional quality assurance is needed for the des- Modify: UBC Sec. 1703, Nondestructive Testing.
ignated seismic systems identified in the quality assurance This section specifies increased testing requirements for
plan. This is due to the nonlinear action the system compo- the designated seismic system, as defined in the quality as-
September 1999 175

§202.3 Commentary SEAOC Blue Book
surance plan. In addition to concerns regarding construc- view panel would normally be used at the request of the
tion quality, there are concerns regarding the materials owner, but some jurisdictions can invoke the review.
used in construction. Greater assurance that material prop-
Project design peer review is an important step in
erties will match those assumed by the design engineer is
achieving the life safety goal of the code or, where the
important, especially where the components of the struc-
owner desires higher performance, the performance goal
ture will be exposed to loading and deformations signifi-
of the owner. The scope of the review depends, in part, on
cantly in excess of the elastic limits of the materials.
the type of project under consideration and the perfor-
Requirements for testing of welded connections have been
mance goals that are set. There are a number of design re-
increased in large part due to the problems encountered in
view documents and recommendations presently in
structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
existence. The following are recommended:
C202.3 Structural Observation 1. For general guidance on project design peer review:
Modify: UBC §1702, Structural Observation. Chapter 4, “Project Design Peer Review,” in Recom-
Damage in past earthquakes has too often been traceable mended Guidelines for the Practice of Structural En-
to failure to comply with a detail on the construction doc- gineering in California, second edition. Structural
uments. Better performance can be obtained if the design Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA,
engineer makes site visits, because he or she is most famil- October, 1995.
iar with the design details and, thus, will more easily detect 2. For seismic isolation projects: Section 1664, “Design
noncompliance with the construction documents. These and Construction Review” in Appendix Chapter 16,
site visits do not constitute detailed inspections and do not Structural Forces of UBC, 1997 edition.
supplant any aspect of the testing and inspection required 3. For repair and strengthening and for design of new
by the quality assurance plan and these Requirements. welded steel moment resisting frames: Section 4.5,
As has been noted in every past earthquake, including “Qualified Independent Engineering Review” in the
the recent Northridge (1994) event, much of the damage Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification
can be attributed directly to the construction not comply- and Design of Steel Moment Frames, Report No.
ing with the construction documents and the code. By re- SAC-95-02. SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA,
viewing the testing and inspection reports as construction August, 1995 (also known as FEMA-267).
progresses, the design engineer has the opportunity to de- C202.6 Quality Assurance
tect early any noncompliance with the quality assurance
Add new section: UBC 1707, Quality Assurance.
program and the construction documents, and can take
Frequently engineers do not give adequate consideration
steps to have such noncompliance corrected and prevented
to quality assurance. Good quality control by the contrac-
in later stages of construction.
tor, and good quality assurance as specified by the engi-
C202.4 Design Review neer and carried out by testing and inspection agencies, is
Add new section: UBC §1705, Design Review. The crucial to ensuring that the designated seismic systems
design review, often referred to as a plan check, is an im- perform as intended. The quality assurance plan requires
portant step in achieving the goal of good performance. the engineer to be involved in determining and specifying
Design review should be welcomed by the design engineer which portions of the structure are to be tested, inspected,
because it affords an opportunity to have the correctness of and observed, and the extent of the testing, inspections,
his or her assumptions verified and to modify possible ar- and observations.
eas of code noncompliance prior to start of construction. The quality assurance plan will help ensure that the re-
Some jurisdictions have provided for a pre-design review quirements for the type and frequency of inspections and
where the design team may pose specific questions in writ- tests are clearly understood by the contractor and the test-
ing and receive written responses to avoid disagreement at ing and inspection agencies. This will aid in scheduling
the plan check stage. and help to avoid situations in which tests or inspections
C202.5 Project Design Peer Review are omitted. A quality assurance program affords the de-
sign professional an incentive to review his design with re-
Add new section: UBC §1706, Project Design Peer
spect to areas critical to good performance of the structure.
Review. For complex or innovative structural systems it
The program can then provide for more detailed quality as-
is advisable to have a peer reviewer or peer review panel
surance measures in these areas.
from the start of the project. A peer reviewer or peer re-
176 September 1999

Written statements are required to be prepared by the In addition to the quality assurance provisions re-
contractor to demonstrate the contractor’s awareness of quired, it is recommended that the Engineer of Record re-
the quality assurance requirements for the project and to view contractors’ submittals thoroughly and provide
outline the quality control measures the contractor will construction consultation to clarify the intent of the con-
employ during the project. The contractor’s quality control struction documents when necessary. Procedures for mod-
personnel, and the frequency and distribution of ifying the construction documents during construction
reports by the testing and inspection agencies, are also de- should also be included in the plan.
fined in the quality assurance plan. The engineer should
require that reports be submitted on a regular and timely
basis in order to keep informed of possible adverse devel-
opments during construction.
September 1999 177

178 September 1999

CHAPTER 3
Foundations
C301 General Requirements ate more damage to the structure than highly increased soil
pressure resulting from an earthquake.
The intent of these Requirements is to provide foundations
that have the capability to support the loads that may de- The magnitude of horizontal ground pressures and the
velop during the inelastic response of the structure induced associated deformations to resist seismic forces should be
by major earthquake ground motions. Foundation ele- carefully evaluated; considering soil type, ground motion,
ments themselves should be designed so that significant and topography.
inelastic behavior does not occur.
The advice of a soil and foundation engineer should be
In addition, consideration should be given to balanc- sought for the evaluation of:
ing the foundation strength with the probable strength of ■ Influence of site conditions on seismic lateral forces.
the superstructure, including potential overstrength, to en- ■ Possibility of shear failure or densification of the
sure that the assumed energy dissipation mechanism in the foundation soil during an earthquake.
superstructure is developed before any undesirable under- ■ Necessity for lateral ties between foundation elements
ground failure mechanism prohibits that assumed rein firm soils.
sponse. ■ Foundation deformations due to overturning forces.
Foundation allowable soil bearing pressures and pile The 1997 UBC includes provisions for consideration
loads have traditionally been given by the geotechnical en- of liquefaction potential and its effects that should be ac-
gineer based on allowable stress or working stress design. commodated in design. The shear strength of some types
This design method is continued for foundations by use of of soils, particularly loose, saturated sands, can be substan-
load combinations in Section 101.7.3. tially reduced by earthquake-induced liquefaction. As a re-
sult of liquefaction, foundation soil end bearing capacity
Foundation design loads should include the effects of
and frictional capacity between the soil and the foundation
accidental torsion, as prescribed in Section 105.6.
can be reduced. Among several examples of the effects of
liquefaction on foundation soil capacity was the severe
C302 Recommended Modifications settlement and dramatic tilting of buildings that occurred
to 1997 UBC during the 1964 Niigata, Japan earthquake. Buildings with
C302.1 Allowable Foundation and Lateral both shallow and deep foundations were affected. Other
Pressures effects of liquefaction that have been observed during
earthquakes include lateral spreads and flow slides, float-
Modify: UBC §1805, Allowable Foundation and Lat-
ing of lightweight embedded structure, and increased lat-
eral Pressures. Seismic shears and overturning effects
eral pressures on retaining walls.
must be carried into the foundations and a consideration of
permissible increased soil capacity for combined effects of The soil and foundation engineer should assess the po-
vertical and lateral loads should be made as part of the geo- tential for liquefaction as part of the geotechnical investi-
technical investigation. The problem is to provide safety gation for the proposed structure. In cases where there is a
for the short-time loading during an earthquake (or wind) significant liquefaction hazard, this should be considered
without imposing such restrictions and resulting founda- in selecting an appropriate foundation solution, develop-
tion configuration as to create wide disparity in foundation ing foundation design parameters, and evaluating founda-
deflections under normal loading. This disparity could cre- tion performance.
September 1999 179

Recent publications describing the liquefaction haz- tainties of the extent of damage for this type of foun-
ard and methods for evaluating it include those by Seed dation. Typically, battered piles are designed
and Idriss [1982], Seed et al. [1983], National Research assuming that lateral loads are resisted only by the ax-
Council [NRC, 1985], Seed et al. [1985], and Earthquake ial component on the pile without any induced mo-
Engineering Research Institute [EERI, 1986]. The proce- ments. However, this is an erroneous assumption to
dure developed by Seed and his coworkers is a widely ac- make [Lam and Bertero, 1990]. Proper design of bat-
cepted and economical method for evaluating liquefaction tered pile systems typically require detailed soil-pile
potential. It relates liquefaction potential to the standard interaction analyses. Battered piles should be de-
penetration resistance (SPT) blow count. A more recent signed for both moment and shear, in addition to the
commentary on liquefaction is presented in the 1997 axial load. Such moments and shears can also result
NEHRP provisions [NEHRP, 1997]. from interaction with the superstructure and from
ground movements such as subsidence, liquefaction,
C302.2 Requirements for Piles, Pile Caps,
and Grade Beams in Seismic Zones
or seismic compaction. Batter piles are considered as
3 and 4 limited ductile systems and should be designed using
the special seismic load combinations of Section
C302.2.1 Modify: UBC §1809.5.1, General 101.7.4.
Requirements. Bending moments induced in piles by
lateral displacements caused by earthquake motions must C302.2.3 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.5.3,
be considered in pile design. Pile-Soil-Structure Interaction
1. Short piles and long slender piles embedded in the
C302.2.2 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.5.2.4, earth behave differently when subject to lateral forces
Additional Requirements for Piles
and displacements. Long slender pile response de-
1. No Commentary provided. pends on its interaction with the soil, represented as an
2. The reduction factor to transverse reinforcement for elastic continuum (beam on elastic foundation model),
confinement of concrete in potential plastic hinge re- or as a series of unconnected linearly elastic springs
gions is based on the New Zealand concrete design (subgrade reaction model). The beam on elastic foun-
code. Testing by Hoat Joen and Park et al. [1990] and dation or subgrade reaction is necessary to obtain re-
Park and Hoat Joen [1990b] has demonstrated the ad- alistic pile moments, forces, and deflections [Broms,
equacy of these Requirements. Uplift testing by Cal- 1981]. The nonlinear response of the soil should be in-
trans of a metal shell type pile with vertical flutes and corporated into either of the two models through re-
cast-in-place concrete infill resulted in a premature peated iterations. When the pile length to diameter
failure by bond between the concrete and steel. An- ratio is 6 or lower, it can be treated as a rigid body. A
chorage for uplift loads was made to the concrete only method assuming a rigid body and linear soil response
[Caltrans/DFI Seminar, 1993]. for lateral bearing is currently in the present codes
3. Width to thickness ratios of steel plate or pipe ele- based on the approach developed by Czerniak [1957].
ments are prescribed so that the steel pile can develop Analyses of all pile lengths can be made using a vari-
its plastic moment capacity without local buckling. ety of computer programs [Reese, 1985] and hand
4. No Commentary provided. techniques [Duncan et al., 1994].
5. Loss of cover over the confined core will occur at a 2. Under lateral loading, substantial degradation of the
displacement ductility of approximately 2. The loss of lateral soil modulus occurs when in-line pile spacing
section and reduction of pile capacity is usually equal- is 3 to 8 pile diameters. This can result in increased
ized by the overstrength in the core due to confining pile moments and lateral displacements. This degrada-
reinforcement. However, abnormally large cover re- tion is recognized by several researchers, and state of
quirements or low ratios of core depth to gross depth the art can be found in Ooi et al. [1994].
of section are not fully compensated by this rational- 3. When piles are subject to strong ground motions,
ization. Therefore, a reduction in the capacity of the bending moments and shears are generated by
pile is warranted for these situations. soil-pile and pile-structure interactions.
6. Batter pile systems that are partially embedded have Kinematic or free-field displacement interactions
historically performed poorly under strong ground between the soil and pile can occur anywhere along
motions [Gerwick, 1992]. Difficulties in examining the pile. Such interactions will produce especially
existing fully embedded batter piles have led to uncer- large pile curvatures at the interfaces of soft and stiff
180 September 1999

soil strata. Inertial interaction between the pile and References

structure results from lateral loads from the structure
mass. At the interface of the soft and stiff soil strata, ATC-6, 1981. Applied Technology Council, “Seismic
bending moments result primarily from kinematic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges.”
interaction [ATC-6, 1981; Gazetas et al., 1992]. The Broms, B., 1981. “Precast Piling Practice,” Thomas
maximum moment demand on the pile could occur at Telford Ltd., London.
either location. Extending the lateral transverse
reinforcing for the potential plastic hinge region Caltrans/DFI Seminar, 1993. “Pile Load Test Results at
through this zone will ensure that proper Deep Bay Mud Site Using Various Pile Types,”
reinforcement will occur in the plastic hinge region. September 9-10, Oakland, CA.
Typically, in analyzing the building response to Chai, Priestly, Seible, 1991. “Seismic Retrofit of Circular
ground motions, the kinematic interaction is neglected Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,”
to simplify the analysis. ACI Structural Journal, September-October.
C302.2.4 Add new subsection: UBC §1809.6, Czerniak, E., 1957. “Resistance to Overturning of Single
Special Requirements for Pile Caps and Short Piles,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE
Grade Beams Vol. 83, ST-2.
1. No Commentary provided.
Duncan, J. M., L.T. Evans, and P.S.K. Ooi, 1994. “Lateral
2. Anchorage of the pile to the pile cap or grade beam for
Load Analysis of Single Piles and Drilled Shafts,”
tension or fixity should not fail before developing the
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New
pile or soil uplift capacity. It is also desirable that the
York.
pile structural capacity exceed the geotechnical fail-
ure/pile slip capacity. This could allow energy dissi- EERI, 1986. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
pating mechanisms, such as rocking, to occur in the Reducing Earthquake Hazards: Lessons Learned from
soil without structural failure of the pile. Earthquakes, Publication No. 86-02, Oakland, CA.
3. Grade beam elements attached to moment resisting Gazetas, Fan, et al., 1992. “Seismic Pile-Group-Structure
columns should not form plastic hinges, unless un- Interaction,” Piles Under Dynamic Loads,
avoidable, where detection of failure or distress is dif- Geotechnical Special Publication No. 34, ASCE.
ficult, nor should they provide a source of instability
for the superstructure. A strong column-weak beam Gerwick, Jr., B., and G. Fontinos, “Drilled Piers and
system at the foundation level has little benefit for the Driven Piles for Foundations in Areas of High
superstructure and forces plastic hinges in the grade Seismicity.” SEAONC Fall Seminar, 1992.
beams. Column longitudinal reinforcing hooked in Hoat Joen, P. and R. Park, 1990. “Flexural Strength and
footings or pile cap/grade beams are traditionally Ductility Analysis of Spirally Reinforced Prestressed
placed with hooks out. This has been found to sub- Concrete Piles,” PCI Journal, July-August.
stantially reduce the joint shear capacity [Chai, et al.,
1991]. The hooks should be turned into the joint in a Lam and Bertero, 1990. “Aseismic Design of Pile
manner similar to that of a typical beam-column exte- Foundations for Port Facilities,” Proceedings of the
rior joint. POLA Seismic Workshop on Seismic Engineering.
Port of Los Angeles, CA.
4. Transverse reinforcing for grade beams and pile caps
should extend past the centerline of edge piles suffi- NEHRP, 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the
ciently to develop the reinforcing. Development of Seismic Regulations for New
5. Design of pile caps typically assumes that the pile cap Buildings, Parts 1 and 2, 1997 Edition. Building
will remain rigid to distribute loading linearly to piles. Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C., 1997.
Caltrans undertook a nonlinear parametric study to de- NRC, 1985. National Research Council, Liquefaction of
termine span-to-depth (L/D) ratios that fulfill the ri- Soils During Earthquakes.
gidity requirement. This study showed an L/D of
approximately 2.2 and lower resulted in a nearly pla- Ooi, P.S.K. and J.M. Duncan, 1994. “Lateral Load
nar pile cap where piles in each cross row have a Analysis of Groups of Piles and Drilled Shafts,”
nearly equal deformation [Caltrans/DFI Seminar, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New
1993]. York.
September 1999 181

Park, R. and P. Hoat Joen, 1990b. “Simulated Seismic Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., L.F. Harder, and R.M. Chung,
Load Tests on Prestressed Concrete Piles and Pile-Cap 1985. “Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil
Connections,” PCI Journal, November-December. Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Vol. 3, December.
Reese, L.C., 1985. Documentation of Computer Program
LPILEI, Ensoft Inc., Austin, Texas. Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1982. Ground Motions and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and I. Arango, 1983. “Evaluation
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Data,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
Vol. 109, No. 3.
182 September 1999

CHAPTER 4
Reinforced Concrete
C401 General Requirements C402 Recommended Modifications

SEAOC adopts the provisions of Chapter 19 of the 1997 to 1997 UBC
UBC, with the modifications and additions specified in C402.1 Definitions of ρn and ρv
Requirements Section 402. The modifications address is-
sues that have been of concern to SEAOC in recent years, Modify: UBC §1921.0 Notations. This item follows
and which have been studied by the Ad Hoc Concrete Sub- a change approved in 1998 by ACI Committee 318. The
committee of the SEAOC Seismology Committee. item clarifies definitions that had caused confusion. For
typical walls and wall piers, ρn is the reinforcement ratio
C401.1 Comparison to Upcoming ACI for horizontal reinforcement, and ρv is the reinforcement
Changes ratio for vertical reinforcement.
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 C402.2 Welded Splices and Mechanically
has, as of 1998, approved a number of changes to their up- Connected Reinforcement
coming 1999 Building Code Requirements for Structural Modify: UBC §1921.2.6 This item follows a change
Concrete (ACI 318-99), including several changes ad- approved in 1998 by ACI Committee 318. This item dif-
dressing seismic design. In general, SEAOC supports fers from the UBC in that:
these changes, some of which are mirrored in the SEAOC 1. The provisions apply to walls as well as frame mem-
recommendations in Requirements Section 402. Other bers.
ACI changes, notably those regarding foundations and di- 2. Requirements for a Type 2 splice are different.
aphragms, are endorsed by SEAOC, but are not presented
3. The terminology to describe anticipated plastic hinge
here because their inclusion would involve a complicated
regions (where yielding is likely to occur) is different.
modifying and re-numbering of UBC sections.
For more information on plastic hinge regions of
SEAOC makes recommendations beyond those of
walls, see C407.5.5.3, Step 6.
ACI Committee 318, including: revisions to strong-col-
umn/weak-beam criteria (Section 402.5), design of wall C402.3 Flexural Members of Frames
and diaphragm lap splices per UBC §1912 (Section Modify: UBC §1921.3.1 Scope. This item requires
402.7), design of shear-critical walls for higher forces that any frame member resisting axial gravity loads con-
(Section 402.8), and deletion of some wall reinforcement form to UBC §1921.4. It is retained from previous Blue
requirements (Section 402.9). Book Recommendations. The requirements of UBC
SEAOC recommendations for reinforced concrete §1921.3 are intended to apply to horizontal elements of
walls (Requirements Sections 402.10 through 402.13) are frames such as beams or girders, resisting lateral forces in-
similar in many respects to changes approved by ACI 318, duced by earthquake motions. UBC and ACI permit these
but differences between the recommendations still exist. requirements to be applied to columns supporting axial
loads below Ag f'c /10. SEAOC believes that all members
of the lateral force resisting system that carry gravity load
by axial compression (i.e., columns) should meet the pro-
September 1999 183

portioning and reinforcement requirements of UBC for all columns acting to resist lateral forces in
§1921.4. the direction under consideration.
C402.4 Frame Members Subjected to ∑ Mg = sum of nominal moment strengths at each end
Bending and Axial Loads of each girder, for all girders of the level
Modify: UBC §1921.4.1 Scope. This item is re- acting to resist lateral forces in the direction
lated to Section 402.3 and requires that any frame member under consideration. In T-beam construction,
resisting axial gravity loads conform to UBC §1921.4. It is where the slab is in tension under moments at
retained from previous SEAOC Recommendations, which the face of the joint, slab reinforcement within
expands the scope in UBC §1921.4.1 to include all fram- an effective slab width defined in Sections
ing members of the lateral force resisting system support- UBC §1908.10 shall be assumed to contribute
ing gravity loads by axial compression, rather than to moment strength if the slab reinforcement
limiting it to members supporting an axial compressive is developed at the critical section for flexure.
force exceeding Ag f'c /10. As a result, all columns are sub-
Flexural strengths shall be summed such that the col-
ject to the same proportioning and reinforcement require- umn moments oppose the beam moments.
ments.
Exception 1: Equation C402-1 need not be satisfied
C402.5 Strong-Column/Weak-Beam for the columns below the roof.
Modify: UBC §1921.4.2.2. This item adds an excep- Exception 2: Equation C402-1 need not be satisfied
tion for columns directly below the roof. This exception is if a plastic or nonlinear analysis of the structure shows
a more direct statement of the intent of the UBC and ACI that a story mechanism does not govern seismic re-
318 provisions, which exempt columns that have an axial sponse.
force less than Ag f'c /10.
Delete: UBC §1921.4.2.3
Plastic and inelastic time-history analyses of frame C402.5.2 Commentary to Draft Requirements.
structures have shown that current strong-column/weak- Equation C402-1 modifies UBC Formula 21-1 to consider
beam provisions can be inadequate in preventing story the sum of column and girder strengths over an entire story
mechanisms. In response, the Ad Hoc Concrete Subcom-
rather than at each individual joint. ∑ M c includes only the
mittee of SEAOC Seismology Committee recommended a
fundamental modification of code provisions for strong- number of columns framing into the underside of a level—
column/weak-beam requirements. The Seismology Com- not the number of columns above and below. For example,
mittee voted to include the recommendations in the Com- in a three-bay planar frame, Equation 402-1 compares the
mentary rather than the Requirements of the Blue Book, sum of four column moment strengths to the sum of six
because the recommendations may result in a significant girder moment strengths (Figure C402-1). Flexural
change in current practice for proportioning columns. strengths can be taken at the faces of the beam-column
SEAOC plans further study of story mechanisms as a sys- joints, without translating moments to joint centerlines.
tem-wide issue, including both concrete and steel frames. The contribution of the slab to girder moment strength
must be considered.
The recommendations are shown in Section C402.5.1
below as draft requirements. The Commentary for the Equation C402-1 is to be checked for any horizontal
draft requirements is given in Section C402.5.2. direction of lateral forces per UBC §1630.1.1.
C402.5.1 Draft Requirements Currently Under Study The story approach is shown by plastic analysis stud-
ies to be a more appropriate provision against the forma-
Delete: UBC §1921.4.2.1
tion of undesirable story mechanisms. Desirable and
Modify: UBC §1921.4.2.2. To read as follows: The undesirable plastic mechanisms are shown in Figure
flexural strengths of the columns of each level shall satisfy C402-2. The story approach allows individual columns to
Equation C402-1. be weaker than beams, provided that there is enough
∑ Mc ≥ ∑ Mg Eqn. C402-1 strength in other columns to prevent a story mechanism.
∑ Mc = sum of nominal moment strength of all

columns framing into the underside of a level,
184 September 1999

The requirements of UBC §1921.4.2.1 are deleted be- Outside of plastic hinge regions, SEAOC recom-
cause: mends that splices be staggered to avoid weak sections.
1. SEAOC believes that story mechanisms should be The requirement to stagger splices was deleted from the
prevented even if column axial loads are below UBC in 1996.
Ag f'c /10. The provisions for development of flexural reinforce-
2. Ignoring the strength and stiffness of hinging columns ment in UBC §§1912.10, 1912.11, and 1912.12 are mainly
may not lead to better designs. pertinent to beams, and thus SEAOC does not recommend
their application to walls. However, the curtailment of
SEAOC recommends considering all significant mo-
flexural reinforcement must consider the shift of calculat-
ment frame columns to be part of the lateral force resisting
ed tension stresses toward the point of zero moment, as
system.
discussed in Section R12.10.3 of the ACI 318 Commen-
The provisions of UBC §1921.4.2.3 are deleted be- tary. The issue is also discussed in Section 5.4.2 of Paulay
cause the provisions of either UBC §1921.4.4 or UBC and Priestley [1992] where additional recommendations
§1921.7 should result in adequate transverse reinforce- are given.
ment.
The referenced sections, UBC §§1912.10.2,
The requirement to include the slab contribution, and 1912.10.3, and 1912.10.4, result in the minimum require-
taking moments at the joint faces, follow from changes ap- ment that vertical wall reinforcement shall extend beyond
proved in 1998 by ACI Committee 318. the point at which it is no longer required to resist flexure
C402.6 Column Lap Splice Locations
for a distance equal to the effective depth of the member
(0.8lw) or ld, whichever is greater. The extension is not re-
Modify: UBC §1921.4.3.2. This item adds a require-
quired at the top of the wall, which acts as the free end of
ment to the UBC provisions that column lap splices be en-
a cantilever.
closed by transverse ties, typically spaced at 4 inches on
center. A similar item appeared in 1996 Blue Book Section The requirements of Section 402.7 can result in longer
402.7.2, and an identical requirement was approved in extensions of flexural reinforcement than some engineers
1998 by ACI Committee 318. have traditionally used, particularly for walls with short
height-to-length ratios. Whether the extension is necessary
Lap splices are undesirable in potential plastic hinge
in all such cases is the subject of further investigation by
regions for the reasons given in Commentary Section
SEAOC.
C404.3. If the designer has determined, through a plastic
analysis and/or by meeting the recommendation of Re- C402.8 Shear Demand
quirements Section 402.5, that certain column ends are not Modify: UBC §1921.6.3 Design Forces. This item
expected to develop plastic hinges, then it could be argued requires walls to be flexurally-governed. The Exceptions
that lap splices can be allowed in these identified regions. allow walls that are shear-governed if they are designed
However, since the UBC does not require designers to ex- for increased shear forces. Studies of example wall designs
plicitly identify the anticipated plastic hinge regions, the [Maffei, 1996] have shown that walls designed only for
UBC requirement to locate splices within the center half of the shear forces specified in UBC §1921.6.3 may be sus-
the member is prudent. ceptible to shear failure, which has been shown in the re-
C402.7 Lap Splices and Reinforcement search to be undesirable [Corley et al., 1981; Paulay and
Development for Shear Walls Priestley, 1992].
Replace: UBC §1921.6.2.4 Walls that are shear governed are designed for wall
Lap splices should be designed per UBC §1912 rather than shear forces increased by a factor of R/2.5 (R/3.5 for dual
UBC §1921.5.4, which applies to anchorage of bars in systems). This factor is to be applied in combination with
beam-column joints. a shear strength-reduction factor, φ , of 0.85, as indicated
in Section 402.8.2.
SEAOC recommends that lap splices be avoided in
the potential plastic hinge regions of walls, for the reasons Walls that fail in shear exhibit strength degradation
given in Commentary Section C404.3. See C407.5.5.3, and low displacement capacity. In multistory buildings,
Step 6 for more information on the plastic hinge regions of the post-elastic displacement of shear-failing walls tends
walls. to concentrate at a single story or over a limited height,
September 1999 185

where the shear failure occurs, rather than distributing de- ωv = 0.85(0.9 + n / 10), for buildings up to 6 stories,
formation demands over the height of the building. Thus,
ωv = 0.85(1.3 + n / 30), for buildings over 6 stories,
increased wall shear forces, equivalent to using a reduced
R factor, are appropriate for the design of shear-governed where n = number of stories.
walls. The formulas above are taken from Paulay and Priest-
The magnification factor of R/2.5 for shear-governed ley [1992]. The 0.85 factor is added for application to de-
walls in bearing wall and building frame systems means signs according to the 1997 UBC and this Blue Book,
that such walls are designed for shear forces equivalent to because the original Paulay and Priestley equations as-
using an R of 2.5. This is consistent with ductility and sume a strength reduction factor of 1.0 rather than 0.85.
overstrength results from tests of shear-failing walls. The ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted trian-
Shear-governed walls in dual systems are designed for gular distributions of lateral forces. If a response spectrum
shear forces equivalent to using an R of 3.5. The increase analysis is carried out, a slightly lower ωv factor can be
from 2.5 to 3.5 considers that global strength degradation justified in some cases.
in a dual system will be lessened by effect of the moment
When a plastic analysis is carried out, the amplifica-
frame, and that dual systems are likely to have higher glo-
tion effect considered by ωv can instead be considered by
bal overstrength than other systems.
using a vertical distribution of lateral forces with a result-
Compared to previous practice, the requirements of ant located lower in the building, such as a uniform distri-
Section 402.8 can result in increased amounts of horizon- bution pattern.
tal reinforcement or increased wall thickness. The amplifi-
cation factors for walls that are shear-governed are based C402.9 Reinforcement Ratio for Walls and
on SEAOC’s engineering judgment. SEAOC recommends Diaphragms
continued study of the appropriate amplification factors Delete: UBC §1921.6.5.5. The provision is deleted
for shear-governed walls. because it can require excess vertical reinforcement,
which forces shear critical behavior in walls. The mini-
SEAOC strongly recommends that engineers provide
mum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025, specified in UBC
shear strength in excess of the shear corresponding to the
§1921.6.2.1, must still be used for both horizontal and ver-
development of the wall flexural strength.
tical distributed reinforcement.
As a minimum, this can be addressed by providing
Designers should avoid providing more vertical rein-
shear strength, φVn to resist (Mn/Mu)(ωv)Vu. The quantity
forcement than is necessary for flexural strength. In many
Mn/Mu is the ratio of moment strength provided to factored cases it is preferable to provide the required flexural
moment demand. In this application Mn should be calcu- strength with more distributed vertical reinforcement rath-
lated for the axial load case that results in the largest value er than with heavy concentrations of reinforcement at wall
of Mn. For greater protection against shear failures, the ends, as shown in Figure C402-3. This is particularly the
probable strength Mpr, calculated assuming a tensile stress case for lowrise walls, which are susceptible to sliding
in the flexural reinforcement of 1.25fy, can be used instead shear. Avoiding heavy concentrations of vertical rein-
forcement at wall ends can increase sliding shear resis-
of Mn. For coupled walls, or other walls where the devel-
tance by increasing the length of the compression zone of
opment of flexural strength corresponds to yielding of sev- the wall [Paulay and Priestley 1992], and facilitate the de-
eral wall segments, a plastic analysis of the structure is sign and construction of boundary zones and lap splices.
recommended to assess shear demands. Alternatively, an
average or weighted-average value of Mn/Mu for all yield- UBC §1921.6.5.5 was based on tests that showed that
ing locations can be used to magnify Vu. horizontal reinforcement contributed less to shear strength
than vertical reinforcement for low-rise walls
The quantity ωv is a shear amplification factor that ac- (hw/lw = 0.5 for the tests) [Barda et al., 1976]. However,
counts for inelastic dynamic effects that can cause the ver- the walls tested showed brittle behavior with a rapid deg-
tical distribution of lateral seismic forces to differ from the radation of strength as displacement increased beyond that
inverted triangular pattern assumed in the analysis, result- at peak strength. While horizontal reinforcement may not
ing in greater shear corresponding to the same wall flexur- increase strength for lowrise walls, it can increase dis-
al strength. The value of ωv can be taken as follows: placement capacity by preventing or delaying shear fail-
ures and allowing flexural behavior to initiate. Tests by
186 September 1999

Paulay et al. [1982] show that low-rise walls can be de- 402.11.2, ∆t and ∆y are defined as a function of ∆s, and the
signed to respond flexurally. The tested walls had hw /lw = term ∆E is not used.
0.5 and a horizontal reinforcement ratio ρn approximately
C402.11.2 Modify: UBC §1921.6.6.5 Replace defi-
twice the vertical reinforcement ratio ρ v' .
nitions of P 'u , ∆t and ∆y.
SEAOC recommends that designers compare wall
This item corrects a mistranslation of strain calculation
flexural and shear strengths to the capacity of the wall
procedures between the 1996 Blue Book and the 1997
foundations, and to wall strength in sliding shear. This is
UBC. In the 1996 Blue Book, ∆t is taken equal to Rw∆s,
particularly important for low-rise walls. Specific recom-
mendations are given in Paulay and Priestly [1992]. which for the earthquake forces of the 1997 UBC is equiv-
alent to R∆s. Use of ∆t = ∆m = 0.7R∆s would be unconser-
C402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and
vative in the strain calculation procedures because it can
Flanges
reduce the estimate of concrete strains by a factor of two
Modify: UBC §1921.6.6.2. This item adds a general or more.
requirement that wall sections be considered as integral
units. For a wall L-shaped in plan, for example, the two The definition of ∆y in Section 402.11.2 is based on
legs of the L should not be designed or reinforced indepen- effective stiffness properties rather than gross stiffness
dently. The leg of the L parallel to the direction of earth- properties. This definition is consistent with the original
quake forces being considered will act as the web of the intent of UBC §1921.6.5.5, the 1996 Blue Book, and Fig-
section, while the other leg of the L will act as a flange, ure C407-1. See Commentary Section C407.5.5 for further
with an effective flange width as specified. information.
For walls connected to each other by beams, slabs, or The axial force P 'u , used to calculate c'u , does not in-
coupling beams, the coupling action should be considered, clude vertical acceleration effects. Thus, Eh is used in the
unless the effects of coupling can be shown to be negligi-
ble. definition of P 'u , rather than E.
Walls with openings should be analyzed to identify C402.11.3 Modify: UBC §1921.6.6.5. Add three
the critical sections and behavior modes (e.g. flexure or paragraphs at end of section as follows:
shear) and the governing mechanism of inelastic response. Exceptions 1 and 2 give designers a shortcut to the
Vertically aligned wall openings create a coupled wall sys- strain calculation procedure of UBC §1921.6.6.5. Excep-
tem, which is typically analyzed as an assemblage of cou- tion 1 is based on case studies that show that a direct neu-
pling beams and wall piers. Walls with irregular openings tral axis criterion yields results similar to the strain
can be designed using strut and tie methods [Paulay and calculation procedure.
Priestley, 1992]. Small, isolated openings that do not af-
fect the location of critical sections or the governing be- Case studies also show that the required length of con-
havior modes or mechanisms can be neglected. finement can be expressed as a function of neutral axis
depth, as indicated in Exception 2.
The recommended effective flange width in tension is
changed from 30 percent of the wall height to 50 percent Similar provisions for wall boundary detailing were
of the wall height based on Paulay and Priestley [1992]. approved in 1998 by ACI Committee 318. Use of these ex-
The engineer should establish whether the foundation of ceptions simplifies the design process of UBC§1921.6.6.5.
the structure has the strength to develop the moment ca- C402.12 Wall Areas Where Special
pacity of the wall above. Boundary Zone Detailing is Not
C402.11 Boundary Zone Requirements by Required
Strain Calculation Add: Add new Section after UBC §1921.6.6.6.
C402.11.1 Modify: UBC§1921.6.6.5 Delete defini- The 1996 Blue Book Commentary “strongly recom-
tion of ∆E. Add definitions of M'n and ∆s. mended that all wall edges in potential plastic hinge re-
gions have ties spaced at 6db or 6 inches maximum to limit
The definition of M’n is added because it is used in the def- buckling of [longitudinal] bars.” This recommendation is
initions of c’u and in ∆y. By SEAOC recommendation strengthened by the inclusion of Requirements Section
September 1999 187

402.11 in this 1998 Blue Book. Figure C402-4 shows ex-

amples of how the quantity ρ l is calculated.
Additional
Boundary ties to be provided under this section are
Commentary
similar to those required in UBC §1931.6.6.6, but the re- The following Commentary discusses selected sections of
quired area of transverse reinforcement, Ash, is less. the 1997 UBC.
C402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling
Beam Detailing
C403 General Requirements
Modify: UBC §1921.6.10.4. Since the diagonal rein- C403.1 UBC §1909.2.3 Load
forcement is designed to resist the entire flexure and shear Combinations Including
in the coupling beam, additional longitudinal and trans- Earthquake Effects
verse reinforcement acts principally as “basketing” to con- See Requirements Chapter 1 for SEAOC’s recommended
tain concrete that may spall. As such, this reinforcement modifications to the load combinations of UBC §1612. For
need not conform to the UBC sections referenced in UBC reinforced concrete, the load combination using UBC for-
§1921.6.10.4. mula 12-5 becomes:
The 1996 Blue Book cautioned that requiring con- (1.2 ± 0.5CaI)D + ρEh + (f1L + f2S) Eqn. 403-1
formance to UBC §1910.5 may result in excessive longi-
UBC load combination formula 12-6 becomes:
tudinal reinforcement; this Recommendation is
strengthened by revising the requirements for additional 0.9D ± ρEh Eqn. 403-2
reinforcement in this 1998 Blue Book. The SEAOC rec-
The rationale behind these load combinations is given by
ommendations are not tied to UBC §1911.8.9 and UBC
Ghosh [1998].
§1911.8.10 because the additional reinforcement is not
acting as the principal shear reinforcement. C403.2 UBC §1909.3.4 and UBC
§1921.2.3 Strength Reduction
SEAOC recommends against fully developing the ad- Factors, φ, as Applied to
ditional longitudinal reinforcement into the wall piers, as Diaphragms
this would increase the flexural strength, and consequently
the shear demands, on the coupling beam. Instead SEAOC In 1998 ACI Committee 318 approved a code change that
recommends continuing the additional longitudinal rein- specifies “the strength reduction factor for shear in dia-
forcement 6 inches into the wall pier, which should be ad- phragms shall not exceed the minimum strength reduction
equate to maintain the integrity of the coupling beam after factor for shear used for the vertical components of the pri-
cracking and spalling [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]. mary lateral force resisting system.” SEAOC supports this
recommendation, which requires that the shear strength re-
duction factor for floor and roof diaphragms to be 0.6 if the
shear strength reduction factor for the walls is 0.6.
For typical buildings it is expected that floor and roof
diaphragms will have strengths that exceed the forces cor-
responding to the strength of the walls or moment frames
that are the vertical components of the lateral force resist-
ing system. The walls or moment frames are expected to
be the source of inelastic, ductile response of the structure
and diaphragms are expected to remain elastic. This is typ-
ically preferred as a mechanism of response, compared to
a mechanism where diaphragms yield in flexure, or worse,
fail in shear.
SEAOC recommends that engineers check whether
diaphragms have strength exceeding that corresponding to
the forces delivered at the development of the strength of
the wall or moment frame systems. The behavior should
188 September 1999

especially be checked in the case of offset walls (Irregular- construction procedures for high strength and ultra-high
ity Type D in UBC Table 16-M) where the diaphragm is strength reinforcing steel and concrete to allow highrise, or
required to transfer shear delivered from a wall above to an super highrise structures to be built more economically.
offset wall below.
This five-year program has produced an enormous
C403.3 UBC §1921.2.4.2 Lightweight amount of experimental and analytical data related to high
Concrete strength concrete with specified compressive strength in
There is evidence suggesting that lightweight concrete the range of approximately 4.5 to 18 ksi and high strength
ranging in strength up to 12,490 psi can attain adequate ul- reinforcing steel with yield strength of approximately 60
timate strain capacities [Kaar et al., 1978]. Testing to ex- to 180 ksi.
amine the behavior of high strength, lightweight concrete For example, results from testing of standard hooks
under high-intensity cyclic shear loads, including a critical with yield strength of 120 ksi show proportionately ade-
study of bond characteristics, has not been extensive in the quate pullout capacity if they are embedded in 12 ksi, or
past. However, there are test data showing that properly stronger, concrete. Cyclic loading of high strength rein-
designed lightweight concrete columns, with concrete forced concrete columns with low axial stresses exhibit
strength ranging up to 6,210 psi, maintained ductility and excellent ductile structural response when confined with
strength when subjected to large inelastic deformations high strength lateral ties, provided the full capacity of
from load reversals [Rabbat et al., 1986]. It was felt that a transverse reinforcement is normalized by the strength of
limit of 6,000 psi on the strength of lightweight concrete concrete [ ρ fy /f'c ≈ 0.18 (see UBC §1921 for definition of
was advisable, pending further testing of high strength
terms) has been suggested, as a lower bound].
lightweight concrete members under reversed cyclic load-
ing. Despite many encouraging results, several areas may
need further investigation and refinement, including:
C403.4 UBC §1921.2.5 Reinforcement in
Members Resisting Earthquake n Splicing methods using gas-pressure welding or
Forces enclosed inert gas welding (popular in Japan) seem to
be inadequate to develop ultimate strength of high
SEAOC does not recommend the use of high strength re- strength reinforcing steel.
inforcing steel with yield strength in excess of 60 ksi for n Smaller residual displacement and energy dissipation
the reasons stated below. were observed when high strength longitudinal bars
First, tests have shown that bond characteristics great- were tested (as opposed to normal strength
ly influence the flexural stiffness and ductile behavior of longitudinal bars) in columns subject to shear and
reinforced concrete members and their joints in the inelas- bending, with all other elements remaining the same,
tic range, with bond stresses becoming much lower and such as confinement reinforcement, strength of
bond-slip increasing significantly in the post-yield range concrete, and product of longitudinal bar cross
over those in the elastic range. Second, cyclic tests of rein- sectional area and its yield strength.
forced concrete joints indicate that the bond-slip increases n Concrete splitting failure occurred at several locations
further in the inelastic range with an increase in the yield along the height of high strength columns with small
strength of the reinforcing steel, which in turn further re- shear span-depth ratios when subject to high axial
duces the available bond stresses. stresses, perhaps due partly to the low tensile strength
of concrete.
In order to compensate for this reduction in bond n Structural walls containing high strength materials
stresses and enhance ductility when using high strength re- have also been subjected to extensive testing under
inforcing steel, high strength concrete has been experi- simulated gravity and cyclic lateral loads. The
mented with to meet the higher bond demand. observed modes of failure indicate poor energy
Unfortunately, there is a lack of research conducted in the dissipation and ductility as indicated by pinching of
U.S. on the inelastic, cyclic response of high strength rein- the hysteretic loop. [Sugano et al., 1988; Okamura et
forcing steel, and in fact little research is available for high al., 1987; Kaku et al., 1991; Kabeyasawa et al., 1992;
strength reinforcing subjected to monotonic loading. Miura et al., 1990; Aoyama et al., 1992].
However, since 1988, a major effort has been under- It is perhaps noteworthy that physical and chemical
taken by Japan's Ministry of Construction to direct a com- properties of some materials used in Japan may vary from
prehensive program in development, design and
September 1999 189

those of their counterparts in the U.S. For example, the steel passing through the joint from orthogonal beams, and
type of superplasticizers or other admixtures used in high the requirements for development of beam reinforcement
strength concrete, the difference in rebar elongation char- make necessary a careful study of the bar layouts, includ-
acteristics, and other variables in testing criteria and data ing splices. Field tolerances in steel placement must be
interpretation often necessitate verification of such results considered and adequate access must be provided for
using U.S. materials and standards. Nonetheless, further proper concrete placement and consolidation.
experimentation, together with new theoretical and design
In spite of the fact that moments at both ends of a
developments in seismic applications of high strength re-
beam or girder may be negative under specified seismic
inforcing steel and concrete may pave the way for struc-
load combinations, continued lateral displacement of the
tures using high strength materials; however, in the
structure due to maximum expected levels of ground mo-
meantime, the limitations in these Requirements imposed
tion will add positive moment to either end of a beam. To
on strengths of materials are consistent with the current
ensure strength and ductility under these extreme displace-
state of the art in the U.S.
ment conditions, positive moment strength equal to at least
50 percent of the negative moment strength must be pro-
C404 Flexural Members of Frames vided at both ends. This additional reinforcement also in-
C404.1 UBC §1921.3.1 Scope creases the flexural ductility under negative moments
when this reinforcement acts in compression [Park and
See Requirements Section 402.3 and Commentary Section
Paulay, 1975].
C402.3 for recommended modifications to UBC
§1921.3.1. C404.3 UBC §1921.3.2.3 Lap Splices
in Flexural Members of Frames
The geometric constraints for flexural members are
based primarily on past practice. The limit on the As indicated in ACI Commentary §R21.3.2.3, “Lap
width-to-depth ratio is intended to provide compact splices of reinforcement (see UBC §21.3.2.3) are prohib-
cross-sections that have a reasonably low risk of lateral in- ited at regions where flexural yielding is anticipated be-
stability in the nonlinear range of response. The maximum cause such splices are not considered reliable under
width limitation is related to the problem of efficient trans- conditions of cyclic loading into the inelastic range.” Lap
fer of moment from beam to column. This limitation inten- splices in anticipated plastic hinge regions are unreliable
tionally prohibits the use of a flat plate or flat slab strip for because they tend to progressively unzip [Paulay and
a beam element in a seismic resisting frame, unless special Priestley, 1992]. Increasing lap splice length is unlikely to
details are incorporated in the slab structure. It should be make such splices satisfactory, but providing or increasing
noted that although it may be possible to provide the nec- ties around lap splices will generally improve perfor-
essary flexural strength in that portion of the slab permit- mance.
ted to be designed as a beam, it is likely that drift will be Even well-confined lap splices that do not slip are un-
excessive. desirable in plastic hinge regions because they prevent an
C404.2 UBC §1921.3.2 Longitudinal even distribution of yielding along the length of the flex-
Reinforcement ural reinforcement. When splices are present, steel yield-
ing and strains tend to concentrate over a short length of
The limitations on reinforcement are intended to achieve
reinforcement at one or both ends of the lap splice length.
ductile behavior in beams and girders. The minimum rein-
This can reduce the rotation and ductility capacity of the
forcement ratio, 200/fy, is intended to provide minimum
plastic hinge region.
reinforcement strength greater than the tensile strength of
the concrete in an uncracked section. The maximum rein- C404.4 UBC §1921.3.3 Transverse
forcement ratio, 0.025, is intended to ensure that the flex- Reinforcement
ural member has adequate rotational capacity resulting Transverse reinforcement is required in flexural members
from yielding of the reinforcement prior to compression for two reasons: 1) to provide the member with adequate
crushing of concrete. shear strength; and 2) to confine the concrete and restrain
A practical limitation on the amount of reinforcement the longitudinal reinforcement against buckling in zones
permitted in a flexural member results from the congestion where there is a possibility of yielding under earthquake
of bars. The amount of column main steel and special effects. Reinforcement for the first requirement is speci-
transverse reinforcing in the joints, the space required for fied in UBC §1921.3.4 and, for the second in UBC
190 September 1999

§1921.3.3. The amounts of transverse reinforcement re- C405.3 UBC §1921.4.3.2 Splice Locations
quired for shear and confinement are not required to be ad- See Requirements Section 402.6 and Commentary Section
ditive. Transverse reinforcement is also beneficial around C402.6 for recommended modifications to UBC
lap splices. §1921.4.3.2.
C404.5 UBC §1921.3.3 Hoops and C405.4 Transverse Reinforcement
Seismic Hooks
C405.4.1 UBC §1921.4.4.1, Item 5 Excessive
A stirrup, as defined by ACI, may have 90-degree hooks, Cover, Minimum Reinforcement. Minimum detailing
whereas a “hoop” must have “seismic hooks” with a requirements are prescribed for columns, which for archi-
135-degree bend anchored in the confined core of a mem- tectural or other reasons, are designed with 4 or more
ber. Ninety-degree hooks can lose their effectiveness after inches of concrete beyond the confined core. Reinforce-
spalling of the concrete cover. ment is required to prevent the spalling of large volumes
C404.6 UBC §1921.3.4.1 Shear Strength of concrete and the subsequent sudden loss of column
Design Forces stiffness and/or falling hazards.
The notation Mpr represents the probable flexural strength Item 6 Point of Contraflexure. When the dynamic
of beams and columns. Mpr includes a strength reduction force procedure is used, the location of the point of con-
traflexure may be determined from the results of the equiv-
factor of φ=1.0 and an allowance for overstrength of rein-
alent static force procedure. The results of the dynamic
forcing steel (1.25 fy).
analysis will not provide the necessary information if the
This UBC provision differs from the companion ACI particular method of modal combination (such as SRSS)
provision (§21.3.4.1) in that the word “factored” is deleted does not retain the algebraic signs of the column end mo-
before the phrase “tributary gravity loads.” SEAOC be- ments.
lieves that the use of unfactored tributary gravity loads in C405.4.2 UBC §1921.4.4.4 Transverse Reinforce-
combination with the probable beam flexural strengths ment, Extent. If the moment gradient over the height of
represents a rational approach for the calculation of design a column is relatively flat, the hinging region may extend
shear force. over more than lo as defined in UBC §1921.4.4.4.
C405 Frame Members Subjected to C405.4.3 UBC §1921.4.4.5 Transverse Reinforce-

ment at Discontinuities. The requirement for special
Bending and Axial Loads transverse reinforcement at discontinuities is intended to
C405.1 UBC §1921.4.1 Scope ensure that the forces developed in a discontinuous wall
can be transferred to its supporting element. The reduced
anchorage specified where bars extend into a footing or
C402.4 for recommended modifications to UBC
mat is in acknowledgment of the beneficial confinement
§1921.4.1.
offered by the mass concrete.
C405.1.1 UBC §1921.4.1.1 Dimensions of
C405.4.4 UBC §1921.4.4.7 Transverse Reinforce-
Sections. Geometric constraints for columns follow
ment at Columns. The maximum axial load that can be
previous practice and approximate the proportions used in
imposed on a column is that resulting from application of
tests. In the preliminary sizing of columns, the engineer is
full dead and live loads concurrent with development of
alerted to consider the additional geometric constraints im-
flexural strengths at both ends of every beam framing into
posed by considerations of shear in the joint (UBC
the column at all levels above that in question. While it is
§1921.5) and development of beam reinforcement within
recognized that this may be an improbable condition, it is
the joint.
nevertheless obvious that if the strength of the column ex-
C405.2 UBC §1921.4.2 Minimum Flexural ceeds this value, no overload is possible and therefore con-
Strength of Columns finement over the full length is not necessary. Considering
See Requirements Section 402.5 and Commentary Section the low probability that this load condition would occur,
C402.5 for recommended modifications to UBC and recognizing the inconvenience of making several bi-
§1921.4.2. axial bending computations for every column in the build-
ing, it is assumed to be sufficient to consider maximum
applied beam moments on the individual column section
September 1999 191

in question as occurring about only one axis at a time. For adequate shear strength to resist the forces imposed on it
simplicity in calculations, the strength of the column may by the connecting members.
be taken as the axial strength at minimum eccentricity, i.e.,
At present, there is some disagreement among re-
0.8Po.
searchers regarding the determination of joint shear
C405.5 UBC §1921.4.5.1 Shear Strength strength. The reasons for the differences include disagree-
Design Forces ment on the mechanism of joint shear resistance and the
The notation Mpr used for flexural members also applies to deformation requirements for concrete frame structures.
Current thinking is that the shear strength of joint cores is
columns. The upper limit on shear force occurs when col-
not very sensitive to joint shear reinforcement. In the ACI
umn plastic hinges form at the top and the bottom of a col-
design procedure, the design horizontal shear force on the
umn. The UBC permits a lower design shear force,
joint core is limited to an allowable nominal value and the
computed as the column shear force present when beam
amount of transverse reinforcement is determined by con-
plastic hinges form at the top and the bottom of the col-
finement considerations. The engineer is reminded, how-
umn. This permitted reduction should be used with cau-
ever, that these methods and recommendations are based
tion. Elastic methods of analysis may not conservatively
on past experience and laboratory data, and are subject to
predict maximum column shear forces. Plastic and nonlin-
revision as better data become available.
ear methods of analysis provide a more reliable measure of
maximum column shear forces. Caution is also warranted C406.1.1 UBC §1921.5.1.4 Minimum Dimensions of
as the code does not thoroughly address shear strength of Columns. The loss of bond between longitudinal beam
concrete columns subjected to flexural yield and/or net reinforcement and joint concrete under cyclic load rever-
tension. In summary, the column design shear force should sals causes a significant increase in frame deformations, or
be based on the maximum forces that can be delivered to drift, which can lead to frame instability from p-delta ef-
the column, corresponding to the governing yield mecha- fects. In order to prevent excessive degradation of joint
nism. stiffness under seismic loading, it is necessary to minimize
this loss of bond.
C406 Joints of Frames The minimum column size requirement is intended to
C406.1 UBC §1921.5.1 General reduce the loss of bond between beam longitudinal rein-
Requirements forcement and the joint concrete at deformation reversals
beyond the yield point of the steel. Additional measures
In order to ensure that the required energy dissipation ca- can be taken to improve the condition for anchorage and
pability can be developed in reinforced concrete frame bond development at beam-column joints. These include
structures, careful consideration must be given to the de- forcing the location of beam plastic hinges away from the
sign and detailing of beam-column joints. Such joints column face. This can be accomplished by designing
should be designed and detailed to: haunched beams, cutting off or hooking some of the longi-
1. Preserve the integrity of the joints sufficiently so that tudinal beam reinforcement some distance away from the
the strength and deformation capacities of the con- column face, or by bending and diagonally crossing some
necting beams and columns are developed. of the longitudinal beam reinforcement at a distance from
2. Prevent excessive degradation of joint stiffness under the column face.
seismic loading by minimizing cracking of the joint
Nearly all of the research conducted on beam-column
concrete and by preventing the loss of bond between
joints has been performed on specimens constructed of
the concrete and longitudinal beam and column rein-
normal weight concrete. Because of the reduced bond
forcement passing through the joints.
strength of lightweight concrete, the minimum column
3. Prevent brittle shear failure of the joint. size required should be increased where columns are con-
The first of these requirements can be met by adequate structed with lightweight aggregate. Although no specific
confinement of the joint concrete. The second can be dealt design recommendations can be given, the modification
with by providing adequate transverse joint reinforcement factors for lightweight concrete presented in ACI 12.2 may
(ties or hoops) and by adequate anchorage or development be appropriate to apply to the 20db minimum column di-
of the longitudinal beam and column reinforcement. The mension limitation until further information is available.
third requirement dictates that the joint be provided with
192 September 1999

C406.2 UBC §1921.5.4.1 Development n SEAONC seminar notes [Maffei, 1996] summarize
Length for Reinforcement in recent changes in code provisions for walls and give a
Tension number of design recommendations.
The development length for a bar with a standard 90-de- C407.1.1 UBC §§1921.6 and 1629.6.2–3 Structural
gree hook is provided by UBC formula. 21-5. Eqn. 21-5 is System Type and R for Concrete Wall Buildings. Con-
derived from the provisions of UBC §1912.5 by multiply- crete shear walls are employed in bearing wall systems
ing the hook development length specified therein by fac- (R=4.5) and in building frame systems (R=5.5). To see if
tors of: 0.7 for cover exceeding 2.5 inches; 0.8 for a the structure qualifies as a building frame system, with the
connection confined by ties spaced at not more than three higher R, apply the following test:
bar diameters; 1.25 for the ratio of actual bar yield stress
to specified yield stress; and 1.1 to account for cyclic load Assume that all portions of the walls that are not rein-
effects. forced as columns or beams are removed, but that the self
weight of these wall portions is still present. If the remain-
In recognition of the rather limited amount and vari- ing structure is capable of supporting the factored gravity
able behavior of one-way load tests on hooks [Zsutty, loads and conforms to the detailing requirements for grav-
1985], the combined factors of 0.7 and 0.8 for cover and ity frame members, then the structure qualifies as a build-
confinement may need further consideration. Reversed cy- ing frame system.
cles of tension and compression yield may also be more
destructive to bond than would be represented by the cy- It is not required that walls be physically separate
clic load factor of 1.1. Also, since reinforcing steel can from the building frame system. Building frame columns
have a total strain-hardening ratio in excess of the 1.25 fac- can for example be integral with a wall, forming boundary
tor, a value nearer to the ratio of ultimate strength to spec- elements.
ified yield strength may be more appropriate. Recent The distinction between the two different concrete
cyclic load tests [Hawkins et al., 1987] have shown that wall systems and the two values for R is based on tradition-
pull-out failures can occur at hook development lengths al practice and is not necessarily justified by technical
only slightly less than those given by UBC formula 21-5. principles or research results. The assumption of a build-
The engineer should consider the consequences of hook ing frame system may require the design to include ele-
pull-out in exterior beam-column joints and provide extra ments—such as beams at each intersection of walls and
development length, especially where seismic load is the floor slabs or confined columns within the wall length—
major part of the total load combination. The 20db mini- that in some cases are of no benefit to seismic perfor-
mum column dimension in UBC §1921.5.1.4 can serve as mance.
a guide. C407.1.2 Construction Joints in Walls. Construction
joints in walls should be carefully inspected for adequate
C407 Shear Walls, Diaphragms, roughening and cleaning, per UBC §§1911.7.9 and
and Trusses 1906.4, to ensure monolithic behavior under cyclic forces.
See Paulay [1986] and Oesterle et al. [1980] for additional
C407.1 UBC §1921.6 General
information.
Design procedures for reinforced concrete structural walls
C407.1.3 Collector or Drag Reinforcement. Horizon-
(shear walls) have undergone significant changes in recent
tal collector or drag reinforcement from floor and roof di-
codes, including the 1994 and 1997 UBC. Designers of
aphragms must be carried far enough into a wall for that
concrete wall structures are encouraged to consider issues
section of the wall to resist the drag, and then should be
that go beyond the minimum code provisions of the 1997
continued beyond that section for a distance sufficient to
UBC. This commentary and three additional references
develop the reinforcement. Preferably, the collector rein-
are recommended to designers:
forcement should be developed over the entire length of
n The reinforced concrete sections of FEMA 306/307
the wall [Paulay, 1982]. An abrupt termination of collector
[ATC, 1998] summarize wall research and present
reinforcement may result in localized failure and loss of
additional information on wall evaluation and design.
n Chapter 5 of the textbook Seismic Design of anchorage. The strength reduction factor, ø, for chords and
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings [Paulay collectors should be taken as 0.60 to increase the likeli-
and Priestley, 1992] covers in detail the seismic hood that the diaphragm will remain elastic.
behavior and design of walls.
September 1999 193

C407.2 Reinforcement seismic performance than the previous empirical proce-

C407.2.1 UBC §1921.6.2.2 Walls With Single Cur- dures.
tains of Reinforcement. UBC §1921.6.2.2 permits the C407.5.1 UBC §1921.6.6.1 Analysis and Design of
use of shear walls with one curtain of reinforcement if the Wall Sections. Wall sections are designed for flexure
in-plane factored shear force assigned to the wall does not and axial load according to procedures commonly used for
exceed 2A cv f ′c . However, no provisions are presented columns. All developed vertical reinforcement within the
effective wall section is taken to contribute to flexural
to address the special design considerations associated strength. Foundations are designed to develop the forces
with such walls. In order to design ductile axially loaded delivered by wall boundaries, flanges, and webs. A force
single curtain walls, it is necessary to understand their be- path from the wall to the foundation should be established.
havior and to proportion and detail them to prevent brittle
failure modes. Particular care is required in the design of The past practice of assuming that all moment and
these walls because once the flexural tensile yield strength gravity forces be taken in wall boundaries is no longer part
of the wall reinforcement is exceeded, there is little inelas- of the UBC, and is not recommended by SEAOC. Design-
tic reserve to fall back on. Lateral deflections increase rap- ers should not neglect the contribution to flexural strength
idly at this stage, and if the axial load is very large, in the wall web.
collapse may result. Wall elements that have the proportions correspond-
Extensive testing has been carried out to study the being to wall piers are also subject to the applicable provi-
havior of axially loaded single curtain walls sions of UBC §1921.6.13.
[ACI-SEAOC, 1982] and the engineer is directed to this Building frame systems and dual systems usually have
reference for guidance. The detailing prescribed for the shear walls constructed within selected bays of the re-
edges of shear walls is in recognition of the need to restrain quired space frame. The columns of the space frame that
the longitudinal reinforcement from buckling under ex- are included in the wall section shall be considered as part
treme loading conditions and to develop the tensile of the wall section that resists seismic load combinations.
strength of the shear reinforcement close to the edge of the
wall. For the case of a system where the shear wall section
includes reinforced concrete columns of the required SM-
C407.2.2 UBC §1921.6.2.4 Splices. See Require-
RF, the column confinement requirements may be detailed
ments Section 402.7 and Commentary Section C402.7 for
using UBC §1921.6.5.6-2, without increase of hoop bar di-
recommended modification to UBC §1921.6.4 and Com-
ameter. This is to avoid congestion caused by wall hori-
mentary on splices.
zontal reinforcing anchored in the confined zone. The
C407.3 UBC §1921.6.3 Design Forces and increase in spacing of confinement is allowed because the
UBC §1921.6.5 Shear Strength columns are an integral part of the wall and are less prone
See Requirements Section 402.8 and Commentary Section to the concentrated inelastic flexural and axial load deteri-
C402.8 for recommended modifications to UBC oration effects that could occur in the joint regions of the
§1921.6.3 which require walls that are shear critical to be open beam-column frame.
designed for increased forces. C407.5.2 UBC §1921.6.6.2 Effective Flange
C407.4 UBC §1921.6.5.5 Reinforcement Width. See Requirements Section 402.10 and Commen-
Ratio for Walls and Diaphragms tary Section C402.10 for recommended modification to
UBC §1921.6.6.2.
C402.9 for recommended modifications to UBC C407.5.3 UBC §1921.6.6.3 Walls With Excessive
§1921.6.5.5. Axial Loads. The limit of 0.35Po is an approximation of
the “balanced point” on the column interaction curve be-
C407.5 UBC §1921.6.6 Design of Shear low which the tensile steel strains reach yield prior to con-
Walls for Flexural and Axial Loads
crete compressive strains reaching 0.003. When axial
The 1997 UBC includes revised provisions for walls that loads exceed this limit, a brittle concrete compression fail-
have not yet been adopted by ACI. These new provisions ure mode can occur if concrete is not confined; confine-
incorporate rational procedures to account for total flex- ment similar to that required for columns is necessary to
ural strength and section ductility, offering more reliable provide inelastic deformation capacity.
194 September 1999

C407.5.4 UBC §1921.6.6.4 Design Method that will be gained from these analyses, it will be possible
Triggers. The three listed triggers found in UBC to improve upon the limits and parameters of the simpli-
§1921.6.6.4, Items 1, 2, and 3, are simple to evaluate for a fied procedures for future Requirements. This general con-
wall or portion thereof, and they have been formulated to cept of deformation analysis should be extended to apply
replace the previous gross section stress trigger of 0.2f c′ to the design and detailing of other structural systems such
for boundary zones. They are intended to provide for a as frames and braced frames. The upper strain limit of
more realistic set of conditions to approximately deter- 0.015 in UBC formula 21-8 is established from research
mine when the wall section will not suffer strains beyond results for confined concrete [Park and Paulay, 1975].
0.003 when subjected to the design earthquake. The lower These Requirements make reference to the wall axial load,
limit of P u ≤ 0.05A g f c for nonsymmetrical wall sections P u′ , defined as 1.2D+0.5L+E. For the purposes of
is to allow for the large neutral axis depth and correspond- UBC§1921.6.6.5. E can be taken as Eh, and the effects of
ing high compressive strains that can occur in the stems of vertical earthquake excitation, Ev, can be neglected. Eh
these sections. and Ev are defined in UBC §1630.1.1.
A symmetrical wall with a limit of P u ≤ 0.10A g f c C407.5.5.1 Background of the Strain Based
shall also have symmetrically distributed reinforcement. It Approach. UBC §1921.6.6.5 defines compression strain
is anticipated that most walls in lowrise structures will limits beyond which the boundary zone detail require-
conform to the given trigger limits, in which case no fur- ments of UBC §1921.6.6.6 shall be provided and also pro-
ther analysis is required. With respect to trigger 3, it is rec- vides a methodology for estimating these strains. This
ommended that a limit on the shear span ratio Mu / Vu l w ≤ methodology is described below, following a general dis-
3 should apply when Vu is near to its limit. This modifica- cussion of this new strain-based approach.
tion has been adopted in the 1997 UBC. In general, caution In general terms, if flexural compression strains ex-
should be taken when using the triggers for nonsymmetri- ceed the limiting value when the wall is displaced to its
cal walls with large compression flanges or steel contents maximum inelastic deformation during the design earth-
on one end of the wall. quake, confinement of the compression or boundary zone
For wall sections not meeting the trigger limits, the is required. These Requirements require confinement of
last paragraph of this Provision specifies the length of the the boundary zone wherever compression strains in the
confined boundary zone that would make any further anal- wall critical section (at the plastic hinge) exceed a strain
ysis of strain conditions unnecessary. It is intended for cas- level of 0.003. In any concrete section yielding in flexure,
es where there are only a few walls that do not meet the a rapid loss of strength occurs once the unconfined con-
trigger limits and where a detailed analysis is not justifi- crete begins to spall, see Figures C407-1 and C407-2.
able in terms of any small savings in confinement steel. Tests show that spalling of unconfined concrete initiates at
The boundary zone lengths vary with the intensity of axial strains on the order of 0.004 inch/inch; the 0.003 strain
load and have been formulated from parametric studies of limit is thus conservative. In older versions of the UBC,
neutral axis depths for symmetrical wall sections and may the “trigger” for boundary zone confinement was based on
not be appropriate for the stems of nonsymmetrical sec- combined gross section stresses; this now defunct proce-
tions. dure was found to be in some cases unconservative and in
others overly conservative.
C407.5.5 UBC §1921.6.6.5 General Methodology
for Shear Wall Boundary Zone Analysis. See Require- Many parameters influence the magnitude of com-
ments Section 402.11 and Commentary Section C402.11 pression strain developed in a wall (or in any flexural
for recommended modifications to UBC §1921.6.6.5. member). All other factors being equal, higher axial load,
higher flexural steel content and larger height-to-width ra-
The intent of UBC §1921.6.6.5 is to allow the use of tios will yield higher compression strains for the same total
detailed analyses to evaluate concrete compression strains wall displacement at the top of the wall. For example, a
in wall sections subject to maximum expected earthquake concrete wall without adequate confinement and with an
deformations. Such analyses require evaluation of the de-
axial load higher than the balanced load will crush (devel-
formation of the inelastic structure, and a subsequent anal-
op strains in excess of 0.003) before the tensile reinforce-
ysis to find the local rotation and strain conditions at a ment yields, and has, by definition, no ductility. Also, a T-
particular wall section. From the experience and results section wall will have higher compression strains when the
September 1999 195

flange is in tension than when the flange is in compression, example moment-curvature diagram is shown in
due to the higher steel content present in the flange of the Figure C407-2.
wall. 3. A plastic analysis or a static “pushover” analysis to:
The ductility available in a wall can be related to the a. Verify the plastic hinge location.
neutral axis depth at ultimate strength. A large neutral axis b. Account for the redistribution of forces and
depth (which implies that a large area in compression is deformations of the wall system.
needed to offset either a high axial load or a high steel con- c. Determine the magnitude of plastic hinge
tent) is indicative of possibly low available ductility. In the rotations at each plastic hinge location associated
New Zealand Building Code, boundary zone confinement with a given total wall displacement.
triggers are based on the neutral axis depth. If the neutral d. Ensure that a brittle shear mechanism does not
axis depth exceeds a critical value [Paulay and Priestly, form.
1992], boundary zone confinement is required. Additional
4. Conversion of the plastic hinge rotation demands to
references on similar approaches to shear wall design in-
section curvature demands, using kinematic relations
clude: Clarkson University [1992], Wallace [1992], and
derived for the specific mechanism geometry. (UBC
Wood [1991].
Equation 21-9 is a kinematic relation for the case of a
The recommended modifications of Requirements cantilevered wall.) This analysis requires an estimate
Section 402.11.2 allow direct consideration of neutral axis of the length of the plastic hinge region.
depth in determining the need for boundary confinement. 5. Conversion of section curvature demands to compres-
Compression strains are determined using one of two sive strains. This information is obtained directly from
possible approaches, denoted as items 1 and 2 in UBC the moment-curvature analysis of item 2 above. For
§1921.6.6.5. walls with nonsymmetrical cross-sections, such as T-,
C-, or L-shaped walls, neutral axis depth c u′ , must be
C407.5.5.2 Item 1 General Approach. Item 1
of UBC §1921.6.6.5 describes a generalized approach for calculated using first principles rather than general-
the computation of concrete compressive strains at the ized equations.
maximum nonlinear displacement. Section C407.2.7 be- This generalized approach is applied, by way of exam-
low describes an approximate approach for cantilever ple, to the simple case of a cantilever wall system, as ex-
walls. Other types of walls require the generalized ap- plained in section C407.2.7 below and illustrated on
proach described in this section. These other types of walls Figures C407-1 through C407-4.
would include:
C407.5.5.3 Item 2 Approximate Approach.
1. Coupled walls, because even though hinging may oc- Item 2 of UBC §1921.6.6.5 describes an approximate ap-
cur at the base, the moment gradient and associated proach for the computation of concrete compressive
curvature-displacement relations will be different strains at the maximum nonlinear displacement for canti-
from those for a cantilever wall. lever walls. To use this simplified approach, the following
2. Wall piers, where moments reverse and plastic hinges wall characteristics need to be met:
form at the top and bottom of the pier. 1. The wall must be a single cantilevered element ex-
3. Stepped walls or other walls where plastic hinging oc- tending from its base to the top of the building.
curs in a location other than the base of the wall. 2. The wall can only form a plastic hinge at its “base”
This generalized approach requires the following (the base need not be at the foundation level, but
analyses: should be the elevation below which no plastic hinges
1. A rational design selection of the plastic hinge loca- form). This requires that all sections above the wall
tions. base must not yield as the base yields. The wall out-
side of the plastic hinge region should be designed for
2. The establishment of nonlinear moment-curvature re-
strengths corresponding to the moment and shear en-
lationships for each critical section expected to form
velope present when the probable moment Mpr is de-
plastic hinges, using appropriate levels of axial force
in the moment-curvature analysis (this method of veloped at the plastic hinge. This will help eliminate
analysis is described in Park and Paulay [1975]). An the possibility of the plastic hinge forming in a loca-
tion other than the base of the wall, possibly in a re-
196 September 1999

gion that is not provided with boundary zone 6. Estimate the length of the plastic hinge. The vertical
confinement. length of plastic hinge is illustrated on Figure C407-
3. For walls with nonsymmetrical cross-sections, such as 4a. If the plastic hinge length is underestimated, the
T-, C-, or L-shaped walls, neutral axis depth c u′ , must total curvature ø t will be overestimated, as will be the
be calculated using first principles rather than gener- peak compression strain. If the plastic hinge length is
alized equations. overestimated, the total curvature ø t and the peak
4. The wall shear strength must be greater than the shear compression strain will be underestimated. As the ul-
developed when the critical section has developed its timate goal of this analysis is to determine if confine-
probable strength, Mpr, determined using P u′ and in- ment of portions of the wall is needed on the basis of
cluding all vertical reinforcement likely to contribute compression strain, it is conservative to underestimate
to flexural strength. If shear failure precedes flexural the plastic hinge length. Available research data on
yield, wall ductility is greatly reduced, and the issue of plastic hinge length for walls is sparse and caution is
boundary confinement is moot. warranted. The UBC permits the use of lp = 0.51w,
which is reasonable for more slender flexural walls,
For walls that comply with the above, the simplified ap-
but may overestimate the length for long, squat walls.
proximate approach proceeds as follows:
Based on research specifically applicable to rein-
1. Establish the top of wall displacement ( ∆ s ) caused by forced concrete walls, the plastic hinge length, lp, can
the design seismic forces. This requires the use of the be taken as 0.2 times the wall length, lw, plus 0.07
effective moment of inertia for the wall section over times the moment to shear ratio, M/V [ATC, 1998;
the full height of the wall. The effective moment of in- Paulay and Priestley, 1993].
ertia can be approximated using the relation
7. Solve for the total inelastic section curvature, ø t using
I eff ⁄ I g = 14.5 ⁄ F y + P u ⁄ A g f c′ [Paulay and Priestly,
UBC formula 21-9. This relation, derived on
1992], or using the effective moment of inertia ap- Figure C407-4d, is a relationship between curvature
proach given in ACI 318 [1995]; the effective moment and displacement, and is derived using first principles
of inertia concept is illustrated in Figure C407-1. and the moment area theorem [Park and Paulay,
2. Establish the maximum displacement, ∆ t equal to 1975].
R ∆ s per Requirements Section 402.11.1. 8. Establish the neutral axis depth, c u′ , corresponding to
3. Establish the yield displacement, ∆ y at the top of the the top of wall displacement, ∆ t . This neutral axis
depth is illustrated on Figure C407-3c. The actual
wall. The approximation permitted in the Require-
value of the neutral axis depth corresponding to the
ments is valid only so long as ∆ s is computed using
displacement, ∆ t , may be determined by a moment-
the effective moment of inertia. curvature analysis of the section, or an approximate
4. Establish the inelastic portion of the wall displace- value may be computed as follows: The neutral axis
ment, ∆ i = ∆ t – ∆ y . This quantity is used directly in depth, c u′ , may be computed as the neutral axis depth
UBC equation 21-9. The displacements ∆ y , ∆ i at the development of the nominal flexural strength of
the wall, as defined by Figure C407-3b. This requires
and ∆ m are illustrated on Figure C407-4b. Derivations a strain compatibility analysis of the section using the
of kinematic relations for ∆ y and ø i for the case of a principles outlined in UBC §1910.2 for the general
cantilever wall are defined in Figure C407-4. case of axial-flexure interaction of concrete sections.
For this analysis, the axial load shall be taken as P u′ =
5. Establish the section curvature at first yield, ø y . The
1.2D+0.5L+Eh and all properly anchored, spliced, and
yield curvature, ø y , is defined in Figure C407-3a. developed vertical reinforcement (such as vertical
This can be approximated as = 0.003/lw, which is rea- web reinforcement) shall be included and shall be as-
sonably accurate for most wall sections [Paulay and sumed as yielded in tension or compression. This lat-
Priestly, 1992]. The section curvature at yield can also ter assumption is accurate for cyclic loading because
be determined by a moment-curvature analysis of the the vertical reinforcement in the compression zone
section. will have yielded in tension in a previous cycle, and
September 1999 197

must yield in compression before the tensile cracks fined core measured normal to the plane of the wall at the
close and allow the concrete to carry compression. location of the hoop.
Similarly, tensile reinforcement near the neutral axis
The spacing of the smaller of 6 inches or 6 bar diame-
is likely to still be carrying yield-level forces from
ters is sufficient for the prevention of inelastic buckling of
previous cycles.
longitudinal steel and is large enough to provide for con-
9. Solve for the compressive strain associated with the structibility. All vertical bars on the perimeter should have
total inelastic section curvature, ø t . From the first horizontal reinforcement passing around them. Nonover-
principles and the definition of curvature, this is deter- lapping ties are not allowed, since there could be some
mined as the product of ø t and c u′ , and is illustrated on bars with only cross-tie confinement in large boundary
Figure C407-3c. zone configurations.
10. Finally, determine the length over which boundary As recommended in Requirements Section 402.12, all
zone confinement must be provided. Figure C407-3c wall edges in potential plastic hinge regions should have
illustrates the horizontal extent of this zone, which is ties spaced at 6 db or 6 inches maximum, to restrain buck-
determined using the geometry of the strain diagram. ling of longitudinal bars that yield in tension and/or com-
C407.5.6 UBC §1921.6.6.6 Shear Wall Boundary pression [Paulay and Priestly, 1992].
Zone Detail Requirements. This section establishes
Item 4. A minimum area of vertical reinforcement is
minimum dimensional and reinforcement detailing re-
provided to control the potential for excessive elongation
quirements for assuring acceptable performance. See Re-
of the boundary zone flexural reinforcement in lightly re-
quirements Section 402.12 and Commentary Section
inforced wall sections.
C402.12 for recommendations where boundary zone de-
tailing is not required by UBC §1921.6.6.4 or UBC C407.6 UBC §1921.6.7.3 Boundaries of
§1921.6.6.5. Structural Diaphragms
Item 1. Gives the minimum boundary zone thick- UBC §1921.6.7.3 was added to the 1996 UBC Supplement
ness requirement of lu /16. This is a decrease from the in response to diaphragm failures observed in Northridge
following the 1994 earthquake. The intent of these Re-
1997 UBC requirement of lu /10. It is strongly recom-
quirements is to provide some level of confinement and
mended that the wall boundary thickness limit of lu /16 be cover for chord and collector reinforcement. In
applied at all potential plastic hinge locations, regardless Northridge, it was observed that large diameter chord and
of whether boundary zone confinement is required. This collector bars and/or closely spaced lap splices tended to
value is provided to preclude out-of-plane buckling failure break away the limited concrete cover, especially in con-
of the wall compression zone. More comprehensive rec- crete topped precast slab systems. It was apparent that the
ommendations regarding wall out-of-plane buckling are reinforcement so exposed underwent large, possibly in-
given in FEMA 306 [ATC, 1998] based on research by elastic, displacement levels. Once the concrete cover spal-
Paulay and Priestly [1993]. The research shows that wall led, the chord/collector bars were rendered ineffective, and
buckling is aggravated when there are high residual tensile in some cases, catastrophic building failures ensued.
strains in the steel and the associated boundary zone is
subjected to compression in successive flexural load cy- C407.7 Coupling Beams
cles. The entire section on the design of coupling beams has
been replaced. The revised Requirements are modeled af-
Items 1. 2 and 1.3. Minimum horizontal and verti-
ter provisions adopted into the 1994 edition of NEHRP
cal boundary zone dimensions have been defined to pro-
and thus represent a more national consensus. A coupling
vide confinement within the potential plastic hinge
beam is defined as a horizontal element in plane with and
regions.
connecting two shear walls.
Item 1.4. Specific requirements for defining effec- C407.7.1 UBC §1921.6.10.1 General Requirements
tive flange participation in the boundary zone are given in for Coupling Beams Responding Primarily in
Requirements Section 402. Flexure. When the clear span to depth ratio is greater
Item 2. UBC formula 21-10 is essentially the same than or equal to 4, the coupling beams are designed in ac-
as that for columns in special moment resisting frames. cordance with the general requirements of UBC §1921.2
However, for boundary zones, hc is the width of the con- and in conformance with the requirements of UBC
198 September 1999

§§1921.2 and 1921.3. The designer may, if substantiated psi, Paulay [1992] recommended that diagonal reinforce-
by a rational analysis, waive the requirements of UBC ment should carry 100 percent of the induced cyclic shear
§§1921.3.1.3 and 1921.3.1.4 if it can be shown that lateral forces.
stability is adequate or if alternate means of maintaining
For clear-span-to-depth ratios greater than 4.0, PCA
lateral stability is provided. It is implied that the structure
tests indicated that specimens with conventional reinforce-
is analyzed without the coupling beams and the strength,
ment resisted over 46 inelastic reversing load cycles. At
stiffness, and stability of the structure is ensured.
the same time, maximum deformation of 13 times yield
C407.7.2 UBC §1921.6.10.2 General Requirements deflection was measured. Therefore, experimental data
for Coupling Beams Responding Primarily in have shown that beams with a clear-span-to-depth ratio
Shear. Tests indicate that short flexural members with greater than 4.0 do not require diagonal reinforcement.
small clear-span-to-depth ratios behave differently than
slender flexural members. When short coupling beams It is recommended that pierced walls with weak piers
were subjected to inelastic load cycles, large flexural relative to the coupling beams be avoided. For such walls,
cracks formed at both beam ends. With increasing load re- very large inelastic deformation demands may be concen-
versals, cracks from each direction of loading intercon- trated on a single floor level. When such a mechanism
nected, forming a vertical plane of weakness at each end of forms, the portion of the wall above the mechanism will
the beam. Thus, instead of a conventional truss mechanism deform primarily as a rigid body and the inelastic demands
(as assumed for the shear strength of slender beams), shear imposed on the piers within the mechanism may not be
transfer across the plane of weakness was provided prima- properly predicted by the static force method.
rily by aggregate interlock and shear friction. Under sub- C407.7.3 UBC §1921.6.10.3 Coupling Beams, De-
sequent inelastic load cycles, the shear resisting tail Requirements for Diagonal Bars. The requirement
mechanism deteriorated rapidly, resulting in a loss of ca- for transverse reinforcement around diagonal bars, recom-
pacity by sliding shear. mended by Paulay [1992], is to ensure the ability of the di-
agonal bar cage to sustain yield level compression forces.
It has been found that increasing the number of hoops
Without the transverse confinement required, the bars can
confining is not effective in improving resistance against
buckle in compression and lose load-carrying capability.
sliding shear. Therefore, various configurations of special
shear reinforcement to improve seismic performance of C407.7.4 UBC §1921.6.10.4 Additional Reinforce-
short coupling beams were tested. Full-length diagonal re- ment of Coupling Beams. See Requirements Section
inforcement was found to produce the greatest energy dis- 402.13 and Commentary Section C402.13 for recom-
sipation and deformation capacities. mended modifications to UBC §1921.6.10.4.
In tests conducted by the Portland Cement Associa- Additional detailing considerations are suggested below:
tion (PCA) [Barney, 1978], beam specimens with a 1. The development length of the diagonal reinforce-
clear-span-to-depth ratio of 2.8 were able to sustain over ment into the wall pier, according to Paulay [1992],
34 reversing load cycles. A maximum nominal shear stress should be 1.5 times the nominal development length.
2. The force generated in the diagonal reinforcement
of 12.5 f c′ was recorded and a maximum imposed defor-
must be distributed into the body of the wall at each
mation of over nine times the yield deflection was mea- end. Terminating the diagonal bars in a lightly rein-
sured. In addition, the specimen was able to dissipate three forced wall is not recommended. Wall piers adjoining
times more energy than a comparable specimen without the coupling beams should be designed for forces cor-
diagonal reinforcement. No sign of sliding shear was ob- responding to the development of the probable
served at completion of testing. In this and research by oth- strength of the coupling beams.
ers, diagonal shear reinforcement was designed by the 3. Consideration must be given to constructibility of di-
proposed formula to resist the total shear force by truss ac- agonally reinforced coupling beams. The required
tion. wall thickness may be controlled by the layering of re-
Based on test results, Park and Paulay [1975] recom- inforcement in the coupling beam. A means of placing
mended that diagonal shear reinforcement be used to carry concrete in congested coupling beams must be pro-
75 percent of the induced shear in flexural members when vided.
nominal shear stresses under load reversals are larger 4. Where coupling beams are located on the exterior of a
than 3 f c′ psi. When nominal shear stress exceeds 4.5 f c′ building and are clad with architectural finishes, the
September 1999 199

deformation compatibility of the structure and finish member strengths. Two possible scenarios are ad-
requires special attention. Special jointing of the fin- dressed:
ish may be required to comply with deformation com- a. When induced forces combined with the factored
patibility requirements of UBC §1631. gravity load effects do not exceed design
C407.8 UBC §1921.6.13 Wall Piers strengths, the detailing provisions of UBC
§1921.7.2 are applicable. Those requirements
Current ACI-318 [1995] code provisions have no lower depend on the relative level of axial load in the
bound limit on the length of a shear wall, and do not spe- member.
cifically cover the design and detailing of slender wall seg-
b. When induced forces combined with the factored
ments. Observed earthquake damage due to short column
gravity load effects exceed the design strengths,
effects in narrow wall piers shows the need for adequate
the detailing provisions of UBC §1921.7.3 are
transverse reinforcement.
applicable. In this case, inelastic response of the
The special transverse reinforcement in wall piers is member is expected. Therefore, more stringent
not required when: detail and material requirements are invoked.
1. Wall piers and spandrels are designed as frame mem- Again, these requirements depend on the relative
bers meeting the requirements of UBC §1921.4 and level of axial load in the member.
1921.3. 3. It is recognized in UBC §1921.7.1 that computation of
2. Wall piers are not considered part of the lateral force induced forces and deformations is both time consum-
resisting system and conform to the deformation coming and imprecise. Therefore, the designer is permit-
patibility requirements under UBC §1921.7. ted to not make the calculations provided the more
3. The stiffness of longer wall segments is sufficiently stringent detail requirements of UBC §1921.7.3 are
greater than the combined stiffnesses of the wall piers. used.
The design shear force Ve should be determined as that C408.1 Factored Gravity Forces
corresponding to the development of the probable flexural The factored gravity load effects are to be combined with
strength at the ends of a wall pier resulting from applied 1.0 times the effects of the seismic forces induced by the
lateral deformation. Probable flexural strength is based on deformation specified in UBC §§1921.7.
stress in the tensile reinforcement of 1.25 fy and a strength C408.1.1 UBC §1921.7.2.1 Members Not Exceed-
reduction factor, φ , equal to 1, and then dividing by the ing Design Strength and With Low Axial
clear height of the opening. Wall piers supporting deep Loads. Members that respond essentially in flexure are
spandrels are similar to columns supporting discontinuous subject to the minimum and maximum reinforcement re-
shear walls. Thus, the requirements for the extent and quirements for flexural members of frames. Also, the max-
spacing of transverse reinforcement are similar to those of imum spacing of stirrups is reduced to d/2 throughout the
UBC §1921.4.4.5. member length.
C408.1.2 UBC §1921.7.2.2 Members Not Exceed-
C408 UBC §1921.7 Frame ing Design Strength and With Moderate Axial
Members Not Part of the Loads. When the factored axial load exceeds
Lateral Force Resisting System ( A g f c′ ⁄ 10 ), portions of the requirements for framing
UBC §1921.7 was revised in the 1997 UBC (based on the members subjected to bending and axial load are applica-
1996 Blue Book) to better ensure that beams and columns ble. Closely spaced transverse reinforcement throughout
that are not designed to resist design seismic forces can ac- the member length and designing for the maximum shear
commodate expected seismic deformations. The process that can be developed are two new major requirements. All
of compliance is outlined as follows: requirements in UBC §1921.4 are not invoked because it
is not expected that the member will not undergo inelastic
1. Analyze the structure for forces induced at expected
action. However, attention to minimum reinforcement and
(maximum inelastic) deformations in conformance
transverse reinforcement detailing is required to ensure a
with UBC §1633.2.4.
minimum amount of ductility, as it is recognized that the
2. Compare the induced shears and moments combined
actual displacement may exceed the ∆ m value assumed.
with factored gravity loads with the corresponding
200 September 1999

C408.1.3 UBC §1921.7.2.3 Members Not Exceed- spacing, and other factors that influence the plac-
ing Design Strength and With High Axial Loads. The ing and consolidation of concrete. This is particu-
axial load level, 0.3Po, is approximately the axial load larly true in structures designed for seismic loads,
level at the balanced condition. At axial load levels of this where the reinforcement often becomes extreme-
magnitude, the deformation capacity is limited unless con- ly congested and effective concrete consolidation
fining reinforcement is provided. For this reason, the com- using conventional mixtures and procedures be-
plete transverse reinforcement requirements of UBC comes impossible.
§1921.4.4 are applicable. This is different from the corre- “The engineer should communicate with the
sponding provision of ACI 318-95 where the limit is 0.35 constructor during the early concrete phases.
Po and only one-half the transverse steel amount (required Problem areas should be recognized in time to
in a ductile column) is required. take appropriate remedial measures such as stag-
C408.2 Members Exceeding Design gering splices, grouping bars, modifying stirrup
Strength spacing, and increasing section size. When condi-
tions contributing to substandard consolidation
When the induced forces exceed the design strengths, in-
exist, one or more of the following actions should
elastic response of the member is expected.
be taken: redesign the member, redesign the rein-
C408.2.1 UBC §1921.7.3.1 Members Exceeding De- forcing steel, modify the mixture, utilize mock-up
sign Strength Materials. Materials must comply with tests to develop a procedure, and alert the con-
the same requirements as for frame members designed to structor to critical conditions.
resist seismic forces.
“In addition to the concrete placement capa-
C408.2.2 UBC §1921.7.3.3 Members Exceeding De- bilities, the engineer should consider the configu-
sign Strength and With Moderate to High Axial Loads. ration and assembly of the complete reinforcing
The requirements are the same as UBC §1921.7.2.3, with steel system. It is common construction practice
the additional requirement of transverse reinforcement to prefabricate bar cages for beams, columns, wall
through the joint region. boundary elements, and shear wall curtains; and
to assemble or join these elements in place. This
C409 Constructibility procedure is often the most cost-effective, and re-
Conformance with the Requirements of this Chapter will sults in an accurate and stable positioning of rein-
not necessarily result in a satisfactory structure if reinforc- forcing steel. However, care and planning are
ing steel cannot be placed because of interference, and/or necessary to properly connect the pre-tied ele-
if concrete cannot be placed and consolidated because of ments. Hooks, cross-ties, ties, lap splices, and me-
restricted space and clutter. The following text is from a chanical splices all need appropriate shapes and
report by ACI Committee 309, Guide for Consolidation of positioning to allow placement without interfer-
Concrete [ACI-309, 1987]: ence.”
“In designing structural members and detail- References
ing formwork and reinforcement, consideration
should be given to depositing the freshly mixed ACI-309, 1987. ACI Committee 309, “Guide for
concrete as closely as possible to its final position Consolidation of Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal,
in such a way that segregation, honeycombing, Vol. 84, no. 5.
and other surface and internal imperfections are
ACI 318, 1995. Committee 318, “Building Code
minimized. Also, the method of consolidation
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete.”
should be carefully considered when detailing re-
inforcement and formwork. For example, for in- ACI-ASCE, 1988. Committee 352, “Recommendations
ternal vibration, openings in the reinforcement for Design of Slab Column Connections in Monolithic
must be provided to allow insertion of vibrators. Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI Structural
Typically, 4 by 6-inch openings at 24-inch centers Journal, Vol. 85, no. 6.
are used. ACI-SEAOC, 1982. American Concrete Institute
“These items require that special attention be Southern California Chapter and Structural Engineers
directed to member size, bar size, bar location, bar
September 1999 201

Association of Southern California, Report of the Task Kaar, P.H., Hanson, N. W. and Capell, H. T., 1978.
Committee on Slender Walls, Los Angeles, California. Stress-Strain Characteristics of High-Strength
Concrete, Publication SP-55, American Concrete
Aktan, A.E., V.V. Bertero, A.A. Chowdhury, and T.
Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Nagashima, 1983. Experimental and Analytical
Predictions of the Mechanical Characteristics of a 1/5 Kabeyasawa, T., et al., 1992. “Tests and Analysis of
Scale Model of a 7-Story R/C Frame-Wall Building Ultra-High Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear
Structure, Report No. 83/13, EERC, University of Walls,” Proceedings of Tenth World Conference on
California, Berkeley. Earthquake Engineering, held in Madrid, Spain, July
19-24. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Holland.
Aoyama, H., et al., 1992. “Development of Advanced R.C.
Buildings with High Strength and High-Quality Kaku, T., et al., 1991. “Bond Splitting Strength of
Materials,” Proceedings of Tenth World Conference Reinforced Concrete Beams with High-Strength
on Earthquake Engineering, held in Madrid, Spain, Concrete,” Proceedings of Japan Concrete Institute,
July 19-24. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Holland. Vol. 13, no. 2.
ATC-43, 1998. Applied Technology Council, Evaluation Maffei, Joe, 1996. “Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls:
of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Beyond the Code,” SEAONC 1996 Fall Seminar
Buildings. Funded by the Federal Emergency Notes. Structural Engineers Association of Northern
Management Agency. Report FEMA 306/307; California, San Francisco, California.
Redwood City, CA.
Miura, A. et al., 1990. “Shear Failure of R.C. Exterior
ATC-11, 1983. Applied Technology Council, Seismic Beam-Column Joints Composed of High Strength
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Materials,” Proceedings of the Architectural Institute
Frame Joints: Implications of Recent Research for of Japan Annual Meeting, October, 1990.
Design Engineers, Report No. ATC-11, Redwood
Moehle, J.P., M.E. Kreger, and R. Leon, 1988.
City, California.
“Background to Recommendations for Design of
Barney, G. B., K.N. Shiu, B.G. Rabbat, A.E. Fiorato, H.G. Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections,” ACI
Russell, and W.G. Corley, 1978. Earthquake Resistant Structural Journal, Vol. 85, no. 6.
Structural Walls: Test of Coupling Beams, Report to
Oesterle, R.G., A.E. Fiorato, and W.G. Corley, 1980.
the National Science Foundation (RANN), Grant No.
“Reinforcement Details for Earthquake-Resistant
ENV74-14766, Construction Technology
Structural Walls,” Concrete International, Vol. 2, no.
Laboratories, Skokie, Illinois.
12.
Clarkson University, 1992. “Development of New Code
Okamura, H., et al., 1987. “Bond Characteristics in
Provisions for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
Post-Yield Range of Deformed Bars,” Translation
Shear Walls,” Report No. CU/CEE-92/3, Dept. of
from Proceedings of JSCE, no. 378/V-6.
Civil Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam,
New York. Park, R., and T. Paulay, 1975. Reinforced Concrete
Structures, John Wiley and Sons.
Corley, W.G., A.E. Fiorato, and R.G. Oesterle, 1981.
Structural Walls, Publication SP-72, American Paulay, T., 1986. “A Critique of the Special Provisions for
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI. Seismic Design of the Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete” ACI 318-83, ACI Structural
Ghosh, S. K., 1998. “Design of Reinforced Concrete
Journal, Vol. 83, no. 2.
Buildings under the 1997 UBC,” Building Standards,
May-June. Paulay, T., 1986. “The Design of Ductile Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls for Earthquake Resistance,”
Ghosh, S.K. and C.A. Etraify, 1993. “Design of
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2, no. 4.
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Regions of High
Seismicity,” PCA memo. Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestly, 1993. “Stability of Ductile
Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90,
Hawkins, N.M., I. Lin, and T. Veda, 1987. “Anchorage of
no. 4.
Reinforcing Bars for Seismic Forces,” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 84, no. 5.
202 September 1999

Paulay, T., M.J.N. Priestly, and Synge, 1982. “Ductility in Wallace, John A., and J.P. Moehle, 1992. “Ductility and
Earthquake Resisting Squat Shear Walls,” ACI Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,”
Structural Journal. ASCE Structural Journal.
Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestly, 1992. “Seismic Design of Wood, Sharon L., 1991. “Performance of Reinforced
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,” John Concrete Buildings During the 1985 Chile
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Earthquake: Implications for Design of Structural
Walls,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 7, no. 4.
Rabbat, B. G., J. I. Daniel, T. L. Weinmann, and T. L.
Hanson, 1986. “Seismic Behavior of Lightweight and Zsutty, T. C., 1985. “Empirical Study of Bar Development
Normal Weight Concrete Column,” ACI Journal, Data,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
Proceedings V. 83, no. 1. 111, no. 1.
Sugano, T., et al., 1988. “Experimental Studies on Seismic
Behavior of High Strength Concrete Columns
Laterally Reinforced with High Strength Steel Bars,”
Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, held Aug. 2-9, 1988 in
Tokyo, Japan, Vol. IV.
September 1999 203

Figure C402-1. Example of beam and column moments considered in strong-column/weak beam (Equation 402-1)
204 September 1999

Figure C402-2. Plastic mechanisms for moment frames
September 1999 205

Figure C402-3. Distribution of longitudinal reinforcement in a wall section
206 September 1999

Figure C402-4. Example calculation of ρ L
September 1999 207

Figure C407-1. Wall moment versus displacement
Figure C407-2. Moment curvature diagrams
208 September 1999

Figure C407-3. Strain compatibility diagrams
September 1999 209

Figure C407-4. Approximate determination of φ t
210 September 1999

CHAPTER 5
Aluminum
C501 General Requirements C502.3 Fabrication and Erection

SEAOC adopts the provisions of Chapter 20 of the 1997 C502.3.2 Replace: UBC §2004.3 Dissimilar
UBC, with the modifications and additions specified in Materials. Though it is generally accepted practice to
Requirements Section 502. The provisions of the 1997 specify stainless steel connectors when fastening to alumi-
UBC and the additional Requirements of this chapter rep- num elements, mild steel is actually less reactive galvani-
resent acceptable minimum provisions necessary to cally with aluminum than stainless. SEAOC suggests that
achieve the seismic design objectives of these Require- connectors be limited to aluminum, zinc plated (galva-
ments. nized) steel, aluminized steel, or cadmium plated steel.
Further research is suggested with specific consideration
C502 Recommended Modifications given to the exposure environment, humid air, conditioned
to 1997 UBC air, submerged conditions, etc.
C502.4 Design
C502.1 Allowable Stresses for Members
and Fasteners Modify: UBC §2007 Design. It is prudent to rec-
ognize the appropriate design requirements located else-
Modify: UBC §2002.2 Welded Structural Mem-
where in the 1997 UBC. For these purposes, aluminum
bers. The allowable stress provisions of Division I ap-
structures should be identified either as a building struc-
ply to columns and beams supported at both ends with
tural system (structural aluminum) or as an element of a
welds at the ends only. For members with welds not within
larger structure (curtain walls, window walls, storefronts,
a distance of 0.05L from the supported ends, and for can-
skylights, etc.). The appropriate design section is refer-
tilever columns and single-web beams with welds at or
enced in the Requirements.
near their supported ends, the effect of welding on the
member strength shall be accounted for by using an in- Since allowable stress design is used throughout these
creased slenderness ratio as specified in Division II. This Requirements, it is appropriate to use the load combina-
modification clarifies the wording of UBC §2002.2. tions specified in UBC §1612.3. Note, however, that when
checking drift in conformance with UBC §1630.9,
Currently, the 1997 UBC uses only ASD for the sizing
§1630.10, and §1633.2.4, it is necessary to use the strength
of aluminum elements. Research is suggested to determine
design load combinations specified in UBC §1612.2 for
whether the Aluminum Association or any other industry
organization (such as the ASCE Task Committee for the determination of ∆ S and ∆ M .
Strength Design in Aluminum) plans to publish an LRFD Care should be taken when utilizing structural alumi-
standard. This design method would conform more closely num as part of special and ordinary moment-resisting
with the direction of future Code editions. frames. Chapter 20 of the 1997 UBC considers only small
C502.2 General Design Requirements deflection theory and static (or quasi-static) loading. Alu-
Replace: UBC §2003.3 Structural Roofing and
minum has relatively large ductility under static or quasi-
Siding. This modification corrects an assumed typo-
static (motion slow enough to neglect the effects of mass)
graphical error in the text of the 1997 UBC, which refer- loading. As the rate of loading increases, ductility decreas-
enced 1/60 instead of 1/360. es. When considering aluminum for seismic loading and
the possibility of its undergoing large deflections, this gen-
September 1999 211

eral behavior of aluminum should be recognized and ac-

counted for.
C502.5 Special Design Rules
Modify: UBC §2009.6 Vertical Stiffeners for Shear
Webs. A clarification of the word ‘joggle’ has been
added. This is a term not in general use that refers to the
cutting of a notch into which a fitted projection is installed.
C502.6 Fabrication
Modify: UBC §2011.1 Laying Out. This modifica-
tion corrects an error in the conversion of the aluminum
coefficient of expansion from Fahrenheit to Celsius.
212 September 1999

CHAPTER 6
Reinforced Masonry
C601 General Requirements joint reinforcement. Therefore, it was decided not to allow
this type of reinforcement in the design for shear.
The provisions of the 1997 UBC and the additional Re-
quirements of this chapter represent acceptable minimum C602.3 Design of Reinforced Masonry
requirements necessary to achieve the seismic design ob- C602.3.1 Delete: UBC §2107.2.2 Reinforcement.
jectives of these Requirements. Working stress reinforcement provisions have been de-
The masonry design requirements of the 1997 UBC leted and replaced with ultimate strength design provisions
are essentially the same as the 1994 UBC requirements, of UBC §2108 to provide improved post-yield perfor-
except for changes necessary to align with the strength de- mance.
sign requirements of UBC Chapter 16. C602.3.2 Delete: UBC §2107.2.12 Lap Splice
C601.1 UBC §1612.2 Load Combinations Increases. Working stress reinforcement provisions
Including Earthquake Effects have been deleted and replaced with ultimate strength de-
sign provisions of UBC §2108 to provide improved pos-
See Requirements Chapter 1 for SEAOC’s recommended tyield performance.
modifications to the load combinations of UBC §1612. For
reinforced masonry, the load combination using UBC C602.3.3 Add new section: UBC §2107.2.2
equation (12-5) becomes: Reinforcement. Working stress reinforcement provi-
sions have been deleted and replaced with ultimate
( 1.2 ± 0.5C a I )D + ρE h + ( f 1 L + f 2 S ) Eqn. C601-1 strength design provisions of UBC §2108 to provide im-
proved post-yield performance.
UBC load combination equation (12-6) becomes:
C602.4 Strength Design of Masonry
0.9D ± ρ Eh Eqn. C601-2
C602.4.1 Modify: UBC §2108.2.2.6 Development.
The rationale behind these load combinations is given by The development lengths from the existing UBC equation
Ghosh [1998]. (8-13) for larger size bars (#8 and larger) have been shown
to be unconservative in splice length research by the Na-
C602 Recommended Modifications tional Concrete Masonry Association. SEAOC adopts the
to 1997 UBC revised development length formulas resulting from this
research in lieu of the UBC formulas. Details of the splice
C602.1 Standards of Quality
length research are given in the Commentary to UBC
Modify: UBC §2102.2, Item §2108.2.2.7.
10 Reinforcement. The use of plain bars in reinforced
C604.4.2 Modify: UBC §2108.2.2.7 Splices. Re-
masonry construction has been prohibited, except for joint
cently, the National Concrete Masonry Association in con-
reinforcement, because of the poor bond capacity of plain
junction with the Council for Masonry Research, the Brick
bars, particularly under cyclic loading.
Industries Association, and the Western States Clay Prod-
C602.2 General Design Regulations ucts Association conducted three phases of splice length
Modify: UBC §2106.1.12.4, Item 2.1 Shear research [NCMA, 1998] to investigate required lap lengths
Walls: Reinforcement. There is a lack of experience in for reinforcing bars in masonry. The research showed the
actual earthquakes on the performance of masonry with existing formulas are unconservative for the larger rein-
September 1999 213

forcing bar sizes (#8 and larger). For these larger size rein- of 0.006. If the maximum strain expected under real earth-
forcing bars, lap lengths greater than those required by quake displacements (i.e., strains calculated using an R
UBC equations (8-13) and (8-14) did not yield bars with 2- equal to 2) is greater than 0.006, greater confinement
1/2 diameters cover before failure of the masonry. Other should be provided.
phases of the research showed that cover depths greater
Item 2.1 Shear Walls: Reinforcement. Joint rein-
than 3 bar diameters increase the effectiveness of the lap
forcement shall not be used as the principal reinforcement
splice. The research also showed that the 1997 UBC for-
to resist shears or lateral forces in lateral force resisting
mulas are overly conservative for the smaller size bars.
systems. The bond characteristics of the smooth wire rein-
The revised lap splice requirements now provide much
forcement degrade rapidly under cyclic loading. There is a
longer laps for the larger size bars than the 1997 UBC re-
lack of experience in actual earthquakes on the perfor-
quirements. These revised requirements were developed
mance of masonry with joint reinforcement.
from the above research and have been reviewed by the
Masonry Ad Hoc Committee. SEAOC adopts these re- Item 2.4 Stack Bond. Solid grouting and use of open
vised requirements. end units is required to avoid the vertical lines of weakness
that occur in stacked bond construction. The bond beam
units are required to facilitate the flow of grout and to pro-
vide the assurance of obtaining a fully grouted construc-
tion.
C604.2 UBC §2106.2.14 Placement of
Additional Embedded Anchor Bolts
Commentary The performance of headed anchor bolts is generally supe-

rior to bent bar or plate anchor bolts. The test data for bent
bar anchors loaded in tension or shear appears to have little
consistency, whereas headed anchor bolts behave with a
The following Commentary discusses selected sections of more consistent cone pullout-type failure similar to con-
the 1997 UBC. Sections that do not reference a UBC sec- crete, given that the headed anchor bolts have sufficient
tion or paragraph present discussion of specific topics and embedment, spacing, and end and edge distance.
do not refer to any specific UBC requirement.
C604.3 Working Stress Design and
Strength Design Requirements
C603 UBC §2105 Quality for Reinforced Masonry
Assurance
UBC §2106.3.2 Plain Bars. The use of plain bars in re-
Special Inspection is always required for masonry con- inforced masonry construction is prohibited, except for
structed using strength design provisions. Special inspec- joint reinforcement, because of the poor bond capacity,
tion is optional for masonry constructed using working particularly under cyclic loading.
stress provisions if reduced allowable stress values are
used. Special inspection should be used on as many struc- C605 Working Stress Design of
tures as practicable, as the reduced allowable stresses may Masonry
not adequately compensate for the probable lack of qual-
ity. The working stress design method is an anachronism that
has been patched together to give acceptable results for
C604 General Design Requirements moderate levels of ground shaking. Use of the working
stress design method for design of lateral force resisting
C604.1 UBC §2106.1.12.4 Special systems should be minimized and the strength design pro-
Provisions for Seismic Zones 3 visions used where possible.
and 4
C605.1 UBC §2107.1.7 Shear Walls: Design
Item 1 Column Reinforcement. The nominal lateral Loads. UBC §2107.1.7 requires that the working stress
reinforcement spacing at a maximum of 8 inches provides seismic load be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 for shear de-
some confinement, but it is much less confinement than re- sign. The 1.5 multiplier was introduced to provide an ad-
quired for ductile reinforced concrete columns. This mini- ditional factor of safety based on observed performance of
mum confinement provides for a maximum usable strain
214 September 1999

masonry walls in past earthquakes. Further experience tensile stress is less than the modulus of rupture; hence, the
with structures built to meet current detailing requirements wall cross-section is uncracked and the load-induced mo-
and construction practices may permit reducing this factor. ment is less than the cracking moment capacity of the wall.
This method of accounting for uncertain behavior is taken The design criteria in this strength design section are a
from the masonry provisions of the 1997 UBC. Ideally, the limit states criteria where the limit state is the strength
material resistance uncertainty should be represented by a limit state, or limit state 3 of Table C606-1.
lower working stress or a smaller strength factor (e.g., the
The ductile masonry element goes through several be-
strength reduction factor φ = 0.6 for reinforced masonry
havior and limit states prior to reaching its strength or ul-
shear walls).
timate limit state. For example, the load-induced moment,
When overturning moments cause large flexural M, can be used as the variable to define the first limit state.
stresses, criteria similar to that used for reinforced con- The load-induced moment, M, will be equal to the crack-
crete shear walls or masonry shear walls (UBC §2108) ing moment of the cross-section, Mcr. The second limit
should be considered. Simply showing that the flexural state is reached when M is equal to the yield moment, My,
strength capacity of a wall is greater than a factor of 1.4 and the third limit state is reached when M is equal to the
times the overturning moment caused by code level forces ultimate moment, Mu.
is not sufficient to avoid the need for special boundary el-
ement confinement reinforcing. The inelastic deformation Each of these limit states can be of interest, depending
demands of a major earthquake may be significantly larger on the design requirements. The first limit state corre-
than the deformation computed at the factored moment sponds to cracking of the cross-section, and thus to water
value. Confinement similar to that necessary for a concrete penetration. This limit state can be viewed as a serviceabil-
wall is necessary to maintain the vertical load carrying ca- ity limit state. The second limit state defines the start of
pacity of the wall. permanent steel deformation or structural damage. This
C605.2 UBC §2107.2.2 Reinforcement. Working limit state defines the structural damage or yield limit
stress requirements are based on developing the reinforce- state. The third limit state defines the maximum usable
ment to anchor or transfer a force equal to the allowable masonry compressive strain, i.e., the point at which the
stress times the nominal bar area. This is not consistent load starts decreasing with increasing strain. This third
with the actual loading in seismic events. Since the actual limit state is a strength or ultimate limit state. The strength
stress in the reinforcing under the maximum seismic load- limit state is the state corresponding to the strength design
ing is unknown, the full strength of the reinforcement provisions in the 1997 UBC.
should be developed as is done for Strength Design. Use C606.2 UBC §2108.1.2 Quality Assurance
of the criteria in UBC §2108 strength design, accom- Provisions
plishes this requirement. All reinforcement should be in Use of the strength provisions requires special inspection
accordance with the applicable provisions of UBC §2108 of all construction. The probability of satisfactory behav-
(e.g., reinforcement for shear walls should be designed and ior of the constructed structural elements is improved by
detailed in accordance with UBC §§2108.1.4.6, 2108.2.2, the required quality control provisions.
and 2108.2.5.2).
C606.3 UBC §2108.1.4 Design Strength
C606 Strength Design of Masonry The axial load on a flexural member has a significant neg-
ative impact on ductility. For this reason, the strength re-
C606.1 UBC §2108.1 General
duction factor decreases with increasing axial load.
The behavior of a masonry element, such as a shear wall,
when subjected to loads can best be described in terms of The strength reduction factor for shear for wall design
limit states. The masonry element can be idealized as for in-plane loads (shear walls) has two alternative values.
evolving through identifiable states of behavior as loads The engineer should design, where possible, for the case
are applied. This evolution can best be defined in terms of where the nominal shear strength exceeds the shear corre-
behavior and limit states. Table C606-1 identifies the be- sponding to the development of the nominal flexural
havior and limit states for a masonry element reinforced to strength (ductile shear force). This case is controlled by a
behave in a ductile manner. A limit state exists at the end ductile flexural failure mode. The other case is where the
of each behavior state. For example, the first behavior state nominal shear capacity is less than the ductile shear force,
corresponds to the stress condition where the load-induced in which case the failure mode may be a brittle shear fail-
September 1999 215

ure mechanism. The flexural mode of failure is preferred, beams, piers, and columns are specified. Minimum quan-
hence, the higher capacity reduction factor. tities and maximum spacing of reinforcement are speci-
C606.3.1 UBC §2108.2 Reinforced Masonry fied. These arbitrary requirements were included to ensure
that the constructed masonry reasonably conforms with
C606.3.2.1 UBC §2108.2.1.2 Design Assump- the construction of the tested specimens.
tions. This UBC section sets the maximum usable ma-
sonry compression strain, εmu, as 0.003 for beams, piers, C606.3.2.2 UBC §2108.2.3.2 Design Assump-
tions. The member forces shall be based on an analysis
walls, columns, and wall frames. A higher limit may be
used for wall frames only if confinement reinforcement is that considers the relative stiffness of all structural mem-
used. The shape of the uniaxial stress-strain curve for an bers. An analysis similar to that made for a frame com-
unconfined masonry prism rises with increasing strain un- posed of the beam, pier and column elements would
til it reaches a peak or maximum stress and then drops very conform to this requirement. The joint elements, the mate-
rapidly with increasing strain, as shown in Figure C606-1. rial common to the beam and column or pier, could be con-
The strain corresponding to a maximum stress is called the sidered as a rigid element. The effect of cracking on
peak strain; the larger strain corresponding to the point on member stiffness must be included in the analysis. This re-
the falling portion of the curve at which the stress is quirement requires an iterative process. The estimate of ef-
one-half of the maximum stress is called the maximum us- fective moment of inertia, Ie, is used to calculate the
able strain. The value of this maximum usable strength is moments, Ms, in the member. The cracking moment, Mcr,
set at 0.003 to be consistent with concrete design. is calculated as the product of the section modulus of the
uncracked section and the modulus of rupture. The modu-
C606.3.2.2 UBC §2108.2.2 Reinforcement Re-
lus of rupture of grouted hollow unit masonry is assumed
quirements and Details. Some research has suggested
to be 235 psi. This value was derived from experimental
that the maximum bar size should be one less than the
testing. If the initial estimates of effective moment of iner-
block thickness in order to minimize splitting, i.e., the
tia are significantly changed by the results of the prelimi-
maximum bar size for an 8-inch block wall is a #7 bar.
nary analysis, the revised estimates of effective moment of
C606.3.2.3 UBC §2108.2.2.6 Development. inertia are used in the subsequent analysis until closure of
The UBC provisions for development and splicing are the iterative procedure is obtained.
similar to the provisions proposed by ACI Committees
The interstory drift ratio calculated by the analysis of
318 and 408 for the 1996 ACI Building Code [ACI-318],
the system shall be compared with the drift limits specified
and are intended to develop the strength of the reinforcing.
in the general seismic design sections.
The failure mechanism is typically splitting of the mason-
ry prism caused by radial tension stresses. Splitting is ex- Strength computations for beams, piers, and columns
acerbated by small cover and large bar size. There should are based on an assumption that strain in the masonry and
not be a cap on the development length, as the larger rein- reinforcement in compression, and in the reinforcement in
forcing bars need very long development lengths to devel- tension, is proportional to the distance from the neutral
op the bar strength. axis of the flexural section. The maximum strain used in
C606.3.2 UBC §2108.2.3 Design of Beams, Piers, calculations at the extreme compression fiber shall not ex-
and Columns ceed 0.003. The strain of the extreme tension reinforce-
ment may exceed yield strain, but the stress in
C606.3.2.1 UBC §2108.2.3.1 General. This reinforcement shall be taken as the specified yield stress.
section is intended to provide design criteria for reinforced The strength of the element shall be calculated by applica-
masonry walls consisting of beams, piers, and columns. ble conditions of equilibrium. The tensile forces in the re-
These structural elements describe the elements that make inforcement and the appropriately load factored axial
up a bearing or nonbearing reinforced masonry wall perfo- loads shall be in equilibrium with the compressive forces
rated by openings. in the assumed compression block.
The probability of adequate behavior of structural as- The compression block may be assumed to be rectan-
semblies constructed of these elements is improved by regular and having a uniform stress of 0.85 of the specified
quiring quality control provisions. Masonry units are compressive prism strength. The assumed size of the rect-
restricted to hollow units. Minimum prism strength is re- angular compression block is limited to 0.85 of the dis-
stricted to 1500 psi. Maximum strength that may be used tance from the neutral axis to the extreme compressive
in design computations is 4000 psi. Dimensional limits on
216 September 1999

fiber multiplied by the width of the element. The compu- for factored loading. The shear strength of the masonry is
tation of flexural strength shall neglect the tensile strength limited to 25 psi when the required strength, Mu, exceeds
of the masonry. Deformation calculations may include the 70 percent of the nominal moment strength. These require-
tension capacity of masonry by use of a tension stiffening ments are intended to limit the allowable shear strength
model. The equation for computation of the effective mo- contributed by masonry when the flexural strength provid-
ment of inertia considers tension stiffening effects in ed and the required flexural strength are nearly equal. The
cracked zones and the effects of uncracked zones in the calculation of required moment is based on an R of 2 to
length of the element. better approximate the probable moment caused by seis-
C606.3.2.3 UBC §2108.2.3.3 Balanced Rein- mic loading.
forcement Ratio for Compressive Limit States. This
C606.3.2.5 UBC §2108.2.3.7 Reinforcement.
section specifies a procedure for limiting the quantity of The maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement, when
reinforcement that can be placed in a member subjected to required, is limited to one-half of the depth of the member.
flexural or flexural and axial loads. Specification of a limit This requirement is specified to decrease the probability of
on the combination of axial loads and quantity of rein- a shear mode of failure.
forcement allows nonlinear curvature of the yielding
cross-section. An experimental specimen subjected to in- The flexural reinforcement must be distributed uniformly
creasing curvature in the yielding zone would eventually across the cross-section and must be a symmetric pattern
result in increasing the compressive strain at the extreme if the section is subject to load reversals. The usable
fiber to a strain that exceeds the usable strain. Two restric- strength at any section is limited to one quarter of the max-
tions are used in conjunction to minimize the probability imum moment strength provided. The maximum quantity
of exceeding the usable compressive strain in the element: of reinforcement is limited to 50 percent of that calculated
1) a limitation on the quantity of reinforcement; and 2) a for the balanced steel ratio. These restrictions are intended
drift limit. Lightly reinforced elements with small axial to improve the capacity of the system to tolerate nonlinear
loads will be restricted in curvature by the drift limit. Ele- curvature in probable yield zones.
ments with large axial loads will have severe restrictions C606.3.2.6 UBC §2108.2.3.8 Seismic Design
on the allowable quantity of reinforcement. The second re- Provisions. The required lateral load resistance in any
striction can be met by increasing the size of the masonry line or story level shall be provided by shear walls or mo-
cross-section. ment frames when strength design methods are used. Can-
The method specified for calculation of a balanced re- tilever shear walls and wall frames are known to have
inforcement ratio for compressive limit state is an empiri- desirable nonlinear behavior. The beams, columns, and
cal method selected for simplicity of calculations. The piers in line with shear walls and/or wall frames are de-
axial load used for the computation has a load factor of 1.0 signed for the loading induced by their relative stiffness.
for dead and live loading. The axial loading caused by The forces in the beams, columns, and piers are calculated
earthquake or wind is factored to account for the probable by the relative stiffness analysis. The shear walls or wall
overstrength of the system. The balanced reinforcement frames are also required to provide 80 percent of the com-
ratio is calculated as a uniformly distributed quantity of re- bined stiffness of any line or story. This requirement gen-
inforcement. Use of uniformly distributed reinforcement erally would require that a shear wall be placed in line with
is required by this design section. The contribution of the masonry wall composed of beams, piers, and columns.
compression reinforcement is not considered. If the com- This requirement should not be construed to mean that the
pression reinforcement were considered, the empirical assemblage of beams, piers, and columns need not be ana-
method would not have a rational solution. However, the lyzed. Analysis will determine the stresses induced in
contribution of compression reinforcement may be includ- beams, columns, and piers by drift of the lateral load-re-
ed in strength computations. sisting system.
C606.3.2.4 UBC §2108.2.3.6.2 Nominal Shear An exception to these seismic design provisions is
Strength. The shear strength is calculated as the sum of made for structures whose behavior under seismic loads is
the shear strength of the masonry cross-section and the essentially elastic. The assemblage of beams, columns,
strength provided by the transverse shear reinforcement. and piers may be used for resistance to seismic loading if
The value of the shear strength of the masonry shall be as- the R used for determination of seismic loading does not
sumed to be zero when the full cross-section is in tension exceed 2. A further limitation on this usage is that the
September 1999 217

joints, the intersections of beams and columns or piers, will yield well before the masonry reaches εmu in order to
shall conform to all of the joint provisions specified for ensure ductile behavior.
wall frames. Systems comprised of beams, piers, and col-
umns that are not restricted to development of yielding in Note that the beams lack confinement reinforcing.
beams have a greater probability of having a shear mode Confinement reinforcing for masonry in compression only
of failure. The reduction in the maximum value of R is in- becomes effective when the compressive strain in the ma-
terial become large and results in large lateral Poisson
tended to provide an increase in the capacity of the system.
strains. The ductility of a structural member is a function
C606.3.3 UBC §2108.2.4 Wall Design for of: 1) quantity of tension reinforcing; 2) axial compressive
Out-of-Plane Loads. Slender wall renamed. load; and 3) maximum usable compressive strain. The
C606.3.4 UBC §2108.2.5 Wall Design for In-Plane beams in a wall frame have little or no axial load and the
Loads. New name for shear walls. quantity of tension reinforcing is limited. Confinement re-
inforcing would increase the maximum usable masonry
C606.3.5 UBC §2108.2.6 Wall Frames
compressive strain, but does not appear to be required for
C606.3.5.1 UBC §2108.2.6.1 General Require- the configurations tested. The lack of confinement rein-
ments. The masonry wall frame is a new lateral force re- forcing is an additional reason for the geometric and mate-
sisting system first approved for the 1993 UBC rial limits.
Supplement. The wall frame provides the engineer with a
C606.3.5.3 UBC §2108.2.6.2.6 Members Sub-
lateral force resisting system that can accommodate win-
jected to Axial Force and Flexural (Piers). The piers
dow or storefront openings where solid shear walls are un-
desirable. The design criteria requirements of this section are basically slender shear walls. Hence, many of the re-
were established to require all flexural yielding and inelas- quirements are similar to those for shear walls. Confine-
tic energy dissipation to occur in the beams; no yielding is ment must be provided if the compressive strains at
to occur in the piers. factored forces determined using a R of 1.5 exceed 0.0015.
This procedure is intended to determine real strains at re-
Because the wall frame is a new system, there are nu- alistic earthquake loads, and provide confinement as nec-
merous material and geometric restrictions. The geometric essary. Confined masonry has a much larger usable
constraints placed on beam dimensions are such that most compressive strain than unconfined masonry. See
of the deformations are flexural deformations rather than Figure C606-1.
shear deformations. Also, piers, which are the counterpart
of a column in a concrete frame, have limitations on the al- C606.3.5.4 UBC §2108.2.6.2.7 Pier Design
lowable axial load. These geometric and material limits Forces. The pier nominal moment strength must exceed
were set to keep the wall frames within the boundaries of the pier moment corresponding to the development of
the results of available research. beam plastic hinges. This criteria preserves the strong col-
umn-weak beam assumption inherent throughout these
C606.3.5.2 UBC §2108.2.6.2.5 Flexural Mem- Requirements. The factor of 1.6 was considered necessary
bers (Beams). Longitudinal reinforcing steel is re- to ensure this relationship because of limited test data. The
quired to be distributed evenly over the depth of the beam piers are intended to remain essentially elastic except at
rather than concentrated at the top and bottom, as is com- the base.
mon for reinforced concrete beams. This even distribution
governs the behavior of the beam. Instead of an essentially C606.3.5.5 UBC §2108.2.6.2.8 Shear
elasto-plastic moment curvature relationship where essen- Design. Shear design includes both a masonry and rein-
tially all the tension steel yields simultaneously, the transi- forcing steel contribution similar to shear walls. The nom-
tion from first reinforcement yield to ultimate strain is inal shear strength is required to be greater than 1.4 times
more gradual as successive reinforcing bars yield. The re- the shears corresponding to beam flexural yielding in or-
sulting moment curvature relationship is a gently rising der to preclude a brittle shear failure mode.
curve from first yield to ultimate. C606.3.5.6 UBC §2108.2.6.2.9 Joints. There
The minimum reinforcing ratio 0.0020 required for are strict geometric limits for the joint. The reasons are: 1)
the beams ensures that the ultimate moment capacity will the joint must provide sufficient load-carrying capacity to
be greater than the cracking moment. The maximum rein- transmit the forces from the beams to the columns; 2) the
forcing steel ratio allowed ensures that the flexural steel stresses in the joint must be low enough to allow the beam
longitudinal steel to be developed within the joint; 3) the
218 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary Table C606-1
shear forces in the joint must not exceed the shear capaci- References
ty; and 4) there is limited test data. Since there is no con-
finement reinforcement per se in the joint, the Brandow, Gregg E., Gary C. Hart, and Ajit Virdee,
development lengths for cyclic behavior of reinforcing 1997. Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures,
steel in grout dominate the geometry. The beam longitudi- Concrete Masonry Association of California and
nal reinforcing must be adequately developed in the joint Nevada, Citrus Heights, California.
to prevent slip and joint degradation. Ghosh, S. K., 1998. “Design of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Under the 1997 UBC,” Building Standards,
ICBO, May-June
NCMA, 1998. Splice Length Research Summary, National
Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA.
Table C606-1. Behavior and Limit States—Ductile Material
State Description
Behavior State 1 Uncracked cross-section and M < Mcr
Limit State 1 M = Mcr and the maximum stress in the masonry is equal to the mod-
ulus of rupture
Behavior State 2 Cracked cross-section with strain in the steel εs < εy and
Mcr < M < My
Limit State 2 M = My and strain in the steel reinforcing farthest from the neutral axis
εs = εy
Behavior State 3 Cracked cross-section with strain in the steel reinforcing farthest from
the neutral axis εs > εy, but the maximum strain in the masonry εm <
εmu and My < M < Mu
Limit State 3 M = Mu and the maximum strain in the masonry εm = εmu
September 1999 219

Figure C606-1. Compressive stress strain diagram for masonry
220 September 1999

CHAPTER 7
Steel
C701 General Neither the 1989 AISC ASD nor the 1994 AISC
LRFD encompasses detailed design of steel buildings or
This chapter includes Requirements for all of the common
structures subjected to substantial earthquake effects.
structural steel systems, including: ordinary and special
ASD and LRFD are formulated on the basis of perfor-
moment resisting frames, special truss moment frames,
mance primarily in the elastic range, and they do not offer
concentrically braced frames, eccentrically braced frames,
provisions that promote stability of steel structures deflect-
and stud wall systems. In July 1998, AISC released its
ed well into the inelastic range. ASD is written for working
1997 edition of the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
stress design evaluation. LRFD is based on strength de-
Buildings with commentaries (AISC-Seismic 97). AISC-
sign, but does not capture inelastic behavior. During a ma-
Seismic 97 incorporates recent findings by the SAC Joint
jor seismic event, reliance is placed on the building's
Venture and many independent researchers and is consid-
performance at displacements significantly beyond those
ered more up-to-date than the 1997 UBC. It supplements
levels calculated using code-specified forces. On June 15,
load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for seismic ap-
1992, AISC first published seismic provisions for LRFD
plications and contains an excellent commentary. There-
[AISC, 1992]. This document, entitled Seismic Provisions
fore, in departure from tradition, SEAOC decided that this
for Structural Steel Buildings, was later modified to be-
seventh edition of the Blue Book would offer supplemen-
come the basis for the LRFD provisions in UBC 1997.
tary Commentaries addressing Part I, Structural Steel
Buildings, and Part III, Allowable Stress Design (ASD), C702.1 UBC Division IV
AISC-Seismic 97, in lieu of Commentary on the 1997 C702.2 Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97
UBC provisions. Part II of AISC-Seismic 97 contains pro- Part I, LRFD
visions for Composite Structural Steel and Reinforced
Concrete Buildings that may be adopted (in part or in full) These modifications coordinate AISC-Seismic 97, UBC
in a future edition of this Blue Book. Chapter 16 Division IV, and Chapter 1.
C702.2.1 Modify Terms
C702 Recommended Modifications C702.2.2 Modify Scope
to the 1997 UBC C702.2.3 Modify Glossary
UBC steel provisions are based primarily on the various C702.2.3.1 Modify definitions as follows:
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Specifi-
cations. Inelastic Rotation of Beam-to-Column Connec-
tion: This value is related to the interstory drift associated
These AISC Specifications include: with the maximum inelastic response displacement, ∆ m ,
■ Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
defined in UBC §1630.9.2. The rotation is based on the
Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design (ASD),
distance to the column centerline for consistency with
June 1, 1989.
FEMA 267A.
■ Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Reduced Beam Section (RBS): The intent of RBS
December 1, 1994 [AISC, 1994a]. designs is to locate inelastic behavior (yielding, hinging,
■ Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. and local buckling) away from the column face. The three
June 15, 1992 [AISC, 1992]. most common flange cut profiles have been referred to as
September 1999 221

“straight” or “constant,” “tapered,” and “circular” or “ra- arc energy and cooling rate [Paterson et al., 1998], service
dius” [SAC, 1997b]. The various details do not all have the temperature, and many other factors. Williams [1998] stat-
same assurance of reliability, as some have not been tested ed that the fracture toughness of a weldment is far more
as thoroughly as others. At least two specimens with ta- sensitive to procedural variables than it is to the rated CVN
pered flange cuts have shown brittle failure [Iwankiw and toughness of the weld metal. Thus, along with specifying
Carter, 1996], although adding fin plates has generally higher CVN toughness in the weld metal, the project must
shown good performance [Zekioglu et al., 1997]. The cir- specify that proper controls be put in place during con-
cular cut RBS has performed more reliably. RBS design struction in order to ensure a welded joint of high tough-
guidelines have been proposed by Engelhardt et al. [1998] ness. Furthermore, the basis of the current recommended
and Iwankiw [1997], but these should still be considered CVN toughness value was not clear. Highly scattered
tentative. The capacity of the beam-column interface is not CVN notch toughness should be expected if test speci-
yet well understood (see Section C704.2). It is believed mens are taken from actual welds [Barsom, 1987].
that the successful performance of these connections is
The fracture mechanics approach used by Burdekin
due to shifting the strain demand away from the beam-to-
and Pardeli [1998], applying British Standard 97/71 4934
column joint region.
DC (Draft) [BS, 1997], indicates that toughness require-
C702.2.3.2 Add definitions: ments may vary depending on quality of welding, stress
concentration factors, size of flaws, and thickness of mate-
Rapid Strength Deterioration: See discussions in
rials, with thicker materials requiring higher fracture
Section C703.4
toughness. SAC (SEAOC-ATC-CUREe) is currently de-
K-area: Reference Figure C-6.1 of AISC-Seismic veloping methods that parallel this approach. Williams
97 for the location of K-area. [1998] suggests a fracture control plan, as used in other in-
dustries (offshore, shipbuilding, bridge) that applies a
AISC-Seismic 97 requires that for qualifying connec-
four-tier system, depending on the level of demand re-
tion tests, coupons from an actual steel specimen be taken
quired.
and strength determined based on coupon test results. The
Seismology Committee further recommends that whenev- Size and shape of weld access hole may have a major
er coupons are to be extracted from actual steel to deter- impact on the performance of welded connections
mine its properties, some also be taken from the K-area. [Blodgett, 1998]. Japanese research has focused on this as-
Properties from this area are believed to best represent the pect [Nakagomi et al., 1998].
minimum ductility and toughness expected for seismic ap-
It was also recognized that fillet welds loaded in the
plications. For more discussion on the K-area issue, see
longitudinal direction are tough regardless of toughness of
Section C703.2.
the weld metal [LACO-TAP, 1997]. However, AISC and
C702.2.3.3 Delete the definition for Intermediate the Seismology Committee determined that it is not prac-
Moment Frame (IMF). For discussion, see Section tical to allow the use of low CVN weld metal only for that
C702.2.9. process, since the cost of quality assurance and control to
C702.2.4 Add: ASTM Part 1, §2 Referenced Specifi- separate two weld metals may outweigh any benefit.
cations Codes and Standards For discussion on Parent Primary members and connections shall include, but
Metal Considerations, see Section C703.7. are not limited to, moment frames, braced frames, collec-
C702.2.5 No Commentary tors ties, and lateral restraints.
C702.2.6 No Commentary C702.2.8 AISC Part I, §9.2a Beam-to-Column
Joints and Connection. AISC-Seismic 97 prohibits
C702.2.7 Modify: AISC Part 1, §7.3b. All welds
specimen beam yield strengths more than 15 percent be-
must have CVN 20 ft-lbs at -20°F.
low the prototype Fye. This is to ensure that qualification
Toughness of the weld metal was thought to be a ma- tests capture typical conditions, not “best-case” conditions
jor factor contributing to the fractures observed in the that may be artificially low. A detail designed to develop
Northridge earthquake. Therefore, higher toughness weld beam hinging may test better if low-yield beam material is
metal is now being specified for moment frame connec- used. For similar reasons, columns and strengthening ele-
tions. However, engineers should recognize that CVN ments (for example, haunches or cover plates) with unusu-
toughness of filler metal is very sensitive to the welding
222 September 1999

ally high yield strengths should not be used in qualification only low (less than 1½ percent) inelastic rotation capaci-
tests. ties [Whitaker et al., 1997]. Tests carried out on beam-to-
C702.2.9 Delete: AISC Part I, §10 Intermediate column connections (W21 x 68 beams) using weld over-
Moment Frames (IMF) including Commentary SC10. lays on pre-Northridge connections have shown good per-
Inelastic rotation demands of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 were es- formance [DLW, 1998; Anderson and Duan, 1998].
tablished in AISC-Seismic 97 to categorize three types of Research has also shown that there is no consistent
moment frames, i.e., ordinary moment frames (OMF), in- linkage between the R factor and rotation demands. Fur-
termediate moment frames (IMF), and special moment thermore, because of the drift limitations, stiffness rather
frames (SMF). The basis of a new class of moment frame, than strength generally governs the design of welded steel
the intermediate moment frame (IMF), was created in moment frames in mid- and highrise buildings. Therefore,
AISC-Seismic 97 in addition to the special and ordinary the use of an R of 4.5 versus 8.5 may not make a significant
moment frames to allow additional flexibility for design. difference in rotational demands. Rotational demands on
The major difference between SMF, IMF, and OMF ap- frame connections are not easily predictable since they are
pears to be the inelastic rotational capacity of the beam/ quite sensitive to the site ground motion intensity and du-
column assembly demonstrated by tests. A detailed study ration, as well as to system redundancy and material over-
by Hale in 1999 for the Seismology Committee demon- strength. Occasions do arise when it is not possible or not
strated that for the same ground motion or shaking level essential to meet all of the detailing requirements for an
(i.e. the same structural design category, or SDC), the duc- SMF. Examples include light metal buildings, usually lim-
tility or drift demand and, therefore, inelastic rotational de- ited to one or two stories, and open industrial structures.
mands on the connections remain essentially the same for The studies described above and those by Hale [1999] on
all systems and do not decrease. This is because the IMFs discussed in Section C702.2.9, appear to indicate
strength of the frame does not govern the design when us- that the demands on OMFs are significantly greater than
ing the present R factors, particularly for frames that have the AISC's requirement of 0.01 for inelastic rotation ca-
light gravity load demands and short spans. pacity. It is recognized that more study on the rotational
The situation was illustrated by Leelataviwat et al. demands acting on OMFs is needed. However, based on
[1998] where the rotational ductility demands on the con- the above considerations, The Seismology Committee de-
nections were directly correlated with base shears. Leelat- cided that the OMF may continue to be permitted, but only
aviwat also suggested that the R factors be 1/3 of what they in limited applications and with the inelastic rotation de-
presently are. Hale's 1999 study reported that there is not mand increased to 0.02.
much reduction in member sizes from OMF to IMF and It should also be noted that, with reference to
SMF. Hale concluded that the SDC in which the IMF and Chapter 1, nonbuilding structures in Seismic Zones 3 and
OMF allowed by AISC-Seismic 97 may not be appropriate 4 are permitted up to 160 feet in height but are required to
and are not based on a rational analysis when used with have an inelastic rotational capacity of 0.03 radians.
provisions 9.2a, 10.2a, and 11.2a. AISC concurred with
C702.2.11 Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF)
Hale's study and is proposing that IMF not be adopted by
Requirements. This Commentary supplements AISC-
the UBC 97 at this time.
Seismic 97 §C12 and explains the revisions made to it in
C702.2.10 Modify: AISC Part 1, §11.2a Beam-to- Blue Book Section 702.2.11.
Column Joints and Connections. Add alternative
qualification for ordinary moment frames (OMF) to dem- Blue Book revisions to AISC-Seismic 97 §12.3 do
onstrate an inelastic rotation capacity of 0.02 radians. three things. They correct an error, add Requirements that
set a lower bound on system strength, and provide consis-
OMFs of structural steel are moment resisting space tency with other AISC-Seismic provisions. The word “re-
frames that do not need to meet the special detailing required” was mistakenly omitted from the §C12 provisions
quirements for ductile behavior required for SMFs. Al- about special segment chord axial strength. Blue Book
though the design lateral loads for OMFs are twice those Section 702.2.11 corrects the error.
of SMFs, based on the observed Northridge earthquake
damage, this is not sufficient to recommend their use even The existing provision on chord shear strength and the
with high CVN toughness weld metal. Pre-Northridge added provisions on diagonal member strength are intend-
connections, even using full penetration welds with im- ed to ensure that the STMF develops at least some minimal
proved notch toughness, have generally demonstrated strength before yielding its special segment. In systems
September 1999 223

with clearly defined yielding elements, design of Finally, many of the issues raised in Section C703
nonyielding members and connections is based not on ap- may also be relevant to STMFs
plied loads, but on the capacity of the yielding elements. C702.2.12 Modify: AISC Part I, §S15.4b Link-to-
The strength of the yielding element therefore determines Column Connections. No successful complete subas-
the strength of the system overall. To ensure some lower- semblage tests (consisting of the link beam, column, and
bound system strength, it is necessary to set requirements brace) have been carried out so far to account for the link
for the yielding elements. connection to the weak axis of a wide flange column.
One could argue that specific strength requirements However, testing of the link component itself when con-
for yielding elements are unnecessary, as every member nected to the weak axis of a W14x193 stub column indi-
must have a design strength greater than the required cates that shear links up to W18x60 can form viable
strength derived from code load combinations. Other “spe- energy dissipating hinges [Malley, 1983].
cial” systems, however, have specific provisions regarding C702.2.13 Add: AISC Part I, §S16 Quality
the strength of their yielding elements (AISC-Seismic 97 Assurance. See Section C703 in general and Section
Section 13.2b for special concentric braced frames and C703.12 in particular.
Section 15.2d for EBFs). If similar requirements were not
C702.2.14 Add: AISC Part I, §S2 Symbols.
specified for STMFs, some designers might be misled into
Defines theta.
thinking that STMF special segments may be sized for
drift only. Therefore, for consistency and completeness, C702.2.15 Modify: AISC Part I, §S3 Definitions. A
Section 702.2.11 specifies strength requirements. loading cycle is defined as beginning at the horizontal axis
(zero load), loading to reach peak positive displacement,
The shear strength Requirement for special segment reverse loading to zero load, continuing to reach peak neg-
chords is intended to provide some fullness to the hyster- ative displacement, then reverse loading again back to zero
etic response. Without the flexural yielding of the chords, load. In order to examine the strength deterioration after
STMF response would be based entirely on diagonal com- one loading cycle, the Seismology Committee recom-
pression buckling and tension yielding. The 25 percent mends that the loading be continued to the peak positive
value is borrowed from dual system requirements, in displacement again.
which a ductile frame is required to provide at least that
much of the system's total strength. The required vertical C702.2.16 Modify: AISC Part I, §S5.5 Material
shear strength in the fully yielded state may be understood Strength, Item 2. For discussion on parent metal mate-
as the total shear demand in the special segment due to re- rial issues, see Section C703.7.
quired load combinations. The intent is that when all parts The Seismology Committee believes that the im-
of the special segment are yielding or buckling, the chords proved consistency of properties including CVN tough-
should be making a substantial strength contribution. In ness and elongation are important factors in providing
Vierendeel special segments, the chords and verticals must reliable ductile behavior of steel structures. In general, en-
resist 100 percent of the required forces [Basha and Goel, gineers cannot specify a steel producer. Shop and field
1994]. quality control is the only way to verify if the steel meets
The axial strength requirements for special segment the required properties. It is our understanding that SAC is
diagonals ensure that forces derived from code load com- investigating these concerns and will provide recommen-
binations and linear analysis can be carried with limited in- dations related to the desired properties of the base mate-
elasticity. If the diagonals are analyzed and designed as rials.
tension-only elements, the compression strength require- C702.2.17 Modify: AISC Part I, §S6.3 Basic Load-
ment (but not the slenderness requirement) may be ig- ing Sequence. A basic loading sequence is recom-
nored. mended for testing of steel components and connections
based on SAC [1997a]. Tests based on the ATC-24 [1992]
STMF diagonals are expected to provide ductile buck-
loading sequences are also acceptable. These basic loading
ling and yielding. They may be designed like diagonals in
sequences should be employed to evaluate performance of
SCBF systems. Slenderness limits and connection require-
a beam-to-column subassembly, provided the ground mo-
ments are added for consistency with SCBF provisions
tion that controls design is not of a near-fault type that con-
(AISC-Seismic 97 §13.2 and §13.3).
tains a large displacement pulse. In the latter case, the
near-fault loading history should be used.
224 September 1999

The SAC basic loading sequence [SAC, 1998a] is for ly variable. Weld fracture is a failure mode in the latter cat-
a multiple step test (see Figure C702-1). The deformation egory. For such a case, ATC-24 recommends at least three
history consists of stepwise increasing cycles. The defor- identical specimens with identical loading histories. Fur-
mation parameter that controls the loading history is the ther, if only three specimens are tested, the useful capacity
interstory drift angle (defined as interstory displacement should be taken as the lowest of the three test results.
over story height). In the test specimen, this angle is de-
The reliability of a given connection concept can only
fined as beam deflection over beam span (to centerline of
be well established after many tests over a range of critical
column) if the vertical beam deflection is controlled, or as
variables (including, but not limited to, member size and
column deflection over column height if the horizontal
material properties). A program of two or even three tests,
column deflection is controlled. Deformation control is
as described by AISC-Seismic 97 Appendix S, should only
used throughout the test.
be used to qualify specific sizes for specific projects.
The loading is divided into steps, each of which in-
SAC [1995] recognizes that two laboratory specimens
cludes both a positive and a negative peak. Each step is de-
are not statistically adequate to predict actual performance
fined, θ j , the peak drift angle in load step j, and nj, the of every connection in a frame, even if the specimen and
number of cycles in load step j. the prototype are of identical design. Engineers are there-
fore advised to evaluate research and testing by SAC and
The purpose of testing is to understand and verify the
others and to base their designs on established engineering
general behavior of a connection concept. The Seismology
principles. However, engineers who cite successful test re-
Committee considers that ductile and gradual deterioration
sults must consider any failed tests of similar specimens as
is the only acceptable mode of failure for moment frame
well.
connections. Therefore, testing should not stop at any an-
ticipated inelastic rotation but should continue until the Most test programs have used one-sided specimens
load sequence is complete or until the specimen or the test- that simulate the exterior or end connection of a frame.
ing equipment reaches its physical limits. Relatively few tests have used two-sided assemblies to
study the more typical interior joint for which panel zone
AISC-Seismic 97 permits alternative loading se-
demands may be significantly greater. Accordingly, ex-
quences of equivalent severity. However, the severity of a
trapolation of “successful” results from one-sided tests to
given loading sequence is not fully quantified. The rate of
two-sided applications may not be valid. Consideration
loading, the amplitude of loading, and cumulative energy
should be given to the relative strengths and stiffness of
can all contribute to severity. Near-fault loading sequences
one-sided versus two-sided connections. Popov and Yang
are currently being considered by SAC.
[1995] suggest that weak panel zones may have contribut-
C702.2.18 Modify: AISC Part I, §S10 Acceptance ed to brittle fractures in column webs of pre-Northridge
Criteria. In AISC-Seismic 97, an acceptable test is one joints and that code provisions for controlling panel zone
in which specified criteria are met for one complete load- strength and stiffness might not be adequate.
ing cycle. Theoretically, a specimen could fracture just af-
ter completing one cycle at the specified rotation and still Recognizing the uncertain attributes of many of the
be considered acceptable. From a reliability perspective, post-Northridge connection designs and potentially statis-
this is not a satisfying result. To add some assurance that tically inadequate testing programs, the interpretation of
the specimen can reliably resist expected demands, the the test results must be done carefully. Connection tests
Seismology Committee could either increase the required conducted by Popov [1970] on full-size steel connections
rotation or increase the number of cycles over which performed successfully. However, these tests were based
strength must be sustained. The Committee took the latter on lower acceptance criteria than currently required. Three
course, requiring two cycles at the required rotation without of four tests of cover plate connection exceeded 0.03
out rapid strength deterioration. radians plastic rotation at the University of Texas in 1994
[Englehardt, 1995]. The fourth one reached 0.025 radians.
ATC-24 suggests that testing of a single specimen is A 1998 cover plate test at UC Berkeley [unpublished as of
adequate if the failure mode is ductile or involves gradual mid-1999] using larger members failed suddenly at 0.01
strength deterioration (unless cumulative damage is the radians elastic rotation. Fracture experts noted minor indi-
subject of the investigation). Testing of a single specimen cations in the beam flange near the fracture initiation point
is insufficient, however, if the failure mode might involve as the source of brittle failure along with concern for lack
rapid strength deterioration or if the peak response is high- of toughness in the parent metal. It is interesting that the
September 1999 225

mode of failure in the Berkeley tests was very similar to should be controlled by providing sufficient toughness in
that of the Kings Bridge (Melbourne, Australia) failure of the surrounding materials.
four girders in 1962 [Boyd, 1970]. This is an example that
C703.1 Overview
reminds engineers to pay attention to this century's history
of brittle failures. Subsequent to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, SEAOC,
ATC, and CUREe joined to form the SAC Joint Venture,
SAC and AISC have used inelastic rotation as the key funded by FEMA, to provide recommendations for im-
measure of connection capacity. Such a single quantitative proved performance of steel moment frame buildings. The
parameter, while useful, should be understood as a proba- SAC Interim Guidelines [FEMA 267], were published in
bilistic function of many qualitative factors, including August 1995. Subsequently, Interim Guidelines Advisory
connection configuration, member sizes, column-to-beam No. 1 [FEMA 267A] was published in April 1997. SAC
strength ratios, b/t ratio, d/t ratio, panel zone participation, expects to publish final Guidelines in January 2000. As re-
variable material properties, weld access hole configura- search continues, new findings may warrant revisions to
tion, web connection details, and loading rate. previous analysis, design, or construction recommenda-
Test Loading Rate: Questions about test loading tions. Because of the swiftly evolving state of knowledge
rate as one variable that could significantly affect test re- concerning moment frame connections, engineers are en-
sults have also been raised by Kaufmann and Fisher couraged to stay informed of ongoing research, to use
[1995]. Preliminary data collected by SAC [Deierlein, judgment based on sound engineering principles, and to
1998] indicates limited impact. It is recognized that mate- avoid relying fully on prescriptive guidelines.
rial with room temperature toughness in the mid-transition Where test data are sparse or inconclusive, Blue Book
region would probably be most affected, but there is cur- recommendations are based on a consensus of experience,
rently no data to quantify the effects of test loading rate. observations, and engineering judgment. Excellent over-
C702.3 Modification to UBC Division V views of critical issues concerning connections and brac-
ing design criteria are given by Nicoletti and Saunders
C702.4 Modification to AISC-Seismic 97, [1984], Popov [1988], and Bruneau et al. [1998]. Various
Part III-ASD
SAC/FEMA reports address the many issues brought to
C702.4.1 Modify: UBC §2212 light by the performance of moment resisting frame build-
C702.4.2 Delete: UBC §2213 and §2214 ings in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. As research con-
tinues, it is clear that no single factor is responsible for the
observed damage. Rather, several factors contributed to
the unexpected connection failures.
The Northridge earthquake highlights the need for
Additional
structural engineers to remain current with research and
state-of-the-art practice. The finding of brittle fractures in
Commentary
steel frames after that event suggests that we should occa-
sionally re-examine the validity of our traditional practic-
es. Brittle fracture has contributed to past building and
nonbuilding structural failures. Fracture characteristics,
C703 Moment Frames well understood in some specialized fields, have not been
sufficiently considered in the design of steel structures re-
The primary objective of seismic design is to achieve duc- sisting earthquake demands. Factors associated with brit-
tile behavior and overall stability in structures subjected to tle fracture include strain rate, residual stresses, notch
large earthquake ground motions. To meet these objec- effects, weld defects, hydrogen embrittlement, tempera-
tives, connections in steel moment frames must be able to tures, stress concentrations, material overstrength, and the
develop and maintain the yield strength of selected mem- compatibility of joined materials. The constrained geome-
bers at significant strain magnitudes and relatively high try of some welded connections can reduce the steel ele-
strain rates. To achieve this, the potential for fracture initi- ments' ability to yield or undergo significant deformation
ation must be minimized and, ideally, fracture propagation [Blodgett, 1998]. In addition, the realities of construction
(such as variable materials, welding procedures, work-
manship, and nondestructive testing) affect the reliability
226 September 1999

of the system. Furthermore, the implications of recent Concerning local stress gradients, Richard et al.
findings involving moment frame systems may apply to [1995] have shown that stress and strain vary across the
design and construction of other steel structural systems as width of the beam flange, with the highest stresses occur-
well. ring at the midwidth of the flange for connection of wide
C703.1.1 Welded Connection Considerations. flange beams to wide flange columns. These variations ex-
Welding has been considered a more convenient and reli- ist even when the column is fitted with continuity plates.
able method of connecting steel members than bolting or Goel et al. [1997] and others have also shown that flexural
riveting. Welded structures are economical and efficient, stress at the column face also varies through the beam
and engineers have used them with high confidence. The flange thickness due to prying action in the beam flange.
technique allows engineers to design complicated struc- Reliable performance of welded connections depends
tural forms with minimum design and detailing. However, on design, execution, and quality control that appropriate-
the welding process fundamentally alters the mechanical ly considers all the above factors. Engineers are encour-
and chemical properties of base materials in ways that can aged to consider the findings of SAC, AWS, and others
adversely affect structural performance. Engineers, lack- [Liu, 1998; Patterson et al., 1998; Maranian et al., 1998;
ing a thorough understanding of these effects, employed Miller, 1998; Williams, 1998].
welded connections without requiring minimum tough-
ness in the weld and heat-affected zone. More recent weld- C703.2 Through-Thickness (T-T) Stresses
ing processes involving high heat input and high Through-thickness (T-T) stress became a concern in 1971
deposition rates were developed to improve productivity; when lamellar tearing in column flanges was discovered
unfortunately these processes can further erode toughness during construction of a building in Los Angeles. The tear-
in the weld and heat-affected zone. Conventional civil ening was believed to have been caused by residual stresses
gineering curricula do not address these issues, so few en- that developed [Kaminetzky, 1991] due to weld shrinkage
gineers possess a thorough understanding of welding in the highly restrained frames. Conditions with appar-
technology and procedures or of fracture mechanics. It is ently similar characteristics were documented after the
now understood that to achieve reliable steel designs, en- Northridge earthquake [Maranian, 1997].
gineers must give more consideration to weld details and For purposes of this discussion, T-T stresses may be
processes employed. developed by fabrication, erection, or imposed forces.
Factors that affect the performance of welded connec- While the term usually refers to stresses normal to a col-
tions include the following: umn flange at a welded beam-column joint, T-T stresses
n Chemical composition and mechanical properties of and strains are more generally understood as perpendicular
the parent metal (usually different for columns and to the direction of rolling of hot-rolled shapes or plates.
beams). T-T stresses were considered as one of the factors that
n Residual stresses due to mill rolling and straightening. may have contributed to brittle fractures observed in col-
n Residual stresses due to fabrication and welding. umn flanges after the Northridge earthquake. SAC [1995]
n Properties of the heat affected zone. cautioned, “The causes for T-T failures of column flanges,
n Properties and quality of the weld metal. observed both in buildings damaged by the Northridge
n Weld defects (including excessive porosity, slag, and earthquake and in some test specimens, are not well under-
discontinuities). stood.” It concluded, “given the many complex factors
n Joint geometry (triaxial stress states keep constrained which can affect the T-T strength of the column flange, de-
steel elements from yielding; limited weld access termination of a reliable basis upon which to set permissi-
tends to reduce weld quality). ble design stresses will require significant research.”
n Welding procedures. Subsequently, ultimate T-T properties were defined in
n Welder workmanship. SAC Advisory No. 1 [1997b] as 0.9Fy.
n Field conditions (including humidity, ventilation,
temperature, and wind speeds). Since 1997, studies by Sarkkinen [1998] and Dexter
n Quality of inspection procedures. [1998] have attempted to gain more understanding of T-T
n Earthquake intensity (including strain rate effects). behavior, especially in column flanges. Sarkkinen, using
n Local stress gradients. the testing method from ASTM A770 on over 60 coupons
taken from various parts of 10 randomly selected speci-
mens, reported highly scattered T-T properties. Dexter
September 1999 227

tested over 30 Grade 50 steel column specimens obtained al toughness requirements based on anticipated stresses
from eight different heats and four different mills (all 1997 and flaw sizes, may be more appropriate. Burdekin and
production). He welded 12-inch wide plates of 100 ksi ma- Pardelli [1998] have taken such an approach, applying a
terial perpendicular to the column flanges to simulate draft British Standard in their research on moment frame
beam flanges in typical moment frame condition. He then connections. They recognize in their conclusions that this
applied axial tension to the plates. In some tests, loads must still be confirmed by tests.
were applied eccentrically to generate prying forces as
In conclusion, testing to date, while informative, may
well as T-T tension. Dexter reported that with E70T-3
not have captured all the factors that can affect T-T prop-
weld metal, T-T failure of the column occurred in only two erties and resistance to failure. They do not replace obser-
cases. Dexter's report suggests to many that T-T stress is vations from real earthquakes. For this reason, engineers
not a problem in itself. As of April 1999, none of the over should closely scrutinize published reports and use care-
400 connection tests performed or monitored by SAC have ful, considered judgment to determine whether they are
had T-T failures. The fracture mechanics explanation is applicable to specific design objectives.
that T-T failure will not occur in the absence of a crack
starting elsewhere and propagating into the column flange. C703.3 K-Area Brittleness
Therefore, some engineers consider that a T-T stress check The K-area is a location defined by Figure C-6.1 of AISC-
should no longer be required. Others, however, believe Seismic 97. It has been found that certain manufacturing
that further detailed research is still necessary to fully ad- processes can result in lower toughness and ductility in
dress and understand T-T effects, which may involve the this region with the potential for crack initiation. There
following: have been reports (unpublished) of steel shapes that frac-
■ Size and location of material flaws tured in the K-area in the fabricator's shop. These fractures
■ Weld and base metal toughness happened after inspection and during cool down. Subse-
■ Column material (which varies by steel mill) quently, AISC issued an Advisory [AISC, 1997a]. AISC
■ Column flange thickness organized a Technical Committee to study the issue and as
■ Shear forces at the column face [Goel et al., 1997] mid-1999, its work is still in progress.
■ Axial forces in the column
■ Stress concentrations Low ductility is a critical condition, especially in ma-
■ Influence of access hole on weld quality terial subject to high residual stress induced by constrained
■ Strain rate (Dexter's work did include dynamic tests) welded beam-column connections. Some connection tests,
■ Material toughness particularly those on pre-Northridge connections, have re-
sulted in cracks initiating at the access hole adjacent to the
A European Standard, EN 10164 [EN, 1993], involv- beam K-area, although it has not yet been shown that this
ing specimens similar to ASTM 770, is used in some fields phenomenon is due to the material properties in the K-ar-
(notably offshore structures) for T-T testing of parent met- ea. In addition, some buildings damaged in the Northridge
al. Some engineers feel that additional test methods and earthquake were observed to have columns with cracks
standards need to be developed to account for the factors propagating along the K-area. Residual stress in the parent
listed above. metal was historically believed to have no impact on the
Some Seismology Committee members believe that a plastic moment of a cross section [Bruneau, 1997]. This
simplified through- thickness stress limit for design, simi- understanding was based on the assumption that all parts
lar to that in SAC[1997b], is still warranted. For example, of the cross-section are capable of yielding. There is now
a limit such as 0.9Fy or 0.8Fu could be compared to the re- a valid concern as to whether residual stresses due to
straightening and welding in the K-area can safely ig-
quired stress averaged across the flange width. Citing Dex-
nored, particularly with regard to domestic sections under
ter's tests, others conclude that such a limit is not needed.
150 pounds per foot.
In any case, the properties of steel throughout the world
market remains variable, and, therefore, past problems as- The Seismology Committee therefore recommends
sociated with T-T strength may still be present or may re- that coupons be taken at the K-area for yield strength and
cur. The final SAC guidelines are expected to provide toughness determinations to ensure that the properties of
recommendations aimed at tightening requirements on the most critical and most vulnerable area of steel wide
steel properties in order to address this and other issues. A flange shapes, the K-area, are as specified and expected.
fracture mechanics approach, setting weld and parent met-
228 September 1999

This Recommendation is not supported by the steel in- strength deterioration are two distinct modes of ultimate
dustry at this time for a number of reasons. It is pointed out behavior, as discussed in ATC-24 [1992]. Steel moment
that the location of mill test coupons has been moved from connection tests by Krawinkler et al. [1983] cited in ATC-
the traditional web to the flange. K-area is not the location 24 [1992], showed that when cracks propagate at a beam-
specified in ASTM A370 [ASTM, 1992]. Questions have to-column flange weld, fracture occurs suddenly, leading
been raised about whether the mills will change the sam- to a sudden or rapid loss of strength. Specimens with this
pling location and deviate from the ASTM Standard. The behavior have widely scattered capacities at failure. This
legality of rejecting steel that does not meet this require- scatter represents an inherent uncertainty in the pre-
ment may be challenged. Furthermore, it is noted that roll- Northridge connection.
ing practice has been improved in certain major domestic
Acceptable test specimens must meet prescribed per-
mills to reduce the potential low toughness and variation
formance criteria without rapid strength deterioration. The
of strength at various locations of the cross-section.
maximum deformation (e.g., drift angle) at which the per-
The Seismology Committee considers it the engineer's formance criteria are met is taken as the deformation ca-
responsibility to specify and to take measures to ensure pacity of the specimen.
that the properties of the material delivered are as designed
In some cases it may be difficult to classify observed
and specified so that the expected performance is realized.
strength deterioration as rapid or gradual. For example, in
Therefore, until the ASTM Standard is changed to include
specimens with supplemental plates, haunches, etc., frac-
mill test results (MTR) of the properties at the K-area, en-
ture of one connector does not always lead to severe
gineers are encouraged to specify in the construction doc-
strength loss right away. For another example, specimens
uments that acceptable material strength be based on this
that develop lateral torsional buckling may show signifi-
location as well as on flanges.
cant strength loss in consecutive cycles without any frac-
It should be noted that, although it is unusual to spec- ture. In uncertain cases, specimen capacity may be taken
ify testing at a location different from the ASTM, it is not as the maximum deformation at which two cycles are com-
unprecedented. At the present time, AISC recommends pleted and strength remains above both of the following
that the CVN toughness specimens be obtained from the levels:
core area, while ASTM standards still specify that it be ■ 85 percent of the specimen design strength,
taken from the flange. Additionally, engineers should con- considering measured rather than nominal yield
sider, in the preparation of construction documents, that strength of the materials, but ignoring strain hardening
they have little or no control over the source of structural effects.
steel. It should also be recognized that the possibility of re- ■ 70 percent of the peak tested specimen strength.
duced notch toughness in the K-area may not be limited to
Acceptance is associated with the direction of loading.
steel produced by rotary straightening process. There is no
Since failure modes are direction-dependent, different de-
dependable way for the design engineer or construction
formation capacities may be associated with the two direc-
professionals to easily identify steel shapes that may have
tions of loading.
problems in the K-area. For these reasons, engineers are
encouraged to examine construction details and take cou- C703.5 Strong-Column/ Weak-Beam
pons at the core area to verify compliance if the source or With respect to both concrete and steel, significant Seis-
quality of the steel is suspect. It may be that the steel pro- mology Committee discussions have taken place in the re-
duced by domestic mills has reasonable ductility and lating to the concern expressed by many engineers that
toughness in the K-area. Similar confidence cannot be es- column moments can be significantly higher than pre-
tablished for all steel products on the marketplace. dicted by simplified methods. Paulay and Priestley [1992]
C703.4 Strength Deterioration and Bondy [1996] have shown this in their studies.
Full-scale connection tests cycled to failure are frequently For concrete structures, Paulay and Priestley recom-
characterized by either gradual strength deterioration or mend a dynamic magnification factor applied to column
rapid strength deterioration. Rapid strength deterioration moments that varies from 1.0 to 1.8 depending on the
is defined in the Requirements. By contrast, gradual dete- number of stories and the fundamental period of the struc-
rioration may be defined as hysteretic behavior involving ture. Bondy demonstrated by time-history analysis that the
a gradual loss of strength and usually characterized by global curvature of columns can substantially add to the
yielding or member local buckling. Rapid and gradual moments applied by the beams. In a study of a 10-story
September 1999 229

building, Bondy found column moments 162 percent weld metal should be determined by testing for
greater than determined from simplified assumptions. It is later comparison with prototype materials.
recognized that dynamic amplification (as defined by Without this data, specimen beams with low yield
Paulay and Priestley) can vary significantly due to ground strength and high toughness might be used
motion, frame stiffness, irregularities, and number of sto- improperly to validate a design that will be built
ries. Kariotis [1997] studied the damage pattern of existing with different materials. A range of acceptable
buildings following the Northridge earthquake and con- material properties should be developed.
cluded that higher mode effects may have contributed to Typical tests using bare steel specimens do not
column damage. capture potential effects of composite (or partially
This phenomenon applies to both steel and concrete composite) slabs. The effect of top flange lateral
moment frames. With regard to steel moment frames, the restraint on local and lateral torsional buckling is
amplification of column moments, which may lead to un- not well understood. In a real building, the slab
expected column hinging, raises the following concerns: could inhibit top flange local buckling while
■ Less favorable beam-to-column connection behavior bottom flange local buckling is exacerbated. It
due to column hinge formation. As of April 1999, has been suggested that beams with flange width-
however, none of over 400 tests monitored by SAC thickness ratios less than about 5 may not develop
has shown unexpected column yielding (other than in local buckling and therefore might be incapable
the panel zone). of large inelastic rotations. More research is
■ Reduction in the overall stability of frames. needed on local buckling effects.
Panel zone yielding can be a significant source of
While recognizing the problem, the Seismology Com- inelasticity in a beam-to-column joint. The degree
mittee realizes that the higher mode amplification of col- of yielding and the deformation level at which it
umn moments is mainly a systems issue and not a steel occurs can determine the assembly's ultimate
material concern. The Seismology Committee has set up a failure mode. Most tests use specimens with a
Task Group to carry out further study to fully develop re- beam joined to only one side of a column. It is
quirements for both steel and concrete. It is recommended often unclear if these one-sided tests adequately
that engineers exercise caution in their selection of beam simulate two-sided joints in which panel zone
and column sizes to provide more favorable strong col- yielding is more likely.
umn/weak beam relationships.
In general, engineers should focus on their connec-
C703.6 Interpretation and Acceptance of tions intended and expected failure modes using sound en-
Test Results
gineering principles and good judgment to understand the
The most significant new feature of AISC-Seismic 97 is value of limited tests.
the requirement that connections for moment frame and
C703.7 Parent Metal Material
eccentrically braced frame systems be qualified with tests.
Considerations
This unprecedented requirement addresses, in part, the
question of reliability in welded beam-to-column moment Traditional design procedures assume that steel is homo-
connections. Engineers are now responsible for verifying geneous and isotropic. This assumption is adequate for
that the connections they design are capable of delivering gravity design, where reasonably high factors of safety are
the intended joint and system performance. built in to the equations. The assumption is questionable,
however, for predicting the performance of steel beyond
In addition to the issues raised in AISC-Seismic 97 its elastic limits. ASTM material standards make the same
Appendix S and its commentary, engineers should consid- assumption. These standards ensure that manufacturing
er the following when preparing a test program and evalu- processes provide consistent products that can be used to
ating its results: design safe and reliable structures. History has shown that
Members used for test specimens generally will ASTM standards have generally proven adequate and have
not be obtained from the same source as members met the expectations of engineers. In seismic design, how-
used in the building. For this reason it is important ever, inelastic deformation and rotation capacity may be
to thoroughly characterize the materials used in more important than yield and tensile strength. Material
the tests. Chemical properties, tensile properties, characteristics needed for acceptable seismic performance
and CVN toughness of the beam, column, and may not be adequately covered by current ASTM specifi-
230 September 1999

cations. For these reasons, the Seismology Committee rec- rus, and nitrogen elongated in the rolling process. Along
ommends development of new material testing standards with weld shrinkage stresses, which can be significant
for seismic applications. These should consider ductility enough to cause yielding, and the application of high ten-
of the complete cross section, T-T properties, flaw sizes sile stresses at high strain rates, the material can be suscep-
from a fracture mechanics perspective, CVN toughness, tible to lamellar tearing. When Charpy (notch) toughness
and maximum flange thickness. requirements for steel are specified, the tests are normally
carried out so that the measurement of toughness is in the
Yield strength, as reported by the mills, is generally
direction parallel to the face of the member.
higher than the minimum specified strength. MTR from
U.S. mills' 1992 production showed all A36 steel shapes Barsom and Korvink [1997] also describe the phe-
exceeded the 36 ksi requirement and that the average yield nomena whereby lower strength steels are more prone to a
was about 49 ksi [SSPC, 1994]. AISC [1995] acknowl- change in the ductile-brittle transition temperature with in-
edged that large variations are possible due to the material creased strain rates. It is possible that earthquakes can
sampling locations and test methods used. However, it cause strain rates that will result in an upward temperature
should be understood that the MTRs are produced at the shift in fracture properties, although at this point it is not
steel mills in accordance with ASTM A370, with two clear whether or not this is an important effect.
specimens per heat taken from the flange (previously from
Currently, FEMA267 recommends a Charpy V-Notch
the web) before roller straightening or other cold work.
impact test for Group 4 and 5 of 20 ft.lb. at 70ºF. AISC
Cooling, straightening, and welding could build residual
Supplement No. 3 requires a Charpy V-Notch impact test
stresses in certain areas of the shape that are not captured
for Group 4 and 5 of 20 ft.lb. at 70ºF for static loading, but
by MTR.
it recommends more restrictive requirements for dynamic
Testing reveals a notable variation in yield strength, loading. If engineers consider that CVN is required, then
notch toughness, and ductility across rolled sections. the AISC location should be specified for the measure-
Galambos and Ravindra [1978] concluded for AISI in the ment of CVN in lieu of the ASTM-specified location.
1970s that yield strength varies not only from heat to heat, AISC requires that the tests be performed in the core area.
but from flange to web, from mill to mill, from time to time
The effect of these results on the design of lateral force
in the same mill, and may be dependent on the shape of the
resisting systems must be properly considered. Some pos-
test coupon. In their research on European steels, Byfield
sible methods to address this issue include the following:
and Nethercot [1997] mention that higher yield strengths
are obtained from the web due to a finer grain structure and 1. Limiting the use of A36 material in lateral force resist-
higher carbon content than the flanges. SAC [Engelhardt, ing systems, since the yield of this material can vary
1996] reported significant strength variation between substantially.
flange and web sections. Similar characteristics of proper- 2. Assuming overstrength material is present when cal-
ty variation were shown even as long ago as 1928 [Withey, culating the requirements on design elements (see
1928]. Section C703.8).
3. Specifying maximum yield strengths for material and
Damage discovered during postearthquake investiga-
the location of test coupon. It should be noted that
tions suggests that, in some cases, the column material did
some domestic mills have started controlling the max-
not possess adequate toughness to accommodate the high
imum yield strength of material. However, it is not
strain and strain rate characteristics of earthquakes. Al-
certain that all steel mills do. Specifying steel in ac-
though this may be attributed to insufficient toughness in
cordance with AISC Technical Bulletin No. 3 [AISC,
the heat-affected zone (due to excessive heat and rapid
1997c] (or ASTM A992) is expected to improve con-
cool-down, causing brittleness), questionable toughness of
trol on yield strengths.
the surrounding material may have contributed to the dam-
age. Furthermore, in repairs involving the replacement of It is important to ensure that the properties of the ac-
cracked column flanges with welds, during excavation by tual steel, not only the strength but also the elongation and
air arcing, cracks vertical and parallel to the face of the col- CVN toughness at critical locations, are similar to those
umn have sometimes occurred, again raising questions re- used in the qualifying tests. The requirements for yield
garding the toughness of the material [SEAOSC, 1998]. stress are stated in AISC-Seismic 97 and in these Blue
This crack propagation is apparently attributed to uninten- Book Requirements. An acceptable limit of 85 percent is
tional or residual alloy elements such as sulphur, phospho- recommended. Engineers are encouraged to put this re-
September 1999 231

quirement in the construction documents to ensure that the A572 Grade 50 enhanced per AISC Technical Bulletin
properties of materials delivered are reasonably similar No.3 [AISC, 1997b], or ASTM 992 and that are expected
and to ensure that the system, as designed, will perform to have more consistent properties. This grade steel will
close to the qualifying tests. This requirement is not yet limit the mill test results (MTR) for Fy between 50 ksi and
supported by the steel industry due to costs for additional 65 ksi.
testing, adverse effects on production, delivery, and fabri-
cation. Engineers should also note that rolled steel shapes
produced prior to 1997, which met ASTM A36 and/or
C703.8 Effects of Significantly A572 Standards, may meet the ASTM A992 Standard if
Overstrength Material and the strength requirements are satisfied. Some factors con-
Variation of Strength sidered important to the seismic performance of steel are
Engineers are cautioned that the following should be rec- not yet contained in the current ASTM Standards.
ognized as a result of significantly (greater than 15 per-
The Seismology Committee recommends that engi-
cent) overstrength material being used in the lateral force
neers recognize that many factors control the properties
resisting system and its components:
and performance of steel structures and that material test-
1. Increased strength of members or elements intended ing standards may not adequately respond to the specific
to yield will impose increased demand on welds and needs of seismic design. The overstrength factor Ry is a
T-T stresses. Weld strengths may become under-
step closer in capturing the reality between steel mill prac-
matched.
tice and design values.
2. Members that are marginally compact at the specified
yield strength may not behave in a compact manner at C703.9 Panel Zone
the actual yield strength. Note that compactness re- The significance of panel zone yielding has been the sub-
quirements are a function of F y such that compact- ject of research for decades. Typical full-scale tests with
one-sided assemblies do not significantly improve our un-
ness may only be significantly affected at substantial derstanding on this subject. A study for SAC by El-Tawil
overstrength. [1998] found no conclusive evidence of the effects of
3. Lateral bracing provided for compression flanges panel zone yielding on overall ductility. However, Roeder
based on specified yield strength may not be adequate and Foutch [1998] suggest that flexural ductility may be
for the actual yield strength. significantly reduced in beams connected to joints with
4. Connections designed for member-specified yield panel joint yielding. Generally, there appeared to be very
strength may be inadequate for the actual member little evidence of panel zone yielding in the Northridge
strength (e.g., consider the design procedure for shear earthquake. The use of doubler and continuity plates and
tab connections in the AISC manuals). the potential for K-area brittleness (see Section C703.3)
5. Increased demand on adjacent elements (e.g., continu- further complicate the issue. Additional industry-spon-
ity plates, panel zone). sored testing could improve our understanding.
6. Columns proportioned with marginally adequate axial AISC-Seismic 97 increased the design forces on panel
strength to resist the full anticipated plastic load on a zones in beam-column joints. However, the direct adop-
frame may be inadequately sized for the actual yield tion of the Ø factor of 0.75 from the 1992 AISC-Seismic
capacity of the frame (see also Section C703.5). provisions may not be appropriate. Shear yielding of wide
7. Eccentric braced frames, which are intended to be flange steel sections is quite predictable. Therefore, a Ø
controlled by yielding of link beams, may actually be factor of 0.90 should be considered. A Ø factor of 0.90 has
controlled by buckling or yielding of attached braces been adopted in every edition of AISC's LRFD provisions
and/or columns. for the shear design of flexural members. As indicated in
the AISC-Seismic 97 commentary, the use of Ø = 0.75 for
Many factors contribute to the variation of properties
the panel zone design was to maintain the same load-to-ca-
across the cross-section of the rolled shape, including dif-
pacity ratio as that given in the UBC before 1997, without
ferences in coupon test loading rates, locations of test cou-
changing the LRFD load factor of 1.5 used for earthquake
pons along the length of the member, methods of
load.
removing coupons from steel shapes, and the size and
shape of the test coupon. Major U.S. mills and some for- Since 1970, the UBC has required that beam-to-col-
eign mills are now producing steel shapes that meet the umn connections develop the full plastic capacity of the
232 September 1999

beam, but this requirement was specifically not extended This also applies to local buckling, but that is not the
to the joint panel zone. This was based on panel zone tests issue here.
[Becker, 1971; Slutter, 1981], which showed their ample 3. Welds associated with lateral bracing or other ele-
ductility. However, previous editions of the Blue Book im- ments located within the plastic hinge region, may
plied that the panel zone, should also, as a minimum, de- cause brittle failure. Engineers should be cautioned to
velop the beam rather than the prescribed seismic forces. avoid braces and other elements that increase stress
It is the understanding of the Seismology Committee at the such as supports for precast panels and curtain walls
time of this printing that SAC will recommend that panel placed in the region of plastic hinges of all connec-
zone capacity should be a minimum of ∑ 0.8M pb of the tions. These braces and anchors can sometimes be
constructed without the engineer's knowledge, which
beams framing to the joint.
may increase the probability of brittle fracture in the
C703.10 Continuity Plates region where inelastic deformation is expected.
Damage from the Northridge earthquake occurred at joints 4. Methods that satisfy both theory and match test obser-
with and without continuity plates. There tends to be a vations need to be established to demonstrate ade-
concentration of strain demand at the center of the face of quacy of lateral restraint. The methods should include
the column flange as demonstrated by Richard et al. both strength and stiffness requirements and be able to
[1995]. Richard et al. also were of the opinion that, based determine the maximum distance of the lateral brace
on tests, continuity plates generally may have only limited from the plastic hinge.
effectiveness (approximately 15 percent to 25 percent de-
Requirements for lateral braces have varying require-
pending upon member sizes) in reducing the variation of
ments, as follows:
stress at the interface to the column. Nonetheless, there is
a general belief that continuity plates provide positive ben- 1994 UBC Both flanges of the beam are to be braced at
efits to the performance of connections. interval not exceeding 96ry. In addition,
C703.11 Lateral Bracing of Moment Frame braces shall be placed at concentrated loads
Connections That Move the Plastic where a hinge may form.
Hinge Away From the Column FEMA 267A Lateral braces should be located within a
There has been much discussion and correspondence distance equal to half the beam depth from
about lateral bracing of connections where the hinge is lo- the expected location of plastic hinging, but
cated away from the face of the column. A request has should not be located within the reduced
been made to AISC and BSSC by SEAOSC's Steel Ad section of the flanges.
Hoc Committee to establish guidelines on this issue. Con- AISC-Seismic 97 Both flanges of the beam have to be
siderations on this issue include the following: braced at an interval not exceeding 2500 ry
1. Requirements for plastic design methods (not neces- /Fy. For members with RBSs, placement of
sarily just for seismic) over the last 40 years or more
lateral support for the members shall be
have consistently been based on ensuring that plastic
consistent with that used in the tests.
hinges are laterally restrained (e.g., Section 2.9, Part 2
of AISC's Specification for the Design, Fabrication The 1994 UBC requirements appear to be based on
and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 1978). steel yield strength of 36 ksi and elastic buckling limit
Recommendations that significantly reduce restraint state. FEMA 267 recommendations raise three concerns.
requirements appear contrary to these past develop- First, the distance over which the bracing is allowed is
ments. Relaxation of the requirements may not be in- very short. FEMA 267A requires that bracing must be lo-
correct. However, there is a need to investigate this cated not more than half of the beam depth away from the
issue thoroughly before a precedent is set that could be center line of the reduced beam section, but must not be lo-
applied generally to plastic design, whether for seis- cated within the reduced section of the flanges. The length
mic or not. of the reduced beam sections is, typically, approximately
2. This issue needs to also be reconciled with perfor- 75 percent to 100 percent of the beam depth. Consequent-
mance-based design requirements. That is, acceptable ly, the permissible bracing location is very limited. Sec-
limitations need to be established on flange and web ond, the parameter governing the location of the bracing
lateral torsional buckling based on expected demands. may not be the most rational one. Lateral buckling of a
September 1999 233

thin-wall “I” beam section is primarily governed by warp- weld flaws in new construction. In practice, however, UT
ing stiffness, which is a function of “ry” not “i.” Lastly, the requires considerable judgment and interpretation by tech-
observation of test specimen behavior may not be the most nicians and should not be considered completely reliable.
recent. Other than the one set of tests quoted in FEMA SAC reports have documented UT errors. In some cases,
267A, almost no tests on this connection have additional UT-detected flaws were not found after backing bars were
bracing at the reduced beam section. removed for inspection. In other cases, rejectable flaws
were found in joints that had previously passed UT inspec-
AISC-Seismic 97 requires bracing at a closer spacing. tion. Several researchers [Bonowitz and Youssef, 1995;
It also requires that the placement of the bracing shall be Paret and Freeman, 1997] have argued that weld root
consistent with that used in the tests. cracks found only by UT in post-Northridge inspections
It seems that the closer bracing spacing is required for were actually pre-existing flaws, since some buildings in
the following reasons. For a moment frame beam in a seis- the strong shaking area had many of these rejectable indi-
mic application, the inelastic rotations of the beams are ex- cations (SAC types W1a and W1b) but no other frame
pected to be much higher than those expected in the typical damage. More reliable procedures for detecting weld im-
plastic design. (AISC expects the beams to have inelastic perfections are needed.
rotation of up to seven to nine times yield rotation). As the In general, visual inspection should be used prior to,
beam goes through inelastic rotation, the beam material during, and after welding to check fit-up, fabrication, and
yields and stiffness degrades (including lateral stiffness). compliance with the welding procedure specification
Thus, the beam becomes more susceptible to lateral buck- (WPS). The Engineer of Record should consider nonde-
ling. structive testing for critical welds. For innovative details
The following conclusions were drawn by Engelhardt or sequences unfamiliar to the fabricator and welder, sup-
[1998] based on several RBS tests: plementary quality assurance measures may be appropri-
1. The torsional buckling of the beam flanges is a self- ate.
limiting phenomenon that occurs in all moment con- Engineers should also consider the following proce-
nection types involving beam yielding. Torsional dural guidelines:
buckling is not particularly serious for RBS connec- 1. Written procedures for quality assurance should be
tions. prepared by the inspector and submitted to the engi-
2. RBS connection specimens demonstrate adequate neer for review. These should describe explicitly how
performance without additional lateral bracing. quality assurance measures will be accomplished and
3. In a completed building, moment frame beams are re- how shop and field inspections will be carried out.
strained by the diaphragm against axial shortening and Written procedures should address at least the follow-
lateral displacement of the top flange. Such restraints ing:
significantly reduce the likelihood and extent of tor- ■ Assignment of responsibility within the
sional buckling of the flanges compared with the spec- inspection agency's team. Assigning one
imen in a laboratory setting. supervising engineer for all inspections on a given
job helps ensure consistency and continuity of
Engelhardt suggested that no additional lateral brac-
quality assurance.
ing is required at the “dog bone” region. Other researchers
■ Communication, training, certification, and
[Gross et al., 1998] appear to agree.
qualification within the inspection agency's team.
The Seismology Committee suggests that more re- Working inspectors get technical guidance from
search is necessary on this issue, not only for reduced the inspection agency's responsible engineer and
beam sections, but for all connections that move the plastic technical supervisor through preconstruction
hinge away from the face of the column. meetings, training, and direct supervision.
C703.12 Quality Assurance Effective communication and professional
development is especially important during times
Visual inspection and ultrasonic testing (UT) have been of changing design standards and fabrication
used to assess the quality of welding in new building con- processes.
struction since the early 1960s. These methods, along with ■ Proposed procedures for visual inspection, UT,
magnetic particle testing (MT), can be effective, particu- and other nondestructive tests required to meet
larly when used together. UT is commonly used to locate
234 September 1999

the requirements of AWS D1.1, relevant FEMA inelastic deformation. The postelastic behavior of braced
guidelines, and contract documents. frames may involve the flexure of frame members, but the
The inspection agency should have written procedures inelastic drift is expected to be mainly a result of brace ax-
directly applicable to the tasks required by the job. ial deformation (except in certain configurations, which
Procedures should be comprehensive and very are not recommended). Figure C704-1 shows a few ordi-
specific and should narrowly limit the latitude given nary concentric braced frames (OCBFs) configurations:
to individual inspectors. They should explain in detail diagonal bracing, cross bracing (X bracing), chevron brac-
how the inspection is to be made and not simply ing (V or inverted V bracing), and K bracing; for special
restate applicable codes. The procedures should be concentric braced frames (SCBFs), chevron bracing is not
such that a qualified inspector, new to the job, would recommended and K bracing is not allowed.
know exactly what the agency's technical supervisor Until the 1994 UBC, concentrically braced frames had
expects. been treated by codes as essentially elastic truss systems.
2. Periodic audits of the inspector's work in the shop and Postelastic behavior was only considered in prescribing a
in the field should be performed. The number and fre- reduction in calculated brace strengths, which resulted in
quency of subsequent audits should be commensurate raising the elastic force capacity of these systems. Creation
with the level of effort at each work site. The first au- of the category of SCBFs acknowledged research carried
dit should be at the initiation of work. In general, au- out at the University of Michigan. This research showed
dits should check the inspection work against job that these systems, with careful proportioning of members
specifications and written procedures provided by the and detailing of connections, could perform in a ductile
inspection agency. Audits should be performed by a manner [Astaneh et al., 1985; Hassan and Goel, 1991;
person employed outside the inspection agency, who Goel, 1992]. Recent design guidelines have focused on
reports directly to the owner or engineer and who has proper proportioning and detailing of SCBFs so that they
a high level of training and skill in the relevant areas. can achieve trilinear hysteretic behavior; the three ranges
Control over the quality of WPS and welders are well- of behavior are the elastic range, the postbuckling range,
recognized necessities. Some engineers have called and the tensile yielding range [AISC-Seismic 97; Bruneau
for special tests to verify both WPS and welder et al., 1998].
qualifications. Some of these involve T-specimens
The 1994 UBC distinguished between OCBFs and
with weld access holes that simulate conditions at
SCBFs through design forces and detailing requirements.
bottom flange welds. The completed specimens are
OCBFs were designed for large base shears with the ex-
tested (by UT, bend tests, and/or CVN tests) to verify
pectation of low ductility demands. SCBFs had lower re-
that the WPS and the welder will produce reliable
quired base-shear capacity and were treated as ductile
strength and toughness.
systems that had to accommodate cyclic excursions into
C703.13 Appropriate Redundancy “rho” the postbuckling range. The distinction between OCBFs
Factors for Steel Frames and SCBFs made in the 1997 UBC is somewhat less clear.
The 1997 UBC requires that sufficient moment frames be The force demand for OCBFs remains unchanged, but
provided such that rho shall not exceed 1.25. IBC 2000 some ductile detailing requirements have been added (in
and NEHRP 97 set the same limit as the 1997 UBC for the LRFD provisions). The requirements for SCBFs re-
SMF but do not require it for IMFs. NEHRP sets a further main unchanged. The differences between the two systems
limit of 1.1 for all structures in Seismic Design Categories are therefore limited to: slenderness limits, OCBF brace
E and F (near field), which is a significant change. capacity reduction, brace compactness and stitch require-
ments, permissible configurations, column requirements,
C704 Braced Frame Requirements and the waiving of certain requirements for one- and two-
SCBF and OCBF
story OCBFs.
AISC-Seismic 97 makes a more rational distinction
C704.1 AISC 13.1/ UBC §2213.9.1 General
between the two systems. OCBFs are expected to have a
Concentrically braced frames are vertical truss systems higher elastic force capacity (because of the higher design
that resist lateral loads in the elastic range primarily base shear and the prescribed reduction in calculated brace
through axial forces in members. Members intersect at a capacity) and to accommodate cyclic buckling of braces in
point or with small eccentricities that are not a source of the connection design; excursions into the tensile yielding
September 1999 235

range need not be considered. SCBFs are expected to ous provisions for OCBFs has produced connection fail-
achieve trilinear hysteretic behavior by accommodating ures [Astaneh et al., 1985]. Although typical practice has
cyclic brace buckling and withstanding forces correspond- been to design connections only for axial loads, good post-
ing to the yielding capacity of the braces. The force level elastic response demands that eccentricities be accounted
corresponding to the yield mechanism determines the for in the connection design. Good connection perfor-
maximum forces that elements of the system, such as the mance can be expected if the effects of cyclic postbuckling
connections, are required to resist. As capacity design is of braces are considered [Astaneh et al., 1986; Goel and
used for SCBFs, AISC-Seismic 97 uses an overstrength Lee, 1992; AISC-Seismic 97]. It should be noted that some
factor (Ry) to account for expected yield strength and of the issues associated with moment frames (e.g., the
strain hardening. SEAOC recommends that designers fol- toughness of welds and procedures for complete-penetra-
low the provisions of AISC-Seismic 97 and design SCBFs tion welds) need to be considered in order to ensure suc-
for trilinear hysteresis. cessful connection performance (see Section C703).
In the past, concentrically braced frames have not Beams or columns of the frame should not be inter-
been observed to achieve ductile yielding; one of several rupted to allow for continuous braces. This provision is
nonductile behaviors led to brittle failure. The nonductile necessary, although perhaps not sufficient, to ensure out-
modes can be characterized as problematic brace modes, of-plane stability of the bracing system at those locations.
such as fracture, local buckling, and stitch failure, and Typical practice is to provide perpendicular framing that
problematic connection modes, such as failure in tension, engages a diaphragm to provide out-of-plane strength and
the inability to accommodate brace buckling, and stability stiffness as well as resistance to lateral torsional buckling
problems. Additionally, certain bracing configurations of beams where these are intersected by braces [Kim and
(chevron bracing and K-bracing) are known to be prob- Goel, 1992].
lematic. By preventing limiting nonductile modes of behavior,
SCBF requirements for braces are intended to prevent SCBF provisions are intended to lead to systems that can
limiting modes of brace behavior. Analytical studies on develop trilinear hysteresis and significant system ductili-
bracing systems designed in strict accordance with earlier ty. When properly designed and detailed, braced frames
code requirements predicted brace failures without the de- can sustain cycles of large inelastic drift without brittle
velopment of significant energy dissipation [Tang and failures.
Goel, 1987; Hassan and Goel, 1991]. Brace failures oc- C704.2 AISC 13.2a/UBC 2213.9.2.1
curred most often at plastic hinges (concentrated areas of Slenderness of Bracing Members
curvature and inelastic strain susceptible to local buckling
Braces in SCBFs must withstand cycles of buckling and
due to lack of compactness); plastic hinges in buckled
tensile yielding. Once brace forces are calculated, a mem-
braces occur at the ends of a brace and at the brace mid-
ber with sufficient compression capacity must be selected;
span. Analytical models of bracing systems that were de-
the slenderness and cross-sectional shape chosen are key
signed to ensure stable ductile behavior exhibited full and
variables. Several aspects of system behavior depend on
stable hysteresis without fracture when subjected to the
these variables: energy dissipation, susceptibility to local
same ground motion records as the previous concentrically
buckling, fracture life, postbuckling stiffness, and the ratio
braced frame designs. Similar results were observed in
of yield strength to buckling strength, which is important
full-scale tests by Wallace and Krawinkler [1985] and
for capacity design.
Tang and Goel [1989] and AISC-Seismic 97.
Popov and Black [1981] studied cyclic buckling of
Since braces are intended to provide ductility in both
struts, testing a number of cross-sectional shapes and a
tension and compression, connections must accommodate
range of slendernesses. Their results indicate that, in gen-
cycles of brace buckling and tensile yielding. SCBF re-
eral, the best behavior (defined by fracture life and fullness
quirements for connections are intended to prevent unde-
of the hysteresis diagram) can be expected of pipes and
sirable connection performance from limiting system
tubes, if local buckling can be prevented. Next in quality
performance, caused by nonductile detailing or insuffi-
of performance are wide-flange sections, tees, double
cient strength. Many of the failures reported in concentri-
channels, and, finally, double angles. Astaneh et al.,
cally braced frames subjected to strong ground motions
[1986] have shown that the performance of stitched sec-
occurred in the connections. Similarly, cyclic testing of
tions can be improved by using closely spaced, strong
specimens designed and detailed in accordance with previ-
236 September 1999

stitches. SCBF provisions now incorporate these require- The centerline-to-centerline distance should not be used,
ments (see Section C704.4). as it will yield unconservative requirements for gusset
plate and stitch plate design.
The effects of slenderness on brace hysteresis are also
important, but no range optimizes all aspects of perfor- Numerous experimental and analytical studies have
mance. The buckling of braces reduces their compression confirmed that the effective length for pinned-end braces
capacity for subsequent cycles [Zayas et al., 1981] and in cross-braced frames can be taken to be the brace half-
Figure C704-2. This degradation is most pronounced for length [DeWolf and Pelliccione, 1979; El-Tayem and
slender braces (for an expression of hysteretic stability as Goel, 1986]. These results are valid for systems with
a function of slenderness see Remennikov and Walpole brace-to-brace connections that provide flexural continu-
[1998]. Purely elastic buckling may result in very low sys- ity but relatively little rotational restraint in the plane of
tem stiffness when the direction of loading is reversed, buckling (for example, out-of-plane buckling of torsional-
creating undesirable behavior similar to that of tension- ly-flexible sections [Sabelli and Hohbach, 1999] for the ef-
only bracing. For these reasons a limiting value of slender- fects of rotational restraint). Cross-braced frames without
ness is set. Hysteresis diagrams of intermediate-slender- that flexural continuity have not been studied as thorough-
ness braces show that their postbuckling behavior is also ly, but the upper and lower bounds of effective length can
not ideal: they lose force after buckling with very little ad- be determined.
ditional deformation [Jain and Goel, 1978]. This can lead
It can be shown that the effective length of out-of-
to greatly reduced system stiffness, especially for chevron-
plane buckling of the discontinuous brace is the half-
braced (V-braced) frames [Khatib et al., 1988]. Braces of
length; for out-of-plane buckling of the continuous brace
low slenderness dissipate the most energy per cycle, but
it lies between the length and the half-length. Those
are susceptible to local buckling and early fracture [Tang
bounds should be used conservatively. The upper bound of
and Goel, 1987; Goel and Lee, 1992]. However, brace
effective length should be used for determining brace ca-
width-to-thickness requirements in the SCBF provisions
pacity, and the lower bound for determining the maximum
address this tendency (see Section C704.5). Low-slender-
compression demand that the brace can impose on connec-
ness braces exhibit the least hysteretic degradation. Braces
tions and adjoining members. It should be noted there is
with slenderness ratios below 30 exhibit stable hysteresis.
the potential of forming a premature compression yielding
In order to achieve trilinear hysteresis, it is usually mechanism, which involves twisting of the continuous
necessary to design connections and adjoining elements to brace and hinging in the center splice plate on both sides
withstand forces corresponding to the tensile capacity of of the continuous brace. The use of torsionally stiff sec-
the brace. Since the brace compression capacity is usually tions is therefore recommended.
determined by code-prescribed loads, the use of slender
Use of different sizes for the continuous and discon-
braces to achieve that compression capacity may result in
tinuous braces is not recommended, as this may result in
a situation in which it is difficult to design for tensile yield-
the accumulation of inelastic drifts in one direction. Brace-
ing. If the system is to withstand tensile yielding, the force
to-brace connections in cross-braced frames should com-
level of that yielding may need to be controlled. Providing
ply with all strength and detailing requirements discussed
braces with a higher yield strength (Fy A) will improve sys-
in Section C703.7 and Section C703.9.
tem performance only if all other components of the sys-
tem can resist the higher corresponding forces. The lowest C704.3 AISC 13.2c/UBC 2213.9.2.2
ratio of tensile yielding to compression capacity results Lateral Force Distribution
from using low-slenderness pipe braces of low expected The intent of this provision is to prevent the accumulation
yield strength; the highest ratio results from using slender of inelastic drifts in either direction. This accumulation is
wide-flange beams of high expected yield strength buck- not determined by the elastic distribution of forces but
ling about the minor axis. Filling hollow sections with rather by the ultimate (postbuckling) force capacity in
concrete also lowers the ratio as well as prevents local each direction and the energy required to produce inelastic
buckling. Popov and Black [1981] determined that the ef- drift. For typical building cases, however, adhering to this
fective length concept is applicable to braces subject to cy- provision limits the ratio of capacity in one direction to ca-
clic buckling. pacity in the opposite direction to the range of 2/3 to 3/2.
An exception is made if the system is designed for ampli-
The computed slenderness should reflect the expected
buckling length with the effects of end restraint included.
September 1999 237

fied forces, as more energy is entailed in elastic deforma- In determining the yield strength of the brace, realistic
tion, leaving less energy to cause inelastic drift. values for brace area and yield stress should be used. For
all shapes, the actual area is less than the nominal area. For
C704.4 AISC 13.2e/ UBC 2213.9.2.3
tubes, the difference is significant. AISC recommends ap-
Built-Up Members
plying a factor of 0.93 to the wall thickness of tubes. Nev-
SCBFs require closer spacing of stitches and higher stitch ertheless, the expected yield strength for all sections is
strength requirements for built-up bracing members in significantly higher than the product of the nominal yield
SCBFs than are required for OCBFs (Figure C704-3). stress and nominal area. See AISC-Seismic 97 for the de-
These are intended to restrict individual element bending termination of maximum expected yield strength.
between the stitch points and consequent premature frac-
ture of bracing members [Aslani and Goel, 1991; Xu and The second force level, using Ω o is more consistent
Goel, 1990]. Wider spacing is permitted under this excep- with design goals for OCBFs than those for SCBFs. AISC-
tion when buckling is in the plane that does not cause shear Seismic 97 does not allow the second level; rejection of
in the stitches. Bolted stitches are not permitted within that level is recommended here as well. For well-propor-
one-fourth of the clear brace length, as the presence of bolt tioned systems, designing for the brace tensile capacity
holes in that region may cause premature fractures due to will provide much greater ductility for relatively little ad-
the formation of plastic hinges in the postbuckling range. ditional expense.
C704.5 AISC 13.2d/UBC 2213.9.2.4 The third force level is valid where certain braces,
Compression Elements in Braces such as diaphragm or penthouse braces, are designed to re-
Width-to-thickness ratios of compression elements in main elastic while other force levels govern the system ca-
bracing members are restricted in order to minimize the pacity. This condition must be demonstrated by analysis.
detrimental effects of local buckling and subsequent frac- This force level also is valid for certain configurations,
ture during repeated inelastic cycles. Tests have shown such as the zipper (see Section C704.6), where tensile
this failure mode to be especially prevalent in rectangular yielding is not involved in the formation of a yield mech-
hollow structural steel (HSS) braces with width-to-thick- anism [Khatib et al., 1988]. It is assumed that the control-
ness ratios larger than the prescribed limits [Hassan and ling yield mode of an SCBF building is brace yielding. It
Goel, 1991; Tang and Goel, 1989; AISC-Seismic 97]. Al- is not valid to limit force demands because some other
though AISC defines the width of a rectangular tube as the yield mode, such as column buckling, foundation uplift, or
flat section of wall between the curved corners, the 1997 collector failure governs. In fact, these modes should be
UBC defines it as the outer wall dimension. It should be precluded.
noted that the wall thickness in actual HSS members tends Compression should also be considered in connection
to be less than the specified thickness. The tendency for lo- design. Thin-webbed beams and columns may require
cal buckling of HSS sections with large width-to-thickness stiffening if the buckling capacity of the brace is to be de-
ratios can also be addressed by filling them with concrete, veloped. Note that the true length of the brace should be
thereby stiffening their walls [Lee and Goel, 1987; Goel used in determining the maximum compression force to be
and Lee, 1992]. However, the maximum compressive resisted; the distance from centerline to centerline is sig-
force that the brace can impose on the connections should nificantly longer than the buckling length and will there-
include the strengthening effect of the concrete (see Sec- fore give an unconservatively low design compression
tion C704.6). force. Buckling of gusset plates is also of concern, espe-
C704.6 AISC 13.3a/ UBC 2213.9.3.1 cially if a hinge zone is detailed (see Section C704.8).
Forces Eccentricities of the forces applied at connections
SCBF connections must withstand cycles of brace tensile should be considered in the design of welds, bolts, gusset
yielding and buckling. In tension, brace connections are plates, etc. For example, it has been recognized by some
designed to remain elastic for the maximum expected engineers on the Seismology Committee that force eccen-
force demand. The lowest of three force levels can be used tricities can occur on the welds of connections of tube or
to determine this demand: pipe braces to gusset plates. Consideration of these eccen-
1. Yield strength of the brace. tricities can result in the requirement for significantly
greater weld than would otherwise be derived based on
2. Ω o times the calculated force.
shear forces only.
3. Maximum force that the system can deliver.
238 September 1999

C704.7 AISC 13.3b/UBC 2213.9.3.2 times the gusset plate thickness be used in detailing, and
Net Area four times the gusset thickness be used in gusset plate sta-
Brace fracture across the critical section is of concern for bility calculations, thus allowing for inexactness in con-
bolted connections. It may also be of concern in welded struction.
connections of HSS braces, where slots typically extend The end restraint provided by gussets determines both
beyond the end of gussets to facilitate erection; if very the slenderness (and therefore the buckling strength) of
thick gusset plates are used, net section fracture may occur braces and the plane of buckling. Typically, hinge zones
in the brace prior to tensile yielding; shear lag should be are provided in the gusset plates to accommodate brace
considered (LRFD B32-1). Consideration should be given buckling out of the plane of the frame while providing fix-
to adding reinforcing plates over the slots to minimize the ity in-plane. Gusset plates can also be oriented to provide
potential for fracture. Slots should end in a drilled hole. hinges for brace buckling in the plane of the frame and fix-
C704.8 AISC 13.3c-d/ UBC 2213.9.3.3 ity out-of-plane.
Gusset Plates Care should be given to ensure that brace buckling and
Inelastic brace buckling creates plastic hinges in three lo- gusset plate hinging can be accommodated by all elements
cations: one at the brace midspan and one at each end of of the building. The inadvertent restraint of ductile behav-
the brace. There have been many observed fractures in ior may cause a nonductile mechanism to control. Gusset
tests on connections that failed to accommodate cycles of hinge zones may be restrained by a concrete deck, leading
plastic hinge formation at the ends of braces [Astaneh et to gusset fracture. This can be prevented by moving the
al., 1985]. SCBF brace connections are designed to ac- hinge zone out of the slab, or by providing block-outs in
commodate cyclic buckling of braces in one of two ways. the slab. In-plane brace buckling can be restrained by wall
First, connections can be designed to provide fixity and studs if the frame is hidden in a wall, resulting in un-
withstand the maximum axial load and moment that the planned out-of-plane buckling. This can lead to higher-
brace can deliver, thereby forcing the plastic hinge to oc- than-expected compression and moment demands on ad-
cur in the brace. Alternatively, connections can allow the joining elements, and possibly to nonductile modes of end-
hinge to occur in the gusset plate by providing an unre- connection and stitch-plate behavior.
strained zone that can tolerate the rotational demands im-
The detailing of connections with hinge zones leads to
posed by brace buckling.
gusset plates that are larger than those designed under the
Fixed-end braces are generally more desirable than 1994 UBC OCBF provisions or under the 1991 UBC.
pinned-end ones because smaller sections can be used. These gusset plates are more susceptible to edge buckling,
Connections for fixed-end braces are designed to remain plate buckling, and stress concentrations at reentrant cor-
elastic, forcing the plastic hinges entailed in buckling to ners primarily due to the modified geometry. The use of
occur in the brace. For the purposes of connection design, extremely thick gussets to prevent undesirable modes of
the combined axial force and moment demands corre- behavior may result in excessive brace section reduction
sponding to fixed-end brace buckling can be treated con- for slotted braces. Gussets of moderate thickness with
servatively as the expected plastic moment capacity of the stiffeners are recommended. Stiffeners should not intrude
brace, factored according to AISC-Seismic 97. This mo- into the hinge zone. Rabinovitch and Cheng [1993] veri-
ment must be resisted by the gusset, its bolts or welds, and fied the applicability of the Whitmore [1952] method and
adjoining members. use of the dimension from the gusset edge to the brace end
(measured along the brace centerline) as the effective
Except at the foundation, where brace connections are
length. Astaneh [1998] gives guidelines for preventing
often buried in concrete, fixity is often difficult to achieve.
gusset edge buckling.
A common alternative is to provide a hinge zone in the
gusset plate to accommodate brace buckling without trans- C704.9 AISC 13.4.a/ UBC §2213.9.4.1
ferring large moments into the frame; this zone is expected Chevron Bracing
to undergo cycles of large inelastic strains as brace buck- Traditional chevron-braced (V- and inverted-V-braced)
ling forces the plate to bend (Figure C704-4). Astaneh et frames have been shown to have undesirable postbuckling
al. [1986] demonstrated that this hinge zone performs in a behavior characterized by beam flexure rather than truss
ductile manner if there is an unrestrained zone perpendic- action (Figure C704-5). In the postbuckling range the
ular to the brace axis of width between two and four times force in the buckled brace diminishes with additional de-
the gusset plate thickness. It is recommended that three
September 1999 239

formation, and the vertical components of the compression the ultimate yield mechanism, and compact section criteria
brace and tension brace forces no longer balance; the beam should be applied. Two-story X frames designed with the
must then resist the unbalanced component. This post- same members above and below the intersected beam are
buckling behavior results in a great reduction in the system likely to experience a concentration of damage and inter-
capacity and in negative system stiffness [Khatib et al., story drift at the lower level [Khatib et al., 1988]. It is rec-
1988]. Thus, traditional chevron-braced frames have not ommended that braces be proportioned to the demand
been able to achieve trilinear hysteretic behavior and have calculated by a linear analysis or proportioned to avoid a
been much more susceptible to large displacements and single-story mechanism using a nonlinear analysis.
corresponding p-delta effects than have other braced frame
Lateral support of both beam flanges at the brace-to-
configurations.
beam intersection is necessary in order to prevent lateral-
SCBF provisions for chevron-braced frames require a torsional buckling of the beam due to postbuckling mo-
strong beam capable of withstanding unbalanced forces ment demands from the brace [Kim and Goel, 1992].
corresponding to brace tensile yielding, thereby permitting Beam-to-brace connections in chevron-braced frames
trilinear hysteretic behavior. Typical bracing members should comply with all strength and detailing requirements
demonstrate a residual postbuckling compressive strength discussed in Section C704.6 and Section C704.8.
of 30 to 50 percent of the initial buckling strength [Hassan
The requirements in AISC-Seismic 97 §2213.9.4.1.1
and Goel, 1991]. The use of 30 percent of the buckling
and §2213.9.4.1.2 provide for a minimum strength of the
strength is allowed in the reduction of the calculated beam
beams to support gravity loads in the event of loss of brace
flexural demand imposed by the tensile yielding of the ad-
capacities.
jacent brace. The flexural demand should be combined
with appropriate gravity loads. The beam strength can in- The requirements of §2213.9.4.1.2 and §2213.9.4.1.3
clude composite slab effects, where appropriate, or the need not be applied to beams controlling the inelastic drift
truss behavior of braces and beams at other levels, where of roof stories, penthouses, and one-story structures, since
the brace configuration permits transfer of the unbalanced p-delta effects are not as severe in those cases.
force (the two-story X and the zipper configurations, C704.10 AISC 13.4b/ UBC §2213.9.4.2
shown in Figure C704-6). Though not explicitly allowed K-Bracing
by the UBC, calculation of beam capacity in this manner
is not disallowed and SEAOC considers this design meth- K-bracing is prohibited for SCBFs because columns that
od consistent with the highest performance goals of are subjected to unbalanced lateral forces from the braces
SCBFs. in the postbuckling range are susceptible to buckling.
Even with the very strong beams that are typically re- C704.11 AISC 13.5/ UBC §2213.9.5
quired for this configuration, for most building cases, Columns
beams with sufficient stiffness to prevent negative post- In the event of a major earthquake, columns in concentri-
buckling system stiffness cannot be provided [Khatib et cally braced frames can undergo significant bending be-
al., 1988]. Remennikov and Walpole [1998], have shown yond the elastic range after buckling and yielding of the
that the system may still be susceptible to large displace- braces. Even though their bending strength is not consid-
ments and p-delta effects. Chevron bracing is therefore not ered in the design process when elastic design methods are
recommended except where special configurations are used, columns in SCBFs are required to have adequate
used so that the vertical unbalanced force can be resisted compactness as well as shear and flexural strength in order
by truss action of braces and beams at other levels. to maintain their lateral strength during large cyclic defor-
mations of the frame.
Khatib et al. [1988] studied the two-story X and zipper
variants of the traditional chevron-braced configuration; Yield modes of SCBFs almost always entail column
these configurations can achieve trilinear hysteresis and rotational demands. Columns must maintain their axial ca-
positive postbuckling stiffness with ordinary beams. For pacity for both gravity and seismic loads and are therefore
those configurations the beam strength requirement is un- required to adhere to certain compactness criteria. These
necessary and sometimes even detrimental [Sabelli et al., areas of concentrated column rotational demand are ex-
1998]. Properly proportioned variants of the chevron- pected to occur adjacent to beam connections or adjacent
braced configuration can lead to much greater system duc- to gusset plates if these provide significant restraint. Splic-
tility. For these variants beam hinge formation is part of es should be located away from these areas.
240 September 1999

Analytical studies on SCBFs that are not part of a dual for the design of braces carrying gravity loads, since fewer
system have shown that columns can carry as much as 40 inelastic cycles are anticipated in those cases. However,
percent of the story shear in the postbuckling stages [Tang the consequences of compression strength degradation are
and Goel, 1987; Hassan and Goel, 1991]. When columns more severe. It is recommended that the factor be applied
are common to both SCBFs and SMFs in a dual system, if the calculated seismic force demand (multiplied by R)
their contribution to the story shear may be as high as 50 on braces is significantly greater than the gravity demand.
percent. This feature of SCBFs greatly helps in dissipating C704.12.1 AISC 14e Built-Up Members. The aim of
energy, making the overall frame hysteretic loops full this provision is to ensure that brace behavior is governed
when compared with those of individual bracing members, by global buckling rather than local buckling. Astaneh et
which are generally pinched [Hassan and Goel, 1991; al. [1985] have shown that this provision is insufficient;
Black et al., 1980]. local buckling can be expected to participate in the buck-
C704.12 AISC 14/ UBC 2213.8 ling of built-up braces designed according to OCBF provi-
Requirements for Braced Frames sions. It is recommended that the SCBF provisions for
This section pertains to ordinary concentric braced frames built-up members be followed.
(OCBFs) insofar as their performance goals and require- C704.12.2 AISC 14.3 Bracing Connections.
ments differ from those of special concentric braced Forces. Connection failures generally are nonduc-
frames (SCBFs). For a more thorough treatment of the be- tile; OCBF connection design aims at preventing these
havior of concentrically braced frames subjected to seis- failure modes through capacity design or forestalling them
mic loads see Sections C704.1 through C704.11. by using amplified forces. The use of capacity design is
All braced frames are at risk for certain nonductile recommended (see Section C704.6 for the calculation of
modes of postelastic behavior (see Section C704.1). The tensile and compressive yield capacity). The stress reduc-
aim in designing SCBFs is to avoid these modes by using tion factor described above should not be used in the cal-
capacity design and ductile detailing. The aim in designing culation of the compression force demand on connections.
OCBFs is to forestall them by using higher calculated de- Gusset Plates. The LRFD and ASD provisions of
mands and lower calculated capacities, as well as by some the 1997 UBC are inconsistent on this point. The LRFD
ductile detailing. OCBFs are expected to withstand cycles provisions require that OCBF gussets comply with provi-
of brace buckling, but are not expected to form a ductile sions identical to the SCBF provisions (§2211.4.9.3.c), as
yield mechanism; unlike SCBFs, they are not expected to does AISC-Seismic 97, while the ASD provisions do not
achieve trilinear hysteretic behavior. OCBFs are expected include gusset plate requirements. It is recommended that
to undergo fewer inelastic cycles than SCBFs because of the requirements of §2213.9.3.3 be applied to gusset plates
their higher elastic capacity. The calculated inelastic drift in OCBFs (see Section C704.8).
may be less for OCBFs than for SCBFs, but the formation
of nonductile yield modes is ultimately likely to lead to Chevron Bracing. Chevron-braced frames have
large inelastic displacements in a significant earthquake. very undesirable postbuckling behavior characterized by
beam flexure rather than truss action (see Section C704.9
OCBFs are appropriate for areas where major earth- and Figure C704-5). OCBF provisions aim at forestalling
quakes are not expected, in specific applications where all this mode of behavior and limiting inelastic drift by requir-
elements of the system have high overstrength ratios, and ing that braces be designed for amplified loads. Unlike
for some nonbuilding structures; They are not recom- chevron bracing designed according to SCBF provisions,
mended for essential facilities, hazardous facilities, or spe- beams in ordinary chevron-braced frames are expected ul-
cial occupancy structures. SCBFs can be expected to timately to yield in flexure; compact sections should there-
perform much better in a moderate to large earthquake, fore be used. Lateral and torsional stability at the beam-to-
and therefore are recommended in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. brace connection must be provided [Kim and Goel, 1992].
Slenderness. See Section C704.2. In areas of high seismicity, chevron bracing is not recom-
mended except where special configurations are used so
Stress Reduction. The buckling of braces reduces
that the vertical unbalanced force can be resisted by truss
their compression capacity for subsequent cycles [Popov
action of braces and beams at other levels (see Section
and Black, 1981; Remennikov and Walpole, 1998]. Deg-
C704.9 and Figure C704-6). If the typical chevron config-
radation is more severe for slender braces, as is the calcu-
uration is used, it is recommended that the system be de-
lated reduction factor. The reduction factor is not required
signed to remain elastic in a major seismic event.
September 1999 241

K-Bracing. K-braced frames are subject to a post- C705.4 AISC 15.2/ UBC § 2213.10.5
buckling flexure mode similar to that of chevron-braced Link Beam Web
frames. Column failure has more severe consequences A link beam web of lower strength is allowed when de-
than beam failure, however, and column stability (both signing using ASD per the 1997 UBC than when using
out-of-plane and torsional) at the brace intersection is dif- LRFD. Using a beam that does not meet LRFD shear-
ficult to provide. Therefore, K-bracing is not recommend- strength requirements will result in a design that does not
ed in areas of high seismicity. If the K-bracing comply with the expected provisions of the 2000 IBC. The
configuration is used, it is recommended that the system prescribed lateral forces referred to in this section are
be designed to remain elastic in a major seismic event. Eh /1.4.
C705 Eccentrically Braced Frame C705.5 AISC 15.2 / UBC § 2213.10.18

Link Beam Flanges
Requirements
Transverse beams capable of deforming flexurally or hor-
Since the AISC-Seismic 97 Commentary covers much of
izontal struts framed to other adjacent laterally braced
the information presented in the1996 edition of the Blue
beams are the preferred lateral bracing system for the
Book, and also incorporates findings from the SAC Joint
beam flanges at the link ends. Diagonal braces or short
Venture, items listed below are intended to supplement
transverse beams may introduce unacceptable secondary
that document.
forces or deformations due to the kinematics of the neces-
Many of the welding and steel properties issues ad- sary vertical deformations of the link beam.
dressed in Section C703 are relevant to the design of ec- C705.6 AISC 15.4/UBC §2213.10.12
centrically braced frames. Link-to-Column Connections
C705.1 AISC 15.1 / UBC § 2213.10.1 Use of link-to-column connections should be avoided,
General since they are subject to demands similar to or more severe
To ensure and take advantage of the ductility of the links, than those for moment frame beam-to-column connec-
it is important that all framing, framing connections, and tions, leading AISC-Seismic 97 to require either approved
connections to the foundation applying forces to the links cyclic testing of the connections or connection reinforce-
and resisting those forces be strong enough to force the ment. Unbalanced link end moments that occur when the
links to yield. These elements should also maintain their ends of the links have differing flexural stiffnesses due to
integrity through the range of forces and displacements de- differing connecting members or connection reinforce-
veloped during the hysteretic action of the links. ment may lead to inelastic flexural demand on the link-to-
column connection prior to link shear yielding.
As discussed in Section C703.8, potential variations in
steel strength should be addressed in the design. C705.7 AISC 15.6/UBC § 2213.10.13
Brace and Beam Strengths
C705.2 AISC 15.2 / UBC §2213.10.2
Bracing Configurations and Links Since EBFs are designed based on the capacity of their
link beams, it is more appropriate to consider p-delta ef-
The best-understood and likely most reliable EBF config-
fects on an overall system basis rather than adopting the
uration has a link at the center of a chevron or two-story X
moment magnification factor B2, as directed by the LRFD
brace arrangement. For these brace configurations, a link
Specification Chapter C1. It is not appropriate to use this
length between 0.9Mv /Vs and 1.3Mv /Vs and a brace angle
factor to magnify link moments.
of 45 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees in general will pro-
duce an efficient design.
EBF configurations that create links adjacent to col-
umns are discouraged. See Section C705.6 for discussion
of link- to-column connections.
C705.3 AISC 15.2 / UBC § 2213.10.4
Link Beam Rotation
When computing link beam rotation, the redundancy fac-
tor ρ (rho) should be taken as equal to 1.
242 September 1999

References Barsom J and Korvink S., 1997. Through-Thickness

Properties of Structural Steel, Report No. SAC/BD-
*References marked with asterisks are not mentioned in
97/01, July 1, 1997.
the text.
*Barsom, J.M. and S.T. Rolfe. Fractures and Fatigue
*AASHTO/American Welding Society, D1.5-95 Bridge
Control in Structures, Applications of Fracture
Welding Code.
Mechanics, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall.
AISC, 1992. Seismic Provisions for Load and Resistance
Barsom, J., 1987. “Material Considerations in Structural
Factor Design (LRFD). June 15.
Steel Design,” Engineering Journal, AISC, third
AISC, 1994a. LRFD Specifications for Structural Steel quarter.
Buildings.
Basha, H., and S.C. Goel, 1994. Seismic Resistant Truss
*AISC, 1994b. Northridge Steel Update I, October. Moment Frames with Ductile Vierendeel Segment,
Research Report No. UMCEE 94-29. Department of
*AISC, 1995. Letter to Los Angeles County.
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
AISC, 1997a. Advisory Statement on Mechanical Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Properties Near the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and
Becker E.R., 1971. Panel Zone Effect on the Strength and
Interim Recommendations, January 10.
Stiffness of Rigid Steel Frames, Report No. USCCE
AISC, 1997b. Technical Bulletin 3, March (ASTM Gr50 001, University of Southern California.
with special requirements).
*Bertero, V. V., J.C. Anderson and H. Krawinkler, 1994.
AISC, 1997. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Performance of Steel Building Structures During the
Buildings. Northridge Earthquake: College of Engineering, UC
Berkeley.
Anderson, J.C. and X. Duan, 1998. Repair/Upgrade
Procedures for Welded Beam to Column Connections Black, R.G., W. A. B. Wenger, and E. P. Popov, 1980.
Peer 98/03 May. Inelastic Buckling Of Steel Struts Under Cyclic Load
Reversals. UCB/EERC-80/40, Berkeley: Earthquake
*ANSI/American Welding Society D1.1 - 98.
Engineering Research Center, University of
ATC-24, 1992. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of California.
Components of Steel Structures. Applied Technology
Blodgett, O., 1998. “The Effect of Constraint on Ductility
Council, Redwood City, CA.
in Welded Beam-to-Column Connections,”
Aslani, F., and S.C. Goel, 1991. “Stitch Spacing and Local Proceedings of International Institute of Welding.
Buckling in Seismic-resistant Double Angles,”
*Blodgett, O., S. Funderburk and D. Miller, 1997.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 177,
Fabricator's and Erector's Guide to Welded Steel
#8.
Construction. James F. Lincoln Arc Welding
Astaneh-Asl, A., 1998. Seismic Behavior and Design of Foundation.
Gusset Plates, Structural Steel Education Council.
*Blodgett, O., 1994. “Structural Details to Increase
Astaneh-Asl, A., S.C. Goel, and R. Hanson, 1985. “Cyclic Ductility of Connections,” Proceedings to the
Out-of-Plane Buckling of Double-Angle Gusset National Steel Construction Conference.
Plates,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Bondy, K.D., 1996. “A More Rational Approach to
Vol. 111(5).
Capacity Design of Seismic Moment Frame
Astaneh-Asl, A., S. C. Goel, and R. Hanson, 1986. Columns,” Earthquake Spectra. EERI, Oakland,
“Earthquake-resistant Design of Double-angle California, August.
Bracing.” Engineering Journal, AISC, fourth quarter.
Bonowitz, D., and N. Youssef, 1995. “Steel Moment
AWS,1995. D.1.1 Committee and Structural Welding Resisting Frames After Northridge,” Modern Steel
Committee Position Statement on Northridge Construction, AISC, May.
Earthquake Welding Issues: November 10.
Boyd, G.M., 1970. Brittle Fracture in Steel Structures.
Butterworth, London.
September 1999 243

BS, 1997. British Standard 97/714934 DC (draft): Guide EN, 1993. Steel Products With Improved Deformation
on the methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws Properties Perpendicular to the Surface of the
in fusion welded structures. Product. European Standard EN 10164.
Bruneau, M., C.M. Uang, and A. Whittaker, 1998. Ductile FEMA 267, 1995. Interim Guidelines: Modification and
Design of Steel Structures, McGraw-Hill. Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures.
Report No.96-03.
Burdekin F.M. and A. Pardelli, 1998. Considerations of
Design, Material Properties and Inspection FEMA 267A, 1995. Interim Guidelines: Advisory No.1,
Requirements for Earthquake Resistance Steel Frame Report No. 96-03.
Connections, UMIST Report, CIV/SAG1/98 UMIST,
*Fisher, J.W., R.J. Dexter and E.J. Kaufman. Fracture
Manchester, U.K.
Mechanics of Welded Structural Steel Connections,
Byfield, M.P. and D.A. Nethercot, 1997. “Material and Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural
Geometric Properties of Structural Steel for Use in Systems, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Design,” The Structural Engineer, Institution of
Galambos, T.V. and M. K. Ravindra, 1978. “Properties of
Structural Engineers, 4 November 1997.
Steel for use in LRFD,” Journal of Structural
Deierlein, G, 1995. The Significance of Loading Rate Engineering, ASCE, September.
Effects on the Fracture Resistance of Welded
*Geschwindner, L.F., R.O.Disque, and R.Bjorhovde.
Connections for Seismic Design, prepared for SAC
Load and Resistance Factor Design of Steel
Joint Venture Sub-Task 5.3.3.
Structures, Prentice Hall.
DeWolf, J. T., and J. F. Pelliccione, 1979. “Cross-Bracing
Goel, S.C., B. Stojadinovic, and K. Lee, 1997. “Truss
Design.” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Analogy for Steel Moment Connections.” AISC
105(7), 1379-91.
Engineering Journal, second quarter.
Dexter, R. J., and M. I. Melendez, 1998. Through-
Goel, S.C., 1992. Cyclic Post Buckling Behavior of Steel
Thickness Properties of Heavy Welded Steel “T”
Bracing Members: Stability and Ductility of Steel
Joints, SAC Update No. 4.
Structures under Cyclic Loading, CRC Press, Boca
*DSA/OSHPD, Interpretation of Regulations, Emergency Raton, Florida.
Code Change for Steel Moment Frame Girder to
Goel, S.C., and K. Lee, 1992. “Fracture Criterion for
Column Connection. IR27-8, Rev 1/95.
Concrete Tubular Bracing Members Under Cyclic
DLW, 1998. Dynamic Load Weld (DLW), Task Group Loading.” Proceedings of ASCE Structures Congress,
Report No. 1341, February. San Antonio, TX, April 13-15, 1992.
El-Tayem, A. and S.C. Goel., 1986. “Effective Length Gross, J. L., M. D. Engelhardt, C.M. Uang, K. Kasai, and
Factor for Design of X-Bracing Systems,” N. Iwankiw, 1998. Modification of Existing Welded
Engineering Journal, AISC, 24(4). Steel Moment Frame Connections for Seismic
Resistance, National Institute of Standards and
Engelhardt, M.D, T. Winneberger, A. Zekany and T.J.
Technology and American Institute of Steel
Potyraj, 1998. “Experimental Investigation of
Construction.
Dogbone Moment Connections,” Engineering
Journal, fourth quarter, AISC. Hassan, O.F. and S. C. Goel, 1991. Modeling of Bracing
Members and Seismic Behavior of Concentrically
*Engelhardt, M. D., T.A. Sabol, R.S. Aboutaha, and K.H.
Braced Steel Structures. Report No. UMCE 91-1.
Frank, 1995. “Testing Connections: An Overview of
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
the AISC Northridge Moment Connection Testing
Program,” Modern Steel Construction, AISC, May. *Houghton, D., 1996. Case Study: The Steel Frame
Problem, the Engineer's Perspective, 48th EERI
Engelhardt, M. D., T. Winneberger, A.J. Zekany, and T.J.
Annual Conference, February.
Potraj, 1996. The Dog Bone Connection: Part II,
Modern Steel Construction, AISC, August 1996. *Huang, Y.H. and T.V. Schriber, 1997. Refocusing the
SMRF Paradigm, Structure, National Council of
Structural Engineers Association, January.
244 September 1999

*Huang, Y.H. and, T.V. Schriber, 1997. “The SMRF *Krawinkler, H., V. V. Bertero, and E.P. Popov, 1971.
Failure - Back to Basics,” Proceedings of the ASCE Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-Column
First Forensic Congress, October. Subassemblages, Report No. EERC 71-7, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of
ICBO, 1994. Uniform Building Code (UBC). International
California, Berkeley, California.
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
*Krawinkler, H., and S. Mohasseb, 1987. “Effects of
ICBO, 1997. Uniform Building Code (UBC). International
Panel Zone Deformations on Seismic Response,”
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier
ICBO, 1994. Emergency Code Change, International Applied Science Publishers, England, Vol. 8.
Conference of Building Officials: September 14.
Krawinkler, H., and Zohrei, M.,1983. “Cumulative
Iwankiw, N.R., and C.J. Carter, 1996. “The Dogbone: A Damage in Steel Structures Subjected to Earthquake
New Idea to Chew On,” Modern Steel Construction, Ground Motions,” Journal on Computers and
AISC, April. Structures, Vol. 16, No. 1-4.
Iwankiw, N.R., 1997. “Ultimate Strength Considerations *Kuwamura, et al., 1990. “Control of Random Yield-
for Seismic Design of the Reduced Beam Section Strength for Mechanism-Based Seismic Design”,
(Internal Plastic Hinge),” Engineering Journal, First Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, January.
Quarter, AISC.
*Kuwamura, Kato, 1989. “Effect of Randomness in
Jain, A. K. and S. C. Goel, 1978. Hysteresis Behavior of Structural Members' Yield Strength on the Structural
Bracing Members and Seismic Response of Braced Systems Ductility,” Journal of Construction Steel
Frames with Different Proportions. Report No. Research, No.13.
UMCE 78-3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
*Lay, M.M., and T.V. Galambos,. “Inelastic Steel Beams
Kaminetzk, D., 1991. Design and Construction Failures, under Uniform Moment,” Journal of the Structural
Lessons from Forensic Investigations. McGraw Hill Division, ASCE, Vol.91, No. ST6:67-93.
Book Co.
Lee, S. and S.C. Goel, 1987. Seismic Behavior of Hollow
Kariotis, J., 1997. “Evaluation of the Benefit of and Concrete-Filled Square Tubular Bracing
Strengthening Existing Beam-Column Welds,” ASCE Members. UMCE 87-11; Report UMCE 87-11, Dept.
Structures Congress, July. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich.
*Kaufmann, E.J., M. Xue, L. Lu, and J.W. Fisher, 1996.
“Achieving Ductile Behaviour of Moment Leelataviwat, S., S. Goel, and B. Stojadinovic, 1998. Drift
Connections,” Modern Steel Construction, AISC, and Yield Mechanism Based Seismic Design and
January. Upgrading of Steel Moment Frames, Research Report
UMCEE 98-29, August.
Kaufman, E.J., and J.W. Fisher, 1995. A Study of the
Effects of Material and Welding Factors on Moment Liu, S., 1998. “SAC Steel Research Program: High
Frame Weld Joint Performance Using a Small-Scale Strength, High Toughness Structural Steel Welds
Tension Specimen, Center for Advanced Technology using self-shielded flux cored arc welding,
for Large Structural Systems, Lehigh University, International Institute of Welding.” Proceedings on
Bethlehem, PA. Welded Construction in Seismic Areas, October.
Khatib, I.F., S.A. Main, and K.S. Pister, 1988. Seismic LACO-TAP, 1997. Technical Advisory Panel, County of
Behavior of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. Los Angeles.
Report No. UCB/EERC-88/01. University of
*Los Angeles, City of, 1997. Interdepartmental
California, Berkeley.
Correspondence, Requirements for the Repair of
Kim, H. I. and S.C. Goel, 1992. A Seismic Evaluation and Welded Steel Frame Connections in Existing
Upgrading of Braced Frame Structures for Potential Buildings and the Design Requirements for Welded
Local Failures. UMCEE 92-24, University of Connections in New Steel Moment Resisting Frame
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Buildings, August 11.
September 1999 245

*Los Angeles, City of, Ordinance No. 170406 (March 1, Paterson, S., H. Vaillancourt, and T. Kuntz, 1998.
1995). “Variability and Statistical Bounds of the Strength and
Fracture Toughness of Common Structural Steel
*Los Angeles, County of, County Position on SMRF,
Shapes and Weld Metals Used in Welded Steel
August 14, 1996.
Moment Frame Connections in Building
*Los Angeles, County of, Los Angeles County Building Construction,” Proceedings on Welded Construction
Code, Chapter 94, 1996. in Seismic Areas, American Welding Society.
*MacGrae, G., and K. Kawashima, 1992. “Post- Paulay, T. and J.N. Priestley, 1992. Seismic Design of
Earthquake Residual Displacements of Bilinear Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Oscillators,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Dynamics, Vol. 26.
*Popov, E.P., 1987. “Panel Zone Flexibility in Seismic
Malley, J.O. and E.P. Popov, 1983. Design Considerations Moment Joints,” Journal of Construction, Steel
for Shear Links in Eccentrically Braced Frames. Research.
UCB/EERC 83-24, University of California,
*Popov, E, A. Toader, and Tzong-Shuoh Yang, 1998.
Berkeley.
“Post Northridge Earthquake Seismic Steel Moment
Maranian, P., Y. Chou, Y. H. Huang, 1998. “Challenge Connections,” Earthquake, Spectra, EERI,
Facing Structural Engineers - Designing Welded Steel November.
Moment Frame Buildings,” Proceedings on Welded
Popov, E.P. and T.J. Yang, 1995. Steel Seismic Moment
Construction in Seismic Areas, American Welding
Resisting Connections, University of California at
Society.
Berkeley, May.
Maranian, P., 1997. “Vulnerability of Existing Steel
Popov, E.P., 1988. “On California Structural Steel seismic
Framed Buildings Following the 1994 Northridge
Design,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2, no. 4, EERI,
(California, U.S.A.) Earthquake, Considerations for
Oakland, CA.
Their Repair and Strengthening,” The Structural
Engineer, The Institution of Structural Engineers, May *Popov, E. P., and K.C. Tsai, 1987. “Performances of
20. Large Seismic Steel Moment Connections under
Cyclic Loads.” Proceedings of the 56th SEAOC
Miller, D.K., 1998. Future Direction, Proceedings on
Convention, Structural Engineers Association of
Welded Construction in Seismic Areas, American
California, Sacramento, California.
Welding Society, Seismic Welding Issues
Subcommittee. Popov, E., and R.G. Black, 1981. “Steel Struts Under
Severe Cyclic Loadings.” Journal of the Structural
Nakagomi, T., T. Fujita, and Y. Ichikawa, 1998. “Study on
Division, ASCE, vol. 107, September.
Details of Columns to Beam Connections Against
Earthquake,” Proceedings on Welded Construction in Popov, E.P., 1976. Mechanics of Materials, 2nd edition,
Seismic Areas, American Welding Society. Prentice-Hall, p. 36.
Nicoletti, P. and Teal Saunders, 1984. A Synthesis of Steel *Popov, E.P., and V. Bertero, 1973. “Cyclic Testing of
Research for Code Development. Structural Steel Steel Beams and Connections,” Journal of the
Education Council. Structural Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York.
*OSHPD, 1997. Code Application Notice (CAN) 2-
2211A.7.1.2, Connection Strength, July 16. Rabinovitch, J.S. and J.R. Cheng, 1993. Cyclic Behavior
of Steel Gusset Plate Connections. University of
*OSHPD, 1995. Policy Intent Notice (PIN) 7, Special
Alberta. Dept. of Civil Engineering. Edmonton,
Moment Resisting Frame Joint, April 11.
Alberta. Structural engineering Report no. 191.
Paret, T.F., and S.A. Freeman, 1947. “Is Steel Frame
Remennikov, A.M. and W.P. Walpole, 1998. “Seismic
Damage Being Diagnosed Correctly?” Proceedings of
Behavior and Deterministic Design Procedures for
the 1997 Structural Congress, ASCE.
Steel V-Braced Frames” Earthquake Spectra. EERI,
Vol 14, no.2.
246 September 1999

Richard, R.M., J.E. Partridge, J. Allen, and S. Radau, SEAONC, 1996. Structural Engineers Association of
1995. “Finite Element Analysis and Tests of Beam to Northern California, Newsletter, April and July.
Column Connections,” Modern Steel Construction,
SEAOSC, 1998. “Considerations for Steel Moment Frame
AISC, October.
Buildings.” Structural Engineers Association of
Roeder, C.W., and D.A. Foutch, 1998. Experimental Southern California Seminar, September 12, 1998.
Results for Seismic Resistant Steel Moment Frame
SEAOSC, 1998. Steel Considerations No. 1. Structural
Connections, University of Washington, ASCE.
Engineers Association of Southern California.
Sabelli, R., C. Wilford, K. Abey, W. Pottebaum, and D.
Slutter R., 1981. Tests of Panel Zone Behaviour in Beam-
Hohbach, 1998. “Pushover Analysis of Inverted-V
Column Connections, Lehigh Report No.
Braced Frames and its Implications for the Design of
200.81.403.1.
Multistory Systems,” Proceedings of the 67th Annual
Convention. Structural Engineers Association of SSPC, 1994. Statistical Analysis of Tensile Data for Wide
California, Sacramento, CA. Flange Structural Shapes. Structural Steel Producers
Council.
Sabelli, R., and D. Hohbach, 1999. “A Design of Cross-
Braced Frames for Predictable Buckling Behavior,” Tang and Goel, S.C. 1987. Seismic Analysis and Design
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 125, Considerations of Braced Steel Structures, Report
no.2. UMCE 87-4. University of Michigan, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI.
SAC, 1998a, Project Summary and Update No. 3, April.
Tang and S. C. Goel, 1989. “Brace fractures and analysis
SAC 1998b, BD/98-01, Strength and Ductility of FR/
of Phase I structure,” Journal of Structural
Welded/Bolted Connections by El-Tawil.
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.115, no.8.
SAC, 1997a. Project Summary and Update No. 2,
*Uang, C.M., 1993. “An Evaluation of Two-Level
February.
Seismic Design Procedures,” Earthquake Spectra,
SAC, 1997b. Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1, April, Vol. 9, EERI, Oakland, CA.
Report No. 96-03.
*Uang, C.M., and C.T. Latham, 1995. “Cyclic Testing of
*SAC, 1996. Experimental Investigations of Beam- Full-Scale MNH-SMRF-TM Connection,” Structural
Column Subassemblages. Report No. 96-01. Systems Research Rep No. TR-95-01; March, U.C.
San Diego.
*SAC, 95-04, 1994. Technical Report: Analytical and
Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Wallace, B. J. and H. Krawinkler, 1985. Small-scale
Northridge Earthquake of January 17. model experimentation on steel assemblies: U.S.-
Japan Research Program. Report 1997. No. 75, John
SAC, 1995, 95-02, Interim Guidelines: Evaluation,
A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel
University, Palo Alto, California.
Moment Frame Structures, Report No. 96-03,(FEMA
267). Whitmore, R.E., 1952. “Experimental Investigations of
Stresses in Gusset Plates,” Engineering Experiment
Sarkkinen, D.L., 1998. Through Thickness Tensile Stress
Station, Bulletin No. 16. University of Tennessee.
in Hot-Rolled Steel Members, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Whittaker, A., A. Gilani, and V.V. Bertero, 1997.
Schriber, T. V., and Y.H. Huang, 1996. “Myth or
Evaluation of Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Resisting
Challenge in Structural Steel,” SEAOSC Seminar on
Frame Joints, U.C. Berkeley, October.
New Methodology in Structural Design, September
21. Williams, D.E., 1998. “Steel, Welding and Construction
Specifications for Seismic Structures,” Proceedings
SEAOC, 1994. Interim Recommendations for satisfying
on Welded Construction in Seismic Areas, American
the intent of the ICBO Emergency Code Change for
Welding Society.
Steel Moment Frame Girder to Column Connection.
Structural Engineers Association of California, Withey, M.O., 1928. “Tests of Specimens Cut From
Seismology Committee. Different Portions of Structural Steel Shapes,”
Proceedings of ASTM., Vol. 28, Part II.
September 1999 247

Xu, P. and S. C. Goel, 1990. “Behavior of double channel Zayas, V.A., P. Shing, B. Shum, S.A. Mahin, and E.P.
bracing members under large cyclic deformations.” Popov, 1981. “Inelastic Structural Modeling of Braced
Report UMCE 90-01, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Offshore Platforms for Seismic Loading.” UCB/
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. EERC-81/04: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California.
Zekioglu, et. al., 1997. “Designing after Northridge,”
Modern Steel Construction, AISC, March.
Figure C702-1. Multiple Step Test. Deformation parameter is interstory drift angle
Figure C704-1. Common concentrically braced frame configurations
248 September 1999

Figure C704-2. Hysteresis diagram of an axially loaded strut
Figure C704-3. Design forces in stitches of built-up members
September 1999 249

Figure C704-5. Postbuckling deformation

mode of a chevron-braced frame.
Figure C704-4. Gusset plate with an

unrestrained hinge zone. The dimension “t” is
the gusset plate thickness. Note the stiffener
that prevents edge buckling but does not
restrain the formation of a hinge.
Figure C704-6. Chevron-braced frame variants:

(a) two-story X, and (b) zipper (see Khatib et al., 1988)
250 September 1999

CHAPTER 8
Wood
C801 UBC §2301 General 6. In wood buildings, members supporting discontinued

Requirements shear walls require design for the special seismic load
combinations of Chapter 16.
SEAOC adopts the provisions of the 1997 UBC, with the
7. Where wood construction occurs in combination with
modifications and additions specified in Section 802. Per-
steel, concrete or masonry, collector members are re-
missible methods of construction, diaphragm ratios, dia-
quired to be designed for the special seismic load
phragm shears, stability criteria, and established fastener
combinations of Chapter 16.
values are listed in the UBC. Blue Book Recommenda-
tions assume capacities, material grades, and inspection
requirements at least equal to those required by the UBC.
For this reason, the 1997 UBC is referenced in the first to the 1997 UBC
paragraph of Requirements Chapter 8. This chapter makes C802.1 Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms
no attempt to address all of the construction materials in in Seismic Zones 3 and 4
UBC Chapter 23. In addition to this Commentary, see Re-
C802.1.1 UBC §2315.5.3 Wood Structural
quirements and Commentary Section 108.
Panels. UBC §2315.2 restricts the use of wood shear
There are significantly fewer recommended modifica- walls that support horizontal forces contributed by con-
tions to Chapter 23 listed in this edition of the Blue Book crete or masonry to buildings one story in height. Recog-
compared to the Sixth Edition, October 1996. This is be- nizing the need for wood shear walls to support two-story
cause a significant number of modifications recommended buildings with concrete or masonry walls, an exception is
in the Sixth Edition have been adopted into the 1997 UBC. added where wood structural panel sheathed shear walls
Changes incorporated in the 1997 UBC that effect design can be used with restrictions. In order to be able to support
of wood structures include the following: rigid walls laterally, a wood structural panel shear wall
1. For determination of the aspect ratio of a shear wall, must possess rigidity comparable to the supported ele-
the height and width of the shear wall are now specif- ment. To achieve this, in addition to the story height, de-
ically defined. flection, and sheathing thickness limitations in the UBC
2. The maximum aspect ratio for wood structural panel for all seismic zones, the recommended modification spec-
and special diagonally sheathed shear walls has been ifies use of a lower allowable shear for Seismic Zones 3
reduced to 2:1 for high seismic zones. and 4.
3. Foundation sill plates and studs receiving edge nailing 802.1.2 No Commentary provided.
from two abutting panels are required to be 3x where 802.2 UBC Table 23-II-G
allowable shear values exceed 350 lb/ft.
See Commentary Section C804.4.
4. Conventional construction bracing panels for cripple
walls are limited to wood structural panels for all seis-
mic zones and required lengths of bracing are in-
creased.
5. Steel plate washers are required on foundation sill an-
chor bolts in high seismic zones.
September 1999 251

Additional 3. In Seismic Zone 4, the maximum ratio may be 3-1/2:1 for

walls not exceeding 10 feet (3048 mm) in height on each side
Commentary of the door to a one-story Group U Occupancy.

3 4. Not permitted.
C803.3 UBC Tables 23-II-I-1 and 23-II-I-2,
Footnote 3
C803 Errata to the 1997 UBC Modify as follows:
The following errata to the 1997 UBC are of particular im- 3
In seismic zones 3 and 4 W where allowable shear values
portance to persons designing engineered wood construc-
exceed 350 pounds per foot (5.11N/mm), foundation sill
tion in high seismic zones. Underline and strikeout
plates and all framing members receiving edge nailing
indicate modifications to the 1997 UBC, First Printing.
from abutting panels shall not be less than a single 3-inch
Designs must conform to these modified provisions in or-
(76 mm) nominal member. In shear walls where total wall
der to conform to the 1997 UBC. The following is only a
design shear does not exceed 600 pounds per foot (8.76 N/
partial listing of errata. A complete listing is available
mm), a single 2-inch (51 mm) nominal sill plate may be
from ICBO. Note that Table 23-II-G in Commentary Sec-
used, provided anchor bolts are designed for a load capac-
tion C803.2 is further modified by Requirements Section
ity of 50 percent or less of the allowable capacity and bolts
802.2.
have a minimum 2-inch by 2-inch by 3/16-inch (51 mm by
C803.1 UBC §2318.3.1 51 mm by 5 mm) thick plate washers. Plywood joint and
Add new third paragraph: sill plate N nailing shall be staggered in all cases.
In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, toenails shall not be used to
C804 Comments on Selected
transfer lateral forces in excess of 150 lb./ft (2188 N/m)
from diaphragms to shear walls, drag struts (collectors) or 1997 UBC Provisions
other elements, or from shear walls to other elements. C804.1 UBC §2302 Definitions
C803.2 UBC Table 23-II-G Because of their importance, the following definitions and
Modify as follows: discussion are provided.
C804.1.1 Subdiaphragm
Table 23-II-G. Maximum Diaphragm Dimension Ratios Definition: A portion of a diaphragm used to trans-
fer wall anchorage forces to diaphragm cross ties.
Material Horizontal Vertical
Diaphragms Diaphragms Discussion: This concept originated as a device for
Maximum Span- Maximum Height-
Width Ratios Width Ratios
transferring anchorage forces from concrete or masonry
walls or other mass concentrations to wood diaphragms. In
Diagonal sheath- 3:1 1:11 Figure C804-1, the heavy lateral forces contributed to the
ing, conventional
wall are transmitted into the subdiaphragm by means of
Diagonal sheath- 4:1 2:12 anchor ties. The span or length of the subdiaphragm in the
ing, special
figure is between the end shear wall and the center dia-
Wood structural 4;1 2;12, 3 phragm cross-tie (drag strut). The subdiaphragm must be
panels and particle-
board, nailed all designed as if it were going to act by itself in transferring
edges anchor tie forces to the shear wall and the diaphragm
Wood structural 4:1 crosstie.
—3, 4
panels and particle-
board, blocking The subdiaphragm width generally determines the
omitted at interme- length of the anchor ties. However, the width of the subdi-
diate joints aphragm should be sufficient to provide:
1. In Seismic Zones 0, 1, and 2, and 3, the maximum ratio may 1. A length of anchor tie that can transfer the anchor
be 2:1. forces from the wall into the diaphragm without the
2. In Seismic Zones 0, 1, and 2, and 3, the maximum ratio may use of cross-grain tension at panel joints.
be 3-1/2:1.
252 September 1999

2. A subdiaphragm width necessary to transfer the sub- shear wall parallel to the applied forces, they can achieve
diaphragm shear to the shear wall and/or diaphragm equilibrium utilizing reactions parallel to the applied forc-
cross-tie. es. Figure C804-4 illustrates a building where diaphragm
rotation is required to maintain static equilibrium. See fur-
Item 1 above deserves further discussion related to the
ther discussion in Commentary Section C805.2.
direction of framing. Wall forces can be effectively trans-
ferred into the diaphragm when the framing members are C804.2 UBC §2315 Wood Shear Walls and
perpendicular to the wall. The length of the framing mem- Diaphragms
ber and the type of connection typically used will provide C804.2.1 General. A design methodology has
adequate development length to transfer the wall forces to evolved over the years where the diaphragm or shear wall
the diaphragm. However, where framing members and sheathing is considered to transmit only shear and where
panelized sheathing joints are parallel to the wall, special tension or compression members are provided to resist
detailing is required to obtain adequate development moments (chord forces) or to distribute diaphragm shears
length to transfer the wall anchorage force into the subdia- (diaphragm struts, collectors, or ties). Even though this
phragm. If an anchorage force is not fully transferred with- methodology is arbitrary, it is thought to be conservative
in the depth of the subdiaphragm, the panelized sheathing and can be used with consistency. Where an opening inter-
can only transmit the force at the panel juncture through rupts a diaphragm, the diaphragm shear changes abruptly
the nails into framing member by cross-grain tension, at the opening and immediately beyond. Ties or collectors
which is not permitted in the ledger or at the panel joints. must be provided at these locations to distribute the
It is required that the maximum subdiaphragm span-to- changes in force. At openings that are very large with re-
width ratio be 2-1/2:1 (See Requirements Section 108.2.9, spect to diaphragm dimensions, ties extending the full di-
Item 4). This ratio will result in reduced diaphragm shears aphragm width may be appropriate. For smaller openings
and mitigate concerns with wood structural panel distress the ties need, as a minimum, to extend past the opening a
observed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake in concrete sufficient distance to allow the tie force to be transferred to
tilt-up wall buildings. the main diaphragm.
C804.1.2 Blocked Diaphragm
C804.3 UBC §2315.5.3 Wood Structural
Definition: A diaphragm in which all sheathing Panels
panel edges not occurring on a framing member are sup- Providing panels with exterior glue, the largest possible
ported on and fastened to blocking. wood structural panel sheet size, and blocking will im-
Discussion: In panel diaphragm construction, it is prove the resistance of a shear wall subject to in-plane
generally only necessary to provide blocking and nailing loading. Providing large sheets will decrease the number
at the edges where required by stress. Sometimes all edges of joints and therefore reduce the likelihood of secondary
must be blocked to increase diaphragm strength or de- stresses around joints. The greater the number of joints, as
crease diaphragm deformation. All joints in panel shear in the case of smaller panels, the greater the exposure to
walls (vertical panel diaphragms) must be blocked and failure due to the weak links generated by jointing. More-
nailed. The formulas contained in the 1997 UBC for deter- over, use of small panels will cause the wall to be less stiff
mination of diaphragm deflection are specifically for due to nail slippage.
blocked diaphragms. The ductility of structural wood panel shear walls and
C804.1.3 Torsional Force Distribution (Diaphragm diaphragms comes from the mechanical fasteners, which
Rotation) dissipate energy during deformation. A large portion of
Definition: The distribution of horizontal seismic this energy dissipation occurs in the fasteners connecting
forces through a rigid diaphragm when the center of mass the sheathing to the framing. Use of adhesives to connect
of the structure at the level under consideration does not shear wall panels to framing has been shown by testing to
coincide with the center of rigidity. result in explosively brittle behavior due to increased stiff-
ness and lack of ductility. Use of adhesives to connect
Discussion: Torsional force distribution is best ex- shear wall sheathing is not recommended in high seismic
plained by example: the rigid diaphragms in Figures zones. Brittle behavior has also been observed when cut
C804-2 and C804-3 are considered to have diaphragm ro- thread wood screws have been used to fasten shear wall
tation because their centers of mass are not coincident with sheathing to wood framing. In a limited testing program,
their centers of rigidity. Because there are two lines of screws were installed so that the transition from a solid
September 1999 253

shank to a shank with cut threads occurred at the sheath- flexure. This uplift due to sheathing panel rotation has
ing-to-framing interface. Brittle failure of the screws oc- been observed in testing to occur anywhere along the
curred at this interface. length of a shear wall where a vertical sheathing panel
edge occurs. Note that the use of 2x foundation sills in
C804.4 UBC Table 23-II-G
combination with steel plate washers has been shown in
See Commentary Section C803.2 for the table as adopted testing to successfully address the sill-splitting problem if
into the 1997 UBC. See Requirements Section 802.2 for low-slip tie-down devices are also used. Second, the 3x
Blue Book recommended modifications. Due to observed foundation sill provides added bending capacity in the
results of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the shear wall plane of the wall to provide resistance to the sill plate
(vertical diaphragm) ratios have been reduced. The reduc- bending that develops as a result of uplift at the end post.
tions limit the slenderness of shear walls and therefore An edge distance for sheathing fasteners of not less than
limit the horizontal displacement or drift of wood-framed ½ inch is recommended for foundation sills.
buildings. The height-to-width ratios are illustrated in Fig-
ure 23-II-1. See Commentary Section C805.3 for further Decayed bottom edges of shear wall sheathing were
discussion. reported following the 1994 Northridge earthquake and
are regularly reported during litigation. It is thought that
C804.5 UBC Tables 23-II-I-1 & 23-II-I-2, this decay might be occurring because of water splash,
Footnote 3 even when the code requirements for clearance from grade
See Commentary Section C803.3 for footnote 3 as adopted are met. Use of 3x sills may help address this issue by per-
in the 1997 UBC. In response to damage observed in the mitting the bottom edge of the sheathing to be raised. De-
1994 Northridge earthquake, footnote 3 requires 3x fram- tailing to protect the sheathing is also needed. Where this
ing members at abutting sheathing panels and 3x founda- decay issue exists, there is often also a problem of exten-
tion sills in shear walls. A 350 lb/ft trigger for 3x framing sive corrosion at strap-type tie-downs connecting the
and sills replaces the previous triggers of sheathing nailing framing to the foundation.
at 2 in. or 3 in. on center. For walls stressed below a 600
A question has been raised regarding shear walls
lb/ft trigger, the UBC alternately allows use of 2x sills
where the calculated shear falls below 350 lb/ft, but the
when the anchor bolt capacity is reduced by 50 percent.
specified or built construction of the wall is “improved” by
Note that in seismic zones 0, 1, and 2, 3x foundation sills
closer nail spacing, resulting in a higher capacity. Should
and framing members should continue to trigger based on
this improved wall require 3x foundation sills and 3x
the sheathing nail spacing, as in the 1994 UBC. This re-
members at abutting panel joints? This is subject to inter-
quirement was inadvertently omitted from the 1997 UBC.
pretation. Two arguments can be provided in favor of us-
The use of 3x members at abutting sheathing panels ing 3x members. First, splitting of a 2x stud might initiate
provides a wider framing surface in order to reduce the oc- before the earthquake loads the wall, due to the close nail
currence of sheathing fasteners missing the studs (shiners) spacing. Other approaches to control splitting might miti-
while also allowing the distance from the sheathing edge gate this issue. Second, the closer nail spacing might create
to the fastener centerline to be increased to 1/2-inch and a more critical loading situation because the wall attracts
nailing staggered. Some incidents of studs being torn more force than it would with the required nail spacing.
along nail lines were reported following the 1994 The extent to which this is of concern will vary. The pos-
Northridge earthquake; there may have been some quality sibility exists that the wall performance might be made
control issues with the observed construction prior to the worse by adding more nails.
earthquake. Regardless, the use of 3x studs at abutting
Where walls have sheathing on both sides, the 350 plf
panel edges should help mitigate stud splitting by helping
for the foundation sill is interpreted to apply to the sum of
to limit the amount of splitting occurring before earth-
the sheathing capacities. No new testing has been per-
quake forces are applied.
formed on shear walls sheathed on both sides since the is-
The requirement for 3x foundation sills addresses sev- sue of sill-splitting came up in the 1994 Northridge
eral concerns. First, somewhat greater resistance is provid- earthquake. Previous testing is discussed in APA Labora-
ed to the sill cross-grain bending that occurs when the tory Report 105 and APA Research Report 154.
sheathing uplifts due to sheathing panel rotation. The
The requirement for 3x studs and foundation sills has
somewhat greater resistance occurs because the extra sill
been controversial with some engineers who have objected
thickness increases the force transfer by sill cross-grain
to the very low load at which it is triggered, and cited lack
254 September 1999

of specific testing to determine where the requirement C804.8 UBC §1633.2.6 Collector
should trigger. It is hoped that future testing will provide Elements
more insight into this issue. This requirement has also (Requirements Section 108.2.6) This section requires that
been controversial with homebuilders, partially based on a collectors be designed for the magnified Em (formerly
perceived lesser availability of 3x material, and partially 3Rw /8 factored) level of force. The intent is to make sure
based on adjustments to standard framing procedures 3x
that the collector is not the weak element in the lateral
material requires. For standard eight foot high walls, studs
force resisting system. Buildings with all light frame con-
have generally been pre-cut to allow for one foundation
struction are exempt from this higher force level based on:
sill plate and two top plates. Studs sitting on 3x sills will
need to be one inch shorter and so have to be re-cut. At- 1. The limited forces that develop in this type of system
tachment of studs to 3x foundation sill plates will require due to typically close spacing between resisting ele-
either significantly longer end nails (30d) or use of toe ments.
nailing. 2. The lack of reported structural failure due to collectors
in light frame construction.
C804.6 UBC §2320.1 Conventional Light
Frame Construction 3. Detailing, rather than force level, is of primary impor-
tance in light frame construction. Higher design forces
The deletion of diagonal let-in bracing reflects the general could be counter productive in terms of splitting
practice of the engineering community and building de- caused by added close nailing and similar installation
partments in California. problems.
C804.7 UBC Table 23-IV-C-2 Cripple Wall See Commentary Section C804.9 discussion regard-
Bracing ing conversion to strength level capacities. It is specifical-
This conventional construction table, added in the 1997 ly intended that light frame construction with weight
UBC, provides bracing requirements at the cripple wall contributed by concrete or masonry be designed at the Em
level, where only exterior walls are normally provided. force level. Miscellaneous structural steel framing used for
These requirements are intentionally different from brac- gravity loads in an otherwise wood light frame construc-
ing prescribed for story levels where interior partitions can tion, however, should be permitted without triggering the
share the lateral load demands. The use of 3/8-inch thick Em force level unless the steel framing significantly chang-
wood structural panel was selected as the most economical es the nature of the lateral force resisting system. Also see
bracing material, with 8-penny common nails specified to Requirements Section 105.8.2.
produce the required capacity of the material. Where sub-
stitution of sinker nails is desired, the minimum percent- C804.9 UBC §1630.8.2.1 Elements
age of well-braced length could be increased accordingly, Supporting Discontinuous Systems
or 15/32-inch thick panels with 10-penny nails could be (Requirements Section 105.8.2) This section requires that
substituted. Note that testing by APA [1997] and Ficca- elements supporting discontinuous portions of the lateral
denti et al. [1995] have suggested that the ultimate capac- force resisting system be designed for the magnified force
ity of box and common nails attaching shear wall Em (formerly 3Rw /8 factored). While the requirement for
sheathing are very similar. Code assigned values, how- a magnified design force was called for in previous edi-
ever, remain different. tions of the Blue Book, this edition specifically states that
Also, deletion of the use of stucco/Portland Cement it applies to wood construction, and expands the scope
plaster for use in bracing cripple walls is compatible with from columns supporting discontinuous portion to all ele-
1994 Northridge earthquake observations, which demon- ments supporting discontinuous portions. When upper
strated that Portland Cement plaster does not provide ade- level wood shear walls do not continue to floors below, the
quate resistance for cripple wall studs for a typical Seismic beams, posts, studs, etc. must be designed for magnified
Zone 4 structure. Further consideration of the recommen- force levels. Requirements Section 108.2.6 does not spe-
dation for restricting Portland Cement plaster will be made cifically state how far through the load path to the founda-
after cyclic testing of such panels is completed. tion these forces need to be carried, which allows
engineering judgment to be used.
Exception number two specifically exempts concrete
structures supporting light frame wood shear wall systems
September 1999 255

from the magnified force. This is because there is no litigation involving wood structures has demonstrated on-
record of damage to concrete slab structures due to the going significant problems with achieving complete and
wood framed shear walls above. If not exempted, the re- adequate lateral load paths in wood structures. Structural
quirement for elevated forces could have a tremendous im- observation gives the engineer the opportunity not only to
pact on the ability to use the concrete slab system, check for conformance to the construction documents, but
particularly post-tensioned slabs. also to identify locations where addition direction to the
contractor may be required.
Inspiration for this requirement included damage ob-
served in concrete structures, and particularly concrete See the Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls
columns under discontinuous shear walls. In the 1994 [SEAOC, 1997b] for discussion of items to be observed.
Northridge earthquake there was at least one case where Two items of particular note for structural observation are
significant damage resulted from punching shear as a re- the type and size of sheathing nail and the edge nailing of
sult of discontinuous shear walls. sheathing to tie-down posts that fall inboard of the sheath-
ing edge.
Because the force level specified is strength, and UBC
wood design values are ASD, a method of converting to C804.12 UBC §1806.6 Foundation Plates
strength capacities is provided. Alternately the ASCE 16 or Sills
LRFD (strength) provisions could be used [ASCE, 1995b]. This section gives minimum requirements for foundation
The product of 1.7 times the 1.33 duration of load factor anchor bolts. The sizes and spacing given are usually ap-
approximately matches the value used for soft conversion plied to conventional construction. In engineered con-
of capacities for wood LRFD for the AF&PA Wood Con- struction the size and spacing are generally calculated,
struction Manual and the NEHRP provisions. The net re- however the minimum requirements of this section apply.
sult will be stronger members than used in previous The 1997 UBC has added a requirement that plate washers
practice. The considerations involved in design of flexible be provided on anchor bolts in seismic zone 4. This is in
diaphragms supporting concrete and masonry walls are response to the extensive splitting of foundation sills,
more involved than this. See Hamburger and McCormack which occurred in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
[1995] for further discussion. Also see Requirements Sec-
tion 108.2.6. Testing since the earthquake has both reproduced the
occurrence of splitting and demonstrated that use of plate
C804.10 UBC §1701 Special Inspection washers substantially reduces the splitting. While the plate
Referring to Requirements Section 202.1.3.4, it is com- size required is appropriate for smaller anchor bolts, larger
mon practice for building inspectors to observe wood plates should be used for larger anchor bolts. See NEHRP
structural panel nailing; however, where stresses are high [BSSC, 1995] for guidance on plate size. Due to the re-
and nail spacing is critical, special inspection is recom- quirement of Tables 23-II-I-1 and 23-II-I-2, footnote 3,
mended to ensure full conformance of the construction these plate washers will often be used in combination with
with the construction documents. Furthermore, in addition 3x sills. Proper placement of anchor bolts and foundation
to nailing, other components such as anchor bolts, tie- sills is an ongoing construction quality control issue.
downs, diaphragm ties, collectors or struts, and nailing
practices (which are of vital importance to the proper per- C805 Other Current Wood Design
formance and stability of the shear wall) must also be in- Issues
spected for compliance. Where shear walls are detailed for
continuity around openings, it is recommended that the C805.1 ASD vs. LRFD Design Methods
special nailing, strapping, and blocking also receive spe- The 1997 UBC incorporates both ASD and LRFD meth-
cial inspection. ods of design for wood structures. For ASD the ANSI/
C804.11 UBC §1702 Structural Observation NFoPA 1991 NDS is adopted by reference in UBC §2316,
with a list of amendments following. The amendments
Structural observation is strongly recommended for wood were adopted in order to avoid any significant change in
structures, whether one- and two-family dwellings or technical content from the 1994 UBC. It is suggested that
larger structures. More than any other material, the load users copy amendments that effect their practice into the
path in wood structures depends on lateral force transfer at NDS. In future codes we are likely to see the NDS adopted
a great number of locations, each of which is necessary for with few or no amendments.
the satisfactory performance of the structure. Construction
256 September 1999

For LRFD, ASCE 16, Load and Resistance Design for C805.3 Lateral Force Distribution
Engineered Wood Construction, is adopted as a recog- Starting with the 1988 Edition, the UBC has had a criterion
nized standard in UBC §2303. This standard is to be used to determine when diaphragms are to be considered flexi-
with design values from the Wood Construction Manual, ble, which in turn suggests the type of analysis to be used
published by AF&PA. This method of UBC adoption indi- for lateral force distribution. In the UBC criteria, the de-
cates that ASCE 16 is thought to be a technically accept- flection of the diaphragm under the design load is com-
able method, but leaves to the designer and building pared with the average story drift of the vertical elements
official the decision as to its acceptability and use. One under equivalent tributary lateral load, per Requirements
caution is that ASCE 16 is intended to be used with ASCE- Section 105.6. If the diaphragm deflection is more than
7 seismic forces, based on the 1994 NEHRP Recommend- twice the story drift, the diaphragm is considered flexible.
ed Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, For diaphragms that do not meet the criteria for being con-
and ASCE-7 load combinations [ASCE, 1995a]. Appro- sidered flexible, UBC provisions require that the distribu-
priate use of ASCE 16 with 1997 UBC seismic forces and tion of lateral forces be in proportion to the relative rigidity
load factors needs to be determined by users. of the vertical resisting elements. This criterion is applica-
There is an argument within the engineering commu- ble to all structural materials.
nity that LRFD/Strength/Limit States Design methods for Past and present design practice in California and oth-
seismic design are more rational and are recommended er areas has almost exclusively used flexible diaphragm
over ASD. At this time, however, wood LRFD design val- assumptions for distribution of seismic forces in structures
ues are mainly soft conversions of the ASD values, intend- with wood diaphragms. While design using structural ma-
ed to maintain current design practice. The LRFD terials other than wood had considered rigid and occasion-
methodology was developed by the wood industry for use ally semi-rigid diaphragm behavior prior to the 1988 UBC,
by those engineers who are more familiar with LRFD design of wood structures had been based on the assump-
methods. tion that all wood diaphragms behave in a flexible manner.
C805.2 UBC Chapter Organization The assumption of flexible behavior of wood diaphragms
conforms quite well with the UBC criteria for larger build-
At first glance, Chapter 23 of the 1997 UBC looks very
ings with concrete or masonry walls. Lateral force resist-
different from the 1994 edition. However, while the orga-
ing systems using wood diaphragms in combination with
nization has changed, very little has changed in the techni-
wood shear walls seldom meet the UBC definition of a
cal provisions. Discussion of most of the technical changes
flexible diaphragm, suggesting that for many wood shear
follows. One of the main reasons for the reorganization
wall structures the UBC would require that a rigid dia-
was the grouping of provisions applicable to allowable
phragm analysis be performed. The adoption of the 1988
stress design, to allow strength design as an alternate. To
UBC, did not seem to prompt any significant change in de-
aid in understanding the organization, the following anno-
sign practice related to the assumption of diaphragm flex-
tated partial outline is provided.
ibility for wood framed structures. Most designers
I General Design Requirements continued their past practice and most building officials
States minimum quality, provides road map to continued to accept this practice. This is one area where a
other requirements divergence developed between common design practice
II General Requirements and a strict interpretation of the code. With the adoption of
Design and construction requirements applicable the 1997 UBC this divergence has now raised enormous
to all design methods consternation among designers of residential structures,
which constitute a large part if not a majority of wood
III Design Specifications for Allowable Stress
frame structures in areas of high seismicity. See Stein-
Design
brugge [1994] and Cobeen [1998] for discussion of the de-
IV Conventional Light Frame Construction velopment of design practice for wood frame buildings.
Seismic provisions appear in Division II, Part II, Following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, discus-
which are applicable to both ASD and LRFD. Division III, sion of rigid diaphragm behavior was brought to the fore-
Part IV includes ASD capacities, while ASCE 16 and the front because of poor performance of some multi-storied
Wood Construction Manual [AF&PA, 1996] contain buildings with tuck-under parking. The wood diaphragms
LRFD capacities. in a number of these buildings were forced to act in rota-
September 1999 257

tion at the lowest story. A code change proposal submitted an engineering standpoint because many one and two-fam-
to ICBO sought to prohibit use of wood diaphragms in ro- ily residences have highly irregular configurations with
tation, and would have effectively prohibited anything low redundancy and significant discontinuities in the
other than flexible diaphragm analysis for wood dia- structural system.
phragms. Discussion among designers as a result of the
Comments received during drafting of this commen-
code change proposal heightened awareness of diaphragm
tary indicate that significant further efforts are necessary
stiffness and possible resulting force redistribution. This
on the topic of lateral force distribution in structures with
discussion became focused with the development of 1997
wood diaphragms. The CUREe-Caltech Woodframe
UBC conforming design examples for the Seismic Design
Project, currently underway, will be involved in testing,
Manual [SEAOC, 1999]. In the wood design examples it
development of analysis tools, and development of recom-
became necessary to point out that common design prac-
mended code provisions that will address this topic as well
tice is not consistent with strict interpretation of the UBC.
as others. In addition a simplified analysis method is being
The relative flexibility of cantilevered columns com- developed for inclusion in the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP
pared to parallel shear walls is thought to have been one Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
factor contributing to the poor performance of buildings New Buildings. The drafters of this simplified method are
with tuck-under parking in the Northridge Earthquake. A developing simplified criteria for determining when flexi-
rigid diaphragm analysis performed on this type of build- ble diaphragm analysis may be used. The SEAOC Seis-
ing should have identified the relative flexibility of the col- mology and Code Committees plan on following and
umns, and the resulting redistribution of seismic forces contributing to many of these ongoing efforts and will con-
might have been accommodated in the design. Although sider whether additional efforts are necessary to pursue
damage resulting from the relative flexibility of vertical el- current concerns.
ements should theoretically occur to varying extents in C805.3.1 Use of the UBC Criteria and Rigid Dia-
many other types of wood buildings, it has not yet been re- phragm Analysis. While the classification of a dia-
ported as a major cause of damage. Earthquake damage phragm and resulting choice of analysis method may seem
observed to date suggests that the Life-Safe Performance straight forward, there are many complicating factors. The
Level, as defined in Vision 2000 Part 1, has generally been behavior of wood structural panel lateral force resisting
achieved in structures having a fairly regular configuration systems under actual earthquake loading has only had lim-
and redundancy, with wood structural panel diaphragms ited investigation to date and is not well understood. The
that have been designed using flexible diaphragm assump- non-linear-elastic behavior of wood lateral force resisting
tions. Further information on wood diaphragm is available systems provides added complication. While the code cri-
in APA [1997], ATC [1980, 1981], and NAVFAC [1992]. teria only recognizes two diaphragm categories, flexible
For further information on performance of wood structures and not, it is possible that there are diaphragms that are
in recent earthquakes see Section C805.5 best described as semi-rigid. Where shear walls are wood
Consideration of rigid diaphragm behavior is recom- framed, glued floor diaphragms in residential construction
mended where the diaphragms can be judged by observa- are thought to comfortably fall into the rigid diaphragm
tion to be stiff compared to the vertical lateral-force- category. Diaphragms with longer spans or without glue
resisting elements, and particularly where one or more may well fall into semi-rigid or flexible categories. Where
lines of resistance are substantially less stiff than the rest. shear walls are concrete or masonry, wood diaphragms
Due to many uncertainties that exist in rigid diaphragm with few exceptions can be categorized as flexible.
analysis for wood structures, use of an envelope consider- Another complicating factor is uncertainty in the as-
ing some combination of rigid and flexible analysis may signed shear wall stiffnesses and the stiffness contribution
be appropriate. See Sec. C805.3.1 for further discussion. of nonstructural elements. The intent of a rigid diaphragm
For small, substantially regular buildings that have a good analysis is to develop a lateral force distribution that is
distribution of lateral resistance and are well tied together, more realistic than that resulting from a flexible dia-
earthquake performance to date suggests that design using phragm analysis. Because the rigid diaphragm analysis
flexible diaphragm assumptions is adequate for Life-Safe generally considers only structural elements and not fin-
Performance. It has been suggested that one and two-fam- ishes or nonstructural elements, the resulting force distri-
ily residences be given blanket exemption from consider- bution may not always be more realistic than that resulting
ation of the applicability of rigid diaphragm analysis. Such from the flexible diaphragm analysis. This may be true
a blanket exemption does not, however, make sense from
258 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §805.3.2
where a significant number of nonstructural walls occur, n Equations are not available for calculation of shear
and also in lightly loaded shear walls where the stiffness wall deflections for bracing materials other than wood
may be controlled more by the finish than the structural structural panels.
sheathing. In response some designers include in the de- n Equations are not available for calculating diaphragm
sign a range (envelope) of possible shear wall forces, deflections using unblocked wood structural panel di-
which in some cases will encompass both the flexible and aphragms.
the rigid diaphragm solutions. n Behavior of diaphragms may fall somewhere between
rigid and flexible.
Diaphragm aspect ratios are yet another complicating
factor. The UBC criteria could result in the diaphragm be- As a result of aspects like these, the creation of fine-
ing classified as flexible in one direction and rigid in the tuned calculations of shear wall relative stiffness for pur-
other. In this case judgment would have to be exercised re- poses of lateral force distribution does not make a lot of
garding the ability of the diaphragm to redistribute forces. sense. It is necessary to apply engineering judgment to the
805.3.2 Rigid Diaphragm Analysis For Wood information available. Approximate methods of evaluat-
Framed Shear Walls. In order to perform a rigid dia- ing relative stiffness may be appropriate, and a simplified
phragm analysis it is necessary that the relative stiffness of evaluation of stiffness used with engineering judgment
shear wall piers and shear wall lines be established. There may well lead to more realistic results than a numerically
is currently, however, little consensus on the rules for es- rigorous method. Results from a number of shear walls
tablishing wood framed shear wall stiffness. The behavior tests using cyclic loading are now available to provide
of wood structural panel lateral force resisting systems un- guidance on load versus deflection [APA, 1993, 1996;
der actual earthquake loading has only had limited inves- ATC, 1995, Commins, 1996; Dolan, 1996, 1997a–c; Kara-
tigation to date and is not well understood. The non-linear cebeyli, 1998; NAHB, 1998].
behavior of wood lateral force resisting systems provides One numerically rigorous approach to determining
added complication. Equations for calculating diaphragm shear wall stiffness for lateral force distribution is the use
and shear wall deflections are currently provided in the of the shear wall deflection equations in UBC Standard 23-
UBC Standards, however while some shear wall testing 2. This equation includes four sources of shear wall deflec-
has demonstrated very good agreement with the deflection tion: chord member bending deflection, sheathing shear
equations, other testing has shown significant deviation deformation, sheathing nail slip, and tie down anchor slip.
[ATC, 1995; APA, 1993, 1996]. This results in a very complex stiffness calculation, and
In order to keep the issue of relative stiffness in per- may require several cycles of iteration of the lateral force
spective it helps to recall that there are a number of aspects distribution. Clearly this approach is not very practical.
in which the behavior of wood lateral force resisting sys- It is recommended that simplified approaches to deter-
tems differs from the structural models that are analyzed: mining shear wall stiffness be used when they can be dem-
n The behavior of wood structural panel lateral force re- onstrated to be applicable. One such approach involves
sisting systems is not linear-elastic, and is not very determining the relative contribution to deflection made
well understood beyond the range of design forces. by each of the four terms, and then using only those terms
The behavior under actual earthquake loading may in- that contribute significantly. Calculations generally show
validate many of the analytical assumptions that are that deflection is dominated by sheathing fastener slip and
normally made. tie down slip. In a structure that uses all wood structural
n The contributions of partition walls and wall, floor, panel sheathing and has shear walls with very minimal tie
and roof finishes and toppings in wood structures are down slip, the shear wall deflection can be thought of as
thought to have a significant influence on the behavior being proportional to only the nail deformation end from
of the lateral force resisting system, but there is no UBC Table 23-2-K. If the stiffness can be viewed as pro-
method available to designers to quantify this influ- portional to the nail deformation, it can also be taken as
ence. proportional to the wall length times the tabulated unit
n The load distributed to a shear wall can be significant- shear capacity. This greatly simplifies the calculation of
ly influenced by the stiffness of the element on which stiffness.
the wall is supported.
It is cautioned that the horizontal deflection of slender
shear walls due to tie down anchor slip can be significantly
greater than the deflection due to sheathing nail slip. It
September 1999 259

should also be kept in mind that tie down anchorage slip ommended. The introduction of a reduced R factor for
values published by manufacturers are often determined cantilevered columns in the 1997 UBC is partly in re-
using steel side posts and need to be increased to account sponse to the damage to tuck-under parking buildings ob-
for attachment to wood boundary members as well as other served in the Northridge Earthquake. Modification of
sources of uplift slip such as shrinkage of the wood fram- Section 105.4.4, for some common types of buildings, in
ing members. The vertical tie down anchor slip needs to be this edition of the Blue Book, now recommends the appli-
multiplied by the ratio of the shear wall height divided by cation of the lower R factor just to those elements that are
the shear wall length to provide the horizontal movement along the same line of resistance as the cantilevered col-
at the top of the shear wall. umns.
Although the majority of shear wall analysis only in- C805.4 Shear Wall Deformation
cludes walls with full height sheathing for calculation of UBC §2315.1 references Table 23-II-G for aspect ratio
capacity and stiffness, some designers do include consid- limits. For item number three, the vertical diaphragm ra-
eration of shear wall continuity above and below openings, tio—which used to be 3-1/2:1—is now 2:1, with the ex-
using models similar to coupling beams. One reference for ceptions given in the footnotes.
an engineered design approach is Diekmann [1982]. Test-
ing has recently been conducted on walls with openings Although seismic drift requirements have appeared in
designed using an empirical method by Dolan [1996, the UBC since the 1976 edition, it has not been general en-
1997a–c] and NAHB [1998]. This testing provides some gineering practice to calculate the drift of wood shear wall
indication of the load-deflection behavior for walls with structures and check for conformance. It has generally
openings. been felt that meeting the aspect ratio requirements pro-
vides adequate limitation of drift for wood shear walls.
Limited testing of diaphragms [APA, 1952, 1954, Testing reported in ATC [ATC, 1995] and in Dolan and
1955, 1967] suggests that the deflection of an unblocked Heine [1996] indicates that for aspect ratios higher than
diaphragm at its tabulated allowable shear capacity will be 2:1, wall drift increases significantly, and further that the
about 2.5 times the calculated deflection of a blocked dia- increase in deflection could not be adequately predicted
phragm of similar construction and dimensions, at the using the equations in UBC Standard 23-2.
same shear capacity. If diaphragm framing is spaced more
than 24” oc, testing indicates a further increase in deflec- Because of this deflection concern and damage to
tion of about 20% for unblocked diaphragms (e.g., to 3 slender shear walls observed after the 1994 Northridge
times the deflection of a comparable blocked diaphragm). earthquake, the UBC now limits shear wall aspect ratios to
This relationship can be used to develop an estimate of the 2:1 maximum for seismic zone 4, with an exception for
deflection of unblocked diaphragms. miscellaneous structures. This can be seen in Commentary
Section C803.2. The Blue Book recommends in Require-
Where a rigid diaphragm analysis is used to reduce ments Section 802.2 a more restrictive version of this re-
forces on slender shear walls, it should be kept in mind that quirement in which the 2:1 aspect ratio is also applied to
connection of the slender shear walls to the structural sys- seismic zone 3 and the exception for miscellaneous struc-
tem is still important to ensure that the slender wall will be tures is deleted.
able to move with the structure during earthquake loading.
Through continued testing by Simpson Strong-tie
It is also important to consider the relative stiffness of [Commins and Gregg, 1996], APA [1993, 1996], Dolan
wood shear walls compared to other types of vertical ele- and Heine [1997a–c]. and Forintek Canada Corp., meth-
ments that may be also be a part of the lateral force resist- ods to improve the performance of slender shear walls are
ing system. An example would be steel moment frames or being developed. As performance and ability to predict
cantilevered steel columns used in combination with wood drift are improved, it is expected that the maximum shear
shear walls. If the steel elements are quite flexible, the wall aspect ratio in high seismic zones will be allowed to
shear walls are likely to carry a larger portion of the story increase. Quality control for slender walls is an ongoing
shear than would be suggested by a tributary area analysis. concern.
The relative flexibility of steel elements may have contrib-
uted to damage to tuck-under parking (soft story) build- The printing of UBC Table 23-II-G in both Require-
ings during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake [Mendes, ments Section 802.2 and Commentary Section C803.2
1995]. A rigid diaphragm analysis or an envelope consid- may appear confusing. The version in Requirements Sec-
ering both rigid and flexible diaphragm behaviors is rec- tion 802.2 was submitted to ICBO for their consideration
260 September 1999

by SEAOC. As a result of debate by ICBO, the less restric- items indicated in the construction documents. In response
tive version shown in Commentary Section C803.2 was to the observed need for further guidance in design, detail-
adopted. Inadvertently the more restrictive version was in- ing, and inspection of wood frame lateral force resisting
cluded in early printings of the 1997 UBC. The proper systems, SEAOC has recently published two guidelines
printing of the 1997 UBC requirements appears in Com- documents [SEAOC, 1997a, 1997b].
mentary Section C803.2. The Blue Book recommends use
C805.7 Conventional Construction
of the more restrictive provisions that appear in Require-
ments Section 802.2. UBC Table 23-IV-C-2 Conventional Construction Crip-
ple Wall Bracing
At the time the aspect ratio limitation was proposed to
This new UBC Table requires greater lengths of bracing at
ICBO, the need for a definition to allow consistent appli-
cripple walls than in the past, as well as restricting the
cation of the ratio was identified. Practice in application
bracing material to structural wood panels. Generally at
varied from those that said the height was to be the full
cripple walls, only exterior sheathing is provided, and only
multistory height of the shear wall, to those that measured
at perimeter walls. This results in far less redundancy and
the height as floor-to-floor clear height. One interpretation
capacity for energy dissipation than occurs at occupied
used the cumulative height above each floor for the ratio,
floors. These restrictions are a result of damage observed
resulting in a stepped shear wall. The story clear height
in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
was chosen because it was the most common interpreta-
tion. From a rational standpoint, multistory shear walls C805.8 1997 Uniform Code for Building
with very high overturning forces act more like a single Conservation
cantilever, and application of the aspect ratio to the full Provisions contained in the Uniform Code for Building
multistory height might be more appropriate. Walls with Conservation (UCBC) are not automatically adopted at the
low overturning forces act more like floor-to-floor cantile- state or local level. They serve as model code guidance for
vers, so story clear height is probably reasonable. Regard- those writing state or local laws.
less of whether the aspect ratio is taken on a floor-to-floor
C805.8.1 Cripple Wall Bracing. New UCBC Appen-
or full-height basis, the overturning and resisting moments
dix Chapter 6 contains prescriptive provisions for anchor-
need to consider the cumulative effects of the lateral forces
ing and bracing cripple walls in existing wood frame
and gravity loads at all of the stories above.
construction. These provisions were drafted following
Due to recent testing, an understanding of all the dif- damage observed in the 1992 Cape Mendocino and earlier
ferent sources contributing to wall deflection is just start- earthquakes. Extensive damage to unbraced and unan-
ing to develop. Besides the contribution of the aspect ratio, chored cripple walls continues to be seen in most earth-
other sources include: sheathing sheet size, tie-down de- quakes.
vice slippage, cross-grain shrinkage of floor framing, C805.8.2 Tilt-Up Wall Anchorage. New UCBC Ap-
crushing of sills under compression loading, and fastener pendix Chapter 5 contains engineering provisions for seis-
slip between framing and sheathing. mic improvements to existing tilt-up wall structures.
C805.5 Earthquake Performance Damage to these structures has been seen repeatedly in
California earthquakes. The issue of proper anchorage to
A number of publications describe recent observations of
wood diaphragms is also applicable to masonry and cast-
earthquake performance of wood frame structures. In-
in-place concrete wall construction. See Provisions Sec.
cluded are APA [1994], Cobeen [1996], EERI [1996], Fo-
C108.2.8.
liente [1994, 1997], Hamburger [1995], SEAOC [1991],
and Schierle [1993]. C805.9 Ordinances
C805.6 Detailing There are a variety of ordinances adopted by or being con-
sidered for adoption by local jurisdictions. Included are
There has long been concern over the observed lack of
modified shear wall requirements, provisions for hillside
conformance of as-built engineered wood light frame con-
dwellings, and provisions for soft-story apartment build-
struction with building code requirements. This noncon-
ings.
formance has typically been discovered during destructive
testing associated with litigation. Problem areas include
both inadequate or incomplete information included in the
construction documents, and inadequate construction of
September 1999 261

References BSSC, 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for

Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (FEMA 302,
AF&PA, 1996. Wood Construction Manual. American 303). Building Seismic Safety Council,
Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C. Washington D.C.
APA, 1997. Design/Construction Guide—Diaphragms Cobeen, K.E., 1998. “State of the Practice in Design of
and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood Light-Frame Wood Structures,” Performance of Wood
Association, Tacoma, Washington. Structures. SEAONC 1998 Summer Seminar,
APA, 1996. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls With Structural Engineers Association of Northern
Gypsum Wall Board and Window/Door Openings, California, San Francisco, California.
Report 157. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Cobeen, K.E., 1996. “Performance Based Design of
Washington. Wood Structures,” Proceedings, Annual SEAOC
APA, 1993, Revised. Wood Structural Panel Shear Convention. Structural Engineers Association of
Walls. Report 154, Engineered Wood Association, California, Sacramento, California.
Tacoma, Washington. Commins, A. and Gregg, R., 1996. Effect of Hold-
APA, 1994. Northridge, California Earthquake, Report Downs and Stud-Frame Systems on the Cyclic
T94-5. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma Behavior of Wood Shear Walls, Simpson Strong-Tie
Washington. Co., Pleasanton, California.
APA, 1967. Laboratory Report 55, APA the Engineered Diekmann, 1982. “Design of Wood Diaphragms,” Fourth
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. Revised Clark C. Heriage Memorial Workshop on Wood.
1968. [out of print]. Materials Education Council, Materials Research
Laboratory, Pensylvania State Univedrsity, University
APA, 1955. Laboratory Report 63A, APA the Engineered Park, Pennsylvania.
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of
print]. Dolan, J.D., 1996. Experimental Results from Cyclic
Racking Tests of Wood Shear Walls with
APA, 1954. Laboratory Report 63, APA the Engineered Openings.Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1996-
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of 001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
print]. University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
APA, 1952. Laboratory Report 55, APA the Engineered Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997a. Monotonic Tests of
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of Wood-frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and
print]. Base Restraint Configurations. Timber Engineering
ATC, 1980. Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Report No. TE-1997-001. Virginia Polytechnic
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC 7-1. Applied Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b. Sequential Phased
ATC, 1981. Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal Wood Displacement Cyclic Tests of Wood-frame Shear
Diaphragms, ATC 7. Applied Technology Council, Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain
Redwood City, California. Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-
1997-002. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
ATC, 1995. Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Walls, ATC R-1. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California. Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997c. Sequential Phased
Displacement Tests of Wood-frame Shear Walls with
ASCE, 1995a. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings Corners. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1997-
and Other Structures. ASCE 7-95. American Society 003. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
ASCE, 1995b. Standard for Load and Resistance Factor EERI, 1996. “Northridge Earthquake of January 17,
Design (LRFD) for Engineered Wood Construction. 1994, Reconnaissance Report,” Earthquake Spectra.
ASCE 16-95. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, New York.
262 September 1999

Vol. 11, Supplement C. Earthquake Engineering Mendes, S., 1995. “Wood Diaphragms: Rigid Versus
Research Institute, Oakland, California. Flexible Inappropriate Assumptions Can Cause
Failure of Shear Walls,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC
Ficcadenti, S.J., T.A. Castle, D.A. Sandercock, and R.K.
Convention. Structural Engineers Association of
Kazanjy, 1996. “Laboratory Testing to Investigate
California, Sacramento, California.
Pneumatically Driven box Nails for the Edge nailing
of 3/8” Plywood Shear Walls,” Proceedings: Annual NAHB, 1998. “Performance of Perforated Shear Walls
SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association with Narrow Wall Segments,” Reduced Base Restraint
of California, Sacramento, California. and Alternative Framing Methods. National
Association of Home Builders Research Center, Inc.,
Foliente, Greg C., 1994. Analysis, Design and Testing of
Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
Timber Structures Under Seismic Loads, University of
California Forest Products Laboratory, Richmond, NAVFAC, Seismic Design for Buildings, Technical
California. Manual 5-809-10, NAV FAC P-355, Air Force
Manual No. 88-3, Department of the Army, Navy, and
Foliente, Greg C., 1997. Earthquake Performance and
Air Force, Washington D.C.
Safety of Timber Structures. Forest Products Society,
Madison, Wisconsin. Schierle, G.G., 1993. Quality Control In Seismic
Resistant Construction: Report to the National
Hamburger, R.O. and D.L. McCormick, 1995.
Science Foundation. Department of Architecture,
“Implications of the January 17, 1994 Northridge
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
Earthquake on tilt-up and Masonry Buildings with
California.
Wood,” Northridge Earthquake: Lessons Learned.
SEAONC 1994 Spring Seminar. Structural Engineers SEAOC, 1991. Reflections on the Loma Prieta
Association of Northern California, San Francisco, Earthquake October 17, 1989. Structural Engineers
California. Association of California, Sacramento, California.
Hamburger, R.O., 1995. “Lessons Learned in the SEAOC, 1997a. Seismic Detailing Examples for
Northridge Earthquake on Wood Frame Buildings,” Engineered Light-frame Timber Construction.
Northridge Earthquake: Lessons Learned. SEAONC Structural Engineers Association of California,
1994 Spring Seminar. Structural Engineers Sacramento, California.
Association of Northern California, San Francisco,
SEAOC, 1997b. Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear
California.
Walls. Structural Engineers Association of California,
Karacebeyli, E. and Ceccotti, A., 1998. “Nailed Wood- Sacramento, California.
Framed Shear Walls for Seismic Loads: Test Results
Steinbrugge, J.M., V.R. Bush, and J.R. Johnson, 1994.
and Design considerations,” Proccedings of the
“Standard of Care in Structural Engineering —Wood
Structural Engineers World Congress. American
Frame Multiple Housing,” Proccedings of the 63rd
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association
of California, Sacramento, California.
September 1999 263

Figure C804-1. Subdiaphragm
264 September 1999

Figure C804-2. Earthquake forces— Figure C804-3. Earthquake forces—

regular diaphragm cantilevered diaphragm
Figure C804-4. Earthquake forces—building with rotation
September 1999 265

266 September 1999

CHAPTER 9
Other Materials
C901 General Requirements and gypsum wallboard. Allowable load values have been
specified in past codes and are also specified in the 1997
The UBC, in Section 104.2.8, permits use of alternative
UBC.
materials and alternative methods of design and construc-
tion. SEAOC endorses and encourages the proper use of Both tests and earthquake experience have led to re-
alternative materials (i.e., “other materials”) in lateral ductions in recent years to the allowable shear values for
force-resisting systems. Because a number of new kinds of gypsum wallboard assemblies. Tests [Gray and Zacher,
“other materials” are coming into use in lateral force-seis- 1985; Rihal and Granneman, 1985] have shown that re-
mic systems, and in structural systems in general, some versed cyclic loading, representative of moderate to major
general acceptance framework is required. The General earthquake response, can cause a significant degradation
Requirements of Section 901 are intended to provide this in the static one-way shear capacity of gypsum sheathing.
by describing the essential requirements for seismic de- Previous to the 1994 UBC, allowable stress values were
sign. These are intended to make designs using other ma- based on one-way loading tests. Beginning in the 1994
terials consistent in life-safety performance with those of UBC, the degradation of capacity effects is now represent-
conventional materials (e.g., reinforced concrete and ma- ed by a reduction factor of one-half of the static capacity
sonry, steel, wood). formerly permitted (in the 1991 UBC and earlier editions).
It should be noted that this chapter deals with only
C904 Fiber Reinforced Polymers
seismic design aspects. Any use of “other materials” in
seismic design also requires that the materials and use be (FRP)
at least equivalent in such other aspects prescribed in the There are two distinct FRP systems - glass-epoxy compos-
code, including suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire re- ite and carbon-epoxy composite - that make them suitable
sistance, durability, safety, and sanitation. for use as structural materials. Their high strength-to-
The broad requirements of this chapter are intended to weight ratio, high stiffness-to-weight ratio and corrosion-
include, but not be limited to, such “other materials” as: resistance may be beneficial in some new construction ap-
plications.
1. Fiber reinforced polymers
2. Styrofoam building forms For instance, the incorporation of FRP with concrete
3. Plastics columns, piers, and piles can improve the compressive,
flexural and shear strengths and ductility of these concrete
4. Composite materials
members, relative to conventional construction without
FRP. In columns, for instance, an FRP exterior shell not
only serves as the form during construction, but the FRP
to 1997 UBC shell prevents or retards the intrusion of moisture, thereby
None. helping to prevent or retard both environmental degrada-
tion of the concrete and corrosion of any steel reinforce-
C903 Other Sheathing Materials ment. The use of prefabricated FRP column forms allows
for the design of longitudinal and transverse strength into
For a number of years, the UBC has permitted use of shear the form. Such designs provide exceptional levels of con-
wall assemblies made with fiberboard, lath and plaster, finement and shear capacity. Axial load capacity (associ-
September 1999 267

ated with cyclic seismic loading) is also increased as the lithic wall. The construction form may consist of either
ultimate strain capacity of confined concrete increases. styrofoam blocks - similar to concrete blocks - or pre-as-
The reduced-diameter of FRP-concrete columns com- sembled wall elements that are comprised of a compres-
pared to conventional construction has been used in park- sion molded styrofoam pellet/cement paste composite.
ing garage or other applications where space is a These systems tend to be lightweight, well-insulated, easy
consideration. to construct and offer good resistance to fire, sound and
pests.
FRP have been used as cables, tendons and reinforc-
ing bars. FRP are used in suspension and stay cables for
bridges and as reinforcing and pre-stressing tendons in
C906 Plastics
various concrete structural members. Compared to con- Glass reinforced plastic (GRP) has been used to repair or
ventional steel cables and tendons, FRP have the advan- even replace severely corroded sewer structures and ap-
tage of excellent tensile strength, resistance to corrosion purtenances. For example, a GRP sewer manhole is a
and fatigue, low weight, thus reducing the “sag” in cables, lightweight, flexible and corrosion resistant shell structure
low creep and relaxation loss, low coefficient of expan- compared to concrete or masonry manholes.
sion, and no electromagnetic interference. However, their
Flexible, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
higher initial cost must be considered against reduced life-
corrugated pipes are cost efficient alternatives to rigid, re-
cycle cost. Also, FRP cables and tendons still need to be
inforced and non-reinforced concrete or clay pipes in non-
protected against corrosion in special environments or ap-
pressure applications. Flexible pipe materials have the ad-
plications. Furthermore, FRP reinforcing bar has been
vantage to deflect under load with little or no structural
used as an alternative to steel reinforcing bar in reinforced
damage. The flexibility of buried pipes is particularly ad-
concrete structures as bridge decks, parking structures,
vantageous due to minor ground motions or settlement
marine structures and chemical plants, especially those ex-
from seismic events.
posed to harsh environment.
FRP pultruded structural shapes have been used as C907 Composite Materials
beam, column, or truss members to replace conventional
Composite material fabrics have been used to strengthen
steel shapes to take advantage of their high stiffness and
or repair concrete and masonry structures. A typical fabric
strength-to-weight ratio. They are used in bridges, build-
combines high tensile strength carbon fibers in a polymer
ing structures, as posts and piling in waterfront structures,
matrix to create a lightweight composite sheet that can be
and utility poles in utility distribution systems. They are
tailored to increase shear and flexural strength, load-bear-
especially suitable in corrosive environments and where
ing capacity, and ductility to beams, slabs, and walls. Ad-
their lightweight presents advantage in installation, trans-
ditionally the fabric can be used to control crack
portation or construction. The connections of FRP to FRP
propagation or preserve architectural aesthetics.
or to steel or other materials are done through combination
of mechanical and adhesive bonding methods. Pultruded
structural shapes available are similar to conventional steel
sections, as Angle, Channel, I, Tube, and bars, but also can
be optimized to increase their stiffness and/or strength, as References
in “I” beam with double web and cross-web reinforce-
ment. Gray, R.G. and Zacher, E.G., 1985. “Dynamic Tests of
Wood Framed Shear Panels,” SEAOC Convention
The timber industry is also producing new glue-lami- Proceedings. Structural Engineers Association of
nated beams that incorporate FRP layers in their construc- California, Sacramento, California.
tion, which makes them lighter, stronger and stiffer than
their all-wood construction counterpart. Rihal, S.S. and Granneman, G., 1985. Dynamic Testing of
Wood-Framed Building Partitions. California
C905 Styrofoam Building Forms Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,
California, Report ARCE-85-1. Prepared for National
Construction alternatives to wood frame and concrete Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Grant No.
block structures are systems that use styrofoam blocks or CEE-81-17965.
pre-assembled wall units that (a) serve as the concrete
form for the walls and (b) serve as a well insulated, mono-
268 September 1999

Appendices
SEAOC Blue Book Appendix A—Zone Coefficient and Near Source Factors
APPENDIX A
Seismic Zone Coefficient
and Near Source Factors
Introduction which, when used with the regulations, would result in a

building design having acceptable life-safety in the ex-
This edition of the Blue Book specifies the design base
treme earthquake ground motions likely to occur at the
shear in a new way compared to that of prior editions.
site. The calculated values were truncated at an upper
Among the several changes are the way in which the base
bound of 0.40g based on engineering judgement and a rec-
shear coefficient is determined and the influence of soil
ognition that the static design base shear is used to repre-
type on the values used. This Appendix discusses the
sent the dynamic, rapidly reversing ground motions of an
changes in characterization of the ground motion for de-
earthquake.
sign, and Appendix B discusses the influence of soil type.
Both influence the design ground motions recommended Until recently this has proven to be an acceptable ap-
in these Requirements. proach, given our previous understanding of ground mo-
tions and observations of building performance.
Previous editions of the Blue Book described seismic
Experience in recent earthquakes, however, has chal-
loading in terms of the Z coefficient. This 1999 edition re-
lenged these assumptions, and this edition of the Blue
quires use of the Ca and Cv coefficient to more adequately
Book specifies ground motion for design application in a
characterize ground motions, particularly in the near field new way that recognizes the characteristics of ground mo-
region. Ca and Cv depend on the seismic zone factor Z, the tions near the fault rupture, in addition to the representa-
type of fault (Type A, B and C), the distance to the fault tion of the ground motion within the zone as a whole.
projection, and the type of soil at the site (Si).
The design base shear now depends on:
The ground motion value used in design describes the ■ Seismic zone (Z), as used in prior editions
seismic setting of the building site. The new ground mo- ■ Near-source coefficients (Na , Nv) that depend on
tion value recognizes that near-source accelerations will the distance from a causative fault, its type, and
be significantly higher than those used in design based on the magnitude earthquake likely to occur
the zone, Z, coefficient of previous editions of the Blue ■ Soil type (Si )
Book. It is dependent on the earthquake environment of
the site, that is, the when, where and with what effects Compared to base shear values in previous editions of
earthquakes can occur from all sources. The accepted way the Blue Book, the near-source coefficient could dictate
to determine the seismic exposure for a site is to perform a that the maximum base shear be as much as two times
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) that consid- higher for velocity controlled sites (Nv ), and 1.5 times
ers all possible locations of earthquakes, their magnitudes higher for acceleration controlled sites (Na ). This appen-
and attenuation to the site, weighted by the probabilities of dix discusses in more detail the reasoning behind adoption
different values for each. Such analyses are not practical of the near-source factors.
for most projects. Prior editions of these Requirements
have depended on the results of large-scale PSHAs com- Z Coefficient
pleted by the USGS to determine seismic zones. The re-
sults of these analyses were examined and zones drawn to The seismic hazard of a site depends on both the intensity
represent best judgement of the seismic design coefficient, of ground shaking in an earthquake and the frequency of
occurrence of the earthquake. The earliest seismic hazard
September 1999 271

Zone Coefficient and Near Source Factors—Appendix A SEAOC Blue Book
maps incorporated into building codes were based on the Importance of Geologic Data
maximum ground shaking likely in a region. The difficulty
Geologic information was particularly useful in develop-
with this approach was that it conveyed no information
ing the seismic zone map. The importance of geologic data
about the frequency of their occurrence, and thereby
in evaluating earthquake potential is widely acknowledged
placed areas with very different earthquake experiences in
[Allen, 1975]. The ATC maps and the maps by Algermis-
the same zone. The next generation of maps incorporated
sen, et al. are based principally on the historical record of
frequency of occurrence into the mapping process, thereby
earthquake occurrences, which for California is short com-
jointly considering the intensity of ground motion and the
pared to the repeat time of a major earthquake, even on the
frequency of occurrence in a consistent manner. A
most active of faults. Reliance on the historic record alone
smoothed version of this map, with a maximum design
could lead to areas of significant risk not being identified
value of 0.40, has been the basis for SEAOC Requirements
only because there have not been earthquakes felt in re-
in several prior editions, and remains so in this edition,
corded history. To accommodate this deficiency in the
with modifications as discussed in Sections 104.4.2 and
record, geologic data also were considered in the drawing
104.4.3.
of zones, particularly data on fault slip rates.
The Z coefficient, or seismic zone coefficient, is de-
On the basis of available geologic information, Zones
termined from Figure 104-1 (see Requirements) and Ta-
3 and 4 were extended in southeastern California to en-
bles 104-9 and 104-10 and is used to determine the design
compass the Garlock fault, faults in the Sierra Mountains,
base shear. The Z coefficient takes into account geograph-
and the Coast Range/Sierra Nevada Boundary Zone on the
ical variations in the expected levels of earthquake ground
west boundary of the Great Valley.
shaking and frequency or probability of occurrence for dif-
ferent levels of shaking. Evidence for such variations can These geologically-based modifications are believed
be found both in the historical record of earthquake effects to accommodate and augment the short-term and narrow
and in the spatial distribution of the major fault systems geographic basis of the record of felt earthquakes. These
considered likely to produce significant earthquakes. modifications were made to be make the zone map consis-
tent with the performance criterion that the Z coefficient
The zone map for California is shown in Figure 104-1
should correspond to a level of ground motion values with
(see Requirements). This is the same map as used in prior
a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
editions of these Requirements. It is based on maps pre-
pared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) [ATC 3-
06, 1978] and incorporates modifications that reflect other
Near-Source Ground Motions
sources of information, including maps of acceleration and The maximum ground motion (effective peak accelera-
velocity published by Algermissen et al. [1976, 1982], and tion) used in prior editions of these Requirements is 0.40g
geologic data. The ATC maps show estimated peak hori- for Zone 4. The authors of the ATC 3-06 Commentary
zontal acceleration on rock with a 10 percent probability of [ATC 3-06, 1978] acknowledged the possibility of near-
being exceeded in a 50-year period. The ATC maps show fault ground motion higher than that corresponding to
both the effective peak acceleration (EPA) on rock, which Z=0.4. A peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) of
controls the short period (constant acceleration) design over 1.1g was recorded at the Pacoima Dam during the
base shear, and an acceleration coefficient related to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. At the time some consid-
effective peak velocity (EPV) on rock, which controls the ered this record to be an anomaly. Now we understand that
longer period base shear (constant velocity on a tripartite this was not an anomaly, but an indication of the complex-
spectrum). See Commentary Figure C104-1. ity of ground motions near the causative fault. The record-
ing site was very close to the fault rupture and on a
In preparing the zone map (Figure 104-1), both the
promontory near the dam, and the large, peak acceleration
EPA and the acceleration coefficient related to EPV were
in this record is probably attributable to topographic am-
examined, and the higher value was used to determine the
plification [Boore, 1973]. The observed initial long-period
map boundaries. The Z values for Zones 3 and 4, respec-
large pulse in the Pacoima record is now understood to be
tively, are 0.3 and 0.4 from UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R. It
due to near-fault rupture directivity effects. Further evi-
was intended that each zone be large for uniform regula-
dence that near-fault effects are mainly manifested at in-
tion and that the boundary between Zone 3 and Zone 4 cor-
termediate and long periods was provided by the 1979
respond to an effective peak acceleration of 0.3g.
Imperial Valley earthquake. The numerous recordings of
this earthquake confirmed the existence of a narrow zone
272 September 1999

of high ground motion amplification within 5 miles of the Mendocino, 1992 Petrolia earthquake). When forward
causative fault in which the one-second response increased rupture directivity effects are present, large peak accelera-
by a factor of 2. The one-second response in the 1979 Im- tions are accompanied by strong velocity pulses, which
perial Valley earthquake (Richter local magnitude 6.6) did can significantly affect the response of structures at long
not greatly exceed the Zone 4 spectrum values, which was periods. Such pulses were recorded along the El Centro
reassuring, but the response could have been substantially Array during the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. The in-
greater in an earthquake of larger magnitude that could oc- struments of this array are located at about 3 km intervals
cur at the causative fault. along a line that runs across and perpendicular to the
Brawley and Imperial faults. These faults ruptured and
It is now recognized that ground motions at locations
very strong, long-period pulses were recorded at array
in Zone 4 near the fault rupture require special attention to
sites close to the fault rupture in the direction perpendicu-
account for increased values, particularly for structures
lar to the plane of fault rupture.
with periods greater than about 0.3 second.
The number of records close to fault rupture approxi-
Until recently, neither strong motion recordings nor
mately doubled after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, in
historical data on performance of structures were adequate
part because instruments located above the fault rupture
for empirical determination of design ground motion val-
are considered to be at zero distance from the rupture, us-
ues close to faults capable of producing ground motions
ing the definition of distance from site to fault rupture in
with an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater. Current
these Requirements (Figure AppA-1). The hanging wall
near-fault ground motion prediction models developed by
effect caused large peak accelerations on the hanging wall
different authors are in quite close agreement for soils
in the San Fernando Valley [Abrahamson and Somerville,
sites, but differ for rock sites [Abrahamson and Shedlock,
1996], while the rupture directivity effect caused large ac-
1997]. The increase with magnitude is larger for long-pe-
celerations and long period ground motions further north
riod motions than for short-period motions.
around the top edge of the fault. The distance measure
Earlier editions of these Requirements advised juris- used for the near-source factor accommodates the hanging
dictions close to major faults to have special zoning stud- wall effect in an approximate manner (see Commentary
ies done, as was recommended in the ATC-3 Commentary Figure C104-2).
[ATC 3-06, 1978]. A regular structure, which was well de-
Table AppA-2 summarizes ground shaking data from
signed in accordance with the Requirements for Zone 4,
the 1994 Northridge earthquake recorded at sites 15 km or
was expected to have a sufficient margin of safety to ac-
less from the fault rupture. Six of these near-source sites
commodate the larger possible motions near the major
were located over the plane of fault rupture, as indicated
faults. However, SEAOC urged the engineer and building
by a 0 km distance to fault rupture. The average PGA for
official to exercise special care such that the provisions of
these sites was over 0.7g, and the average acceleration re-
these Requirements and principles of good engineering
sponse at a period of 1.0 seconds was typically over 0.9g.
practice are fully met so that full margins of safety are re-
In contrast, the response spectrum in the 1996 edition of
alized for designs. Particularly noted were sites within 5
the Blue Book was anchored to an effective peak ground
miles of the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Imperial, and Gar-
acceleration (EPA) of Z = 0.4g, has a 1-second accelera-
lock faults and for buildings with periods greater than 0.3
tion response of 0.4g for rock sites and about 0.6g for soil
second. Distance to the listed faults could be determined
sites. As Table AppA-2 illustrates, response decreases
easily using Alquist-Priolo maps published by the Califor-
with distance, and at about 10 km distance from the fault,
nia Division of Mines and Geology at a scale of 1:24,000
rupture response values are approximately consistent with
(about 2.6 inches to the mile).
the current spectrum (anchored to an EPA of Z = 0.4g).
There were only a limited number of ground motion
The 1995 Kobe earthquake gives a large-scale illustra-
records close to fault ruptures (e.g., within about 5 km of
tion of the difference that near-source ground motions
fault rupture) prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Ta-
make on the performance of structures. The Kobe earth-
ble AppA-1 lists these records and summarizes the magni-
quake affected a modern urban region. Over 5,000 people
tude and earthquake source for each. Since 1971,
were killed, 35,000 injured, and 300,000 left homeless.
instruments located on rock or stiff soil sites close to a
The earthquake and the ensuing fire destroyed more than
fault rupture of large-magnitude earthquakes have record-
150,000 buildings. Ground shaking in Kobe was intense,
ed peak ground accelerations ranging from 0.6g (Corrali-
but of relatively short duration and typical of ground mo-
tos, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake) to about 2.0g (Cape
September 1999 273

tion recorded close to fault rupture in California. The pri- strike-slip and reverse-slip source mechanisms. In both
mary cause of strong ground shaking felt throughout Kobe cases, median (50th percentile) predictions of the “ran-
was the proximity of the city to the fault rupture. The near- dom” horizontal component were used to estimate near-
fault shaking was amplified by basin edge effects along a source accelerations. As such, the near-source factor rep-
narrow zone that ran through Kobe and adjacent cities par- resents typical horizontal ground shaking and is not in-
allel to the edge of the Osaka basin [Kawase, 1996; Pitarka tended to account for higher levels of shaking that occur
et al., 1998]. Near-source ground shaking records from due to the inherent variability (uncertainty) of ground mo-
Kobe contained a few very strong, long-period pulses, tion. It is intended to represent a median response, not an
similar to near-source records from California earthquakes upper bound ground motion in the strongest possible (e.g.,
such as Northridge. Like Northridge, these pulses were fault normal) direction of shaking. Near field effects are
also typically much stronger in the direction of shaking subject to the same types of uncertainties as are other
normal to the plane of fault rupture [Somerville 1997, ground motions predictions.
Somerville et al., 1997].
Evaluation of the near-source factor requires knowl-
It is estimated that prior to the earthquake there were edge of the location, dip angle (for nonvertical faults),
about 700,000 buildings in Kobe and other nearby cities. maximum moment magnitude potential, and slip rate (ac-
About 375,000 of these buildings were located within 5 tivity level) of faults. The location and dip angle are re-
km of the fault rupture [Kircher, 1996]. The damage sur- quired to determine the geometry of the fault plane and
vey by the Architectural Institute of Japan reported that distance from the site to surface projection of the fault rup-
144,032 buildings collapsed or were severely damaged, ture plane. The surface projection of vertical fault plane
[AIJ, 1995]. Of particular interest, about 90 percent- (e.g., strike-slip faults) is simply a line along the surface.
131,355 of the 144,032-of these were located within 5 km The surface projection of nonvertical fault planes has
of fault rupture. In contrast, buildings in Osaka account for some nonzero width based on the dip angle and fault
only about 1 percent of all buildings that collapsed during depth. The method of determining distance from a nonver-
the Kobe earthquake. Osaka is located about 10 km to 30 tical fault in accordance with these Requirements is illus-
km from Kobe and has an even greater number of the types trated in Commentary Figure C104-2. Portions of faults
of buildings that collapsed in Kobe. deeper than 10 km need not be included in the determina-
tion of the surface projection of the fault rupture. Fault lo-
These observations dramatically show by both ground
cation may be determined from maps of known faults
motion recordings and observed damage to buildings that
prepared by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) or
earthquake loading conditions in the near-source region
the California Department of Conservation Division of
subject buildings to more severe conditions than previous-
Mines and Geology (CDMG). A detailed map of faults in
ly assumed.
California has been updated by Jennings [CDMG, 1994].
Near-Source Factor The maximum moment magnitude, M, and slip rate,
SR, are used to classify active seismic source types. Active
The near-source factor is best described by distinguishing
seismic sources are limited to those faults that are known
between the short period (acceleration) and long period
to have been active during Holocene times (in the past
(velocity) domains, since the effect is substantially greater
about 11,000 years). Type A sources are faults that have a
at longer periods. This distinction is made through the use
moment magnitude potential of M greater than or equal to
of the Na and Nv factors. The values for the Na factor are
7.0 and a slip rate, SR, equal to or greater than 5 mm/year.
based on the ratio of 0.3 second response predicted by the These types of faults are considered to be active and capa-
median estimates of ground motion attenuation functions ble of producing large magnitude events. Most segments
to the 0.3 second response of the UBC spectrum for stiff of the San Andreas fault are classified as a Type A faults.
soil anchored at an EPA of Z = 0.4g. The Nv factor is sim- Type C sources are those faults that have a moment mag-
ilarly derived for the 1.0-second period. nitude potential of M less than 6.5 and a slip rate less than
The average of two well-known attenuation functions or equal to 2 mm/year. Such faults are considered to have
was used to estimate 1.0-second response for a stiff soil been fairly inactive in the Holocene time period, because
site: Boore, Joyner and Fumal [1993] was used as the av- of the low slip rate, and not capable of producing large
erage prediction for Site “B” and Site “C” soils, and Sa- magnitude events, because of the magnitude limit. There-
digh et al. [1986] was used as the average prediction for fore, the potential near-source ground shaking effects can
be ignored as lower order risks and the ground motion at
274 September 1999

nearby locations are not likely to be much greater than Procedures for determining Na and Nv values in un-
those predicted by conventional analysis of the probabilis- mapped Seismic Zone 4 areas are provided in the Pream-
tic hazard. Type B sources are all faults that are not either ble to the ICBO maps. Some seismic sources were
Type A or Type C, and include many faults in California. intentionally excluded from these maps. The excluded
Most U.S. faults in the contiguous 48-states outside of Cal- sources include some known active blind thrust faults
ifornia are Type C. (faults whose rupture during earthquakes does not extend
It was the judgement of the Seismology Committee to the ground surface) and active faults with low slip rates.
that only sites within Seismic Zone 4 be subject to near- These faults were excluded based on comparisons made
source factor increases. A recent compilation of data on all between the 1997 UBC design ground motions and future
faults in the western United States has been made by the 2000 IBC design ground motions.
USGS as a part of Project 97, a national seismic hazard The 2000 International Building Code (IBC) will be
mapping project [Frankel et al., 1996]. based on design maps developed from the USGS Project
It is expected that any earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or 97 Ground Motion Project. When the excluded faults are
greater, regardless of where it occurs, will have the same evaluated on a probabilistic basis using the Project 97
type of near-source ground motion characteristics dis- Ground Motion map values, the design ground motions ei-
cussed in these Requirements. The primary discriminate ther only marginally exceed (by less than 10 percent) or
between whether a fault capable of producing a given are less than the 1997 UBC design ground motions with
magnitude earthquake warrants a near-source factor or not Na=Nv=1.0. Furthermore, since the proposed 2000 IBC in-
is the slip rate. Faults that have slow strain accumulation cludes a probabilistic ceiling, it did not seem prudent to
(e.g., Type C faults) were evaluated by the Seismology temporarily increase ground motions above the UBC Seis-
Committee as not warranting special consideration. Own- mic Zone 4 design values for the blind thrust zones and
ers and designers who desire more reliable earthquake per- low slip rate faults because the ground motions would re-
formance for structures at sites close to Type B or C vert to pre-1997 levels when the 2000 IBC is implement-
delineated faults may want to use the Type A ground mo- ed. For more information on the maps proposed for the
tion modification factors, regardless of the seismic zone 2000 IBC, see Appendix A of the 1997 NEHRP Provision
designation. When a given magnitude earthquake occurs, Commentary.
it is unlikely that the ground motions will differ apprecia-
bly based on the slip rate that led to the accumulation of
sufficient strain to cause the fault rupture. Many recent
damaging California earthquakes have occurred on faults
with a slip rate below the threshold for classification as
Type B. References
The Annual Business Meeting (ABM) of ICBO in St. Abrahamson, N.A. and K Shedlock (1997). Overview:
Paul in September of 1996 adopted the near-source factor Ground motion models, Seismological Research
with the condition that seismic zone maps be prepared, Letters, 68, 9-23.
with street maps as background, at a sufficient detail that
location of building sites relative to faults could be easily Abrahamson, N.A. and P. Somerville (1996). “Effects of
determined. While at the ABM, the Structural Engineers hanging wall and footwall on ground motion recorded
Association of California obtained the agreement of during the Northridge earthquake,” Bulletin of the
CDMG to prepare maps for Seismic Zone 4 areas in Cali- Seismological Society of America, Vol.86, 593-599.
fornia and the USGS for maps outside of California and AIJ, 1995. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report of the
the agreement of ICBO to publish the maps. In February 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Architectural
of 1998, ICBO published the near-source maps for Cali- Institute of Japan, Tokyo.
fornia and adjoining areas in Nevada [ICBO, 1998]. The
maps show the location of Type A and B faults in Califor- Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L.
nia and adjacent Nevada, based on the criteria specified in Hansen, and B.L. Bender, 1982. Probabilistic
Requirements Section 104.4.2. It is intended that these Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in
maps be used as the basis for determining Na and Nv. Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 82-1033.
September 1999 275

Algermissen, S.T., and D.M. Perkins, 1976. A Joyner, W.B., and D.M. Boore, 1981. “Peak Horizontal
Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Acceleration and Velocity From Strong-Motion
Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological Records Including Records From the 1979 Imperial
Survey Open-File Report 76-416. Valley, California, Earthquake,” Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 71, El Cerrito,
Allen, C.R., 1975. “Geological Criteria for Evaluating
California.
Seismicity,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America, Vol. 86. Kawase, H (1996). The cause of the damage belt in Kobe:
“The Basin-Edge Effect,” constructive interference of
ATC 3-06, 1978. Tentative Provisions for the
the direct S-wave with the basin-induced diffracted/
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings.
Rayleigh waves, Seismological Research Letters, 67,
ATC 3-06, Applied Technology Council, Redwood
25-34.
City, California.
Kircher, C.A., “The Kobe earthquake: Ground Shaking,
Boore, D.M., 1973. The effect of simple topography on
Damage and Loss,” ASCE Structures Congress ‘96,
seismic waves: implications for accelerograms
April 15-19, 1996, American Society of Civil
recorded at Pacoima Dam, San Fernando Valley,
Engineers, Washington DC.
California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 73, 1603-1609. McGuire, R.K., 1974. “Seismic Structural Response Risk
Analysis, Incorporating Peak Response Regressions
Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner and T.E. Fumal, 1993,
on Earthquake Magnitude and Distance,” Research
“Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Report R74-51, Dept. Civil Engineering,
Accelerations from Western North American
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Earthquakes: An Interim Report,” U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 93-509 Pitarka, A, K. Irikura, T. Iwata and H. Sekiguchi (1998).
Three-dimensional simulation of the near-fault ground
California Department of Conservation Division of Mines
motions for the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe)
and Geology (CDMG), 1994, Geologic Data Map No
earthquake.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
6, prepared by C. Jennings, CDMG, Sacramento
America. Vol.88.
California, 1994.
Sadigh, K., J. Egan, R. Youngs, 1986, “Specification of
Campbell, K. W., 1988. “Predicting Strong Ground
Ground Motion for Seismic Design of Long Period
Motion in Utah,” Evaluation of Regional and Urban
Structures” (abs.), Earthquake Notes, 57, 13.
Earthquake Hazards in Utah, W.W. Hays and P. L.
Gori, Editors, USGS Professional Paper. Somerville, P.G., N.F. Smith, R.W. Graves and N.A.
Abrahamson (1997). Modifications of empirical
Donovan, N. C. and A. E. Bornstein, 1978. “Uncertainties
strong ground motion attenuation relations to include
in Seismic Risk Procedures,” Journal of the
the amplitude and duration effects of rupture
Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE, Vol. 104,
directivity, Seismological Research Letters, 68, 199-
no. GT7.
222.
Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E.V.
Somerville, P.G., (1997). “Forward Rupture Directivity in
Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, M. Hopper,
the Kobe and Northridge Earthquakes, and
1996, “Interim National Seismic Hazard Maps:
Implications for Structural Engineers,” Seventh U.S.-
Documentation,” U.S. Geological Survey, Denver
Japan Workshop on Improvement of Structural Design
Colorado, draft: January 18, 1996.
and Construction Practices, Lessons Learned from
Idriss, I. M., 1987. “Earthquake Ground Motions,” Lecture Kobe and Northridge, January 18-20, 1997, Kobe
Notes, Strong Ground Motion Seminar, Pasadena, Japan.
California, April 10-11. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
ICBO, 1998. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source
Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, CA.
276 September 1999

Table AppA-1. Pre-Northridge Earthquake Records Close to Fault Rupture
Instrument Name/ Earthquake Name and

Location Magnitude Year
Pacoima Dam M = 6.6 1971 San Fernando, CA
earthquake
Karakyr Point MS = 7.0 1976 Gazli (Russia) earth-
quake
El Centro Array Nos. 5,6,7 ML = 6.6 1979 Imperial Valley, CA

earthquake
Tabas M = 7.4 1979 Tabas (Iran) earthquake
Site 1 MS = 6.9 1985 Nahanni (Canada)
earthquake
Corralitos MS = 7.1 1989 Loma Prieta, CA earth-
quake
Cape Mendocino MS = 6.9 1992 Petrolia earthquake
Lucerne Valley MS = 7.5 1992 Landers, CA earthquake
Table AppA-2. 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (Sites <= 15 km of Fault Rupture)
Instrument Station Information Peak Response Distance to

Fault Rupture
Name Site PGA (g) SA1.0 (g)
(km)
Jensen Filter Plant - Generator Bldg. N/A 0.98/0.56 > 0.90 0
Newhall - County Fire Station Soil 0.63/0.61 > 0.90 0
Rinaldi Receiving Station Soil 0.85/0.48 > 0.90 0
Sylmar Converter Station (East) Rock 0.79/0.45 > 0.90 0
Sylmar Converter Station Soil 0.90/0.61 > 0.90 0
Sepulveda VA Hospital N/A 0.94/0.74 0.7 0
Sylmar County Hospital Soil 0.91/0.61 0.75 2
Arleta - Nordhoff Ave. Fire Station Soil 0.35/0.29 0.6 7
Pacoima - Kagel Canyon Rock 0.44/0.30 0.45 9
Castaic - Old Ridge Route Rock 0.59/0.54 0.35 10

Lake Hughes 12A Soil 0.26/0.18 0.35 12
Energy Control Center Rock 0.23/0.21 0.4 12
Santa Susana -ETEC N/A 0.29/0.23 0.25 14
September 1999 277

278 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix B—Soil Coefficients
APPENDIX B
Soil Coefficients
This edition of the Blue Book specifies the design base geotechnical parameters rather than qualitative descrip-
shear in a new way compared to that of prior editions. tion. Soil Profile Type A is a very hard rock that underlies
Among the several changes are the way in which the Z co- some areas in the eastern United States. Most of the rock
efficient is determined and the influence of soil type on the in the western states will be Soil Profile Type B.
values used. This Appendix discussed the influence of soil
Much more data has become available for a wide
type, while Appendix A discusses the Z coefficient and
range of ground shaking and site characteristics, in major
near-source factors.
part because of the extensive strong ground motion instru-
UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R specify seismic coeffi- mentation program undertaken since the 1971 San Fernan-
cients, Ca and Cv, respectively, in terms of the seismic do earthquake. In particular, records from the 1985
zone factor, Z, the near-source factors, Na and Nv, and the Mexico City and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake have con-
soil profile type. For construction of design response spec- tributed to the development of the new site categorization
tra, Ca is the effective peak acceleration (EPA) and Cv is procedure and coefficients that better represent the re-
sponse of different types of soil sites. The site character-
the value of acceleration response at a 1.0-second period.
ization procedure was adapted from the procedure in the
In Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the seismic zone factor, Z (or the
1994 (or 1997) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
product, ZNa or ZNv, for sites in Seismic Zone 4 that have
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, which was devel-
near-source factors Na or Nv greater than 1.0) represents oped at the 1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC Site Response
the shaking intensity for soft rock site conditions (Soil Pro- Workshop.
file Type B). The tables specify seismic coefficients for
Soil Profile Types C, D and E that include the effect of soil Prior to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, studies had
amplification on site response. Seismic coefficients for shown that, in general, earthquake motions were attenuat-
Soil Profile Type F are not provided and must be deter- ed as they propagated from rock to soft soil for rock accel-
mined by a site-specific hazard analysis. Generally, soil erations greater than 0.1g. There was insufficient data for
Profile Type A (hard rock) is only appropriate for classifi- soft soils, so the relationships were extrapolated from firm
cation of sites more likely to be found in the eastern United soil data. Records from the 1985 Mexico City earthquake
States. and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake show that ground
motions can be significantly amplified, not attenuated, for
Site Categorization Procedure soft sites at moderate accelerations. The largest amplifica-
tion typically occurs at the natural period of the soft soil
The site categorization procedure in the 1994 UBC was deposit. For example, in the Mexico City earthquake, the
based on work completed in the 1970s. The site factors rock acceleration was amplified by a factor of four by the
were constants, and were independent of the level of soft clay deposit at T=0 second, while the spectral ampli-
ground shaking. Sites were characterized by a somewhat tude at approximately T=2 seconds indicated an amplifica-
subjective qualitative description. The site characterization of 15-20 times the rock acceleration. Records from the
tion procedure proposed in these Requirements is based on Loma Prieta earthquake also indicate an amplification of
more recent data. The site factors are nonlinear and are a three to six times at long-period spectral amplitudes. The
function of the expected input acceleration (the zone fac- largest amplification occurred at the natural period of the
tor), and the site soil characterization (the site factor). Site soil deposit. However, at stronger levels of ground shak-
characterization is based on easily obtainable quantitative ing, this later data corroborates the results of previous
September 1999 279

Soil Coefficients—Appendix B SEAOC Blue Book
studies that motion attenuates in soft soils as the strength may not warrant the expense of obtaining the shear wave
of the soil is exceeded and the soil behaves in a highly non- velocities. Hence, alternate methods of site characteriza-
linear manner. tion are also included. These methods use the Standard
Penetration Resistance, N, for the soil deposit as a whole,
As the ground motion propagates from rock through
or alternatively, the Standard Penetration Resistance
the overlying soil medium, the rock motion is amplified or
(SPT), N, for cohesionless soil layers and undrained shear
attenuated as discussed above. The issues are more com-
strength, su, for cohesive soil layers. These soil parameters
plicated for nonhomogeneous sites with soft layers be-
tween the rock and stiffer upper soils. The following are generally obtained from field tests done during site
characteristics of the site are needed to determine analyti- borings and are inexpensive. The correlation of site ampli-
cally the amplification (or attenuation) and frequency: fication with these alternative parameters is more uncer-
■ Thickness of the soft and stiff soil layer tain than with the average shear wave velocity. For
■ Shear wave velocities of the rock and soil layers important or large projects, the site characterization should
■ Soil/rock impedance ratio be obtained from shear wave velocity data.
■ Properties of the soil layers, including their modulus The procedure for characterizing a site is as follows:
and damping properties
Step 1. Classify the geologic materials at the site
The amplification ratio is a function of the rock/soil into one of the six soil categories (SA through SF) If the site
impedance contrast ratio (which is a function of shear soils correspond to Soil Type F, conduct a site-specific
wave velocity), the soil damping, and the ratio of the fre- study. For other sites, proceed with the following steps.
quencies of the layers.
Step 2. For sites with soft clay layers, determine
The impedance contrast must consider the whole soil layer thicknesses. Soft clay is defined as a clay with an
profile, including the rock. Thus both the soft and stiff soil undrained shear strength, su, less than 25 kpa (SU 500 psf),
layers play a role in determining the damping and the am-
a water content, w, equal to or greater than 40 percent, and
plification (or attenuation). The maximum amplification
a plasticity index (PI) greater than 20. If the total thickness
generally occurs at or close to the natural frequency of the
of the soft clay layers is greater than 3m (10 ft), character-
whole soil deposit, but may occur at some other frequency,
ize the site as Soil Profile Type E.
depending on the frequency content of the ground motion
and other factors. In all cases, the shear wave velocity of Step 3. Depending on the site geotechnical data
the rock and soil deposit has a dominant role. Hence, these available, for the top 30m (100 ft) determine either the av-
Requirements characterize sites primarily by the shear erage shear wave velocity, vs, in accordance with Equation
wave velocity. In shallow or moderate soil depth, sites 111-1; the average SPT value, N, for the site as a whole in
where the soil depth is less than 30m (100 ft), the entire accordance with Equation 111-2; or the average SPT, Nch,
soil deposit is important to the overall response. In deep for the cohesionless layer in accordance with Equation
soil sites (greater than 30 m) that have stiff soil profiles, 111-3 and the average undrained shear strength, su, in ac-
the motion at the surface tends to be dominated by the soils cordance with Equation 111-4. Select the appropriate site
in the upper 30-50 meters; hence, the site can be character- class from Table 104-2.
ized by the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30m
(100 ft.). Averaging of the weighted reciprocals of the For further information on the application of these
shear wave velocities for the layers, rather than the veloc- procedures, see the 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provi-
ities themselves, provides a better parameter to character- sions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Require-
ize a response for a site underlain by layered soils. ments Section 4.1.2.2, Site Coefficients, and the NEHRP
Commentary §4.1.2.2.
Deep soil sites (greater than 30m) that have thick
(greater than 35m) layers of soft-medium stiff clays, or
highly plastic or organic clays and peats of any thickness,
cannot be characterized in this manner and must be evalu-
ated on a site-specific basis. Similarly, sites having lique-
fiable soils (e.g. loose sands, or highly sensitive soils that
may loose strength during an earthquake) must also be
evaluated on a site-specific basis. Shear wave velocities
are not available in many cases and the size of the project
280 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix C—Development of the R Factor
APPENDIX C
Development of the R Factor
For a given selected lateral force resisting system with its weight W divided by the R factor. The purpose of the pro-
required details and provisions, the related R factor is in- gressive changes was not primarily to change resistance
tended to provide an appropriate level of strength design requirements, but rather to provide a rational meaning in
load E such that the resulting designed elements and total terms of response spectrum demand and the inelastic re-
system will be able to meet the basic life safety perfor- sponse reduction capabilities of a given structural system.
mance objective when subjected to design basis earth-
The basis for the K factor was the definition of four
quake ground motions. The value of R = RoRd, together
basic lateral force resisting systems ranging from the spe-
with the related factors ρ and Ω o , must provide a repre- cial moment resisting frame with K=0.67 to the bearing
sentation of the system redundancy, reliability of perfor- wall system with K=1.33. The corresponding values for
mance, inelastic load-deformation behavior, and dynamic the Rw and R approximately follow the relation of
response modification due to increased damping and pe- Rw=8/K and R = RoRd=Rw /1.4, where the 1.4 reflects the
riod change due to inelastic deformation. These properties conversion to strength design. Note that the subscript w in
all affect the ability of a structural system to resist severe Rw was provided in previous editions of the Blue Book to
earthquake ground motion without collapse. indicate that the R factor was reducing elastic demand
While the present process of evaluating the factors force levels to working stress levels. For a given level and
Ro, Rd, ρ , and Ω o is largely empirical and judgmental, type of the specified site ground motion, there was no
compelling reason to change the relative design load levels
these factors have been provided such that the engineer for the four basic systems. In general the structural system
can better understand the properties of inelastic response. characteristics that were considered in the evaluation of
With this understanding and application to design, a store the previous and present factors include:
of experience and procedures will be generated such that
1. Observed and/or predicted system performance under
future editions of these recommendations can provide an-
strong ground motion.
alytical methods for their evaluation. The recent develop-
ment of economical, high-speed, inelastic time history and 2. Level of inelastic deformation capability.
push-over analyses programs will accelerate this process. 3. Vulnerability of the vertical load-bearing system.
4. Degree of redundancy in the lateral force resisting
In order to understand the process of the evaluation of
system.
the system factor R = RoRd it is helpful to review the his-
5. Multiplicity of lines on resistance, such as back-up
torical development of the related factors K and RW as used
frames.
in the previous editions of these Recommendations. The
general base shear relation of V = [a constant factor] times The structural systems were then divided into catego-
W has been in use for many years. The form of V=ZKCW ries within which some of these characteristics were com-
was used in the 1959 Blue Book and was the forerunner of mon. These categories and their abilities to meet the listed
the allowable stress design base shear V=ZCW/Rw that ap- characteristics are briefly reviewed below.
peared in the 1985. Finally, in 1997, the SEAOC Seismol- Moment Resisting Frame System
ogy Committee introduced the current strength design 1. Good performance where energy dissipative special
base shear equation in the form of response spectrum times details are used.
September 1999 281

Development of the R Factor—Appendix C SEAOC Blue Book
2. High level of inelastic response capacity. the vertical load-carrying capacity and stability of the
3. System can perform inelastically without jeopardizing total building system.
vertical capacity and stability. 3. The inherent redundancy of the system that would al-
4. Systems in buildings that have performed well in past low some progressive inelastic excursions without
earthquakes have been highly redundant. overall failure. One localized failure of a part must not
lead to failure of the system.
Dual System
4. When dual systems of building frame systems are em-
1. Good performance.
ployed, important performance characteristics include
2. Good elastic response control for moderate shaking; the deformation compatibility of the systems and the
good energy dissipation for strong shaking. ability of the secondary (backup) system to maintain
3. Damage to primary lateral force resisting system does vertical support when the primary system suffers sig-
not affect stability of the vertical system. nificant damage at the maximum deformation re-
4. Backup system provided in the form of a moment sponse. The backup system, when compatible with the
frame. primary system, can serve to redistribute lateral loads
when the primary system undergoes degradation and
Building Frame System
should stabilize the building in the event that the pri-
1. Performance varies depending on material and config- mary system is badly damaged. If they are incompati-
uration. ble, then the total system performance may be very
2. Level of inelastic response is dependent on type of lat- unreliable and therefore unacceptable.
eral system employed.
It is recognized that the assigned R values must be pe-
3. Damage to the lateral system, by definition, should
riodically reviewed as earthquake performance is ob-
not lead to failure of vertical system.
served and more data on material and system performance
4. Nominal backup system only in the form of a space becomes available. The relationship between the load side
frame. of the design equation that includes the R reduction and the
Bearing Wall and Bearing Braced Frame System capacity or material side, however, should not be con-
1. Performance varies depending on material and config- fused. Qualities related to the seismic load modification
uration. characteristics of the structural system should be repre-
2. Lower level of inelastic response capability. sented by the R value. Qualities related to the performance
and reliability of individual structural elements should be
3. Lateral system failure could lead to vertical system
represented by either the assigned strength or the strength-
failure.
reduction factor on the resistance side.
The expected performance of other systems was then
When a structural system has been designed for the
evaluated relative to these reference systems in order to
seismic load level and details established by its R value,
determine the intermediate R values. The same character-
there are two behavior properties that allow the structure
istics discussed above were used, and considerations fo-
to perform adequately under the design basis ground mo-
cused on the following issues.
tion. These are “total system resistance capacity,” as rep-
1. The degree to which the system can be allowed to go resented by Ro, and “dynamic response modification,” as
beyond the elastic range, its degree of energy dissipa-
represented by Rd. Refer to Figure AppC-1 for the follow-
tion in so doing, and the stability of the vertical load-
carrying system during inelastic response due to max- ing discussion.
imum expected ground motion. The detailing neces- 1. Total System Resistance Capacity. Base shear VA
sary to achieve this inelastic performance is covered is the required lateral load design level for a given sys-
in the design requirements and material chapters. tem with structural period TA and R value for
Also, regardless of the R value and its corresponding VA=VE /R. The path of A to B to D represents the key
system, all elements of the structure must be ade- points on the structure pushover curve.
quately tied together to transfer loads to the lateral
The actual linear elastic threshold capacity of the
force resisting elements.
structure is the shear VB at point B. This can be larger
2. The consequence of failure or partial failure of verti-
than the specified strength design value VA due to the
cal elements of the seismic force resisting system on
actual strength level of the individual elements that
282 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix C—Development of the R Factor
include: requirements for the various load Future Calculation Procedures for
combinations; extra system design provisions; Overstrength Factors
contribution from the nonlateral force resisting system
and nonstructural elements; and the as-built sizes and These present provisions do not allow the calculation of
materials strengths. the total system strength factor Ro and the maximum de-
The resistance path from the effective yield at mand force factor Ω o . In the future it is anticipated that
point B to point D represents how the total resistance this could be done by an inelastic push-over analysis of the
of the entire system increases as the understressed and structural system as designed for the prescribed VS load-
redundant members become fully developed with the ing. It is not currently possible to prescribe the appropriate
increasing pushover deformation. The total increase modeling procedures for the building system, the inelastic
from VA to the maximum demand VD is represented by deformation behavior and limits for the elements, and the
the factor Ro such that VD=RoVA. The seismic force lateral loading patterns representative of the inelastic re-
amplification factor Ω o =1.1Ro provides for an upper- sponse. Example procedures are discussed in C105.3.1
and C105.3.2.
bound load for the design of elements that must resist
the maximum demand forces at point D. The benefits of push-over analyses are twofold. First,
2. Dynamic Response Modification: The 5 percent recognizing that an R factor is necessary in the design base
damped multi-mode base shear demand for the design shear equation to provide the initial strength requirements
basis earthquake is Cv W/T along the demand path E for the lateral force resisting system, a “push-over” analy-
to C. Note that while Cv W/T is the single-mode resis can serve to confirm that the design has the strength and
deformation capacity to resist the design ground motion
sponse spectrum, the multi- or combined mode re-
without life-endangering failure. Second, the results of
sponse is approximated by the use of the full W rather
these design verification analyses can be used to improve
than the effective first mode weight, which would be
upon the values of the presently empirical R factors for the
on the order of 0.7W. If the structural were to remain
different systems, materials, details, and building configu-
fully linear elastic, without yield at point B, then the
rations. The push-over methodology is given in ATC-40
resulting base shear demand would be VE. However,
[Applied Technology Council, 1997] and FEMA 273
since the structure has inelastic behavior from B to D, [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998].
there are changes in the equivalent dynamic character-
istics, which modify the demand response spectrum
Research Related to the R Factor
from path EC to ED. Along the resistance path BD, the
period increases from TA to TD as the nonlinear soft- and Inelastic Response
ening takes place, and there is a concurrent increase in Present procedures assign a constant value of R for a given
the equivalent damping. This change in period and structural system. The reference [Miranda and Bertero,
damping results in a decrease in demand from VE to 1994] summarizing the work of a number of researchers
VD. This decrease in the dynamic response is repre- indicates that the system response reduction factors such
sented by the Rd factor such that VD=VE /Rd=RoVA, as R may need to be period dependent, particularly for sys-
tems having periods less than about 0.5 seconds. This is
and design relation follows as VA=VE /RoRd=
because the inelastic displacements tend to be larger than
CVW/RT. those of a linear elastic system in this short period range.
While the present method of evaluating R=RoRd is
This behavior is partially accounted for in static force
largely empirical and based on the Rw/1.4 values from procedures by ignoring the declining portion of the re-
the previous edition, the ability to define and describe sponse spectrum between the period values of To and zero
the components Ro and Rd can lead to improved seconds in Figure 104-2, and using the plateau value of
analytical and experimental evaluation as more 2.5Ca in the base shear Equation 105-6 for this range of
experience is gained from their application to design. periods. Further research on the behavior of representative
building models and review of observed performance of
actual structures is necessary to establish the need for and
extent of a more refined period dependent-modification of
the R factor.
September 1999 283

Development of the R Factor—Appendix C SEAOC Blue Book
References
Krawinkler, H. and P. Seneviratna, 1998. “Pros and Cons
of a Pushover Analysis for Seismic Performance
Evaluation,” Journal of Engineering Structures.
Vol.20, no.4-6.
Uang, C.M., 1991. “Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors
for Building Seismic Codes,” Journal of Structural
Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 117, no.1.
Figure AppC-1. Resistance versus demand
284 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix D—Dynamic Analysis
APPENDIX D
Dynamic Analysis
Multi-Dimensional Analysis n
(Pz), n(Pk)x-direction, y-direction, z-direction, and kth
Procedures degree of freedom direction, respectively, as
Dynamic analysis principles are set forth in many text- determined from Equation AppD-1.
n
books on dynamics. However, the emphasis and applica- (Sak)= Spectral acceleration in the kth direction and
tions are mainly for two-dimensional (planar) systems.
corresponding to the natural period n(T) of the nth
Torsionally irregular structures require an understanding
mode.
of three-dimensional dynamic analysis procedures that
n
couple torsional response with lateral response. This Ap- (T)= Natural period of the nth mode.
pendix sets provides both two- and three-dimensional re-
sponse spectrum analysis procedures. (üik)= Peak acceleration response in the kth direction at
the ith node, and in the nth mode.
Symbols and Notations n
(φik)= Component of mode shape for nth mode that
k = A given direction or degree of freedom of motion
of a node point. corresponds to ith node point and kth degree of
freedom direction.
n
(Lk)= Participating mass ratio for the nth mode and kth
degree-of-freedom direction, as determined from Part 1 Response Spectrum
Equation AppD-10. Analysis
n
(M)= Modal mass for nth mode, as determined by The dynamic analysis procedure described in this section
Equation AppD-2. uses a response spectrum representation of the seismic in-
put motions. The procedure is applicable to linear elastic
Mik = Component of mass at ith node point that
building models developed in accordance with the require-
corresponds to kth degree of freedom direction. ments of Section 106.3. It consists of the following steps
Mk = Total mass in the kth degree of freedom direction, [U.S. Army, 1986, Clough and Penzien, 1975; Biggs,
1964; SEAOSC, 1977]:
obtained by summing all Mik values.
1. Use principles of mechanics to compute the natural
NK = Total number of directions or degrees of freedom period and mode shape for the first N normal modes of
of motion of a node point. the building model, where N is established in accor-
NP = Total number of node points in mathematical dance with Part 2 of this Appendix.
model used in dynamic lateral force procedure. 2. Enter the response spectrum at the natural period of
n
(Px), n(Py)=Modal participation factor for nth mode and the nth normal mode, n(T), and obtain the correspond-
for ing spectral acceleration in the kth direction, n(Sak).
Here k may be the x or y horizontal direction or the z
vertical direction.
September 1999 285

Dynamic Analysis—Appendix D SEAOC Blue Book
3. Use this spectral acceleration together with the mode where hi is the vertical distance from the ith node point to
shapes and the model's lumped mass values to com- the base of the building.
pute the building's modal participation factor n(Pk) for 5. Repeat Steps 2 through 4 for each of the N normal
the nth mode and the kth direction corresponding that modes. Then, combine the resulting peak modal re-
of n(Sak). sponse quantities for each mode using an appropriate
procedure from Commentary Section 105.5.2, in or-
NP n ( φ ) ( M )
der to estimate the composite peak response value.
n(P
k ) = ∑ -------------------------------
ik
n( M )
ik
- Eqn. AppD-1
i=1
Example Forms of the Dynamic Equations for
where: Common Two- and Three-Dimensional
n Building Models
(φik)= Mode shape amplitude for the nth mode, ith
Two-Dimensional Building Model
node point, and kth
k = x = horizontal displacement
direction
NK = 1, NP = N = number of stories
Mik = Component of mass for the ith node point and
n
the kth direction ( S ak ) = S a, n in the k = x direction
n
(M)= Modal mass for nth mode M ik = M i = mass at floor level i
NP NK N
= ∑ ∑ n( φ
ik )
2 ( M ik ) Eqn. AppD-2 M k = M = ∑ M i = total mass
i=1 k=1 i=1
n
NP = Total number of node points ( φ ik ) = φ in
NK =Total number of directions of motion at a
node point N
( M ) = M n = ∑ φ in
n 2 •M
4. Use the above parameters to compute the peak value i i=1
of any building response quantity when the building is
vibrating in its nth normal mode. For example peak ac-
N
celeration at ith node point and in kth direction: ∑ φ in • M i
n n n n n i=1
( ü ik ) = ( P k ) • ( φ ik ) • ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-3 ( P k ) = P n = ------------------------------
N
also, for response in any other direction j: ∑ φ in
2 •M
i
i=1
n n n n
( ü ij ) = ( P k ) • ( φ ij ) • ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-4
n(ü
ik )x in = P n φ in S a,n
··
lateral force at ith node point and in kth direction:
n(F
n n n n ik ) = F in = M i P n φ in S a,n
( F ik ) = ( M ik ) • ( φ ik ) • ( P k ) • ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-5
n
( V k ) = V n = ( P n ) 2 M n S a,n
base shear force in kth direction:
n n 2 n n
( V k ) = ( P k ) • ( M ) • ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-6 Three-Dimensional Building Model with Rigid
th Diaphragm Condition
overturning moment due to lateral forces in k direction:
k=1=x Mi1 = Mi
NP
( OM k ) = ∑ M ik •
n n n n
( φ ik ) • ( P k ) • ( S ak ) ( h i ) k=2=y Mi2 = Mi
i=1
k=3=θ
Eqn. AppD-7
286 September 1999

Mi3 = Ii = mass polar moment of inertia Part 2 Significant Number of Modes

NK = 3 When a structure is vibrating in its nth mode of vibration,
NP = N = number of stories the maximum value of the base shear in the kth degree of
x, y, θ are at center of mass Mi. freedom direction n(Vk) can be estimated from the expres-
n n sion:
( φ i1 ) = ( φ ix )
n n n
( V k ) = ( M k ) • ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-8
n n
( φ i2 ) = ( φ iy )
where n(Sak)is the spectral acceleration corresponding to
n n
( φ i3 ) = ( φ iθ ) n
the nth mode of vibration and ( M k ) is an effective mass
N 3 for computing the modal base shear. It can be shown that:
(M) = ∑ ∑ ( φ ik ) 2 • M i
n n
n n n
i=1 k=1 ( Mk ) = ( Pk )2 • ( M ) Eqn. AppD-9
where n(Pk) and n(M) correspond to the modal participa-

N n N n N n tion factor (for the kth direction) and the modal mass re-
= ∑ ( φ ix )2 • Mi + ∑ ( φ iy )2 • M i + ∑ ( φ iθ )2 • Ii spectively for the nth mode, as defined in the main body of
i=1 i=1 i=1
Section 106.5.1. From this, n(Lk), the participating mass
N n ratio for the nth mode, can be expressed as:
∑ ( φ ik ) • M ik n
n i=1
( P k ) = --------------------------------------- n ( Mk )
n ( L k ) = -------------
- Eqn. AppD-10
(M) Mk
where Mk is the total mass in the kth direction, and is given
N n
∑ ( φ ix ) • M i by
n i=1
( P x ) = ------------------------------------ NP
n
(M) M k = ∑ M ik Eqn. AppD-11
i=1
N n Thus, it is seen that n(Lk) is related to the effective

∑ ( φ iy ) • M i
n i=1 mass used in computing the maximum base shear when the
( P y ) = ------------------------------------
n structure is vibrating in its nth mode of vibration.
(M)
n n n n The above discussion provides a background for inter-
( ü ij ) = ( P k ) • ( φ ij ) • ( S ak ) preting the requirement given in Section 106.5.1 for the
For seismic ground motion in the k = x direction, minimum number of modes to be included in a response
spectrum analysis. The stated minimum of 90 percent of
n n n n
( x··i ) = ( P x ) • ( φ ix ) • ( S ax ) the participating mass represents an approximate basis for
providing an acceptable degree of accuracy in the comput-
n n n n ed value of the dynamic base shear; and hence, the repre-
( ÿ i ) = ( P x ) • ( φ iy ) • ( S ax )
sentation of all significant modes. It is based on evaluation
n ·· n n n of the base shear induced in the kth direction by a constant
( θ i ) = ( P x ) • ( φ iθ ) • ( S ax )
unit acceleration in that direction [n(Sak)=1], and makes
use of the identities:
September 1999 287

Part 3 Combining Modes

NT NT
n
Mk = ∑ ( Mk ); ∑ ( Lk ) = 1
n
Eqn. AppD-12 The response spectrum analysis procedure described in
n=1 n=1 Section 106.4.1 and in Part 1 of this Appendix provides
the maximum responses of the structure when it is vibrat-
where the above summations are over all of the structure's ing in each of its significant normal modes. However, be-
NT modes of vibration. For this case, the first equation in cause these maximum modal responses will not occur at
the preceding paragraph leads to the following expression the same time during the earthquake ground motion, it is
for the base shear in each normal mode: necessary to use approximate procedures to estimate the
n n n n maximum composite response of the structure. Such pro-
( V k ) = ( M k ) • ( S ak ) = ( M k ) • 1 Eqn. AppD-13 cedures are typically based on an appropriate combination
of the maximum individual modal responses, and should
By summing these modal values over all of the struc-
account for possible interaction between any closely
ture's NT modes, the “exact” value of the total base shear
spaced modal responses that may exist.
becomes:
A simple and accurate modal combination approach
NT that satisfies this requirement is the Complete Quadratic
n
( V k ) NT = ∑ ( M k ) • 1 = M k • 1 Eqn. AppD-14 Combination (CQC) method [Wilson et al., 1981; Der Ki-
n=1 ureghian, 1981; Der Kiureghian, 1980; Wilson and Bolt-
on, 1982; US NRC, 1976]. This approach is based on
Now, if N modes are included in the above summa- random vibration concepts and assumes that: 1) the dura-
tion, where N < NT, then: tion of the earthquake shaking is long when compared to
the fundamental period of the structure; and 2) the design
N n response spectrum exhibits slowly varying amplitudes
( Vk )N = ∑ ( Mk ) < Mk Eqn. AppD-15 over a wide range of periods that include the dominant
n=1
modes of the structure. On this basis, the CQC method
where (Vk)N=estimated base shear value < (Vk)NT leads to the following expression for the structure's maxi-
mum composite response, uk, at its kth degree of freedom:
Alternatively, if both sides of the above inequality are
divided by Mk, the equality can be expressed as: 1/2
N N
N
uk = ∑ ∑ u ki ρ ij u kj Eqn. AppD-19
i=1 j=1
∑ ( Lk ) < 1
n
Eqn. AppD-16
n=1
where uki and ukj correspond to the structure's maximum
Therefore, the provision given in Section 106.5.1 for modal response in its kth degree of freedom when it is vi-
including a significant number of modes, N, in the analysis
such that: brating in its ith and jth mode respectively, and ρij is the
cross-modal coefficient. It is noted that here, uk, uki, and
N ukj are general symbols and may correspond to total accel-
∑ ( L k ) ≥ 0.9
n
Eqn. AppD-17
n=1 eration, relative (to base) displacement, interstory drift,
base shear, overturning moment, or any other structural re-
corresponds to the requirement that the total base shear re-
sponse quantity. Furthermore, when computing uk in ac-
sulting from these N modes of vibration, (Vk)N, should be
cordance with the above expression, the signs of uki and ukj
within 10 percent of the “exact” value, (Vk)NT, i.e.:
should be preserved.
( V k ) N ≥ 0.9 ( V k ) NT Eqn. AppD-18 The cross-modal coefficient ρij as denoted above is
dependent on the damping ratios and the natural periods of
for the special case of a constant unit acceleration in the kth
the ith and jth mode. When the modes have identical damp-
direction [n(Sak)=1]. ing ratios ξ, ρij is expressed as:
288 September 1999

8ξ 2 ( 1 + r )r 3 / 2 References
ρ ij = ----------------------------------------------------------
- = ρ Eqn. AppD-20
ji
( 1 – r 2 ) 2 + 4ξ 2 r ( 1 + r ) 2 Biggs, J. M., 1964. Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
where r is the ratio of the natural period of the jth mode, Tj,
to the natural period of the ith mode, Ti (i.e., r = Tj /Ti). Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J., 1975. Dynamics of
Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
From Equation AppD-7, it can be shown that: 1) ρij =1
Der Kiureghian, A., 1980. “Structural Response to
when r=1; and 2) ρij decreases with decreasing r in a man- Stationary Excitation,” Journal of the Engineering
ner that is dependent on the modal damping ratio ξ. Fur- Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, no. EMO.
thermore, when the modal periods are well spaced such
that: Der Kiureghian, A., 1981. “A Response Spectrum Method
for Random Vibration Analysis of MDF Systems,”
Tj 0.1 Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
r = ---- ≤ ----------------- ( T i > T j ) Eqn. AppD-21
T i 0.1 + ξ Vol. 9, John Wiley & Sons.
SEAOSC, 1977. Seismic Analysis by Computer,
then: ρ ij ≈ 0 ( for i ≠ j )
Electronic Computation Committee of the Structural
and the CQC expression for computing the maximum Engineers Association of Southern California, 1977,
composite response (Equation AppD-19) becomes: SEAOSC, 2550 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles,
California, 90057.
1/2
N U.S. Army, 1986. “Seismic Design Guidelines for
uk = ∑ u 2ki Eqn. AppD-22
Essential Buildings,” Technical Manual, Army TM
i=1
5-809-10-1.
that corresponds to the square-root-sum-of-the-squares Wilson, E. L., et al., 1981. “A Replacement for the SRSS
(SRSS) modal combination approach. This shows that the Method in Seismic Analysis,” Earthquake
SRSS approach is a special case of the more general CQC Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9.
method, and can be applied when the modal periods are
sufficiently well spaced in accordance with Equation Wilson, E.L., and Button, M. R., 1982.
AppD-21. Furthermore, the quantities ρij for i ≠ j can be “Three-Dimensional Dynamic Analysis for
Multi-Component Earthquake Spectra,” Earthquake
visualized as corrections to the SRSS approach in order to
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 10, John
incorporate effects of coupling between closely spaced
Wiley & Sons.
modes. As shown in Figure AppD-1, these coupling ef-
fects become more important as the modal damping ratio
increases. Also, these effects are typically important for
three-dimensional structural systems, which often have
closely spaced frequencies.
In Section 106.2.2, the largest damping ratio that can Table AppD-1. Cross-Modal Coefficients for Equal
be considered when developing site-specific spectra is Modal Damping Ratios of 0.05 for All Modes
specified to be 0.05. For this damping value, the cross
modal coefficient ρij can be estimated directly from the r = Tj / Ti ρij
curve in Figure AppD-1 for ξ=0.05, or can be obtained by 1.00 1.000
interpolation between successive values given in 0.95 0.791
Table AppD-1. Furthermore, ρij can be assumed to be neg-
0.90 0.473
ligible when:
0.80 0.166
Tj
r = ---- ≤ 0.67 Eqn. AppD-23 0.70 0.071
Ti
≤0.67 ≈ 0.0
September 1999 289

Figure AppD-1. Effect of damping and period ratio on cross-modal coefficient ρij
290 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix E—Deformation Compatibility
APPENDIX E
Deformation Compatibility
In order to provide a level of seismic performance consis- Deformations. Deformations include interstory
tent with the underlying philosophy of these seismic de- drift, but also include any other deformation of the struc-
sign provisions, designing and detailing elements not part ture caused by seismic forces. While interstory drift is the
of the lateral system for deformation compatibility must be most common deformation value used in practice, other
considered equal in importance to designing and detailing types of deformation need to be considered, such as: 1)
the lateral system for adequate strength and ductility. In a vertical racking of structural framing in eccentrically
building with a properly designed and detailed lateral sys- braced frames; 2) shear distortions of concrete coupling
tem, collapse of the structure can occur if all structural el- beams; or 3) vertical racking of structural bays in dual sys-
ements are not capable of deforming with the building tems.
during the event. Likewise, if certain nonstructural ele-
Expected Deformations Caused by Seismic Forces.
ments in the building are not capable of deforming with
The maximum expected seismic deformations are comput-
the building, the resulting falling hazards may threaten life
ed for a ground motion representation having a 10 percent
safety or impede egress from the building. Understanding
probability of being exceeded in 50 years. For most struc-
and complying with these provisions is essential to achiev-
tures, inelastic response of the structure will occur for this
ing the seismic performance goals implicit in these Re-
level of ground motion. This inelastic response should be
quirements.
recognized in the computation of the expected deforma-
Designing for deformation compatibility is a two-part tion. This topic is discussed further below.
process:
“. . . when subjected to . . .” If an element is at-
1. Deformation demands must be established. tached to the building in such a way that internal forces are
2. Individual elements and their connections must be as- generated in the element when the structure deforms in re-
sessed for their capacity to deform. sponse to an earthquake, then the element shall be consid-
It has been noted by the SEAOC Seismology Commit- ered “subjected to seismic deformations of the structure.”
tee that both sides of the demand-capacity equation can be
assessed using engineering techniques, but that in certain Scope of the Provision
circumstances a more effective approach may be to bypass Section 108.2.4 stipulates that all elements and their con-
the complex and possibly inaccurate analytical calcula- nections shall be investigated. The elements included in
tions in favor of more conservative design details. In this this scope are structural elements such as columns, beams,
Appendix, both approaches for demand and capacity as- walls, slabs, trusses, and bracing that are defined by the en-
sessment are discussed. gineer as not being part of the lateral system. Also in-
cluded are nonstructural elements such as stairs, cladding,
Definitions finishes, utilities, and equipment. The Seismology Com-
The provision wording, as set forth in Section 108.2.4: mittee purposely included all elements of the building be-
“. . . when subjected to the expected deformations caused cause a limited, but definitive list, of elements cannot be
by seismic forces” is defined by examination of specific delineated in the code.
sub-phrases, as follows: It is not the intent of the Seismology Committee to re-
quire engineering analysis documentation for each and ev-
ery building component. The intent is to ensure that
September 1999 291

Deformation Compatibility—Appendix E
building designers (engineers and architects) consider all 1. Flexural, shear, and axial deformations of struc-
elements and comply when structural stability and/or life tural elements should be included in the deforma-
safety are at risk. Some elements may not be subjected to tion compatibility analysis. The analysis should
building deformations in an earthquake; these elements include all possible sources of deformation in the
need not be considered. Some elements, while they may be structure. Axial and shearing deformations are some-
subjected to earthquake deformations and damaged by the times excluded in a lateral force analysis, without a
imposed deformations and/or induced forces, need not be loss of accuracy. However, in a deformation compati-
considered if structural stability and/or life safety are not bility analysis, it is essential that all sources of defor-
at risk. A list of common elements and considerations can mations be included. For example, for frame
be found at the end of this Appendix E. structures, deformations of the joint region should be
included.
Finally, it is recognized that many nonstructural ele-
ments are not designed directly by the architect/engineer 2. P-delta effects shall be included in the deformation
of record. In these cases, the deformation compatibility re- compatibility analysis. When Section 105.1.3 re-
quirements must nonetheless be fulfilled and the architect/ quires that p-delta effects be determined, they shall be
engineer shall include specific design requirements, in- included in the analysis of the structure drift.
cluding the maximum expected seismic deformation val- 3. The deformations of diaphragms shall be included
ues, in the performance design specification. in the deformation compatibility
analysis. Although it is common practice in a force
Deformation Demands analysis to ignore deformations of the diaphragm be-
tween lateral frames lines, significant deformation de-
The first step in a deformation compatibility analysis is to mands can result from diaphragm deformations.
determine the deformation demand, denoted herein as DM. Including these effects may require supplemental
It is the intent of these Requirements to use as a design ba- analysis in addition to the global system analysis, par-
sis the deformations that can be expected during a major ticularly where computer programs are used that as-
earthquake (probability of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 sume rigid diaphragms. Assessing the effect of
years). diaphragm deformations may require additional
Section 108.2.4 requires that this deformation demand “hand” analysis to determine the diaphragm displace-
ments in regions remote from the primary lateral sys-
be the greater of the maximum inelastic displacement ∆ M ,
tem (Figure E-1).
considering P∆ effects, or the deformation induced by a 4. The deformations of foundations shall be included
story drift of 0.0025 times the story height. This value of in the deformation compatibility
DM = ∆ M must be computed using a structure model that analysis. Although it is common practice to ignore
neglects the stiffening effects of those elements not part of sources of deformation such as rotation of the founda-
the lateral force resisting system. tion, significant deformation demands can result from
foundation rotations. Rotation of the foundation can
This method of evaluating DM assumes that the in- increase total deformation values due to rigid body ro-
elastic deformation can be estimated in terms of the defor- tations of the lateral force resisting elements of the
mation of the elastic structure model. For structures with building. Including these effects may require supple-
short fundamental periods and /or with degrading stiffness mental analysis in addition to the lateral system anal-
properties, this assumption may possibly underestimate ysis, particularly where computer programs are used
the actual deformation. References such as Miranda that assume rigid foundations. Assessing the effect of
[1994] and Uang [1991] provide analytical studies of these foundation deformations on deformations of the su-
effects. perstructure may require input from a geotechnical en-
When an engineering analysis is made to determine gineer (Figure E-2).
the maximum expected seismic deformations, proper 5. The stiffness contributions of structural and non-
modeling of the structure is needed. Because deformation structural elements not part of the lateral force re-
incompatibility can have profound life safety implications, sisting system shall be neglected in the deformation
it is essential that the deformations not be underestimated. compatibility analysis. When modeling the struc-
The following guidelines should be considered: ture to determine deformation demands, only the pri-
mary lateral force resisting system elements may be
292 September 1999

included in the analysis. Structural and nonstructural ements can be isolated from the deformations by the use of
elements that are not part of the lateral system may ini- special connections, detailed analysis and design of mem-
tially contribute to structural stiffness, but because bers can be avoided. Finally, many conventionally de-
this stiffness may degrade when subject to cyclic signed and detailed structural elements and connections
loads, these stiffness properties must be neglected in have survived strong ground motions without loss of func-
the demand analysis for deformation compatibility. tion. Utilizing past records of acceptable performance will
Any elements assumed to contribute to the lateral aid in reducing computational efforts, but must be used
stiffness of the structure must be designed for the pre- with caution.
scribed lateral forces using all detailing requirements
Special considerations for assessing structural ele-
of Chapters 3-9 of these Requirements.
ments include:
6. For concrete and masonry elements, flexural and
1. Shear and flexural forces induced in columns may
shear stiffness properties shall, as a maximum, be
be underestimated by conventional analysis
computed as one-half of the gross section elastic
techniques. In multi-story buildings, higher mode
stiffness. While it may be considered conservative
effects can result in a distribution and magnitude of
to use gross section properties when computing the
column moments significantly different than those
period of a structure for purposes of determining the
predicted by an equivalent static analysis or by a dy-
minimum base shear, this practice is not conservative
namic elastic analysis. In a static force analysis, and in
when analyzing the structure for deformation compat-
a response spectrum modal analysis, the structure typ-
ibility demands. Concrete and masonry elements gen-
ically deforms with a “first mode” shape, where all
erally crack before code force levels are reached.
floors displace in the same direction. This first mode
Further increase in load results in a reduction in effec-
deformed shape will induce minimal forces in col-
tive stiffness. When computing the deformations of
umns, especially if there is little restraint in the floor
the structure, realistic effective stiffness properties
framing system.
must be used. It is generally accepted that one-half of
the gross section properties adequately reflects the ef- An actual earthquake may produce an entirely
fective stiffness of a cracked structural member. different profile of story displacements during the
Other, more accurate, stiffness properties can be used time-history of ground motion input. For example,
if substantiated by a rational analysis. These reduced due to the higher mode shape response, the upper
stiffness properties must be used for all parts of the lat- stories may deflect in an opposite direction with
eral force resisting system, including beam and col- respect to lower story levels. At the floor level where
umn frame-type elements and for shear wall-type the story drift profile changes directions, columns
elements. above and below can be subjected to significantly
higher moments than predicted by conventional static
7. Torsional effects and orthogonal effects are to be
force analysis.
included where required elsewhere in these
Requirements. When torsional loadings are con- Because conventional static analysis techniques
sidered or required, and where simultaneous orthogo- only capture the maximum response and do not
nal loadings are considered or required, the adequately predict intermediate conditions that may
deformation compatibility analysis must include these maximize forces in individual column elements, it is
effects. recommended that columns be considered as fixed at
each end when computing induced flexural forces,
Adequacy of Structural Elements unless a study of the individual higher mode response
effects or an inelastic time-history analysis is made.
Once the maximum expected seismic deformations have 2. When computing induced forces, the effective clear
been determined, the engineer must verify the adequacy of length or height of the element shall be used, taking
all structural elements for the imposed deformation de- into account the stiffening effect of adjoining rigid
mands. As with estimation of the deformation demand, structural and nonstructural elements. For exam-
long and tedious analysis and design can be simplified by ple, where cast-in-place parapets or guard rails reduce
conservative detailing: the use of ductile detailing provi- the clear height of a column, the induced forces will be
sions for reinforced concrete, structural steel and many times higher than if the column were free to de-
strength-based masonry design can usually be accepted as form along its entire length. This so-called “short col-
compliant measures. Also, where possible, if structural el- umn effect” has resulted in many column failures,
September 1999 293

particularly as reported in the Guam (1993) and ment hoops should be provided in the plastic hinge re-
Northridge (1994) earthquakes. The best practice is to gions.
ensure that rigid nonstructural elements are isolated
Specific requirements for concrete elements are pro-
from the column so that it is free to deform along its
vided in UBC §1921.7. Specific provisions for timber,
entire length.
steel, and masonry are not provided at this time and need
3. Concrete columns pose a high risk if the design to be developed. Until such time as specific requirements
does not address deformation compatibility. The for these materials are contained in the code, engineers are
forces induced by interstory drift in the building can cautioned to follow the guidelines contained in these Re-
result in nonductile shear failures and/or compressive quirements.
strain failures. Either mode of failure, accompanied by
cyclic reversals of load, can destroy the column's abil- Adequacy of Nonstructural Elements
ity to support purely vertical gravity loads and can re-
sult in partial collapse of the structure. Such behavior Engineering judgment must be exercised when assessing
can usually be avoided if the shear strength is in ex- nonstructural elements. The underlying philosophy of the
cess of the shear corresponding to the development of recommendations, as described in Commentary
flexural strength of the column, considering the mem- Section C101 should be used as a guide in assessing non-
ber: 1) is fixed at both ends; and 2) using the maxi- structural elements. It is generally accepted that for minor
mum possible flexural strength of the column. and moderate earthquakes, damage to nonstructural ele-
Secondly, if the column is confined over the potential ments should be minimal; this normally requires that non-
plastic hinge region with hoops and cross-ties in lieu structural elements be capable of accommodating code
of the minimum lateral ties, compressive strain fail- force level deformations without damage. To accomplish
ures can be minimized or at least contained. UBC this, particular attention to, and specification of, appropri-
§1921.7 contains specific provisions for concrete ate details is sufficient. Engineering analysis and compu-
members not part of the lateral system and requires the tations (other than normal drift calculations) are not
above measures for heavily loaded columns. required.
4. Concrete columns loaded in axial compression up However, some nonstructural elements of a building
to and beyond the “balanced point” (Pbal) may that provide a life safety function, or that if damaged pose
have extremely limited deformation a life safety threat (including blocking emergency exits
capacity. When the factored axial load approaches from the building), require special analysis, design, and
the Pbal condition (approximately 0.4 • A g • f c′ ), the detailing for deformation compatibility. Examples in-
clude:
available ductility of the column may be limited. For
such columns, it is not uncommon to find that “ulti- Stairs. A stair stringer is a diagonal strut if rigidly
mate strength” conditions are reached before reinforc- connected at each end to the building. When the structure
ing steel has yielded (compressive failure) and this deforms laterally, the stringer will act as a brace until ei-
may occur before any noticeable lateral deformation ther the deformation ends or the stringer and/or its connec-
has occurred. It is recommended that extreme caution tions fail. Stair systems must be designed and detailed for
be exercised with heavily loaded concrete columns. deformation compatibility. Failure to accommodate defor-
5. Yielding in steel and concrete elements is generally mations of the structure could result in failure of the stair
acceptable, provided peak strain levels do not ex- structure, with resulting threats to life safety and emergen-
ceed critical limit states and provided the element cy exit from the building.
is detailed for ductile yielding. In structural steel el- Cladding. Cladding systems envelope the building
ements, definitive limit state strains are not defined in in a rigid skin, and if not properly detailed to accommodate
the literature. Generally, if member curvatures exceed deformations of the structure can act as shear panel ele-
those corresponding to the development of fully plas- ments until either the deformation stops or the cladding
tic moment, members should be fully compact, mem- system and/or its connections fail. Cladding systems must
ber or local buckling should be avoided, and tensile be designed and detailed for deformation compatibility.
strains limited to less than 4 times yield strain. In con- Failure to accommodate deformations of the structure can
crete elements, if compressive strains associated with result in loss of cladding supports, which in the case of
plastic curvatures exceed 0.003 inches/inch, confine- heavy cladding systems such as stone, masonry and con-
294 September 1999

crete finishes, result in falling hazards with serious life 3. Design and detail these elements to accommodate the
safety threats. computed deformations of the structure.
Other possibly critical nonstructural elements include: Many nonstructural elements may be damaged be-
life safety systems (fire suppression systems); viability of yond repair by building deformations, but prevention of
places of sanctuary; viability of exit routes; heavy ele- damage is not a code requirement. In these cases, it is ad-
ments that can be dislodged by building deformations but visable for the engineer to notify the client of the approach
serve no life safety function; seismic joint assemblies and used, specifically noting that damage may occur.
elements crossing seismic joints; glass/glazing/curtain
In some cases, the engineer's client declines to com-
wall systems; rigid, nonstructural masonry partitions and
pensate the engineer for design services related to non-
separations; and others. Individual elements should be re-
structural elements. In this case, the engineer is obligated
viewed and assessed.
to notify the client of:
Due to the enormity of nonstructural elements and the 1. The predicted deformations of the structure.
various methods to fabricate and erect these elements, fi- 2. The code requirements for deformation compatibility.
nite prescriptive recommendations are difficult to draft.
3. The owner's obligation to comply with the governing
The engineer must, in cooperation with other members of
building code.
the design team:
1. Review the type and extent of nonstructural elements. Common Elements Considered in
2. Determine if damage or failure of an element or its Deformation Compatibility Checks
connections may result in:
■ Falling hazards that threaten life safety. The following list identifies elements that are normally in-
■ Blocking or loss of emergency exit from the cluded or excluded from consideration; this list is not com-
building. plete, nor does it apply to any building under all
■ Loss of critical life safety systems such as fire circumstances.
suppression systems, fire exhaust systems,
sanctuaries, and emergency power.
■ General threat to life safety.
Element Explanation
Concrete Included. In many building structures, interstory drifts will be large enough to cause post-yield
Columns response of concrete columns. If the induced shear force exceeds the member capacity, or if the
resulting compressive strains exceed the members capacity, special detailing is required.
Connections Included. In many structural elements, the induced forces may be insignificant to the member
but may result in significant damage and loss of strength to the member connections.
Deep Girders Included. Although the connections may be considered “pinned,” most deep girder connections
possess some degree of fixity. Both the girder and the connections must be investigated. A com-
mon approach is to detail the connections for the expected deformation using slotted holes or other
means.
Flat Slabs Included. The slab-column joint region is a rigid connection and some frame action will occur.
The combined moment/torsion/shear forces induced in the joint by lateral floor drift may exceed
the shear capacity of the joint region.
September 1999 295

Element Explanation
Trusses Included. Similar to girders, seismic deformations can induce large forces in deep trusses if the
truss end connections do not isolate the truss from the building deformations. For example, a story
deep truss in a moment frame building could be at risk if the diagonals respond as bracing mem-
bers. Even if the truss is designated as part of the lateral force resisting system and designed ac-
cording to braced frame provisions, it may not be compatible with the expected deformations;
nonlinear response in a primary gravity load member, such as truss chords or diagonals, should be
carefully considered, since buckling or rupture of truss diagonals could result in loss of load-car-
rying capacity.
Miscellaneous Included. Various forms of miscellaneous bracing members are used to brace finishes, mezza-
Bracing nines, or other secondary structures. While the bracing may be designed for prescribed code forces,
deformations of the structure may induce much larger forces, which could result in loss of member
strength, loss of connection, or have secondary consequences. For example, if the brace is con-
nected to a primary structural element and large forces are induced in the brace, the strength and/
or stability of the primary structure element could be jeopardized.
Stairs Included. Most stair stringers, if not properly detailed and isolated from seismic deformations of
the structure, can act as bracing members. Possible consequences include rupture or buckling of
the stringer, failure of its connection, or unexpected forces induced in other portions of the primary
structure. Because stairs are an essential life safety element, damage to the stair structure must be
avoided.
Cladding Included. Most cladding systems are by their nature stiff and brittle. Because the cladding enve-
lopes the building, it is normally subjected to seismic deformations. While damage to the cladding
may occur, designers must ensure that the resulting damage does not result in falling hazards or
endanger the primary structure.
Partitions Included and Excluded. If a partition is similar in construction to cladding, special consider-
ations will be needed. Some partitions, such as metal stud and gypsum wall board partitions are
light and flexible and do not have a history of seismic hazard if properly designed and built.
Ceilings Included and Excluded. Normally the ceiling system is designed with some isolation from the
structure so that deformations of the structure do not induce forces in the ceiling system. If the ceil-
ing system is anchored to the structure in a way that deformations of the structure can cause the
ceiling to move, special considerations may be needed.
References
Miranda, 1994. “Strength Reduction Factors for
Earthquake Resistant Design,” Earthquake Spectra.
Volume 10, no. 2, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, California.
Uang, C.M., 1991. “Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors
for Building Seismic Provisions,” J. of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, no. 1.
296 September 1999

Figure AppE-1. Compatibility considerations of diaphragm deformations
Figure AppE-2. Deformation compatibility consideration of foundation flexibility
September 1999 297

298 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix F—1994 Northridge Earthquake
APPENDIX F
Engineering Implications
of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
NOTE: This appendix has been reprinted unchanged from the previous (1996) Blue Book. It is included in
the 1999 Blue Book because of its continuing usefulness and relevance. It should be noted that references to
code sections quoted in this Appendix correspond to those of the 1996 Blue Book (not the 1999 edition) and
the 1994 UBC (instead of the 1997 UBC).
Northridge Commentary Committee

William T. Holmes (SEAONC), Chair
John M. Coil (SEAOSC)
S. K. Ghosh (PCA)
Ronald O. Hamburger (SEAONC)
Charles Kircher (SEAONC)
Ronald F. (Rawn) Nelson (SEAOSC)
C. Mark Saunders (SEAONC)
Edwin Zacher (SEAONC)
Theodore Zsutty (SEAONC)
September 1999 299

1994 Northridge Earthquake—Appendix F SEAOC Blue Book
300 September 1999

APPENDIX F
Engineering Implications
of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
Introduction and therefore not be applicable as justification for spe-

cific changes to current recommendations.
The magnitude 6.7 Mw Northridge earthquake of January
4. Quality of Construction. Consider how well the
17, 1994 provided a significant test for many buildings de-
current Requirements were implemented and whether
signed in accordance with these Recommendations. Al-
improvements can be most efficiently be made by
though the strong ground shaking was of relatively short
more stringent design requirements or better imple-
duration, spectral values in broad period ranges at many
mentation of the current ones. The quality of design,
sites exceeded the Blue Book design spectrum. The perfor-
construction, and inspection of certain types of wood
mance of these tested buildings, both good and poor, must
construction, such as apartment buildings and strip
be carefully studied to determine engineering implica-
malls, was found to be unacceptable in many in-
tions, formulate any revisions to these Recommendations
stances.
that may be appropriate, and prepare improved designs in
the interim. Review and analysis of the results of any damaging
earthquake is educational. Damage or damage patterns
Overall impressions of damage patterns or the perfor-
which, for one reason or the other do not warrant code
mance of a single building may not be sufficient to justify
changes, should be flagged so designers can consider indi-
changes in recommendations that will affect the design of
vidually whether to change their design practice with re-
all future buildings. The criteria used to determine the ap-
spect to structural systems, detailing, or interaction with
propriateness of changes to seismic design recommenda-
the construction process. This appendix has been added to
tions should include the following considerations:
address concerns that may not yet have resulted in changes
1. Characteristics of the Ground Motion. The exact in formal design recommendations, but which should be
motion at any one site is not known unless the site or considered in designs immediately. Additional informa-
building is instrumented. The possibility that extraor- tion can be found in the Findings and Recommendations of
dinary damage was caused by unusual ground motion the City of Los Angeles/SEAOSC Task Force on the
or motion particularly tuned to a structure must be Northridge Earthquake [LA/SEAOSC, 1994].
considered. The effects of duration are poorly quanti-
fied, but the acceptability of performance for any The primary design issues resulting from the
ground motion intensity should consider this factor. Northridge earthquake include:
2. Expected or Acceptable Performance for the In- 1. Concern regarding whether the damage and resulting
tensity of Ground Motion Experienced. Given economic losses to be expected using current Blue
that damage is expected for moderate and major levels Book performance goals is generally acceptable.
of ground motion, the extent of actual damage should 2. Intensity and characteristics of the ground motion,
be measured against expectations before considering particularly in comparison with standard design spec-
changes to design recommendations. tra, possible near field effects, and possible effects of
3. Damage to Older Buildings. Buildings designed to vertical accelerations.
earlier versions of these Requirements should be care- 3. Performance of wood frame buildings, particularly
fully screened and considered separately. This perfor- gypsum board and stucco shear walls, and the perfor-
mance may include effects of multiple deficiencies mance of certain commonly used hardware.
September 1999 301

4. Collapse of several concrete parking garages and the However, there are growing concerns within SEAOC
potential lack of deformation compatibility in many about whether the current elastic equivalent lateral force
other concrete buildings. seismic code format can be used to reliably predict perfor-
5. Failure of wall diaphragm ties or cross building ties in mance over the full range of ground motions indicated, ex-
stiff-walled buildings with flexible diaphragms— cept in the simplest situations. Further, if performance at
most notably tilt-ups. several levels of ground motion becomes more an integral
6. The surprising failure of many beam-column joints in part of the code, the above goals probably need complete
steel moment resisting frames, and the brittle fracture redefinition.
of certain steel elements in other situations. Perhaps more important, damage in the Loma Prieta
Each of these areas of concern will be discussed sepa- and Northridge earthquakes has caused the public to ques-
rately. tion whether these traditional code performance goals are
acceptable. The public is more aware of the costs of both
Re-Evaluation of Blue Book the repair of damage and lost use of buildings, and concern
may be shifting beyond life safety to economic consider-
Performance Goals ations. From a public policy standpoint, there is also inter-
The well-known three-level performance goals found at est in minimizing the demand for emergency shelter after
the beginning of the Commentary and repeated below earthquakes by attempting to provide performance that
have served SEAOC well for nearly 40 years, particularly will yield fewer (or no) uninhabitable housing units.
for the continuing development of code provisions to pre-
One of the most difficult aspects of the multi-level
vent collapse and protect life safety:
performance description is the characterization of ground
“Structures designed in conformance with motion. Was the ground motion level at a given site minor,
these Recommendations should, in general, moderate, or major? Ground motions at some sites during
be able to: the Northridge earthquake had spectral values among the
1. Resist a minor level of earthquake ground largest ever recorded, but the duration of strong shaking
motion without damage. was one-third to one-half of what is projected in other cir-
2.Resist a moderate level of earthquake cumstances in Zone 4. Should damage be expected in ac-
ground motion without structural damage, cordance with performance level 2 (moderate ground
but possibly experience some nonstructural motion) or 3 (major ground motion)? Prior to the current
damage. interest and open discussion about acceptable perfor-
3.Resist a major level of earthquake ground mance, the Blue Book performance goals have been used
motion having an intensity equal to the as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, any structure
strongest either experienced or forecast for that did not collapse was considered to have met the goal
the building site, without collapse, but (when compared with level 3), regardless of the level of
possibly with some structural as well as damage or severity of ground motion. On the other hand,
nonstructural damage.” identified patterns of damage were almost always coun-
“It is expected that structural damage, even in tered with code changes, regardless of the level of damage
a major earthquake, will be limited to a or severity of ground motion (apparently using level 2 as a
repairable level . . . .” goal).
“. . . In order to fulfill the life safety objective Considering damage levels, it is becoming well recog-
of these Recommendations, there are nized that, because of expected nonlinear structural behav-
requirements that provide for structural ior, deformations should replace forces as the key
stability in the event of extreme structural parameter. In order to improve damage predictability, tar-
deformations . . . . While damage to the get damage limitations must be linked to deformations and
primary structural system may be either actual deformations must be better estimated.
negligible or significant, repairable or
In the future, as our ability to both define probable fu-
virtually irreparable, it is reasonable to expect
ture ground motions and predict damage improves, more
that a well-planned and constructed structure
meaningful damage levels must be identified and coupled
will not collapse in a major earthquake.”
with more definitive ground motions so that the success or
failure of code provisions can be more accurately gauged.
302 September 1999

In current designs, if project performance objectives When the stucco wall is erected, it is backed with a
are set more definitively than those in these Requirements, wire-mesh/building paper attached to the stud framing
the nonlinear behavior of the structure and the deformation with power-driven fasteners. In many cases, the wire mesh
demand of the expected or design ground motion should at was installed flush with the paper, providing little bond
least be considered. with the stucco. Two types of failures are noted by Ham-
burger [1994]: staples used to connect the stucco wall
Performance of Wood Frame pulled out of the framing, and the stucco itself pulled away
Buildings from the mesh.
The vast majority of structures subjected to the Northridge Extensive cracking of finish materials on residential
earthquake were of wood frame construction. With the ex- buildings has resulted in the need for costly repairs to
ception of a few notable cases, the structures generally many buildings not considered to be significantly dam-
withstood the earthquake without collapse and for the aged structurally. The extent of nonstructural damage and
most part without extensive structural damage. associated cost may well be much more extensive than the
general public had anticipated.
A study performed for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development analyzed a random sample of several Narrow plywood walls, primarily in the first story of
hundred wood framed structures within a 10-mile radius of multi-story buildings, experienced significant lateral dis-
the epicenter [NAHB, 1994]. Two groups of structures placement and incipient structural failures were observed
were analyzed: single-family detached properties (SFD), [Andreason and Rose, 1994]. Hamburger [1994] reports
and single-family attached and multi-family low-rise on splitting of end studs at holddown bolt locations, in part
properties (SFA/MFLR). The SFD results indicated re- because of inadequate stud size and mislocation of the
markably low levels of damage, with 90 percent of the holddown.
structures receiving no foundation damage, 98 percent re- Many deficiencies in the construction of shear panels
ceiving no wall framing damage, and 99 percent receiving were noted. The use of sinker nails in lieu of the specified
no roof framing damage. The SFA/MFLR data was found common nails, the occurrence of uncorrected shiners, and
to be inconclusive because of sampling problems. Howev- over-driven nails were causes of significant reductions in
er, the data show a general trend of low damage occur- the strength of panels. These deficiencies occurred in spite
rence, which is in general agreement with the Los Angeles of the inspection procedures of, arguably, one of the best
Department of Building and Safety's inspection database. municipal building departments in the nation. It should be
It was noted that much of the MFLR damage was due to a noted that these deficiencies did not occur in wood frame
soft or weak story. school buildings where continuous inspection is required.
Multi-story structures with soft or weak first stories Many problems with sill bolting were observed due to
(generally resulting from wood framed parking levels) poor construction practices. Anchor bolts were not proper-
performed poorly, with many experiencing either a col- ly located and were bent to fit into holddowns. This led to
lapse of the first story or a gross residual horizontal deflec- damage when these bolts straightened in tension. Many
tion that resulted in a questionable ability to economically bolts were placed too close to the edge of the concrete and
repair the building. Hamburger [1994] has estimated that failed due to concrete spalling. Cripple wall failures were
approximately 200 structures either collapsed or had gross limited, primarily because most homes in the area are built
residual soft story deflection. The collapse of the three-sto- slab-on-grade.
ry Northridge Meadows apartment building resulted in the
loss of 16 lives [NIST, 1994]. Extensive cosmetic damage A design issue recently brought to light is the common
occurred throughout the area to wood frame structures in assumption for light frame construction that the load car-
the form of cracking of interior wall finishes, and exterior ried by the various shear walls is directly proportional to
plaster (stucco) cracking. In many buildings, these finish their length. Narrow shear walls, those with height-to-
materials were also used as structural elements for resist- width ratios greater than two, have been found to be much
ing lateral forces. The cracking and damage experienced more flexible than assumed, even when properly con-
thus has not only resulted in cosmetic distress, but has structed, due to the bending or overturning effects. Thus,
compromised the lateral load resisting system of the struc- these walls are not as effective in resisting earthquake
ture. loads as previously assumed. The longer walls, where
present, will take a much higher portion of the load, and
September 1999 303

the horizontal distortion will be much larger than antici- umn) and that design of cantilever columns be based
pated. These larger-than-anticipated deflections or drifts on an equivalent buckling factor K=2.
can result in more damage to nonstructural elements. 5. Diaphragm rotation for the distribution of lateral
Recent testing of narrow shear walls [Shepherd and forces will not be allowed.
Allred, 1995] also indicate some concern with holddown 6. Clearly show lateral force resisting systems on plans
connections at the ends of the walls. Observed failures in- and elevations, and clearly show detail references of
cluded splitting of the wood post at the bolt holes, and sub- all shear walls on the plans.
stantial rotation and elongation of the holddowns. Sliding
of sill plates after the anchor bolts split the wood was also Performance of Concrete Buildings
observed. The American Plywood Association (APA) is Nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings allowed
also studying this issue. Early results of the APA tests prior to the 1973 UBC did not perform well in the
were reported by [Commins and Gregg, 1994], and indi- Northridge earthquake, as was only to be expected [NIST,
cate that plywood nailing and holddowns distorted signif- 1994]. The seven-story Barrington building provided one
icantly, the National Design Specification (NDS) bolt of the worst examples of such nonductile building perfor-
spacing values may be inadequate, and code deflections mance. The Kaiser Permanente office building in Grenada
were exceeded when code forces were applied. Unfortu- Hills suffered collapse of the second story throughout the
nately, though the testing was cyclic, displacements were length of the building and collapse of the end bays
not taken to the levels that might be experienced during an throughout the full height. The joints completely failed be-
actual earthquake, but rather to levels near the much lower cause of grossly inadequate confinement reinforcement.
values that might be used in code design [SSC 94-08]. The structural system for the Bullock's department store at
As a result of a study of the performance of wood the Northridge Fashion Center, which collapsed, consisted
framed buildings by a task force of the City of Los Angeles of lightweight concrete waffle slabs supported by circular
and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern Cal- columns with a few poorly connected and discontinuous
ifornia, a series of recommendations for adoption by the shear walls that were added as a retrofit shortly after the
City of Los Angeles, as it relates to wood frame buildings, 1971 San Fernando earthquake [SEAOC, 1994;
has been made. Some of the major items in the report and SSC 94-06].
the Emergency Enforcement Measures that the Los Ange- Structures with shear walls as a primary lateral load
les City Building Department has adopted are as follows: resisting system performed well with respect to life safety
1. Reduction of the allowable shear values for stucco and and prevention of collapse. However, some shear walls
drywall to approximately half of that previously al- showed sliding along horizontal construction joints, diag-
lowed by the code. Restrict the use of staples for at- onal flexure-shear cracking, and significant damage to
taching wire lath in stucco and restrict the height-to- coupling beams and short piers between openings.
length ratio for walls used for lateral resistance to no
more than 1:1. In addition, restrict these walls to one- Post-1973 reinforced concrete buildings generally
story buildings or the upper stories of multi-level performed well, with some noted exceptions [SSC 94-06]
buildings. including some parking structures [SEAOC, 1994].
2. For plywood shear walls, reduce the code values by There were many concrete parking structures close to
approximately 25 percent and restrict the height-to- the epicenter and farther away, both old and new, that
length ratio to 2:1 in lieu of the previous 3.5:1 ratio. came through the earthquake with very little or no damage.
For heavily loaded walls, the width of members at the As a class, however, parking structures (cast-in-place, as
boundary and plywood joints would have to be at least well as precast) fared considerably worse than other con-
3x members. crete buildings, even though most were post-1973 struc-
3. Require that the size of holes for bolts at the hold- tures.
down anchors be verified to be no more than 1/16 inch
oversize and that the hold-down bolts be tightened
properly.
4. Require that column deflection in wood buildings be
limited to 0.005 H (where H is the height of the col-
304 September 1999

Design Implications for Concrete signed as moment-resisting frame systems, or as unde-

Buildings fined systems? The conservative answer is probably the
latter. In view of the popularity of this system, guidance
The following observations concerning the seismic design needs to be developed as to its design.
implications of the Northridge earthquake for concrete
buildings should be noted. These Recommendations specifically require that any
structural element designated as not part of the lateral load
Vertical Acceleration. Immediately following the resisting system of a building in a moderate or a high seis-
earthquake, some of the damage was blamed on vertical mic zone be designed to be able to sustain factored gravity
acceleration, which was supposedly exceedingly high at loads imposed on it under a lateral displacement equal to
many locations. Recorded peak horizontal accelerations (3Rw /8) times the lateral displacement of the lateral load
were plotted by Moehle [EERC, 1994] against the peak
resisting system elastically computed under the code-pre-
vertical accelerations recorded at 38 stations. At a few lo-
scribed seismic forces. This deformation compatibility re-
cations vertical accelerations were nearly equal to the hor-
quirement is crucial to the safety of the building frame
izontal accelerations, and at one station the peak vertical
system, where lateral loads are resisted by shear walls and
acceleration exceeded the peak horizontal acceleration.
frames carry gravity loads only. It is even more crucial to
However, in general, peak vertical accelerations were
the safety of buildings that combine a small number of
about two-thirds the peak horizontal accelerations, as
ductile lateral load resisting frames with a significant num-
would normally be expected. Priestley [UCSD, 1994] con-
ber of nonductile frames designed for gravity only. Unfor-
cluded that vertical accelerations played no significant role
tunately, the deformation compatibility check is seldom
in the damage sustained by seven highway bridges that
properly carried out by design engineers, and even more
failed in the Northridge earthquake. However, as the abso-
seldom enforced by local jurisdictions. Deformation com-
lute value of vertical acceleration increases, its potential
patibility requirements have been made more stringent and
for significant interaction with both coincident lateral mo-
more enforceable in the 1996 Accumulative Supplement
tion and gravity load increases, particularly in structures
to the UBC (see Appendix C1-AppE).
that may have amplifying vertical response.
The UBC further requires that a column that is not part
Section 105.10 of these Requirements requires explic-
of the lateral force resisting system in Seismic Zone 3 or 4
it consideration of vertical acceleration in the design of
be detailed like a column that is part of the resisting system
horizontal cantilever components as well as horizontal
in Seismic Zone 2 (1994 UBC §1921.7.2.2). In the absence
prestressed components. Whether explicit consideration of
of proper deformation compatibility checks, this required
vertical acceleration needs to be expanded beyond that re-
level of detailing is not sufficient and needs to be made
mains unclear at this time.
more stringent. This has been done in ACI 318-95 as well
Structural Systems and Deformation as in the 1996 Accumulative Supplement to the UBC (see
Compatibility. These Requirements formally recognize Blue Book Section 402.13).
only four different structural systems for reinforced con-
Section 1909.3.4.2 of the 1994 UBC appears to allow
crete buildings:
the use of overstrength, nonductile columns even as part of
■ Moment-resisting frame system
the lateral force resisting system. That section is confus-
■ Bearing wall system
ing, may lead to unsafe designs, and has been deleted from
■ Dual (shear wall-frame interactive) system
ACI 318-95 as well as from the 1996 Accumulative Sup-
■ Building frame system
plement to the UBC. This particular section has been cor-
All other structural systems for reinforced concrete rected by the Blue Book Section 402.7.
buildings fall under the category of undefined systems.
Precast Prestressed Concrete. Specific code re-
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of rein- quirements are needed for precast, prestressed concrete
forced concrete structures, both parking garages and com- structures in high seismic zones. Such specific provisions
mercial buildings, that combine ductile and nonductile will replace the current vague requirement that precast,
frames in the same building. Typically, two ductile frames prestressed concrete structures be equivalent to monolithic
on two parallel faces of a building are relied upon for the concrete structures in terms of strength and toughness. The
entire lateral resistance in the direction parallel to those interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
faces. All other frames spanning in the same direction are current requirement has been nonuniform for obvious rea-
designed for gravity only. Are these buildings to be de- sons. The Building Seismic Safety Council has approved a
September 1999 305

set of specific provisions for precast, prestressed concrete assumptions. However, these stiffness assumptions may
structures in regions of high seismicity, which appear in not be explicit if the approximate formulas of these Rec-
the 1994 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions ommendations are used for period computations or if the
[BSSC, 1994]. The NEHRP requirements, applicable to limitation is invoked, which restricts the design force level
precast concrete frame structures emulating monolithic to be no less than 80 percent of the design force level based
construction, with significant additions and modifications, on the approximate period of the code (see Commentary
have been recommended by the ICBO Lateral Design Sections C105.8.2, C105.8.3, and C106.3).
Code Development Committee for inclusion in the 1997
UBC. Performance of Anchorage of
Continuous Load Path. Section 108.2.4 of these Concrete and Masonry Walls to Wood
Requirements contains “Ties and continuity” require- Diaphragms
ments. Section 108.2.5 contains “Collector Elements” re- The Northridge event was the first since the 1971 San
quirements that read: “Collector elements shall be Fernando earthquake to subject a large number of tilt-up
provided that are capable of transferring the seismic forces and masonry buildings to ground motions as strong as
originating in other portions of the building to the element those projected for the most severe events. Within the San
providing the resistance to those forces” (see Commentary Fernando Valley, which encompasses the areas most
Section C108.2.5). Section 108.2.8 contains requirements strongly shaken by the Northridge earthquake, there are an
for “Anchorage of Concrete or Masonry Walls.” In spite of estimated 1,200 tilt-up buildings [Brooks, 1994], most
all of this, shear walls in more than one precast parking with panelized plywood roofs. An estimated 400 of these
structure that suffered partial collapse were observed to be buildings [Deppe, 1994] within the administrative limits
relatively intact. The most informed speculation is that the of the City of Los Angeles experienced severe damage, in-
collector elements contained insufficient reinforcement, cluding partial roof collapses and, in some cases, collapse
which yielded early on, rendering the elements unable to of perimeter walls. Additional similar damage, not in-
transmit the lateral forces to the shear walls. There may cluded in the above statistics, occurred outside the City of
have been other modes of diaphragm failure. This is a Los Angeles. Many of the damaged buildings were de-
breakdown of the continuous load path and needs to be in- signed to recent editions of the UBC. While no lives were
vestigated. lost as a result of this performance, the damage sustained
Cast-in-Place Topping Acting as Diaphragm. An by many buildings was clearly life-threatening.
area of weakness in modern precast parking structures is Primary structural failure occurred at the out-of-plane
the flexibility of the thin cast-in-place topping slab that connections between the perimeter masonry or concrete
forms the horizontal floor and roof diaphragms and the walls and the panelized plywood roofs. Many failures oc-
chords and collectors for these diaphragms. The UBC cur- curred in buildings provided with specially detailed wall
rently requires these topping slabs to be designed to act as ties, mandated by the UBC in every edition since 1973.
diaphragms independently of the precast elements. The Nearly every conceivable type of wall tie connection expe-
use of a composite design of the topping together with the rienced failure, including catalog hardware supplied by
precast elements to act a as diaphragm may very well be timber connector manufacturers, as well as custom de-
preferable. Details of chord reinforcing in thin topping signed and fabricated details. Wall tie failures included:
slabs need improvement [SSC 94-06]. shear cone pullout of anchors within the masonry or con-
Damage Control. The Northridge earthquake has crete walls; splitting of timber members at bolted connec-
once again pointed out the desirability of including reli- tions; and fracture of light gauge metal hardware,
able damage control criteria in seismic provisions. Wheth- particularly at locations of bends, swivel joints, and bolt
er the current limitation on interstory drift computed holes.
elastically under code-prescribed seismic forces provides These buildings are classical “box” type structures
such damage control is highly questionable. This is partic- with flexible diaphragms. Research on instrumented
ularly so because the stiffness assumptions under which buildings following the 1984 Morgan Hill [Celebi, 1989]
the drift computations are to be made are not specified (see and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquakes [Bouwkamp, 1991] in-
Commentary Chapter 1, Appendix 1E). The code-pre- dicates that the dynamic response of structures with pre-
scribed design seismic forces are dependent on the struc- dominantly solid walls is dominated by the diaphragms,
tural period, which in turn also depends on stiffness with initial periods in the range of 1 to 3 seconds. Walls
306 September 1999

aligned parallel to the direction of ground motion behave anchorage force of 0.467 wh pounds/foot of wall. Stronger
in a relatively rigid manner and do not significantly ampli- diaphragms would be able to produce larger forces.
fy ground motion (recordings indicate less than 40 percent
Based on failures in the 1971 San Fernando earth-
amplification of peak ground acceleration). However, the
quake, codes since the 1973 UBC have required positive
diaphragms do significantly amplify the motion transmit-
direction connections of walls to diaphragms, and contin-
ted by the walls. For low levels of ground motion, peak ac-
uous diaphragm ties to distribute anchorage forces into the
celerations recorded at diaphragm centers are often three
diaphragms. In the 1994 UBC, anchorage forces are gov-
times those recorded at the ground. For strong ground mo-
erned by the equation:
tion, the diaphragms respond with less amplification. Dia-
phragm shear strength appears to be the limiting factor. Fp=Z I Cp Wp
Once a diaphragm yields in shear, it can not deliver any
more force to the mass supported by the roof, thereby lim- To account for diaphragm amplification effects, an-
iting the amount of acceleration that can be induced. chorage forces in the middle half of the diaphragm are in-
creased an additional 50 percent. For Zone 4, this results
Typical diaphragms in UBC Zone 4 are designed with in anchorage design forces of 0.45 wh in the middle half of
code level shear strengths equal to approximately 20 per- the diaphragm, and 0.30 wh elsewhere. In general, hard-
cent of the supported weight. Published test data on ply- ware used for wall anchorage incorporates a minimum fac-
wood diaphragms [Elliot, 1980] indicates that code level tor of safety of 1.7 against failure. This results in ultimate
design shears have a factor of safety under monotonic connection strengths of 0.77 wh and 0.51 wh, respectively,
loading conditions ranging from 3 to 4. Therefore, roof di- in the two diaphragm regions.
aphragms without significant overstrength can deliver an
effective shear equal to approximately 80 percent of the di- It was previously shown that actual peak demands on
aphragm's supported weight. Assuming diaphragm accel- wall anchors at the centers of roof diaphragms that meet,
erations vary from approximately Z at the edge to 3Z at the but do not exceed, code requirements is 0.467 wh. For di-
center, the average roof acceleration is approximately 2Z. aphragms with substantial overstrength, the excessive de-
mands on wall anchors can be much larger. Long
Equating the ultimate diaphragm shear (0.8W) with rectangular diaphragms commonly have substantial over-
the average roof acceleration times the effective mass strength aligned with the long diaphragm dimension. In
(2ZW), such a roof would reach its ultimate strength when such cases, current design practice may result in anchors
subjected to a peak ground acceleration of 0.4g. The max- that are under-designed by as much as 100 percent. Inade-
imum acceleration that would ever be expected at the cen- quate wall anchor strength would not be a significant con-
ter of the such roof diaphragms would be three times this cern if anchors exhibited ductile behavior. Unfortunately,
amount, or a maximum of 1.2g, whether or not the actual observed performance of common anchorage systems in
ground motion exceeds a peak acceleration of 0.4g. Stron- the Northridge earthquake indicates that they do not.
ger diaphragms, however, could produce larger accelera-
tions. As much as 40 percent of the total number of tilt-up
and masonry buildings located in that portion of the City
Given this data, ultimate demands on out-of-plane of Los Angeles that lies within the San Fernando Valley
roof-to-wall connections can be estimated. For a one-story experienced severe, life threatening damage. The percent-
unit strip of wall, with height h and weight w lbs./ft., sub- age of buildings experiencing such damage within the ar-
jected to acceleration “Z” at its base and “3Z” at its roof eas of strongest ground motion (some of it outside the
support point, simple calculations indicate a maximum limits of the City of Los Angeles) was much higher. Ana-
wall anchorage (force) at the roof level of 1.167 Zwh. This lytical evaluations indicate that the 1994 UBC require-
force is directly proportional to the strength of the ground ments may inadequately protect buildings when actual
motion, represented by the coefficient Z, but is also limit- ground motions approach or exceed the nominal peak ac-
ed, as previously described by the shear strength of the di- celerations represented by the zone coefficient Z. The
aphragm. For roofs having a shear strength conforming to, problem appears to be most severe for buildings located on
but not significantly exceeding, code requirements, the soft soil (S3) sites or within the near-field zone of the caus-
maximum force that can be delivered at the top of the wall ative fault, due to the long period nature of motion experi-
can be calculated by substituting the code value for Z in the enced on such sites.
above expression. For Zone 4, this yields a maximum wall
Changes were adapted into the 1996 UBC Supplement
for the out-of-plane wall anchorages to flexible dia-
September 1999 307

phragms for Seismic Zones 3 and 4. The changes (see Re- Since data about the damage suffered by these build-
quirements Section 108.2.8.1) are: ings is still being collected, it is difficult to accurately de-
1. All elements of the wall anchorage system are to be termine the similarities in design and construction between
designed using Cp equal to 1.2 over the entire length steel moment frame buildings affected by the Northridge
of the diaphragm. This results in a minimum earthquake and those in other areas. It is likely that they are
design force of 0.48wh in Seismic Zone 4. The load very similar, if not identical, to design and construction
factor for the concrete embedment design is 1.7 practices in other parts of the state and country.
(rather than 1.4). The design force for the working Almost without exception, the connections that failed
stress design of steel elements is increased by a factor were of the type prescribed by paragraph 4F.1.b of the
of 1.7, or: 1990 edition of the Blue Book. That type of connection
1.7 • ZC p wh = 1.7 • 0.4 • 1.2wh = 0.82wh was first specifically prescribed in the 1988 Blue Book and
for Seismic Zone 4. in the 1988 UBC, but similar connections have been in
common use for about 20 years. The history of this type of
2. Eccentricity must be explicitly considered in the de-
connection (welded flanges/bolted web plate) dates origi-
sign of all elements.
nally to the work of Popov and Stephen in the early 1970s
3. Wood elements must have a minimum net thickness [Popov and Stephens, 1970]. This investigation, using
of 2 1/2 inches (3x rafters) if used as part of the an- W18x50 and W24x76 beams, compared the performance
chorage system. of all-welded connections to that of welded flange/bolted
4. Wall pilaster can significantly affect the force distri- web connections. Although the investigation showed that
bution. Their configuration and details must provide the welded flange/bolted web connections did not perform
for stable support at the maximum earthquake defor- as well as the all-welded, and that their performance was
mation level. somewhat erratic, nonetheless these connections did de-
5. Anchorage using embedded straps must be attached to velop substantial inelastic beam rotations, and were ac-
or hooked around reinforcement or otherwise termi- cepted by structural engineers as being adequate for
nated to effectively transfer the force from the strap to seismic applications.
the reinforcing steel.
The conclusions drawn from this investigation, cou-
pled with the basic economy of the connection and an in-
Performance of Steel Moment Frame
creasing development of trust in welding, led to such
Buildings widespread acceptance by structural engineers and fabri-
The Northridge earthquake caused damage to over 200 cators that the welded flange/bolted web connection be-
steel moment resisting frame buildings. The majority of came fully accepted and was written into the code.
this damage consists of fractures of the bottom flange weld Subsequent tests by Tsai and Popov (1988), and by Engle-
between the column and girder flanges, although there hardt (1993), further demonstrated the variability of per-
have also been a large number of instances where top formance of these welded flange/bolted web connections.
flange fractures occurred. In some cases, damage at these Despite the lack of complete reliability of the connec-
connections included tearing and cracking of the column tion as demonstrated in the tests, the number of failures at
flanges and/or web, and there were instances of cracking Northridge would have to be considered as quite unexpect-
and complete fracture of heavy column sections. ed. The following factors may have contributed to this
Tearing of the girder shear tab connection also oc- poor performance:
curred in a number of instances when flange welds were 1. Unreliability of material properties, particularly ex-
fractured. Buildings of 1 to 27 stories have been affected, cessive strength of A36 beams and girders.
with the majority in the range below six stories. Most of 2. Poor execution and quality control of welding.
the damage occurred to structures of recent construction, 3. A basic joint configuration not conducive to ductile
although buildings up to 20 years old experienced weld behavior.
fractures. The majority of the damaged steel frame build-
4. Web connections with bending strength less than that
ings are located in the recently developed San Fernando
of the web itself.
Valley. Similar, but less extensive, damage has been found
in buildings in Santa Monica and West Los Angeles. 5. Unreliable through-thickness strength of column
flange material.
308 September 1999

6. Large member sizes and large welds. ground motion should be inspected. Inspection
7. High residual stresses caused by fit-up sequence of guidelines are included.
highly restrained joints. ■ For limited levels of damage, welds may be repaired
8. Possible effects of unusual earthquake characteristics to their original configuration using controlled
such as large vertical accelerations. procedures specified in the guideline. It is
recommended that for more serious damage,
A number of groups concerned with the design and modification of the connectors or of the entire lateral
construction of steel moment resisting frame buildings force system be considered. Conceptual modification
have begun work on determining the causes of the dam- details that have shown promise in limited testing are
age. With initial funding from the California OES, the included.
SAC Joint Venture, consisting of SEAOC, the Applied ■ In general, design of connections for new buildings
Technology Council (ATC), and the California Universi- should be based on project-specific tests. Exceptions
ties for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe), to this recommendation can be made under certain
was formed to begin research to resolve the problem. The circumstances, such as the availability of similar tests,
SAC Joint Venture developed a two-phase program. The and qualified third-party review of the design. A
main intent of Phase I was to provide interim guidelines summary of connections types tested to date is given.
for the immediate post-Northridge problems of identifying
damage in affected buildings and repairing the damage us- Guidance is also included on specifications for weld-
ing methods that had been proven capable by testing. ing, quality control, and nondestructive testing.
Phase I also included documentation of the best guid- Another issue for structural engineers to consider is
ance available for design of new steel moment frames. the shear connections of nonmoment frame girders to col-
Phase II consists of a long-term program of research to un- umns. Considering that many web shear tabs cracked un-
derstand conditions that lead to the premature connection der the rotations imposed on them after the flange welds
fractures and to develop sound guidelines for seismic de- failed, and recognizing that the nonframe connections
tailing of improved or alternative connections for new must undergo similar rotations, the advisability of beams
buildings, as well as reliable repair and retrofitting con- or girders being rigidly connected to shear tabs by slip-
cepts for existing WSMF structures. Phase I was funded critical bolts or by welds must be evaluated.
by OES and FEMA and has been completed. Phase II is In the fall of 1994, an emergency code change was
being funded by FEMA and is expected to be completed in made to the 1991 UBC that deleted provisions prescribing
1998. requirements for beam-column joint connections, the
The major conclusions of the SAC Phase I effort is UBC equivalent of the 1990 Blue Book Section 4.F.1.b.
contained in the document entitled Interim Guidelines: The section was replaced by performance oriented require-
Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded ments that require considerable interpretation. Current in-
Steel Moment Frame Structures (FEMA, 1995). A com- terpretation is contained in SEAOC Interim
panion set of documents, including the research reports Recommendation Number 2 published in January, 1995.
and state-of-the-art papers, is also available. A large
amount of detailed information is included in the Interim Strong Ground Shaking Recorded
Guidelines, but the main conclusions were: During the 1994 Northridge
■ No single cause for the failures was noted, but rather Earthquake
the problem was likely a combination of many factors.
Strong ground shaking was recorded during the magnitude
■ Even though there were no collapses of WSMF
Mw=6.7 1994 Northridge earthquake at sites located close
structures in this earthquake, such collapses should
not be ruled out. However, well-constructed WSMF to fault rupture. At these near-source sites, ground motion
should be considered to pose less risk of collapse than response spectra were often significantly larger than the
many other existing buildings, including unreinforced Seismic Zone 4 design spectrum (i.e., the normalized re-
masonry, nonductile concrete frames and other sponse spectrum shown in Figure 104-2 for the soil profile
concrete buildings with inadequate deformation type of interest, anchored to an effective peak ground ac-
capacity, and certain tilt-up and precast structures. celeration of 0.4g). While somewhat stronger than that ex-
■ Because of the potential for hidden damage, a sample pected for a Mw=6.7 event, recorded near-source ground
of connections in all WSMFs subjected to strong shaking was consistent with both theoretical and empiri-
September 1999 309

cally based predictions of ground motion for large magni- Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Strong-
tude earthquakes. Motion Network
■ Rinaldi Receiving Station
The design spectra of these Recommendations are
■ Sylmar Converter Station (SCS)
representative of ground shaking at sites located about 10
■ Sylmar Converter Station East (SCSE)
to 15 km from the fault rupture of a large magnitude earth-
quake. For base isolated structures located within 15 km of A summary of ground motion recorded at the stations
an active source, these Recommendations prescribe a listed above is provided in Table AppF-1. Data presented
near-field coefficient, N (see Table 152-3), that is used to in Table AppF-1 are taken from CSMIP [CDMG, 1994],
increase seismic demand based on earthquake magnitude NSMP [USGS, 1994] and LADWP [Lindvall et al., 1994]
and the closest distance to fault rupture. The Ad Hoc reports. Estimates of the closest distance to fault rupture
Ground Motion Subcommittee of the Seismology Com- are based on the reported location of the instrument and
mittee has developed a similar near-field factor for design the approximate location of the mainshock fault plane. Es-
of both isolated and conventional (fixed base) structures. timates have been rounded to the nearest 5 km, reflecting
This factor will appear in future editions of the SEAOC imprecise knowledge of these distances. The data include
Blue Book and is scheduled for probable incorporation in only records from free-field stations (or instruments locat-
the 1997 UBC. ed at the ground floor of buildings when free-field records
are not available). Records from the upper floors of build-
Background
ings or from dams are not included.
The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994 was cen-
tered in the San Fernando Valley. The epicenter was about The records summarized in Table AppF-1 are a fairly
1 mile south-southwest of Northridge, or about 20 miles complete and representative sample of the strongest shak-
west-northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The moment ing recorded during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. One
magnitude of the earthquake is Mw=6.7. notable omission is the exceptionally strong shaking re-
corded at Tarzana-Cedar Hills Nursery [CDMG, 1994].
Analyses of aftershock data indicate that the main- This station recorded ground motion with peak ground ac-
shock fault rupture plane covered an approximately rect- celerations greater than 1g in each of the three orthogonal
angular zone extending about 15 km west-northwest from directions. Very large accelerations were recorded for at
the epicenter and about 15 km to the northwest-northeast. least 10 seconds. Aftershock evaluation verified instru-
The fault rupture plane slopes upward at about 45 degrees ment functionality; however, comparisons with other
from a depth of about 18 km at the mainshock's focus to nearby instruments revealed highly localized amplifica-
within about 5 km of the surface. The fault rupture plane tion at this site. The Tarzana record should not be ignored,
slopes upward to the northeast so that areas closest to the but the record should not be considered representative of
fault rupture lie roughly along Interstate 5 between Sylmar ground motion recorded during the event.
and Newhall.
Near-Field Ground Motion—Horizontal
Strong ground motion was recorded at a number of Direction
stations located within 10 to 15 km of the fault rupture. Since 1992, the Ad Hoc Ground Motion Subcommittee of
These recording stations include: the SEAOC Seismology Committee has been considering
California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program refinements to ground motion criteria. Scope and status of
(CSMIP) Subcommittee activities have been reported annually at
■ Arleta (Nordhoff Avenue Fire Station) the SEAOC convention [Kircher et al., 1993]. The primary
■ Sylmar (Los Angeles County Hospital) objective of the Subcommittee is to develop seismic crite-
■ Newhall (Los Angeles County Fire Station) ria that better reflect actual ground shaking expected at
National Strong-Motion Program (NSMP) building sites. The Subcommittee has been developing a
■ Sepulveda V.A. Hospital (United States Department near-field factor for sites located near earthquake sources.
of Veterans Affairs) This factor would be incorporated into design values re-
■ Jensen Filter Plant (Metropolitan Water District of quired for equivalent lateral force (static) analysis design
Southern California) and the seismic criteria required for dynamic analysis. At
present, a near-field term is required only for design of
seismic isolated buildings.
310 September 1999

Ground motion recorded during the 1994 Northridge Building proximity to fault rupture is an important pa-
earthquake at sites near the fault rupture provide additional rameter, since ground motion attenuates with distance.
and compelling evidence for design consideration of Figure AppF-3 illustrates ground motion attenuation from
ground motion beyond the level specified by current a fault in terms of a 1-second response. The trend in
SEAOC seismic design criteria. As summarized in ground motion attenuation is similar for other periods. In
Table AppF-1, horizontal components of ground accelera- Figure AppF-3, empirically based predictions of attenua-
tion recorded approximately 5 km from the fault rupture tion are based on the work of Boore et al. [1993], although
have instrumental peak ground acceleration (PGA) values the work of other researchers could have been used. Boore
of about 0.7g, on the average, in contrast to the 0.4g “ef- et al. uses a distance definition of the horizontal distance
fective” PGA of the spectrum recommended by SEAOC. to the surface projection of the fault rupture, which is dif-
ferent than “closest distance to source,” but the points dis-
A more meaningful evaluation of near-source ground
cussed below are still valid. Soil type is assumed to be
motion may be made by directly comparing response spec-
Boore et al. soil type B/C, corresponding to medium soil
tra. Such comparisons avoid issues related to inherent dif-
site conditions (i.e., SEAOC Soil Type S2). Attenuation
ferences in instrumental and effective values of PGA, and
values are provided for two earthquake magnitudes,
provide better information on ground shaking at periods
Mw=6.7 and Mw=7.5. In both cases, attenuation is shown
that most affect building response. Figure AppF-1 com-
pares spectra recorded at three CDMG stations: Arleta, by values that range from the “median” to “+ 1 sigma” lev-
Sylmar, and Newhall. For each station, the spectra of the els of predicted response. The range of predicted values is
two horizontal components have been averaged together. large, reflecting the large scatter in measured ground mo-
This averaging tends to smooth the peaks and valleys of tion.
individual components (permitting easier comparison with As shown in Figure AppF-3, the empirically based
the SEAOC spectrum), but eliminates biases between predictions of the shaking level drop off significantly with
components due to directivity and other source-site ef- distance. Superimposed on the empirically based predic-
fects. In most near-field records, fault-normal component tions shown in the figure are response values obtained
of ground shaking tends to be significantly stronger than from 1994 Northridge earthquake spectra of six of the
the fault-parallel component. near-field records listed in Table AppF-1. Five of the
As shown in Table AppF-1, the Arleta station was the records (Rinaldi, Newhall, Sylmar, SCS, and SCSE) are at
closest of the three stations to the epicenter (10 km), but about 5 km from fault rupture and the sixth record (Arleta)
the farthest from fault rupture (15 km). Both Sylmar and is at about 15 km. Also shown for reference is the value of
Newhall stations were farther from the epicenter, but sig- the SEAOC spectrum for Soil Type S2 at a period of 1 sec-
nificantly closer to the fault rupture (5 km). Comparison of ond. This value is 0.6 g for Zone 4 and 0.45 g for Zone 3.
the Arleta, Sylmar, and Newhall spectra reflects these dif- When multiplied by the building's weight, these accelera-
ferences in distance to fault rupture. Arleta is about one- tions are the same as the design values required for equiv-
half to three-quarters of the SEAOC spectrum at periods of alent lateral force design of a 1-second building, before
interest, while the Sylmar and Newhall spectra are both reduction by the Rw factor. Within a given seismic zone,
about 1.5 to 2 times the SEAOC spectrum. Figure AppF-2 the SEAOC spectrum (and corresponding design values)
compares composite Sylmar/Newhall spectra with the do not vary with distance from earthquake source(s). As il-
SEAOC spectrum. Both the average and the envelope of lustrated in Figure AppF-3, the SEAOC spectrum would
the four spectra of individual horizontal components are be expected to underpredict ground shaking for sites locat-
compared. The average spectrum indicates that ground ed within about 10 to 15 km of fault ruptures. The near-
shaking at Sylmar and Newhall near-field sites typically field records of the Northridge earthquake confirm this ex-
exceeded the SEAOC spectrum by a factor of about 1.5 to pectation.
2 at virtually all periods of interest to building design (i.e., Near-Field Ground Motion—Vertical
all periods between about 0.5 seconds and 3.0 seconds). Direction
The envelope spectrum suggests that motion in the stron-
Vertical ground motion is assumed to be about two-thirds
gest direction of shaking recorded at the critical station ex-
of horizontal ground motion, except at distances closer
ceeded the SEAOC spectrum by about a factor of 2 to 2.5
than about 10 km, where the peak vertical acceleration is
at all periods of interest to building design.
approximately equal to the peak horizontal acceleration. In
this sense, the vertical motions recorded during the
September 1999 311

Northridge earthquake are not exceptional. For free-field velocity pulses that most affect the long-period portion of
stations listed in Table AppF-1, the average vertical PGA response spectra.
is about 0.6g, in contrast to an average horizontal PGA of
The relatively short duration strong ground shaking
about 0.7 g. The important aspect of these values is that
likely reduced the effects of the very high demands placed
while both are large, the instrumental vertical PGA is over
on buildings located near the fault rupture. Buildings were
twice that corresponding to two-thirds of 0.4 g, the effec-
required to sustain only a few cycles of extreme response
tive horizontal PGA of the SEAOC spectrum.
and properly designed lateral force resisting systems of
Large vertical PGAs, in and of themselves, would not most building types generally performed well. Caution
necessarily be significant. Typically, the strongest portion must be exercised in extrapolating these favorable obser-
of vertical motions tend to shake the site before the stron- vations to earthquakes of larger magnitudes, since the du-
gest portion of horizontal motions can excite the building. ration of strong shaking would be expected to be much
Close to fault rupture, however, the strong vertical and longer.
horizontal motions can act concurrently on buildings.
Near-field records from the 1994 Northridge show signif-
icant correlation of vertical and horizontal ground shaking.
References
The most important aspect of evaluating the effects of
vertical earthquake ground shaking on buildings is the de- Andreason, Kenneth and John Rose, 1994. Northridge,
termination of the vulnerability of building elements to California Earthquake: Structural Performance of
such motions. Certain buildings have elements, such as the Buildings in San Fernando Valley, California,
long, vertically flexible spans of a parking garage, that American Plywood Association: Tacoma,
would be expected to be dynamically excited by vertical Washington, APA Report T94-5, March.
earthquake shaking. Spectra of the vertical component Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner, and T.E. Fumal, 1993.
from a number of near-field locations show peak response “Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
in the range of about 1g to 2 g. These high response accel- Accelerations from Western North American
erations were found at periods from 0.1 to 0.5 seconds, the Earthquakes: an Interim Report,” U.S. Geological
range of periods typical of vertical modes of vibration. Survey Open-File Report 93-509.
This level of vertical earthquake loads, when combined
with building weight, would generate short duration loads Bouwkamp J., R.O. Hamburger, and J. Gillengerten, 1991.
on elements as much as the supported weight acting up- Degradation of Plywood Roof Diaphragms Under
ward or as much as three times the supported weight acting Multiple Earthquake Loading, CSMIP90.
downward. Buildings that have significant design margin Brooks H., 1994. Tilt-Up and Earthquakes: A Post-
on vertical (beyond the weight of the building) can sustain Northridge Assessment.
high, but short-duration, vertical earthquake accelerations
without failure. Elements of buildings located near fault BSSC, 1994. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the
rupture that do not have such design margin would be sus- Development of Seismic Regulations for New
ceptible to vertically-induced earthquake failures. Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, D.C.
Duration
CDMG, 1994. California Department of Conservation,
The duration of strong ground shaking of the 1994
CSMIP Strong-Motion Records from the Northridge,
Northridge earthquake was relatively short, consistent
California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, California
with that expected for a magnitude Mw=6.7 event.
Division of Mines and Geology Office of Strong
Teleseismic and strong motion data indicate that two main Motion Studies Report No. OSMS 94-07, California
subevents occurred, separated in time by about 2 to 3 sec- Strong Motion Instrumentation Program.
onds (with the possibility of a smaller event 4 to 5 seconds
later). These data suggest the duration of fault rupture was Celebi, M., G. Bongiovanni, E. Safak, G. Brady, 1989.
about 6 to 8 seconds, consistent with the 8- to 10-second “Seismic Response of a Large Span Roof Diaphragm,”
duration of very strong shaking recorded at near-source Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake Engineering
sites. With respect to the strongest shaking recorded at Research Institute, Oakland, California.
sites located at about 5 km from fault rupture, the time his-
tories typically include only one or two cycles of strong
312 September 1999

Commins, A. and R. Gregg, 1994. Cyclic Performance of Earthquake. SEAOSC Seminar Notes, SEAOSC,
Tall-Narrow Shearwall Assemblies, paper and 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California
presentation at 1994 EERI Annual Meeting, Pasadena, 90601.
California, April 7-9.
NAHB (NAHB Research Center), 1994. Assessment of
Deppe, K., Earthquake Performance of Tiltup, Masonry Damage to Residential Buildings Caused by the
and Wood Frame Buildings, 1994. Presented at the Northridge Earthquake, prepared for the United States
Joint Meeting of the Earthquake Engineering Research Department of Housing and Urban Development-
Institute and Seismological Society of America. April. Office of Policy Development and Research, NAHB:
Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
EERC, 1994. Preliminary Report on the Seismological
and Engineering Aspects of the January 17, 1994 NIST Special Publication 862, 1994. ICSSCTR 14, Diana
Northridge Earthquake, Report No. UCB/EERC-94/ Todd et al., Northridge Earthquake.
01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Popov, E. P., and R.M. Stephen, 1970. Cyclic Testing of
University of California, Berkeley.
Full Size Steel Connections, Report No. EERC-70-3,
Elliot, J.R., 1980. Wood Diaphragm Testing - Past, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
Present, Planned, in Proceedings of a Workshop on of California, Berkeley, California.
Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms. Applied
SEAOC, 1994. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual
Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Convention, Sacramento, California.
Engelhardt, M.D. and A.S Hussain, 1993. Cyclic Loading
Shepherd, R. and B. Allred, 1995. Cyclic Testing of
Performance of Welded Flange-Bolt Web
Narrow Plywood Shear Walls, ATC-R-1, Applied
Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Technology Council, 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Redwood
ASCE, December 1993.
City, California 94605.
FEMA 267, 1995. Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair,
SSC 94-06, 1994. Northridge Building Case Studies, Eds:
Modification, and Design of Steel Moment Frames.
Rutherford and Chekene, Engineers. California
Report No. SAC 95-02.
Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento, California.
Hamburger, R.O., 1994, Lessons Learned in the
SSC 94-08, 1994. Compendium Background Report,
Northridge Earthquake on Wood Frame Buildings,
California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento,
Seminar Papers: Northridge Earthquake: Lessons
California.
Learned, SEAONC 1994 Spring Seminar, SEAONC:
San Francisco, California. Tsai, K.C., and E.P. Popov, 1988. Steel Beam-Column
Joints in Seismic Moment Resisting Frames, Report
Kircher, C. A., N.C. Donovan, L. Mualchin, J. Ragsdale,
No. UCB/EERC-88/19, Earthquake Engineering
K.L. Benuska, M. Lew, V. Berger, and G. Magee,
Research Center, University of California at Berkeley,
1993. An Acceptable Method for Characterizing
Berkeley, California.
Seismic Hazard, Proceedings 62nd Annual
Convention. Structural Engineers Association of UCSD, The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994:
California, Sacramento, California. Damage Analysis of Selected Freeway Bridges, 1994.
Report No. SSRP-94/06, Structural Systems Research
Lindvall, Richter, and Benuska Associates, 1994.
Project, University of California, San Diego.
Processed LADWP Power System Strong-Motion
Records from the Northridge, California Earthquake USGS, 1994. Accelerograms Recorded at USGS National
of January 17, 1994, Report LRB 007-027. Prepared Strong-Motion Network Stations During the Ms=6. 6
for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power by Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17,
Lindvall, Richter, and Benuska Associates Los 1994, United States Geological Survey Department of
Angeles, California. the Interior, USGS Open File Report 94-141.
LA/SEAOSC, 1994. City of Los Angeles/Structural
Engineers Association of Southern California,
Findings and Recommendations of the City of Los
Angeles/SEAOSC Task Force on the Northridge
September 1999 313

Table AppF-1. 1994 Northridge Earthquake Ground Motion Recorded Near-Fault Rupture [References:
CDMG, 1994; USGS, 1994; Lindvall et al., 1994]
Distance from Maximum

Recording Station Fault (km) Acceleration
Owner Location Site Epi- Fault Comp PGA (g)
Name (Instrument No.) Geology center Rupture
Sepulveda VA Hospital VA (NSMP) Ground level 7 10 360° 0.94
Up 0.48
270° 0.74
Rinaldi Receiving LADWP (5968) Free field Alluvium 10 5 318° 0.48
Station
Up 0.85
228° 0.84
Arleta Nordhoff Ave. CDMG Ground level Alluvium 10 15 90° 0.35
Fire Station (CSMIP 24087)
Up 0.59
360° 0.29
Jensen Filter Plant MWD (NSMP) Ground level 12 5 022° 0.56
Generator Building
Up 0.52
292° 0.98
Sylmar Converter LADWP (306-3) Free field Alluvium 12 5 052° 0.61
Station (SCS)
Up 0.64
142° 0.90
Sylmar Converter LADWP (6273) Free field Rock 13 5 015° 0.83
Station East (SCSE)
Up 0.38
285° 0.49
Sylmar LA County CDMG Free field Alluvium 16 5 360° 0.91
Hospital (CSMIP 24514)
Up 0.60
90° 0.61
Newhall LA County Fire CDMG Ground level Alluvium 20 5 90° 0.63
Station (CSMIP 24279)
Up 0.62
360° 0.61
314 September 1999

Figure AppF-1. Comparison of selected spectra from the Northridge earthquake
Figure AppF-2. Composite spectra from the Northridge earthquake
September 1999 315

Figure AppF-3. Ground motion attenuation from the Northridge earthquake
316 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix G—Performance-Based Seismic Design
APPENDIX G
Conceptual Framework for
Performance-Based Seismic Design
Appendix G presents a Conceptual Framework for performance-based seismic engineering. It is reprinted unchanged
from the 1996 Blue Book. Material in Appendix G is to be superseded first by the Guidelines and then by the Provisions
of Appendix I. The developing Guidelines document is presented in Part A, Appendix I of this Blue Book. This
Conceptual Framework is a reference document.
Vision 2000 Committee

Chris Poland (SEAONC), Chair
James Hill (SEAOSC), Vice Chair
Roland Sharpe (SEAONC), Vice Chair
Vitelmo Bertero (SEAONC)
Robert Chittenden (SEAOCC)
Anthony Court (SEAOSD)
Ronald Hamburger (SEAONC)
Joseph Nicoletti (SEAONC)
Richard Phillips (SEAOSC)
Scott Stedman (SEAOSD)
Ajit Virdee (SEAOCC)
Nabih Youssef (SEAOSC)
Ad Hoc Members
Vilas Mujumdar (SEAOCC)
Robert Thacker (SEAOCC)
Charles C. Thiel Jr. (SEAONC)
September 1999 317

Performance-Based Seismic Design—Appendix G
318 September 1999

APPENDIX G
Conceptual Framework
for Performance-Based Seismic Design
Introduction sues to be addressed in designing structures for predictable

and definable seismic performance, within established
The SEAOC Blue Book has historically targeted a limited
levels of risk. The methodology is illustrated in a flow
set of design objectives, as described in Section 101 of this
chart in Figure AppG-1.
Commentary. The Recommendations are based largely on
application of an equivalent lateral force approach to a sin- This framework must first be developed into guide-
gle level earthquake design and focus primarily on design lines and then into code provisions before it can be readily
of the primary structural system. In recent years, SEAOC applied in building design. Some of the concepts are easily
has recognized the need and opportunity to develop a new developed; others will require considerable research and
generation of performance-based engineering provisions trial design applications before they can be developed into
that embrace a broader scope of design and construction a usable form. During the transition from current seismic
quality assurance issues and that yield more predictable design practice to performance-based engineering design,
seismic performance over a range of earthquake demands. it is anticipated that new provisions will be incrementally
developed from existing provisions. This will ensure a
SEAOC's Vision 2000 Committee has defined a
smooth transition.
framework for development of performance-based engi-
neering procedures. These procedures will address a broad This performance-based engineering methodology
range of performance objectives that consider life safety, will apply to all types of structures in all seismic regions.
structural and nonstructural damage control, and mainte- It has been developed in the context of general building
nance of function over a range of earthquake hazards. design, but may also be applied to bridges and other non-
These performance-based procedures will embrace new building structures. It is focused primarily on new con-
design and analysis approaches that will more directly ad- struction, but also applies, with some limitations, to
dress the inelastic response of structures and provide alter- existing structures. Applications to existing buildings are
native procedures to better achieve defined seismic also being developed in ongoing guideline development
performance objectives. projects, including ATC-33 and ATC-40/Proposition 122
[ATC-33; ATC-40].
This Appendix is adapted from SEAOC's Vision 2000
report [OES, 1995] and outlines the conceptual framework Performance-based engineering begins with the selec-
developed by Vision 2000. It defines performance-based tion of performance objectives and identification of seis-
engineering in terms of performance levels, seismic haz- mic hazards, continues with conceptual, preliminary and
ard levels and performance objectives, and provides guid- final designs, design verification, and design review, and
ance for the development and incorporation of concludes with quality assurance during construction and
performance-based engineering guidelines into future edi- building maintenance after construction. Each step is pur-
tions of the Blue Book. sued to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the rigor of
design required to meet the selected performance objec-
Overview tives. Abbreviated methodologies can be used for simple
structures with modest performance objectives.
The conceptual framework for performance-based engi-
neering is defined as a full range of seismic engineering is- The “design” and “verification” steps vary depending on
the design approach selected and the performance objec-
September 1999 319

tives. Building design approaches are outlined in the Vi- A performance objective is a coupling of expected
sion 2000 report [OES, 1995] and include: performance level with expected levels of seismic ground
■ Comprehensive Design motions. A performance level is a damage state, a distinct
■ Displacement band in the spectrum of possible seismic damage states as
■ Energy illustrated in Figure AppG-2. Performance levels are de-
■ General Force/Strength fined in terms of damage to the structure and nonstructural
■ Simplified Force/Strength components and in terms of consequences to the occupants
■ Prescriptive Approaches and functions carried on within the facility. Four perfor-
Verification analysis procedures outlined include: mance levels are identified in this Appendix and are de-
■ General Elastic Analysis Procedures scribed in detail in the Vision 2000 report. These
■ Component-Based Elastic Analysis Procedure performance levels are as follows:
■ Capacity Spectrum Procedure ■ Fully Operational. Facility continues in
■ Pushover Analysis Methods operation with negligible damage.
■ Dynamic Nonlinear Time History Analysis ■ Operational. Facility continues in operation
■ Drift Demand Spectrum Analysis with minor damage and minor disruption in
nonessential services.
The capacity design philosophy is adopted as an un- ■ Life Safe. Life safety is substantially protected,
derlying principle of effective seismic design. In capacity damage is moderate to extensive.
design, the inelastic behavior of the structure is controlled ■ Near Collapse. Life safety is at risk, damage is
by proportioning the structure to yield at predetermined severe, structural collapse is prevented.
ductile “fuse” locations. Those “fuses” are detailed to ac-
commodate the ductility demand imposed by the earth- Tables AppG-1 through AppG-6 further define these
quake while the rest of the structure remains elastic. performance levels in terms of damage to the various com-
ponents of the building.
The seismic design process involves multiple sources
of uncertainty, including seismic hazard, analysis methods The seismic hazard at a given site is represented as a
and models, and variability in the construction materials set of earthquake ground motions and associated hazards
and workmanship. Performance-based engineering tech- with specified probabilities of occurrence. Four levels of
niques must identify and quantify those uncertainties so probabilistic events are proposed as follows:
that the reliability of the design can be estimated and ac-
knowledged. Levels for Design and Verification
Each major step in performance-based engineering Recurrence Probability of
methodology is described in greater detail in the following Event Interval Exceedence
subsections. These descriptions are general in nature and Frequent 43 years 50% in 30 years
are more fully developed in the Vision 2000 report [OES,
Occasional 72 years 50% in 50 years
1995]. Each is written as a general description of the end
product, with some reference to particular applications, Rare 475 years 10% in 50 years
and will need to be fully developed. Very rare 970 years 10% in 100 years
Selection of Performance Objectives

The first step in performance-based engineering is selec- Performance objectives are composed of multiple
tion of seismic performance objectives for the design. This goals; for example, fully operational in the 43-year event,
selection is made by the client, in consultation with the de- life safe in the 475-year event, and collapse prevention in
sign professional, based on consideration of the client's ex- the 970-year event. For this Vision 2000 report, a set of
pectations, the seismic hazard exposure, economic minimum objectives and enhanced objectives are identi-
analysis, and acceptable risk. Performance objectives will fied:
typically range from code minimums, usually based on life ■ Minimum Objectives. The basic objective is
safety in a rare earthquake, to operational in a very rare defined as the minimum acceptable performance
earthquake. objective for typical new buildings. Essential/
hazardous facility and safety critical objectives
320 September 1999

are defined as minimum objectives for facilities quired for the design and analysis. Damping may be
such as hospitals and nuclear material processing accounted for as 2 percent critical for purely elastic re-
facilities, respectively. These three minimum sponse, 5 percent critical for traditional elastic analysis as-
objectives are illustrated in Figure AppG-3 as suming inelastic response, or possibly 10-20 percent
diagonal lines in the performance objective critical for inelastic analysis or for specially damped sys-
matrix. tems. Duration effects and energy content of the expected
■ Enhanced Objectives. Other objectives that ground motion need further study before they are directly
provide better performance or lower risk than the accounted for in the design.
minimum objectives may be selected at the
For simple, regularly configured buildings with basic
client's discretion. These objectives are termed
performance objectives, this step will follow procedures
enhanced objectives.
similar to the current code. The site suitability analysis
The selection of performance objectives sets the ac- may be based on publicly available maps or commonly
ceptance criteria for the design. The performance objec- known information. The seismic hazard analysis may be
tives represent performance levels, or damage levels, nothing more than a seismic zone factor assigned by the
expected to result from design ground motions. The per- building official.
formance levels are keyed to limiting values of measurable
structural response parameters, such as drift and ductility Conceptual Design
demand. When the performance objectives are selected,
Once the performance objectives are selected and the site
the associated limiting values become the acceptance cri-
suitability and seismic ground motions are established,
teria to be checked in later stages of the design. Limiting
structural design can proceed. Structural design begins
values of the response parameters that correlate with the
with overall conceptual design of the facility including
defined performance levels must be established through
layout, configuration, selection of structural systems and
research. Acceptance criteria are discussed further in Pre-
materials, selection of foundation systems and, to varying
liminary and Final Design Steps, below.
degrees, selection of nonstructural systems. It is in the con-
ceptual design stage that fundamental decisions are made
Site Suitability and Design Ground that determine the ultimate viability of the design.
Motions
Modern seismic resistant design relies on the inelastic
Before structural design begins, a site suitability and seis- response of the structure to dissipate much of the input en-
mic hazard analysis that considers the proposed perfor- ergy generated by major earthquakes. Therefore, it is im-
mance objectives for the project must be undertaken. The perative that the postelastic behavior of the structure be
building site should be analyzed for suitability for the se- addressed at this stage of design. Capacity design princi-
lected performance objective, considering any site hazards ples should be applied to provide an overview of the in-
that may exist. Ground motion design criteria should be elastic response and to designate the ductile links or
established and characterized in a form suitable for the an- “fuses” in the lateral force resisting system. The designat-
ticipated structural analysis and design methods. ed “fuses” will be counted on to yield and to dissipate the
Site suitability analysis includes consideration of the site input energy of the earthquake while the rest of the system
seismicity, soil type, and potential site hazards. Analysis remains elastic. The conceptual overview obtained pro-
will typically include determination of soil profile and to- vides the design team with a clear conceptual understand-
pography, identification of seismic sources and source ing of the intended inelastic response of the structure and
mechanisms, and identification of liquefaction potential, allows the design and quality assurance programs to focus
tsunami exposure, and other hazards such as flooding and on the critical links in the system. At the final design and
fire hazards from adjacent properties. detailing stage, these critical links must be rigorously de-
tailed to provide the ductility required.
Seismic hazard analysis will determine the design
ground motion for the specified design events considering In making fundamental design decisions at the con-
all critical seismic sources. Ground motions can be repre- ceptual design stage, the following guidelines to good seis-
sented as time histories, acceleration response spectra, dis- mic design should be considered:
placement response spectra, drift demand spectra, or by 1. Use simple, symmetrical and regular configurations
other means, as required for the design and analysis meth- where possible.
ods. Response spectra may be elastic or inelastic, as re-
September 1999 321

2. Use lighter building weight rather than heavier. analyzing, and verifying the design of structures so that
3. Avoid high slenderness ratios. they reliably meet the selected performance objectives.
4. Provide redundancy and ductility to overcome seismic The possible approaches to the design problem include fa-
design uncertainties. miliar force/strength approaches, displacement approach-
es, energy approaches and prescriptive design approaches.
5. Provide sufficient stiffness to limit drift-related dam-
Verification methods include various elastic and inelastic
age.
analysis procedures.
6. Provide sufficient flexibility to limit acceleration-re-
lated damage. The preliminary and final design stages involve sizing
7. Provide toughness (energy dissipation capacity) and and detailing the structural framing system and the non-
stability in strength and stiffness in postelastic cyclic structural systems so that the performance objectives can
behavior. be met. Performance objectives must be translated into en-
gineering to establish an acceptance criteria, defined as
8. Provide uniform and continuous distribution of
limiting values in the response parameters that become tar-
strength, stiffness, ductility, and toughness.
gets for the design. These criteria include drift and defor-
9. Provide structural strength and stiffness compatible mation limits, acceleration and force limits, yield limits,
with the foundations and soils type. ductility limits and energy dissipation levels that must be
10. Use relatively short spans and close column spacings. met in order for the structural response to be consistent
11. Tie vertical elements together at each level, including with the performance objectives. Those acceptance criteria
the foundation. are discussed further in Verification at Each Design Step,
12. Use capacity design principles to control the inelastic below.
behavior by identifying and providing a system of In preliminary design, structural framing elements are
ductile links to absorb the inelastic response. sized and checked against selected criteria. This involves
13. Consider use of energy dissipation devices as a design designing to meet at least two criteria, one for operational
strategy. continuity in a frequent earthquake and one for life safety
14. Consider use of seismic isolation devices as a design or collapse prevention in a rarer earthquake. As part of pre-
strategy. liminary element sizing, elements should be proportioned
so that the expected postelastic yield patterns will be con-
Since conceptual design is closely tied to the ultimate
sistent with the capacity-based conceptual design.
performance of a building, guidelines specifying appropri-
ate limitations on the materials, configuration, and struc- In final design and detailing of the structure, all select-
tural system are needed for each performance objective. ed performance goals must be considered. As appropriate,
These must be defined in terms that are usable at the con- both the elastic and inelastic responses should be consid-
ceptual design stage. The level of restriction should in- ered and compared to the limiting response parameters.
crease in severity with the increase in performance
For capacity designed structures, the ductile link re-
objective and should reflect the excellent historic perfor-
gions should be detailed to ensure acceptable inelastic be-
mance of regularly configured structural systems com-
havior. The details must provide suitable ductility to
posed of well-detailed ductile materials.
extend the structural response from the elastic limit to the
inelastic limit imposed by the design ground motions. The
Preliminary and Final Design Steps rest of the structure will be designed to remain elastic
With the performance objective selected, the ground mo- while the ductile links develop their inelastic capacity.
tion for critical earthquakes established, and the concep-
Nonstructural elements and attachments should be de-
tual design resolved, preliminary and final designs can
signed to accommodate the elastic and inelastic deforma-
proceed. Design procedures will differ depending on the
tions of the structure. Nonstructural elements may be
performance objectives and the design and analysis ap-
designed to be isolated from the structural system, or to be
proaches taken, however the basic steps and issues consid-
integral parts and participate in the building's inelastic re-
ered are similar. This Vision 2000 report outlines several
sponse. In either case, these elements must be designed
of the possible design and verification approaches.
and checked to meet the performance objectives.
A major challenge to performance-based engineering
is to develop simple yet effective methods for designing,
322 September 1999

Verification at Each Design Step Design Review

At each stage of design, an analysis is performed to verify An important quality assurance step in the design process
that the selected performance objectives are being met. is competent independent design review. This design re-
The specific extent and methodology of the verification view includes both independent peer review and plan re-
will vary with the performance objectives and the design view by the building official.
approach used.
Schools and hospitals in California are designed to
Structural response, as measured by certain quantifi- standards very similar to those used for other buildings in
able parameters, must be consistent with the performance California, yet they tend to perform much better in earth-
objectives and associated acceptance criteria. The accep- quakes, largely because of the rigor of the plan review dur-
tance criteria consist of limiting values in structural re- ing design and the quality assurance provided during
sponse parameters, associated with selected performance construction.
levels or damage levels for specified levels of ground mo-
For simpler buildings and for prescriptive designs, the
tion. Within a particular building, the design of specific
building official will provide the only independent review
components may be controlled by the same or different re-
of the design. It is very important, therefore, that the build-
sponse parameters for the same or different performance
ing official understand the intent of the design and be able
objectives. Typical response parameters verified may in-
to provide a thorough and competent review of the plans.
clude:
■ Stress ratios For all other buildings, including specialized, irregu-
■ Drift and deformation ratios lar, or important structures, independent peer review
■ Structural accelerations should be required. Such review should be undertaken at
■ Ductility demand ratios the end of the conceptual design and final design stages in
■ Energy dissipation demand vs. capacity order to provide independent professional assessment of
Typical limiting values for these response parameters must the design, the assumptions, modeling, analysis, and effec-
be established for each performance level through research tiveness of the design in meeting the performance goals.
that includes laboratory testing of specific components, as
well as calibrating the limiting values by analyzing build- Quality Assurance During
ings that have experienced measurable damage in past Construction
earthquakes and for which strong motion records are avail- Regardless of the quality of the design and sophistication
able. Verification will include both the structural and the of the analysis, performance-based engineering will not be
nonstructural components. In many cases, nonstructural successful without adequate quality assurance during con-
components can be prequalified by being prescriptively struction.
designed to meet the target parameters of the structural de-
sign. The quality assurance process involves a team of play-
ers, including the design professional, peer reviewer,
For certain simple or prescriptive design approaches, building official, special inspectors, testing agencies, and
no formal verification procedures other than plan review the contractor. The design professional must be involved
by the building official may be performed. In such cases, to ensure that the design intent is properly interpreted and
the basic design requirements will need to be sufficiently that the critical elements in the building system are recog-
conservative to reasonably ensure that the intended basic nized, properly constructed, and properly inspected and
performance objective will be achieved. tested. The building official is legally involved in all
Verification procedures will involve both elastic and projects and must verify that the project is constructed in
inelastic analysis methods. Elastic analysis procedures for accordance with building codes and that the specified in-
checking stress ratios and drift are currently well known spection, testing, and structural observation are complet-
and widely used. Several simplified inelastic approaches, ed.
such as the pushover analysis, are outlined in the Vision The special inspector must, at the direction of the de-
2000 report [OES, 1995], as well as in ATC-33 and sign professional, inspect the critical elements of the sys-
ATC40 [ATC-33, ATC-40]. tem and must ensure that those elements are constructed in
strict compliance with the plans. The testing agency must
September 1999 323

verify the quality of construction materials and the qualifi- and acknowledged by the design professional, the client,
cations of the special inspector. the legal profession and the public.
The scope of the quality assurance program may be Performance-based engineering will, of necessity,
limited in simple structures with modest performance ob- start with a set of seismic design guidelines, incrementally
jectives or in prescriptively designed structures. The qual- improved over present code, and with modest claims of re-
ity assurance program must be rigorous for complex liability in performance prediction. As new design and
structures with demanding performance objectives. In analysis techniques are developed and can be proven to ac-
each case, the quality assurance program should be de- curately predict the seismic performance observed in re-
fined by the structural engineer of record. corded earthquakes, design guidelines will be modified
and reliability will be progressively improved.
Building Maintenance and Function
Performance-based engineering does not end with the
Research Needs
completion of construction. The responsibilities merely The development of this conceptual framework into a
shift. The building condition, configuration, and use will guideline for performance-based engineering will require
evolve over the life of the structure. The owner and the considerable new basic research, applied research, calibra-
building official must remain vigilant to ensure that the tion studies, trial designs, and actual guideline preparation.
earthquake resistant system is not adversely altered Each facet must be embraced and supported in a balanced
through future remodels and renovations. Further, the manner if the goal is to be achieved.
owner must ensure that the structure is maintained, that el-
In general, research related to this conceptual frame-
ements are not allowed to corrode or deteriorate, and that
work is needed in the following general areas:
change of use does not result in higher static live loads
such as storage inventory that might significantly change 1. Validate the appropriateness of the four performance
the mass and thereby the dynamic response of the building levels and the specific parameters used to define their
without proper analysis and validation. minimum performance states.
2. Validate the appropriateness of the four seismic haz-
Maintenance requirements will vary with the type of ard definitions through consideration of the social,
construction and the selected performance objectives. economic, and political impact seismic design and
Seismic designs that use sophisticated technologies such seismic performance has on communities in various
as active or passive energy dissipation devices or relative- seismic regions.
ly degradable materials must be properly maintained on a
3. Establish appropriate acceptance criteria for site per-
regular basis to perform as expected. Prescriptive designs
formance in terms of permissible settlement, lateral
using traditional building materials may have lower main-
spreading, liquefaction, faulting, etc. for each perfor-
tenance requirements.
mance objective.
Uncertainty, Risk, and Reliability 4. Identify appropriate ground motion parameters
needed for the possible design approaches and analy-
Performance-based engineering yields structures with pre- sis checks that yield the best and most appropriate
dictable performance within defined levels of risk and re- characterization of the seismic hazard.
liability. There are multiple sources of uncertainty in the 5. Develop guidelines for conceptual design that address
seismic design process. There is uncertainty regarding the all facets of performance-based engineering from the
seismic ground motions, the design and analysis tech- project start.
niques and modeling assumptions, the variability in the
6. Identify and develop appropriate design approaches
materials, workmanship and construction quality, and the
and verification methods that are fully compatible
changes to the structure over its life due to material deteri-
with the entire structural/earthquake engineering de-
oration, wear, and structural or nonstructural modifica-
sign effort.
tions.
7. Identify the key characteristic of a proper design re-
It is an important task of performance-based engineer- view based on current and successful efforts and de-
ing to recognize, identify, and quantify those uncertainties velop appropriate guidelines. Determine if there is a
so that the levels of reliability and risk can be established need to augment and/or change the basic functions of
324 September 1999

the traditional building department as they relate to References

achieving the various performance objectives.
OES, 1995. California Office of Emergency Services,
8. Based on the performance of buildings in past earth-
Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering
quakes, determine the significance that construction
of Buildings. Prepared by Structural Engineers
quality has on performance. Establish guidelines for
Association of California, Sacramento, California.
appropriate construction quality assurance programs
for buildings built to each of the performance objec- ATC-33, in progress. Guidelines for the Seismic
tives. Rehabilitation of Buildings, Applied Technology
9. Develop code provisions that will provide for the Council, Redwood City, California.
maintenance of a building’s structural system for the ATC-40, 1996. Recommended Methodology for the
life of the building. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete
10. Develop techniques for systematically defining the Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood
levels of risk and reliability inherent in the guidelines City, California.
and provisions written for performance-based engi-
neering. Develop an acceptance criteria for each and
monitor the performance of buildings designed under
the guidelines to ensure that they are yielding struc-
tures of predictable performance within defined levels
of risk and reliability.
These research recommendations are somewhat gen-
eral and provide only an indication of the level of research
and development that is needed in each of the key areas of
performance-based engineering. In each case, it is impor-
tant that sufficient work is done to verify the accuracy of
the techniques purposed, their compatibility with the over-
all conceptual framework as defined, and their consistency
with the historic performance of buildings in past earth-
quake
September 1999 325

Table AppG-1. General Damage Descriptions by Performance Levels and Systems
Performance Level
10 Fully 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
System Description Operational Operational Life Safety Near Collapse Collapse
Overall Building Damage Negligible Light Moderate Severe Complete
Permissible Transient < 0.2% ± < 0.5% ± < 1.5% ± < 2.5% ± > 2.5% ±
Drift
Permissible Permanent Negligible Negligible < 0.5% ± < 2.5% ± > 2.5% ±
Drift
Vertical Load-Carrying Negligible Negligible Light to moderate, Moderate to Partial to total
Element Damage but substantial ca- heavy, but ele- loss of gravity
pacity remains to ments continue to load support
carry gravity loads support gravity
loads
Lateral Load-Carrying Negligible. Generally Light. Nearly elastic Moderate. Reduced Negligible residual Partial or total
Element Damage elastic response; no response; original residual strength and strength and stiff- collapse; pri-
significant loss of strength and stiffness stiffness, but lateral ness; no story col- mary elements
strength or stiffness substantially re- system remains func- lapse may require
tained; minor crack- tional mechanisms, but demolition
ing/yielding of large permanent
structural elements; drifts; secondary
repair implemented structural elements
at convenience may completely fail
Damage to Architectural Negligible damage to Light to moderate Moderate to severe Severe damage to Highly danger-
Systems cladding, glazing, damage to architec- damage to architec- architectural sys- ous falling haz-
partitions, ceilings, tural systems; essen- tural systems, but tems; some ele- ards;
finishes, etc.; isolated tial and select large falling hazards ments may destruction of
elements may re- protected items un- not created; major dislodge and fall components
quire repair at users damaged; hazard- spills of hazardous
convenience ous materials materials contained
contained
Egress Systems Not impaired No major obstruc- No major obstruc- Egress may be ob- Egress may be
tions in exit corridors; tions in exit corridors; structed highly or com-
elevators can be re- elevators may be out pletely ob-
started perhaps fol- of service for ex- structed
lowing minor tended period
servicing
Mechanical/Electrical/ Functional Equipment essential Some equipment dis- Severe damage Partial or total
Plumbing/Utility Services to function and fire/ lodged or overturned; and permanent destruction of
life safety systems many systems not disruption of sys- systems; per-
operate; other sys- functional; piping tems manent disrup-
tems may require re- conduit ruptured tion of systems
pair; temporary utility
service provided as
required
Damage to Contents Some light damage Light to moderate Moderate to severe Severe damage to Partial or total
to contents may oc- damage; critical con- damage to contents; contents; hazard- loss of contents
cur; hazardous mate- tents and hazardous major spills of haz- ous materials may
rials secured and materials secured ardous materials not be contained
undamaged contained
Repair Not required At owner/tenants Possible; building Probably not prac- Not possible
convenience may be closed tical
Effect on No effect Continuous occu- Short term to indefi- Potential perma- Permanent loss
Occupancy pancy possible nite loss of use nent loss of use of use
326 September 1999

Table AppG-2. Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage — Vertical Elements
Performance Level
10 Fully 9
Elements Type Operational 8 Operational 7 6 Life Safety 5 4 Near Collapse 3
Concrete Primary Negligible Minor hairline cracking Extensive damage to Extensive cracking and
Frames (0.02"); limited yielding beams; spalling of cover hinge formation in ductile
possible at a few locations; and shear cracking (< 1/8") elements; limited cracking
no crushing (strains below for ductile columns; minor and/or splice failure in
0.003) spalling in nonductile col- some nonductile columns;
umns; joints cracked < 1/8" severe damage in short
width columns
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Extensive cracking and Extensive spalling in col-
ondary hinge formation in ductile umns (possible shorten-
elements; limited cracking ing) and beams; severe
and/or splice failure in joint damage; some rein-
some nonductile columns; forcing buckled
severe damage in short col-
umns
Steel Mo- Primary Negligible Minor local yielding at a few Hinges form; local buckling Extensive distortion of
ment Frames places; no observable of some beam elements; beams and column panels;
fractures; minor buckling or severe joint distortion; iso- many fractures at connec-
observable permanent lated connection failures; a tions
distortion of members few
elements may experience
fracture
Sec- Negligible Minor local yielding at a few Extensive distortion of Extensive distortion of
ondary places; no fractures; minor beams and column panels; beams and column panels;
buckling or observable per- many fractures at connec- many fractures at connec-
manent distortion of mem- tions tions
bers
Braced Steel Primary Negligible Minor yielding or buckling Many braces yield or Extensive yielding and
Frames of braces; no out-of-plane buckle but do not totally fail; buckling of braces; many
distortions many connections may fail braces and their connec-
tions may fail
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Same as primary Same as primary
ondary
Concrete Primary Negligible Minor hairline cracking Some boundary elements Major flexural and shear
Shear Walls (0.02") of walls; coupling distress including limited cracks and voids; sliding at
beams experience cracking bar buckling; some sliding joints; extensive crushing
< 1/8" width at joints; damage around and buckling of rebar; fail-
openings; some crushing ure around openings; se-
and flexural cracking; cou- vere boundary element
pling beams—extensive damage; coupling beams
shear and flexural cracks; shattered, virtually disinte-
some crushing, but con- grated
crete generally remains in
place
Sec- Negligible Minor hairline cracking of Major flexural and shear Panels shattered, virtually
ondary walls, some evidence of cracks; sliding at joints; disintegrated
sliding at construction extensive crushing; failure
joints; coupling beam expe- around openings; severe
rience cracks < 1/8" width, boundary element damage;
minor spalling coupling beams shattered,
virtually disintegrated
September 1999 327

Table AppG-2. (Continued) Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage — Vertical Elements
Performance Level
10 Fully 9
Elements Type Operational 8 Operational 7 6 Life Safety 5 4 Near Collapse 3
Unrein- Primary Negligible Minor cracking (<1/8") of Extensive cracking and Extensive cracking and
forced Ma- masonry infills and ve- some crushing, but wall re- crushing; portions of face
sonry Infill neers; Minor spalling in ve- mains in place; no falling course shed
Walls neers at a few corner units; extensive crushing
openings and spalling of veneers at
corners of openings
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Same as primary Extensive cracking and
ondary crushing; portions of face
course shed
URM Primary Negligible Minor cracking (< 1/8") of Extensive cracking; notice- Extensive cracking; face
Bearing masonry infills and ve- able in-plane offsets of course and veneer may
Walls neers; minor spalling in ve- masonry and minor out-of- peel off; noticeable in-
neers at a few corner plane offsets plane and out-of-plane off-
openings; no observable sets
out-of-plane offsets
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Same as primary Same as primary
ondary
Reinforced Primary Negligible Minor cracking (< 1/8"); no Extensive cracking (< 1/4") Crushing; extensive crack-
Masonry out-of-plane offsets distributed throughout wall; ing; damage around open-
Walls some isolated crushing ings and at corners; some
fallen units
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Crushing; extensive crack- Panels shattered, virtually
ondary ing; damage around open- disintegrated
ings and at corners; some
fallen units
Wood Primary Negligible Distributed minor hairline Moderate loosening of con- Connections loose, nails
Stud Walls cracking of gypsum and nections and minor splitting partially withdrawn; some
plaster veneers of members splitting of members and
panel; veneers shear off
Sec- Negligible Same as primary Connections loose, nails Sheathing shears off; let-in
ondary partially withdrawn; some braces fracture and
splitting of members and buckle; framing split and
panel fractured
Foundations General Negligible Minor settlement and negli- Total settlements <6" and Major settlements and tilt-
gible tilting differential settlements ing
<1/2" in 30 feet
328 September 1999

Table AppG-3. Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage — Horizontal Elements
Performance Level
Element 10 Fully Functional 9 8 Operational 7 6 Life Safety 5 4 Near Collapse 3
Metal Deck Negligible Connections between deck Some localized failure of Large distortion with buck-
Diaphragms units and from deck to fram- welded connections of deck ling of some units and tear-
ing intact; minor distortions to framing and between ing of many welds and
panels; minor local buckling seam attachments
of deck
Wood Dia- Negligible No observable loosening, Some splitting at connec- Large permanent distortion
phragms withdrawal of fasteners, or tions, loosening of sheath- with partial withdrawal of
splitting of sheathing or ing; observable withdrawal nails and splitting of ele-
framing of fasteners; splitting of ments
framing and sheathing
Concrete Negligible Distributed hairline cracking Extensive cracking (<1/4") Extensive crushing and ob-
Diaphragms and a few minor cracks and local crushing and spal- servable offset across many
(< 1/8") or larger size ling cracks
Table AppG-4. Performance Levels and Permissible Damage — Architectural Elements
Performance Level
Cladding Negligible damage Connections yield; some Severe distortion in connec- Severe damage to connec-
cracks or bending in cladding tions; distributed cracking, tions and cladding; some fall-
bending, crushing and spal- ing of panels
ling of cladding elements;
some fracturing of cladding,
falling of panels prevented
Glazing Generally no damage; Some broken glass; falling Extensive broken glass; General shattered glass and
isolated cracking possible hazards avoided some falling hazards distorted frames; wide-
spread falling hazards
Partitions Negligible damage; some Cracking to about 1/16" at Distributed damage; some Severe wracking and dam-
hairline cracks at openings openings; crushing and severe cracking; crushing age in many areas
cracking at corners and wracking in some areas
Ceilings Generally negligible dam- Minor damage; some sus- Extensive damage; dropped Most ceilings damaged;
age; isolated suspended pended ceilings disrupted, suspended ceilings; distrib- most suspended ceilings
panel dislocations or cracks panels dropped; minor uted cracking in hard ceilings dropped; severe cracking in
in hard ceilings cracking in hard ceilings hard ceilings
Light Negligible damage; pendant Minor damage; some pen- Many broken light fixtures; Extensive damage; falling
Fixtures fixtures sway dant lights broken; falling falling hazards generally hazards occur
hazards prevented avoided in heavier fixtures
(> 20 lbs.±)
Doors Negligible damage Minor damage Distributed damage; some Distributed damage; many
racked and jammed doors racked and jammed doors
Elevators Elevators operational with Elevators generally opera- Some elevators out of ser- Many elevators out of ser-
isolated exceptions tional; most can be restarted vice vice
September 1999 329

Table AppG-5. Performance Levels and Permissible Damage — Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Systems
Performance Level
Mechanical Negligible damage; all re- Minor damage; some units Many units nonoperational; Most units nonoperational;
Equipment main in service not essential to function out- some slide or overturn many slide or overturn; some
of-service pendant units fall
Ducts Negligible damage Minor damage, but systems Some ducts rupture; some Most systems out of commis-
remain in service supports fail, but ducts do sion; some ducts fall
not fall
Piping Negligible damage Minor damage; minor leaking Some pipes rupture at con- Many pipes rupture; sup-
may occur nections; many supports fail; ports fail; some piping sys-
few fire sprinkler heads fail tems collapse
Fire Alarm Functional Functional Not functional Not functional
Systems
Emergency Functional Functional Functional Not functional
Lighting
Systems
Electrical Negligible damage Minor damage; panels re- Moderate damage; panels Extensive damage and loss
Equipment strained; isolated loss of restrained from overturning; of service
function in secondary sys- some loss of function and
tems service in primary systems
330 September 1999

Table AppG-6. Performance Levels and Permissible Damage — Contents
Performance Level
Furniture Negligible effects Minor damage; some sliding Extensive damage from slid- Extensive damage from slid-
and overturning ing, overturning, leaks, falling, overturning, leaks, fall-
ing debris, etc. ing debris, etc.
Office Negligible effects Minor damage; some sliding Extensive damage from slid- Extensive damage from slid-
Equipment and overturning ing, overturning, leaks, falling, overturning, leaks, fall-
Computer Operational Minor damage; some sliding Extensive damage from slid- Extensive damage from slid-
Systems and overturning; mostly func- ing, overturning, leaks, falling, overturning, leaks, fall-
tional ing debris, etc. ing debris, etc.
File Cabi- Negligible damage Minor damage; some sliding Extensive damage from slid- Extensive damage from slid-
nets and overturning ing, overturning, leaks, falling, overturning, leaks, fall-
Book- Negligible damage Minor damage; some over- Extensive damage from Extensive damage from
shelves turning and spilling leaks, falling debris, over- leaks, falling debris, over-
turning, etc. turning, etc.
Storage Negligible damage; overturn- Minor damage; overturning Extensive damage from Extensive damage from
Racks And ing restrained restrained; some spilling leaks, falling debris, over- leaks, falling debris, over-
Cabinets turning, spilling, etc. turning, spilling, etc.
Art Works, Minor damage; overturning Moderate damage; overturn- Extensive damage from Extensive damage from
Collections restrained ing restrained, some falling leaks, falling debris, over- leaks, falling debris, over-
turning, spilling, etc. turning, spilling, etc.
Hazardous Negligible damage; overturn- Negligible damage; overturn- Minor damage; overturning Severe damage; some haz-
Materials ing and spillage restrained ing and spillage and spillage generally re- ardous materials released
restrained strained
September 1999 331

Figure AppG-1. Methodology for performance-based engineering
332 September 1999

Damage Range & Damage States and Performance Level Thresholds

Damage Index
10 Negligible No damage, continuous service.
Fully
Operational Continuous service, facility operates and functions after
earthquake. Negligible structural and nonstructural
9 damage.
8 Most operations and functions can resume

immediately. Repair is required to restore some non-
essential services. Damage is light.
Light
Operational
Structure is safe for occupancy immediately after
earthquake. Essential operations are protected, non-
7 essential operations are disrupted.
6 Damage is moderate. Selected building systems,

Moderate
features or contents may be protected from damage.
Life Safe
Life safety is generally protected. Structure is
damaged but remains stable. Falling hazards remain
5 secure.
4 Structural collapse prevented. Nonstructural elements

may fall.
Severe
Near
Collapse
Structural damage is severe but collapse is
prevented. Nonstructural elements fall.
3
2 Portions of primary structural system
Complete
collapse.
Collapse
Complete structural collapse.
1
Figure AppG-2. Spectrum of seismic damage states
September 1999 333

Earthquake Performance Level

Fully Operational Operational Life Safe Near Collapse
Frequent
(43 year) Unacceptable
Performance
Earthquake Design Level
(for New Construction)

Occasional Es Ba
(72 year) se sic
nt Ob
ial
/H jec
Sa az tiv
fet ar e
Rare yC do
(475 year)
us
rit Ob
ica jec
lO tiv
bje e
Very Rare cti
(970 year)
ve
Figure AppG-3. Recommended seismic performance objectives for buildings
334 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix H—Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
APPENDIX H
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
Energy Dissipation Committee

Martin Johnson (SEAOSC), Chair
Andrew Whittaker (SEAONC
Ian Aiken (SEAONC)
H. Kit Miyamoto (SEAOCC)
Gregg Haskell (SEAOCC)
Arthur Serata (SEAOSD)
James Hill (SEAOSC)
Gary Hart (SEAOSC)
Roger Scholl (SEAONC)
Ad Hoc Members
Phillip J. Richter (SEAOSC)
David Jones (DIS)
Michael Siino (Enidine)
David Lee (Taylor)
Rami Elhassen (SEAOSC)
Tom Hale (SEAOCC)
Saif Hussain (SEAOSC)
September 1999 335

Passive Energy Dissipation Systems—Appendix H SEAOC Blue Book
336 September 1999

APPENDIX H
Passive Energy
Dissipation Systems
H1 General deformations and displacements. EDD types may be clas-
sified as any combination of displacement-dependent or
These Requirements provide minimum design require-
velocity-dependent, and may be designed or configured to
ments for the incorporation of passive energy dissipation
act in either a linear or non linear manner.
devices in buildings.
Energy Dissipation System (EDS). Consists of en-
Energy dissipation devices (also termed damping de-
ergy dissipation devices (EDDs) plus any structural fram-
vices) reduce global and interstory seismic displacement
ing or bracing used to transfer forces between components
response of structural systems, but may either increase or
of the lateral force resisting system (LFRS) and the EDDs.
decrease seismic stresses and accelerations within struc-
tural systems. Energy dissipation devices provide a con- Displacement-Dependent Device. The force re-
trolled increase in structural damping, and may also result sponse of a displacement-dependent device is primarily a
in an increase in structural stiffness or a change in partici- function of the relative displacement, between each end of
pating mass. Passive energy dissipation systems do not re- the device. The response is substantially independent of
quire active control by electrical, pneumatic, or hydraulic the relative velocity between each end of the device, and/
systems. or the excitation frequency.
Buildings designed in conformance with these Re- Velocity-Dependent Device. The force-displacement
quirements must also be designed in accordance with all relation for a velocity-dependent device is a function of the
other applicable provisions of the UBC, except as specifi- relative velocity between each end of the device, and may
cally defined in this appendix. Design must consider the also be a function of the relative displacement between
combined behavior of all elements of both the lateral force each end of the device.
resisting system (LFRS) and the energy dissipation system
(EDS). Energy dissipation devices must not form part of H3 Symbols and Notations
the gravity load-resisting system.
The following symbols and notations apply to the Require-
Buildings employing both energy dissipation and base ments of this section:
isolation devices shall be designed using the Requirements B = Damping modification factor given in
for the design of base-isolated buildings. Table AppH-2.
H2 Definitions C = Damping coefficient of a velocity-dependent

energy dissipation device.
Design Basis Ground Motion. Defined in C0, C1 = Coefficients defined in Section H6.3.1.
UBC §1627.
DDn= Maximum displacement of building at level n
Maximum Capable Earthquake. Defined in
(roof) relative to the base.
UBC §1655.
DDi = Maximum displacement of building at level i
Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS). Defined
relative to the base.
in UBC §1629.6.
Energy Dissipation Devices
(EDDs). Supplemental devices used to reduce seismic
September 1999 337

EDj = Total energy dissipated by one device j during ω = Angular frequency equal to 2π ⁄ T .
one complete cycle of response, see Equation ρD = Redundancy/reliability factor defined in
AppH6-2.
Section H8.5.1.
EEDS = Earthquake forces calculated in components of the
EDS, see Section H8.5.3. α = Velocity exponent for a nonlinear velocity-
dependent damping device.
Em = Earthquake design force defined in Equation
AppH8-3. H4 General Requirements
ES = The strain energy stored in the building at the
H4.1 Classification of Structural
maximum displacement (see Equation AppH6-3). Behavior
keff The effective stiffness of a damping device. Energy dissipation devices shall be classed as nonlinear if:
MM = Numerical coefficient related to maximum 1. Displacement-Dependent Devices. The applied
capable earthquake response as set forth in UBC displacements exceed the yield or slip displacement of
Table A-16-D in 1997 UBC base isolation the device.
provisions. 2. Velocity-Dependent Devices. The exponent in
T1 = Elastic fundamental period of vibration, in Equation AppH5-4 is either greater than 1.1 or less
seconds, in the direction under consideration, 0.9, and/or the device demonstrates stiffness in the
based on either a dynamic analysis of the building frequency range of interest that is nonlinear with dis-
or Method B per UBC §1630.2.2, including the placement.
elastic stiffness of all energy dissipation devices All other devices shall be classed as linear devices.
and the provisions of UBC §1630.1.2. H4.2 Selection of Analysis Procedure
TE = Effective elastic building period = 1.15 T1. Structure forces and deformations shall be determined by
TD = Secant (maximum) fundamental period of the either of the following two procedures:
building at the maximum displacement. H4.2.1 Static Force Procedure. The static proce-
TS, T0= Response spectrum control periods, defined in dure presented in Section H6 may be used for buildings
UBC Figure 16-3. which conform with each of the following requirements:
1. Regular buildings not more than 5 stories nor 65 feet
WD = Energy dissipated per cycle, calculated as the area
in height.
within each cycle of a force-displacement
2. At least two EDDs shall be provided at each level (ex-
hysteresis loop.
cluding penthouses) and in each direction of the build-
W, T, Ω o =Terms defined in UBC §1628. ing. At each level, the number of devices shall be
equally distributed about the center of gravity. No out-
β = Inherent damping provided by the LFRS at the of-plane offsets between adjacent story levels shall be
point of maximum displacement. permitted in the placement of damping devices.
βS = Damping provided by the EDDs at the point of 3. The horizontal damping forces in adjacent stories
maximum displacement. shall not differ by more than 20 percent.
δ Dj = Maximum relative displacement of damping 4. The effective damping, β eff, calculated using Equa-
device j. tion AppH4-1 shall not exceed 30 percent.
5. All velocity-dependent devices shall be linear.
δ Di = Maximum interstory drift of floor level i relative
6. The elastic stiffness of devices shall be included in the
to floor level i-1. structure analysis.
δ Dj = Maximum relative velocity of device j. 7. Damping in displacement-dependent devices shall be
ignored.
∆ Si = Elastic building displacements defined in
8. The LFRS shall meet both the strength and drift re-
UBC §1630.9.1 and calculated using period T1, quirements of UBC §1630.
relative to the base.
338 September 1999

H4.2.2 Time History Analysis. Any building may The maximum value of β used for any mode of vibra-
be designed using the time history analysis procedure pre- tion shall not exceed 5 percent. The value of β eff calculat-
sented in Section H7. The LFRS shall meet the strength re-
ed using Equation AppH4-1 shall be used to determine the
quirements of UBC §1630. The combined LFRS and DES
damping modification factor, B, in Table H-2.
may be used to meet the drift requirements of Section
H8.3.
H5 Mathematical
H4.3 Lateral Force Resisting System Representation of Damping
Buildings that contain energy dissipation devices are re- Devices
quired to have a complete lateral force resisting system
(LFRS) independent of the energy dissipation devices de- H5.1 Displacement-Dependent Devices
fined in UBC §1629.6. Displacement-dependent devices are limited to either me-
Exception: Displacement-dependent energy dissi- tallic-yielding or friction elements. The force-displace-
pation devices which operate by yielding of steel com- ment response of such a device is primarily a function of
ponents may be utilized as part of the lateral force the relative displacement between each end of the device,
resisting system, provided that: and is substantially independent of the relative velocity be-
1. The LFRS, including the pre-yield stiffness tween each end of the device, and/or the frequency of ex-
contributed by all EDDs, is designed to resist wind citation.
forces defined in UBC Chapter 16, Division III. The energy dissipation characteristics of displace-
2. The LFRS, including the pre-yield stiffness ment-dependent devices may only be considered in con-
contributed by all EDDs, is designed to resist junction with the nonlinear time history analysis
earthquake forces defined in UBC §1630 procedures presented in Section H7.
calculated using a maximum value of R equal to H5.2 Velocity-Dependent Devices
6.0.
H5.2.1 Viscoelastic Devices. The force F in a vis-
3. Structure forces and displacements are
coelastic device may be expressed by the following:
determined according to Section H7.
4. The design meets all other applicable F = k eff δ D + Cδ D Eqn. AppH5-1
requirements of this Appendix.
The effective stiffness, keff, of a solid viscoelastic device
The LFRS shall be designed and detailed to meet all shall be calculated as:
strength and detailing requirements defined by the UBC.
Building lateral deformations shall meet the drift limita- F+ + F-
k eff = ----------------------- Eqn. AppH5-2
tions presented in Sections H4.2 and H8.3. Minimum + -
δD + δ D
strength requirements for components subjected to forces
from energy dissipation devices shall meet the additional where the forces F+ and F- are evaluated at device dis-
requirements of Section H8.4. placements δ D+ and δ D-, respectively. The damping co-
H4.4 Structure Height Limitations efficient shall be calculated as:
Buildings containing EDDs shall not exceed the height WD
limitations for the LFRS system set forth in UBC C = --------------------------
- Eqn. AppH5-3
πω ( δ D ) avg
Table 16-N.
H4.5 Total and Inherent Structural where ( δ D)avg is the average of the absolute values of de-
Damping vice displacements δ D + and δ D, ω is the effective angu-
Total effective damping at the point of maximum displace- lar excitation frequency occurring at displacement
ment, β eff, shall be calculated as the sum of the damping ( δ D)avg, and WD is the area enclosed by one complete cy-
which is provided by energy dissipation devices, βS, and cle of the force-displacement response of the device at dis-
the inherent damping in the LFRS, β: placement ( δ D)avg.
β eff = β + β S Eqn. AppH4-1 If the cyclic response of the device cannot be defined
throughout the range of operating conditions by single val-
September 1999 339

ues of these constants, multiple analyses shall be undertak- where Cj is the damping coefficient of device j, δDi is the
en to bound the response of the building. interstory displacement which occurs at device j due to
H5.2.2 Fluid Viscous Devices. In the absence of building displacement DDi and θ j is the angle of the incli-
stiffness, the force in a fluid viscous device may be ex- nation of device j to the horizontal. ES shall be determined
pressed as:
from the following:
· α
F = C δD Eqn. AppH5-4 1
2∑
E S = -- Eqn. AppH6-3
- F D
i Mi Di
If the cyclic response of a fluid viscous device cannot
be defined throughout the range of operating conditions by where FMi is the maximum inertial force at level i corre-
single values of these constants, multiple analyses shall be sponding to the maximum displacement, DDi, at level i.
undertaken to bound the response of the building.
FMi may be taken as:
H5.3 Other Types of Devices
Energy dissipation devices not classified as either dis- F Mi = Ω 0 F i + ∑ k eff δDi cosθ j Eqn. AppH6-4
j
placement-dependent or velocity-dependent should be
modeled using established principles of mechanics. Such where Ω o is the value given in UBC Table 16-N for the
models should accurately describe the force-velocity-dis- LFRS, Fi is the design seismic force at level i calculated in
placement response of the device under all appropriate
accordance with UBC §1630.5, and the deformations of
sources of loading (gravity, seismic, thermal).
members supporting the devices is negligible.
H6 Static Force Procedure H6.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements
H6.1 General H6.3.1 Design Displacements. Design displace-

ments at roof level n, DDn, shall be calculated as:
The stiffness of each damping device, whether velocity-
2
dependent or displacement-dependent, shall be included in g C 0 C 1 T E Sa
the mathematical model of the DSS. Where velocity-de- D Dn =  --------2- -------------------------
- Eqn. AppH6-5
 4π  B
pendent EDDs are used, the damping modification factor,
B, must be calculated at the point of maximum displace- where:
ment assuming device motion at period TD. For displace- B = Damping displacement reduction factor
ment-dependent EDDs, B shall be set equal to 1.0. given in Table H-2, calculated using
H6.2 Damping Provided by Energy Equations AppH4-1 and AppH6-1.
Dissipation Devices C0 = This factor may be calculated as the first
The damping ratio provided by EDDs for buildings con- mode participation factor at the roof
taining velocity-dependent devices shall be determined level, or taken as the value given in
from the following: Table H-1.
C1 = 1.0 for TE > TS
∑ E Dj = 2.0 for TE ≤ 0.10 second.
j
β S = -------------- Eqn. AppH6-1
4πE S Linear interpolation may be used to calculate
C1 for 0.10 ≤ TE ≤ TS
where the summation of EDj is the energy dissipated by all
devices in the EDS during one complete cycle of response Sa = Design spectrum acceleration at period
to building displacement, DDn and ES is defined by Equa- TE
tion AppH6-3. EDj shall be determined from the follow- = 2.5 Ca for TE<TS
ing: = Cv /TE for TE ≥ TS
2
2π 2 2 Ca = Seismic coefficient set forth in UBC
E Dj = --------- C j δ Di cos θ j Eqn. AppH6-2
TD Table 16-Q.
340 September 1999

Cv = Seismic coefficient set forth in UBC H7.2 Analysis Procedures

Table 16-R. Time history analysis shall be conducted in accordance
g = 2
gravity constant = 386.4 in/sec . with the criteria of UBC §1631.6.3. Alternatively, if the
calculated demand-to-capacity of all structural compo-
The design displacement DDi at level i shall be calcu- nents is less than 2.0, linear time history analysis proce-
lated using either the first mode or deformed shape of the dures in accordance with approved national standards may
building, scaled so that the roof displacement equals DDn be used.
per Equation AppH6-5. Interstory displacements δ Di may
be calculated as the difference between the displacements H8 Detailed Design
DD at adjacent floor levels. Requirements
H6.3.2 Secant Period at Maximum H8.1 Environmental Conditions
Displacement. TD shall be calculated as: The design, construction and installation of EDDs shall
consider:
V D Dn
T D = T 1 ------
- ---------- Eqn. AppH6-6 1. High-cycle, small-displacement degradation due to
V M ∆ Sn
wind, thermal, or other cyclic loads.
where ∆ Sn is the lateral displacement at level n resulting 2. Forces or displacements due to gravity loads.
from application of the design static lateral forces Fi, V is 3. Freezing or adhesion of element components.
the base shear corresponding to ∆ Sn, and VM is the ex- 4. Corrosion or abrasion.
pected maximum base shear equal to: 5. Biodegradation, moisture or chemical exposure.
6. Ultraviolet exposure.
n
V M = ∑ F Mi Eqn. AppH6-7 The fatigue or wear life of EDDs shall be investigated
i=1 and shown to be adequate by test for the expected design
H6.3.3 Device Displacements and
life of the devices.
Velocities. Device displacements δ Dj shall be deter- EDDs subject to failure by low-cycle fatigue should
mined using the interstory displacements δ Di. If the hori- resist design wind forces without slip or yielding.
zontal deformation of framing elements supporting the The mathematical representations of device behavior
devices is less than 1/15 of the interstory displacement, the defined in Section H5 shall consider the range of thermal
deformations of the supporting elements may be ne- conditions, device wear, manufacturing tolerances, and
glected. Device velocities may then be determined using other device characteristics which may cause the device
the interstory velocities calculated as: behavior to vary with time.
2πδ Di H8.2 Multi-Axis Movement
δ Dj = --------------- cosθ j Eqn. AppH6-8
Connection points of EDDs shall provide sufficient artic-
TD
ulation to accommodate simultaneous longitudinal, lat-
H7 Time History Analysis eral, and vertical displacements of the EDD.
H8.3 Story Drift Limitation
H7.1 Time Histories
Calculated interstory displacements δ Di shall comply
Ground motion time-histories used for analysis shall be se-
lected in accordance with criteria defined in with UBC §1630.10, or the design performance level of
UBC §1631.6.1. In addition, motions shall be scaled such the building (see Appendix G, Table AppG-1).
that the average value of the SRSS spectrum does not fall H8.4 Minimum Strength of EDDs and
below 1.3 times the 5 percent-damped spectrum of the de- Related EDS Components
sign-basis earthquake for periods from 0.2T1 second to
H8.4.1 Reliability/Redundancy Factor, ρ D . A
1.1TD seconds.
reliability/redundancy factor ρ D equal to 1.4 shall be used
if fewer than four velocity-dependent damping devices are
September 1999 341

provided at each story, which must be distributed in equal 1. Columns. Columns which comprise part of either
number about each story’s center of gravity. The distribu- the LFRS or EDS shall have the strength to resist the
tion of displacement-dependent damping devices should axial loads resulting from the load combinations spec-
consider the Requirements of Section 105.6. Otherwise, a ified in UBC Sections 1612.4 and either 2211.4 Part
value of 1.0 may be used for ρ D . 6.1 or 2213.5.1
where:
H8.4.2 Determination of Design Forces in the
EDS. If the static force procedure of Section H6 is used, E m = Ω 0 E h + E EDS Eqn. AppH8-3
design forces shall be calculated at the stage of maximum
EEDS = 1.3 ρ D MM times the forces determined
displacement (for a building incorporating displacement-
dependent devices) and at the stages of maximum dis- from Section H8.5.2 if the static force
placement, velocity, and acceleration (for a building incor- procedure of Section H6 is used.
porating velocity-dependent devices), as follows: 2. Beams. EDS-induced stresses in beams which form
1. Stage of Maximum Displacement. Design forces part of the lateral-force resisting system shall not ex-
in the EDS shall be estimated from displacements cal- ceed 0.3 Fy. Other beams shall be designed to resist
culated using Equation AppH6-5. These displace- earthquake forces defined in Equation AppH8-3.
ments and forces shall be applied to the EDS to 3. Braces. Bracing members used as a part of the EDS
determine the design forces for structural members of shall be designed to resist earthquake forces defined in
the LFRS and EDS. Equation AppH8-3. The stress reduction factors de-
2. Stage of Maximum Velocity. Design forces in fined in UBC §§2213.8.2.2 and 2214.6.2.1, as well as
components of the EDS shall be determined by impos- the brace force multipliers defined in UBC
ing the maximum device forces associated with the §§2213.8.4, 2213.8.5, 2214.6.4 and 2214.6.5, need
design velocity determined in Section H6.3.3, as static not be considered when checking this requirement.
forces against the points of attachment of the devices 4. Diaphragms and Struts. Diaphragms or struts
to the EDS. These forces shall be applied in directions shall be designed to resist the earthquake forces given
consistent with the deformed shape of the building. by Equation AppH8-3.
The horizontal component of velocity-dependent 5. Foundations. Foundations that comprise a part of
forces shall be applied at each floor level i, concurrent the EDS shall have sufficient strength, uplift and slid-
with inertial forces of equal but opposite sign, so that ing resistance to withstand the earthquake forces de-
the horizontal displacement at each floor level is zero. fined in Equation AppH8-3.
3. Stage of Maximum Acceleration. Design forces in
H8.4.4 Minimum Strength and Stiffness of EDS
EDDs and other EDS components shall be taken as the
Components (Time History Analysis). If the time his-
sum of the forces determined at the stage of maximum
tory analysis of Section H7 is used, responses shall be cal-
displacement multiplied by factor CF1, plus the forces
culated at each time step, and the maximum responses
determined at the stage of maximum velocity multi- shall be used for design. Components of the EDS shall
plied by factor CF2, where: have sufficient strength and stiffness to resist forces and
–1 displacements resulting when input ground motions are
CF 1 = cos [ tan ( 2β eff ) ] Eqn. AppH8-1
scaled by a factor equal to ρ D times MM. Actual expected
–1 material strengths of structural components may be in-
CF 2 = sin [ tan ( 2β eff ) ] Eqn. AppH8-2
cluded when determining strengths for this Requirement.
If the time history analysis procedure of Section H7 is H8.5 Inspection and Periodic Testing
used, responses shall be calculated at each time step, and
the maximum response shall be used for design. Means of access for inspection and removal of all EDDs
shall be provided.
H8.4.3 Minimum Strength and Stiffness of EDS
Components (Static Procedure). Components of the The Engineer of Record shall establish an appropriate
EDS shall have sufficient strength and stiffness to resist inspection and testing schedule for each type of energy
the earthquake design forces defined below, where Eh and dissipation devices used to ensure that the devices respond
EEDS are determined at the same stage of response. in a dependable manner throughout the device design life.
The degree of inspection and testing should reflect the es-
342 September 1999

tablished in-service history of each type (and internal de- adequate long-term performance for non-seismic loads
sign) of device, and the likelihood of change in mechanical such as wind and thermal effects.
characteristics over the design life of the device.
The Engineer of Record should provide explicit ac-
H8.6 Manufacturing Quality Control ceptance criteria for the effective stiffness and damping
A quality control plan for the manufacture of energy dissi- values established by the prototype tests. These criteria
pation devices shall be established by the Engineer of should reflect the values assumed in design, account for
Record responsible for the structural design. As a mini- likely variations in material properties, and provide limit-
mum, this plan shall include the requirements described in ing response values outside of which devices will be re-
Section H10.3. jected.
The Engineer of Record should also establish appro-
H9 Design Review priate criteria to evaluate the amount of travel that a device
Review of the design of the energy dissipation system and will be subjected to under wind excitation. These criteria
related test programs shall be performed by an indepen- will likely vary considerably, and are a function of the
dent engineering panel including persons licensed in the stiffness of the device.
appropriate disciplines and experienced in seismic analy- The Engineer of Record should provide explicit accep-
sis including the theory and application of energy dissipa- tance criteria for effective stiffness and damping values for
tion methods. The design review shall include, but not be the production EDDs. The results of the prototype tests
limited to, the following: should form the basis of the acceptance criteria for the pro-
1. Review of the earthquake ground motion character- duction tests, unless an alternate basis is established by the
izations used for design. Engineer of Record. Such acceptance criteria should rec-
2. Review of design parameters of energy dissipation de- ognize the influence of loading history on the response of
vices, including device test requirements, device pro- individual devices by requiring production testing of de-
duction quality assurance, and scheduled maintenance vices prior to prototype testing.
and inspection requirements. The fabrication and quality control procedures used
3. Review of the preliminary design of the LFRS and the for all prototype and production devices should be identi-
EDS. cal. These procedures should be approved by the Engineer
4. Review of the final design of the LFRS and EDS and of Record prior to the fabrication of prototype devices.
all supporting analysis. H10.2 Prototype Tests
H10.2.1
H10 Testing of Energy General. The following prototype tests
should be performed separately on two full-size devices of
Dissipation Devices each type and size used in the design. If approved by the
H10.1 General Engineer of Record, representative sizes of each type of
device may be selected for prototype testing, rather than
The force-displacement relations and damping values as-
each type and size, provided the fabrication and quality
sumed in the design of the passive energy dissipation sys-
control procedures are identical for each type and size of
tem should be confirmed by the following tests of a
devices used in the building. Test specimens should not be
selected sample of devices prior to production of devices
used for construction unless approved in writing by the
for construction. Alternately, if these tests precede the de-
Engineer of Record.
sign phase of a project, the results of this testing program
should be used for the design. H10.2.2 Data Recording. The force-deflection rela-
tionship for each cycle of each test should be digitally re-
The tests specified in this section are intended to:
corded.
1. Confirm the force-displacement properties of-the pas-
sive energy dissipation devices assumed for design H10.2.3 Sequences and Cycles of Testing. Energy
dissipation devices should not form part of the gravity
2. Demonstrate the robustness of individual devices to
load-resisting system, but may be required to support some
extreme seismic excitation.
gravity load. For the following minimum test sequences,
These tests do not satisfy the requirements of a manu- each dissipation device should be loaded to simulate the
facturing quality control (production) plan. The tests also gravity loads on the device loads on the device as installed
do not address tests that maybe required to demonstrate
September 1999 343

in the building, at the extreme ambient temperatures antic- formed at the maximum bilateral displacement
ipated (if the response of the energy dissipation devices is expected in the design earthquake.
dependent on temperature). In the following sequence, the Exception: If reduced-scale prototypes are used to
design displacement for the EDD, δ D , shall be calculated quantify the bilateral displacement properties of the
using information from Section H6.3.3, or from time his- energy dissipation devices, the reduced scale proto-
tory analysis. types should be of the same type and materials, and
1. Each device should be loaded with the number of cy- manufactured with the same processes and quality
cles expected in the design wind storm, but not less control procedures, as full-scale prototypes, and tested
than 200 fully-reversed cycles of load (displacement- at similitude-scaled displacements that represent the
dependent and viscoelastic devices) or displacement full-scale displacements.
(viscous devices) at amplitudes expected in the design H10.2.4 Testing Similar Devices. Energy dissipa-
wind storm, at a frequency equal to the inverse of the tion devices that are both:
fundamental period of the building (f1 = 1/T1). 1. Of similar size, and identical materials, internal con-
Exception: Devices need not be subjected to these struction, and static and dynamic internal pressures (if
tests if they are not subjected to wind-induced forces any), and
or displacements, or if the design wind force is less 2. Fabricated with identical internal processes and man-
than the device yield or slip force. ufacturing quality control procedures, that have been
2. Each device should be loaded with 5 fully reversed cy- previously tested by an independent laboratory in the
cles at a displacement in the EDD corresponding to manner described above,
1.5 δ D at a frequency equal to 1/TD calculated in may not need to be tested provided that all of the following
Section H6.2.1. Where the device characteristics may four conditions are met:
vary with temperature, these tests shall be conducted 1. A waiver is included by the Engineer of Record.
at a minimum of 3 temperatures which extend through 2. All pertinent testing data are made available to and are
and beyond the expected temperature range. approved by the Engineer of Record.
Exception: Energy dissipation devices may be test- 3. The manufacturer can substantiate the similarity of the
ed by other methods than those noted above provided previously-tested devices, to the satisfaction of the
that: equivalency between the proposed method and Engineer of Record.
cyclic testing can be demonstrated; the proposed 4. The submission of data from a previous testing pro-
method captures the dependence of the energy dissi- gram is approved in writing by the Engineer of
pation device response on ambient temperature, fre- Record.
quency of loading, and temperature rise during H10.2.5 Determination of Force-Velocity-Displace-
testing; and the proposed method is approved by the ment Characteristics. The force-velocity displacement
Engineer of Record. characteristics of an energy dissipation device should be
3. If the force-deformation properties of the EDDs at any based on the cyclic load and displacement tests of proto-
displacement less than or equal to 1.5 δ D change by type devices specified above.
more than 15 percent in testing frequency, from 0.5 f1, For EDDs with stiffness, the effective stiffness should
to 2.0 f1, the preceding tests should be performed at be calculated for each cycle of deformation using Equation
frequencies equal to f1 and 2.0 f1. AppH5-3. For all EDDs, the area of the hysteresis loop
(WD) should be calculated for each cycle of deformation.
Exception: If reduced-scale prototypes are used to
qualify the rate dependent properties of energy dissi- H10.2.6 System Adequacy. The performance of a
pation devices, the reduced-scale prototypes should be prototype device may be assessed as being adequate if all
of the same type and materials, and manufactured with of the following conditions are satisfied:
the same processes and quality control procedures, as 1. The force-displacement curves for the tests specified
full-scale prototypes, and tested at a similitude-scaled in Section H10.2 have non-negative incremental stiff-
frequency that represents the full-scale loading rates. ness.
4. If the EDDs are subjected to substantial bilateral de-
formation, the preceding tests should also be per-
344 September 1999

Exception: Energy dissipation devices that exhibit 5. For displacement-dependent devices, the average ef-
velocity-dependent behavior need not comply with fective stiffness, average maximum and minimum
this requirement. force at zero displacement, and average area of the
2. Within each test of Section H10.2, the effective stiff- hysteresis loop (WD), calculated for each test in the se-
ness of a prototype energy dissipation device for any quence described in Section H10.2, shall fall within
one cycle does not differ by more than plus or minus the limits set by the Engineer of Record. For velocity-
15 percent from the average effective stiffness as cal- dependent devices, the average maximum and mini-
culated from all cycles in that test. mum force at zero displacement, effective stiffness
Exceptions: (for viscoelastic devices only), and average area of the
hysteresis loop (WD) calculated for each test in the se-
1. The 15 percent limit may be increased by the
Engineer of Record, provided that the increased quence described in Section H10.2, shall not differ by
limit has been demonstrated by analysis to not more than plus or minus 15 percent from the values
have a deleterious effect on the response of the specified by the Engineer of Record. For fluid viscous
building devices, the force-velocity relationship shall not devi-
ate by more than plus or minus 15 percent from the
2. Fluid viscous energy dissipation devices need not
specified theoretical relationship for the device.
comply with this requirement.
3. Within each test of Section H10.2, the maximum Exception: The 15 percent limit may be increased
force and minimum force at zero displacement for a by the Engineer of Record, provided that the increased
prototype device for any one cycle does not differ by limit has been demonstrated by analysis to not have a
more than plus or minus 15 percent from the average deleterious effect on the response of the building.
maximum and minimum forces as calculated from all H10.3 Production Testing
cycles in that test.
Prior to installation in a building, each energy dissipation
Exception: The 15 percent limit may be increased device shall be tested to ensure that its force-velocity-dis-
by the Engineer of Record, provided that the increased placement characteristics fall within the limits set by the
limit has been demonstrated by analysis to not have a Engineer of Record.
deleterious effect on the response of the building.
4. Within each test of Section H10.2, the area of hyster- Table AppH-1. Factors of Coefficient C0
esis loop (WD) of a prototype energy dissipation de- versus Building Story Height
vice for any one cycle does not differ by more than
plus or minus 15 percent from the average area of the Stories Co
hysteresis curve as calculated from all cycles in that 1 1.0
test. 2 1.2
Exception: The 15 percent limit may be increased 3 1.3
by the Engineer of Record, provided that the increased
4 1.35
limit has been demonstrated by analysis to not have a
deleterious effect on the response of the building. 5 1.4
Table AppH-2. Modification Factor for Increased Damping
Effective Damping Damping Modification Factor, B

Ratio, β eff
Short Period Range, Long Period Range
(% of critical)
T e < T S1 Te > Ts
5 1.0 1.0
10 1.3 1.2
20 1.8 1.5
30 2.3 1.7
1. TS = Cv / 2.5 Ca
September 1999 345

Commentary
APPENDIX H
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
The analysis and design procedures set forth in this Ap- dampers to a building frame. The addition of viscous
pendix are preliminary and mutable, and must be used dampers to a building frame will not alter the building’s
with great caution. At the time of this writing, case studies pseudo-static force-displacement relation.
have not been undertaken to validate these procedures.
The addition of either stiffness or damping to a yield-
ing building frame will reduce displacements in the build-
CH1 General ing, but may increase maximum accelerations in the
The Requirements presented herein for implementing pas- building. If damage to the contents of a building is to be
sive energy dissipation devices (also termed dampers in avoided during design earthquake shaking, the addition of
the commentary below) in buildings assume that the dampers may be detrimental in terms of the acceleration
dampers are being added to the lateral force resisting sys- response of the building. (Noting however that the adding
tem primarily to reduce displacements in the building dur- dampers to the building frame will typically reduce the de-
ing earthquake shaking. The lateral force resisting system, gree of damage to the building frame in design earthquake
independent of the dampers and the damper support fram- shaking and may eliminate damage to structural and non-
ing, is required to be complete per UBC §1629.6 and to structural components in earthquakes smaller than the de-
comply with all strength, drift, and detailing provisions of sign earthquake.) The engineer must be cognizant of the
the UBC. relations between acceleration and displacement in highly
damped yielding frames before attempting to implement
These Requirements are based on the guidelines and
dampers in a building using these Requirements.
commentary set forth in Chapter 9 of FEMA 273 [FEMA,
1997]. Two of the three authors of Chapter 9 of FEMA 273 In conventional seismic framing systems, the lateral
are members of SEAOC. The third author, Professor force resisting system inevitably includes components of
Michael Constantinou of SUNY Buffalo, is herewith ac- the gravity load resisting system (e.g., beams and columns
knowledged as a key contributor to the development of in a moment-resisting frame). In a design earthquake,
analysis, design, and implementation procedures for pas- components of the gravity load resisting system dissipate
sive energy dissipation devices. energy by inelastic response; such inelastic response pro-
duces permanent damage—damage that may be extremely
The primary reason for introducing dampers into a
expensive to repair. This observation led the writers of the
building frame is to reduce displacements during earth-
SEAONC draft Requirements for implementing energy
quake shaking. A reduction in displacement is achieved by
dissipation devices [Whittaker et al., 1993] to treat energy
adding either stiffness or energy dissipation (also termed
dissipation devices as disposable structural components
damping) to the frame. Metallic yielding, friction, and vis-
that did not form part of the gravity load resisting system.
coelastic dampers add both stiffness and damping; viscous
This strategy was adopted in an attempt to further uncou-
dampers generally only add damping to a building frame.
ple the gravity load and gravity force resisting systems and
The force-displacement relations of Figure CH-1 schemat-
to minimize earthquake-induced damage in the gravity
ically illustrate the effect of adding different types of
load resisting system.
346 September 1999

These Requirements do not apply to the implementa- static force procedure is inappropriate [FEMA, 1997].
tion of energy dissipation devices in seismic isolation sys- Item 5 prevents the use of the static force procedure for
tems because the displacement calculation procedures are nonlinear velocity-dependent systems because the analy-
not applicable to buildings with low yield strength (equal sis procedures of Section CH6 cannot capture the charac-
to the yield strength of the isolation system in this in- teristics of such dampers. Item 6 identifies the need to
stance). The reader is referred to these Requirements for include the elastic stiffness of the dampers in the mathe-
seismic isolation (Section 150 et seq.) for information on matical model of the building frame. Item 7 restates the de-
how to calculate displacements and implement dampers in sign philosophy of these Requirements, namely, that the
an isolation system. lateral force resisting system must satisfy all strength and
stiffness requirements of the UBC.
CH2 Definitions Fewer restrictions are placed on the use of time (re-
Figure AppCH-2 defines terms used throughout these Re- sponse) history analysis to implement energy dissipation
quirements. The dashed line enclosing the one-story, devices. Linear response history analysis may be used if
one-bay of framing defines part of the energy dissipation the building frame remains essentially elastic in the design
system. Other bays of framing that include energy dissipa- earthquake. Essentially elastic response is achieved if the
tion devices and/or structural framing that transfer force demand-to-capacity ratio for each component is less than
between the lateral force resisting system and the energy 2.0. This value was chosen for a number of reasons includ-
dissipation devices are also included in the energy dissipa- ing:
tion system. 1. The ultimate strength of structural components gener-
ally exceed the strength determined by analysis by a
CH3 Symbols and Notations wide margin.
No Commentary provided. 2. Nominal strengths are reduced by capacity reduction
factors to estimate design strengths. (The product of
CH4 General Requirements the ratio of the ultimate strength to the strength re-
quired by analysis and the inverse of the capacity re-
CH4.1 Classification of Component duction factor likely exceeds 2.0. See ATC [1995] for
Behavior more information.)
These Requirements categorize energy dissipation devices
If the building frame remains essentially elastic, the
as either linear or nonlinear. Displacement-dependent
force-based procedures of the UBC can be used to check
dampers (Section CH5.1) that rely on friction or yielding
component demands versus expected component
of metals will always be classified as nonlinear. Only lin-
strengths. (See FEMA 273 for procedures to calculate ex-
ear or nearly linear viscous or viscoelastic dampers can be
pected component strengths.)
considered to be linear.
Nonlinear response history analysis can be used to im-
CH4.2 Selection of Analysis Procedure
plement dampers regardless of the degree of inelastic re-
Two analysis procedures are set forth in the Guidelines: a sponse in the building frame. If nonlinear procedures are
static force procedure and two time history (response his- used, deformation demands must be checked against de-
tory) procedures. formation capacities for deformation-controlled actions,
Limitations are placed on the use of the static force and actions must be checked against lower-bound esti-
procedure. The limits identified in Section CH4.2.1 are mates of component strengths for force-controlled actions.
based on engineering judgement. No case studies have Refer to FEMA 273 for information on deformation- and
been performed to validate the limits. Item 1 is a carryover force-controlled actions, component deformation capaci-
of the limit enforced on conventional framing systems be- ties, and procedures for calculating lower-bound estimates
cause framing systems over 5 stories or 65 feet in height of component strengths.
may experience higher mode effects, which the static force CH4.3 Lateral Force Resisting System
procedure cannot capture. The intent of Items 2 and 3 is to
The design philosophy assumed by these Requirements is
provide dampers in each story of a building and to elimi-
that dampers are added primarily to reduce displacements
nate a concentration of dampers in any one story. Item 4 is
in a building. As such, these Requirements specify that a
a somewhat arbitrary limit that prevents the engineer from
building contain a complete lateral force resisting system,
designing a highly damped yielding system for which the
September 1999 347

independent of the dampers, that meets all of the strength TS /T1 where TS is the secant period at the point of maxi-
and detailing requirements of the UBC. The only excep- mum displacement, and T1 is the fundamental period of
tion to this rule is for steel yielding dampers [Whittaker et the building as determined by Eigen analysis.
al., 1991; Tsai et al. 1993].
Steel-yielding dampers function in a manner very sim- CH5 Mathematical
ilar to shear links in eccentrically braced frames. Accord- Representation of Damping
ingly, steel-yielding dampers can be modeled as Devices
conventional structural steel components (i.e., nominal
material properties and elastic stiffness) and may be in- These Requirements identify three types of energy dissipa-
cluded in the lateral force resisting system. Similar to all tion devices: displacement-dependent, velocity-depen-
other components in a steel frame, the force in a dent, and other. Metallic yielding and friction devices are
steel-yielding damper must be less than its design yield classed as displacement-dependent dampers. Figure
strength (equal to the nominal yield strength multiplied by AppCH-3 shows sample force-displacement relations for
a capacity reduction factor of 0.75) in the design wind displacement-dependent devices. Velocity-dependent de-
storm. Conservatively, buildings incorporating vices include solid and fluid viscoelastic dampers and
steel-yielding dampers in the lateral force resisting system fluid viscous dampers. Figure AppCH-4 shows sample
must be designed for forces calculated using a maximum force-displacement relations for velocity-dependent
value of R equal to 6. (The value of 6.0 is smaller than the dampers. Other devices have characteristics that cannot be
value of 7.0 assigned to an eccentrically braced frame in classified as one of the two basic types depicted in Figures
these Requirements.) If the steel-yielding dampers are be- CH-3 and CH-4. Examples of other devices include those
ing implemented in parallel with a lateral force resisting constructed using shape-memory (superelastic) alloys,
system that is assigned a value of R smaller than 6.0, the friction-spring assemblies with recentering capability, and
smaller value must be used to analyze and design the fluid dampers with restoring force. The reader is referred
damped lateral force resisting system. to ATC [1993], EERI [1993], and Soong and Constantinou
[1994] for more information on this class of damper. Only
CH4.4 Structure Height Limitations displacement-dependent and velocity-dependent dampers
No Commentary provided. are addressed in these Requirements.
CH4.5 Total and Inherent Structural Displacement-dependent dampers exhibit bilinear or
Damping trilinear hysteretic, elasto-plastic or rigid-plastic behavior.
The total effective damping of the building frame, includ- Details on the behavior of displacement-dependent devic-
ing the effects of the dampers is given by Equation es can be found in Whittaker et al. [1991], Aiken et al.
[1993], ATC [1993], and Soong and Constantinou [1994].
AppCH4-1. In this equation, β is the inherent damping in
the structural frame that accounts for energy dissipation in Solid viscoelastic dampers are typically composed of
the framing system prior to significant yield. β should not constrained layers of acrylic copolymers. Such dampers
have mechanical properties, which are dependent on the
be increased beyond 5 percent of critical. The term β S is
frequency, temperature, and amplitude of the imposed
the damping provided by the energy dissipation devices at loading. Viscoelastic solid behavior can be modeled with
the point of maximum displacement. Values of β S for ve- the standard linear model of Figure AppCH-5 using Equa-
locity-dependent dampers are calculated in Section CH6; tions AppCH5-1 through AppCH5-3. Fluid viscoelastic
β S equals 0 for displacement-dependent dampers. dampers operate by shearing viscoelastic fluids, and have
response characteristics similar to those of solid viscoelas-
If nonlinear response history analysis is used to imple- tic dampers except that the fluid dampers have zero effec-
ment energy dissipation devices in a building frame, care tive stiffness (Equation AppCH5-2) under static load.
must be taken to not overestimate the inherent damping at Fluid viscoelastic behavior can be modeled with the Max-
the point of maximum displacement. If the inherent damp- well model of Figure AppCH-6. Pure viscous behavior can
ing is assumed to be equal to 5 percent of critical at the be produced by forcing fluid through an orifice. Fluid vis-
point of maximum displacement, a smaller value must be cous dampers may exhibit some stiffness if the excitation
assigned to the mathematical model for analysis because frequency is high (i.e., greater than 4 Hz). In the absence
the inherent damping will be increased by a factor equal to of stiffness, the force in a fluid viscous damper can be cal-
September 1999 348

culated using Equation AppCH5-4. Derivations of Equa- systems with fundamental periods greater than 0.5 second
tions AppCH5-1 through CH5-4 can be found in ATC and significant post-yield stiffness. FEMA 273 writes that
[1993] and Soong and Constantinou [1994]. the maximum inelastic displacement (termed δ t ) can be
calculated as:
CH6 Static Force Procedure
2
CH6.1 General Sa Te
δ t = ∏ C i ----
- ---------
B 4π 2 Eqn. AppCH6-1
These Requirements for design are based on checking i = 1,4
component strengths with respect to component actions
where Ci are coefficients to relate expected inelastic dis-
calculated using a design base shear (V in equations 30-4
through 30-7; V is defined in §1630.2.1 of the 1997 UBC), placements to elastic displacements (all greater than 1.0),
which is reduced from the elastic spectral value by a re- Te is the effective fundamental period of the building (an
sponse modification factor (R). Design displacements are improved measure of the fundamental period of the build-
calculated using elastic analysis and lateral forces based ing up to first significant yielding), Sa is the 5 percent
on the design base shear. Maximum inelastic displace- damped spectral acceleration at period Te, and B is a reduc-
ments are calculated by increasing the design displace- tion factor for values of viscous damping different from
ments by 0.7R. Maximum inelastic displacements are not 5 percent of critical. The effective period is calculated us-
used to calculate component deformations to check ing an estimate of the effective elastic stiffness (Ke), where
whether component deformation limits are exceeded. the effective stiffness is defined in Figure AppCH-7.
Rather, prescriptive detailing requirements (e.g., trans-
verse confinement in reinforced concrete beams and col- In Figure AppCH-7, the multilinear force-displace-
umns, flange and web compactness ratios in steel beams ment relation (solid line) is approximated by a bilinear re-
and columns) are employed, whereby it is assumed that lation (dashed line). The elastic stiffness of the bilinear
each component has sufficient deformation capacity. Max- relation is termed the effective stiffness.
imum inelastic displacements are only used to check inter- The FEMA 273 provisions recognize that the primary
story drifts and building separations. benefit of adding displacement-dependent dampers to a
The use of an amplification factor of 0.7R will likely building frame is that of added stiffness. As such, there is
produce unconservative estimates of maximum displace- no calculation of added damping for displacement-depen-
ments, because the displacements so calculated will be less dent devices. Adding stiffness to a framing system reduces
than the elastic displacements (displacements calculated the effective period and displacements of the building
using unreduced forces). Displacements are more correct- frame. See Equation AppCH6-1, wherein a reduction in
ly estimated using the procedures set forth in FEMA 273 the effective period will generally reduce the maximum in-
[1997], wherein maximum inelastic displacements equal elastic displacement (termed the target displacement in
or exceed elastic displacements. FEMA 273).
Energy dissipation devices (also termed dampers) are The addition of velocity-dependent dampers to a
used to reduce displacements (and therefore damage) in a building frame will reduce displacements through a com-
building to values smaller than the limits set forth in bination of added damping and added stiffness. Some ve-
§1630.9 of 1997 UBC. Because the energy dissipation Re- locity-dependent dampers exhibit little or no stiffness
quirements are intended to facilitate the correct implemen- (e.g., fluid viscous devices operating at frequencies below
tation of dampers, the Requirements must include 5 Hertz) and the primary benefit of such devices is added
procedures that will enable the engineer to calculate im- damping.
proved estimates of maximum inelastic displacements. As The Blue Book Requirements for calculating dis-
such, the static force procedure of Section CH6 is based on placements in framing systems that include energy dissi-
one of the displacement-oriented design procedures of pation devices mirror those set forth in FEMA 273 for use
FEMA 273—the nonlinear static procedure. with the nonlinear static procedure. Namely, displace-
The equation used to calculate maximum inelastic dis- ments are reduced with displacement-dependent dampers
placements with the static lateral force procedure is based through added stiffness only, and with velocity-dependent
on the assumption that mean elastic displacements equal dampers through added stiffness (if any) and added damp-
mean inelastic displacements for nondegrading framing ing.
September 1999 349

The Blue Book calculation of the maximum inelastic In this equation, the damper force (FD) is equal to
displacement in a building frame incorporating displace- ·
Cδ D , where C is the damping coefficient and δ D is the rel-
ment-dependent dampers is straightforward. The calcula-
ative velocity between the two ends of the damper. As-
tion requires the engineer to estimate the effective elastic
suming that the relative displacement history is harmonic
period (Te) of the building frame using an eigen analysis of
with amplitude δ D and frequency ω D , the maximum ve-
a mathematical model that includes the elastic stiffness of
the dampers. Because these Requirements are based on locity is equal to:
elastic analysis, it is not possible to develop the multilinear · 2π
and bilinear force-displacement relations of Figure Ap- δ D = ω D δ D = ------
TD δD Eqn. AppCH6-3
pCH-1. Therefore, it is assumed that T e = 1.15T 1 where
T1 is the fundamental period of the mathematical model of In Equation AppCH6-1, Es is the elastic strain energy in
the building frame that includes the elastic stiffness prop- the building frame at the point of maximum inelastic dis-
erties of the dampers. placement, which can be calculated using Equation
AppCH6-3.
The viscous damping added by velocity-dependent
dampers is calculated in these Requirements using the Equation AppCH6-4 represents a crude estimate of
equations of Section CH1.6.2. The corresponding reduc- the inertial force at floor level i, where FMi is the design
tion in displacement is estimated using the effective damp- lateral force at level i, and Ω o is an estimate of the ratio of
ing ratio of the building frame (including the dampers). the maximum story shear strength at level i and the design
The effective damping ratio is converted to a displacement lateral force at level i. The second term on the right-hand
reduction factor (B in Equation AppCH6-1), which is used side of the equation is the contribution of the dampers to
to reduce the maximum inelastic displacement below that the inertial force at floor level i.
value associated with 5 percent damping that is generally
assigned to the building frame exclusive of the dampers. CH6.3 Minimum Lateral Displacements
The calculation of maximum inelastic displacement is iter- Equation AppCH6-5 provides an estimate of the maxi-
ative, because the estimates of secant period at maximum mum displacement of a yielding system subject to earth-
displacement and effective damping ratio require a priori quake shaking characterized by an earthquake with a
knowledge of the maximum inelastic displacement. When 5 percent damped spectral acceleration ordinate equal to
the assumed and calculated values of the maximum inelas- Sa at an effective elastic period of Te. The maximum dis-
tic displacement are sufficiently close for a given configu- placement is that of the control node of the building where
ration of dampers, the solution has converged. the control node is typically the node associated with the
CH6.2 Damping Provided by Energy center of mass at the roof. The equation assumes a relation
Dissipation Devices between mean elastic and mean inelastic displacements.
Section CH6.2 presents equations for calculating the The coefficient C0 serves to extrapolate the displace-
added damping provided by velocity-dependent dampers. ment of the generalized first modal mass to the roof level.
Equation AppCH6-1 is the well-established relation for Either the first mode participation factor or an approxi-
viscoelastic systems [Constantinou and Symans, 1993; mate value from Table AppCH-1 should be used for C0.
Constantinou et al., 1996]. In this equation, ∑ E Dj is the
The coefficient C1 accounts for the difference be-
energy dissipated by all dampers in the building at dis- tween the maximum inelastic and elastic displacements in
placements corresponding to the maximum inelastic dis- buildings with full and stable hysteresis loops. The values
placement. Individual damper displacements should be are loosely based on the studies of Miranda [1991] and
calculated using estimates of interstory displacements that Nassar and Krawinkler [1991]. For buildings either de-
correspond to the maximum inelastic displacement. These signed using large values of R (greater than 5) or located
displacements must be resolved into the axis of the in the near field to a major active fault, the values assigned
damper, and the deformations of the framing supporting to C1 may not be conservative [Whittaker et al., 1998].
the dampers must be accounted for. The work done in one
cycle of loading for one damper is calculated as Interstory displacements are estimated using the esti-
mate of the maximum inelastic displacement (DDn in these
E Dj = π ( F D δ D ) Eqn. AppCH6-2
Requirements). Floor displacements are calculated by
350 September 1999

multiplying the maximum inelastic displacement by the the ordinates of the SRSS spectrum do not fall below
normalized ordinates of the first mode shape. Interstory 130 percent of the ordinates of the target spectrum. These
displacements are estimated to be the difference between Requirements are virtually identical to those of the seismic
the floor displacements. This procedure is approximate at isolation requirements of the UBC. The period range of
best because an elastic mode shape is used to estimate in- (0.2T1, 1.1TD) is intended to bracket the second mode elas-
terstory displacements in a yielding system wherein dis- tic period and the secant period at maximum displacement.
placements will tend to concentrate in one or two stories.
Interstory displacements so calculated should be assumed CH7.2 Analysis Procedures
to be lower bound values. Procedures for time (response) history analysis are given
in UBC §1631.6.3. Nonlinear response history analysis
Equations AppCH6-6 and AppCH6-7 present an ap-
must be used if substantial yielding is expected in the
proximate means by which to calculate the secant period
building frame; for these Requirements, substantial yield-
at the maximum inelastic displacement of the building.
ing corresponds to demand-capacity ratios greater than
Using the force-displacement relation of Figure AppCH-1,
2.0. Additional guidance and acceptance criteria for non-
the secant period at the maximum inelastic displacements
linear response history analysis is given in FEMA 273.
can be calculated as:
Additional information on linear response history analysis
K is given in Section CH4.2 above.
T s = T e ------e Eqn. AppCH6-4
Ks
CH8 Detailed Design
Because it is not possible to directly measure the base Requirements
shear corresponding to the maximum inelastic displace-
CH8.1 Environmental Conditions
ment, equation CH6-7 is used. This estimate for VM is ap-
proximate at best. The engineer is urged to investigate the Apart from corrosion, little consideration has been given
design and performance implications of using different to environmental effects on traditional structural engineer-
values for VM. ing materials (e.g., reinforced concrete and steel) when
those materials have been placed in buildings. The use of
As noted above, an estimate of the secant period at nontraditional materials (e.g., acrylic copolymers) and
maximum displacement is needed to establish the effective mechanical devices (e.g., fluid viscous dampers, friction
damping ratio of a building frame incorporating veloci- dampers), which are substantially affected by temperature,
ty-dependent dampers. The calculation of the effective creep, corrosion, and UV exposure, present the engineer
damping ratio is based on the energy dissipated by all ve- with new and additional challenges. Before specifying a
locity-dependent dampers assuming that the building is damper for a project, the engineer must consider the envi-
subjected to harmonic loading with a maximum displace- ronmental factors listed in Section CH8.1 in order to either
ment of DDn at a period of TD. If the deformation of the correctly bound the likely response characteristics of the
framing supporting a damper is small, such deformation damper over its design life or take special measures to mit-
can be ignored in the calculation of the relative displace- igate the environmental factor(s).
ments between the ends of the damper (estimated using in- Dampers are added to a building to dissipate earth-
terstory drifts) and the relative velocities between the ends quake-induced energy and must not form part of the grav-
of the damper (estimated assuming harmonic motion with ity load resisting system. (Such dampers may also be used
an amplitude equal to the relative displacement and peri- to mitigate the effects of wind, but such discussion is be-
odicity TD). yond the purview of these Requirements.) Although earth-
quake-related forces and displacements will generally
CH7 Time History Analysis drive the design of a damper, adequate attention must be
CH7.1 Time Histories paid to the effects of wind forces on the damper. Consider
two examples: a steel-yielding damper and a fluid viscous
The earthquake ground motion histories proposed for the damper. For a steel-yielding damper subject to failure by
analysis of building frames incorporating energy dissipa- low-cycle fatigue, the force in the damper produced by the
tion devices must conform with the criteria set forth in design windstorm must be substantially less than the yield
UBC §1631.6.3. These Requirements further require that strength of the damper. For a fluid viscous damper, wind
the histories be amplitude- and frequency-scaled such that forces on a building will introduce displacements in the
September 1999 351

damper; the seals of the damper must have a travel life in ber of small force capacity dampers rather than a small
excess of the expected travel of the damper piston due to number of large force capacity dampers.
all wind effects for its design life.
Velocity-dependent damping devices tend to be very
The engineer must characterize the likely changes in effective at reducing torsional motions, because they have
the response of a damper due to environmental effects over minimal effect other than damping on vibration mode
the design life of the damper. The maximum and minimum shapes and periods, provided that more than a few large
values of damper response must be carefully evaluated pri- dampers are provided in the building. Hence, it does not
or to final analysis and design. The change in building re- appear to be necessary to carefully balance the force x dis-
sponse as a function of the maximum, target, and tance of velocity-dependent devices about each floor’s
minimum values of damper response should each be eval- center of gravity, although it remains prudent to at least
uated by analysis prior to final design. Consider the ideal- balance the number of devices about the center of gravity.
ized force-velocity response of a linear viscous damper of Displacement-dependent damping devices have a more
Figure AppCH8. Line C represents the relation assumed in pronounced effect on torsional vibration modes, but these
design. Lines B and D define the limiting values of the effects are considered by the normal rules of design for lat-
constitutive relation for the damper as determined by pro- eral force-resisting systems.
totype testing (typically taken as (15 percent of the design CH8.4.2 Determination of Design Forces in the
relation). Lines A and E define the limiting values of the EDS. Component actions and deformations can be esti-
constitutive relation after accounting for the effects of ag- mated using either the static lateral force procedure of
ing, temperature, corrosion, etc. In addition to designing Section CH4.2.1 or response history analysis per
for the force-velocity relation of Line C, the engineer must Section CH4.2.2. If response history analysis is used,
evaluate the response of the building for the force-velocity forces and deformations in each component, at each time
relations given by Lines A and E. Line A will characterize step, must be checked against the limiting values defined
the minimum energy dissipation of the damper (for a given by the engineer. If the static lateral force procedure is used,
displacement) and Line E will characterize the maximum forces must be checked as follows:
force delivered to the energy dissipation system by the
damper. In a building incorporating displacement-dependent
dampers, the maximum forces in the building frame and
CH8.2 Multi-Axis Movement the dampers are realized at the point of maximum dis-
Some types of energy dissipation devices are not capable placement. In this case, structural components and damp-
of sustaining significant displacements perpendicular to ers need only be checked at the point of maximum
their longitudinal axis. For these types of devices, articu- displacement, as is the case with conventionally framed
lated connections (e.g., spherical bearings) must be used at buildings.
each end of the damper.
In a building incorporating velocity-dependent damp-
CH8.3 Story Drift Limitation ers, the viscous forces associated with the dampers must
No Commentary provided. be considered. Maximum forces in individual components
may occur at one of three stages: maximum displacement,
CH8.4 Minimum Strength of EDDs and maximum velocity, and maximum acceleration. Consider
Related EDS Components the base shear/roof displacement relation of Figure Ap-
CH8.4.1 Reliability and Redundancy Factor. The pCH-9 that approximates the behavior of a building in
factor ρ D for reliability and redundancy shall be set equal which velocity-dependent dampers have been implement-
to 1.4 if less than four dampers total are provided in each ed.
story of the building. If three or fewer dampers are used in The base shear FD corresponds to the point of maxi-
any one story of a building, ρ D shall be set equal to 1.4 re- mum displacement, FA corresponds to the point of maxi-
gardless of the number and location of the dampers in any mum acceleration, and FV corresponds to the point of
other story. The value of 1.4 is preliminary and mutable at
maximum velocity. Checking for forces at the point of
the time of this writing, and is based solely on the judge-
maximum displacement is no different for displacement-
ment of the authors of the Requirements. The intent of the
dependent and velocity-dependent dampers.
Requirement is to encourage engineers to use a large num-
Viscous forces are maximized at the time of maxi-
mum velocity, which occurs approximately at the time of
352 September 1999

zero displacement. At this time, inertial forces at each CH8.5 Inspection and Periodic Testing
floor level balance the horizontal components of the vis- Structural components of conventional steel, reinforced
cous forces, such that the lateral displacements at each concrete, and timber are infrequently or never inspected
floor level are zero. The viscous forces will introduce axial following construction. However, most energy dissipation
forces into collectors and drag struts at each floor level and devices on the market at the time of this writing are me-
axial forces into columns supporting the dampers (see Fig- chanical and not structural components.
ure AppCH-2). The magnitude of these forces will depend
on the amount of damping added to the building frame, Industries that have implemented mechanical damp-
and the size and location of the dampers within the building components in the past (e.g., defense, power genera-
ing frame. tion, and aerospace) have relied upon regular inspection
and periodic testing of damping devices to ensure that the
Component actions at the point of maximum acceler- devices remain fully functional. There is no technical rea-
ation can be calculated using information on the forces at son to support a change in this philosophy for mechanical
the points of maximum displacement (FD) and velocity damping components.
(FV). Assuming that the building frame is a viscoelastic
Dampers that are not mechanical components (e.g.,
system undergoing harmonic displacement at a frequency
having no moving parts, seals, internal fluid, etc.) such as
fD =1/TD (where TD is the secant period at maximum dis-
devices that rely upon the yielding of metals should be in-
placement), the forces at maximum acceleration (FA) can spected on a regular basis (e.g., to guard against corrosion)
be calculated to be equal to: but likely do not need periodic testing. Dampers that dissi-
F A = CF 1 × F D + CF 2 × F V Eqn. AppCH8-1 pate energy by deforming solid and fluid viscoelastic ma-
terials should be both regularly inspected and tested if the
The forces at maximum acceleration can be conservatively properties of such materials change with time or environ-
estimated by setting CF1 and CF2 equal to 1.0. mental effects.
CH8.4.3 Minimum Strength and Stiffness of EDS The Engineer of Record and not the vendor should es-
Components. Defines rules for combining the design tablish the criteria for inspection and periodic testing. The
force components from the LFRS, which have been deter- criteria should be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the
mined using R factors with force components, resulting dampers will respond as intended at any time over their de-
from energy dissipation devices. sign life. The scope of the inspection and testing program
Structural members of the EDS should resist forces in should be based upon the in-service history of the damp-
the elastic stress range to provide stable and predictable er(s) under consideration and the likelihood that the prop-
movements at dissipation devices. In order to achieve this, erties of the damper(s) will change due to aging or
EDDs should generally not be connected directly to ele- environmental effects.
ments of the LFRS (such as beams in moment frames) CH8.6 Manufacturing Quality Control
which are designed to resist seismic forces in the inelastic
To ensure effective control over product quality, the ven-
range. Beams intended for inelastic behavior may still be
dor should establish and maintain a manufacturing/pro-
required to transmit some secondary EDS forces as collec- cessing control system, including written process
tor elements, therefore stress limitations are provided to specifications and procedures. It is strongly recommended
establish reasonable limits for EDS stress components. that the quality control program be designed to ensure that
Other beams, as well as columns, braces, diaphragms,
manufacturing, processing inspection, and testing be ac-
struts and foundations, should be designed using the earth-
complished in accordance with a recognized quality assur-
quake design force multipliers specified. Soil strengths
ance system, such as International Standards Organization
used to determine foundation or sliding strengths should (ISO) 9001.
represent ultimate rather than working stress soil proper-
ties. The extent and detail of a suitable quality control pro-
gram will likely vary depending on the complexity of the
Because bracing members that transmit only EDS
energy dissipation devices. For example, relatively simple
forces are designed to resist transmitted forces in the elas-
metallic yielding devices may only require some controls
tic stress range, normal code multipliers intended to cor-
for metallurgy and cutting and/or welding processes, while
rect for less ductile performance are not considered to be devices that are complex assemblages of many subcompo-
applicable. nents should have more detailed programs.
September 1999 353

CH9 Design Review equately represent the possible number of cycles of

wind motion during the building life.
Analysis, design and construction issues associated with
the use of energy dissipation devices are not well under- Devices that do not exhibit a significant stiffness
stood by most design professionals and building officials component are likely to be subjected to cyclic
at the time of this writing. Accordingly, all phases of the displacements from slowly applied actions such as
analysis, design, and construction of buildings incorporat- wind or thermal movements. For these types of
ing energy dissipation devices should be reviewed by an devices, high-cycle, low-amplitude testing is
independent engineering panel that is comprised of per- necessary to confirm resistance to wear or similar
son(s) experienced in seismic analysis and the theory and deterioration under these types of loads.
application of energy dissipation devices. (Such review is Devices that have a significant stiffness component,
required for the analysis, design, and construction of seis- and which are designed to resist wind, thermal, or
mic isolation systems.) similar actions without yield or slip, or for which the
installation is designed to ensure that the device is not
The design or peer review should commence during subjected to such actions, need not be tested for
the preliminary design phase of the project and continue resistance to these actions.
through to the testing and installation of the energy dissi-
2. All devices should be tested to confirm acceptable be-
pation devices in the building.
havior under large earthquake loading. The physical
limitations of available testing equipment may pre-
CH10 Testing Energy Dissipation vent large devices from being cyclically tested at real
Devices time rates of loading. For such devices, and in partic-
CH10.1 General ular for fluid viscous velocity-dependent devices, im-
pact tests of full size units, combined with both cyclic
Two separate programs of testing are to be conducted for testing and impact testing of reduced-scale units may
each type of energy dissipation device used in the struc- provide a reasonable alternative.
ture. First, prototype testing is intended to establish that
The energy demand on devices that are subjected to
the device operating characteristics conform to the as-
real time testing should be carefully assessed. The
sumptions made in the design. Second, production testing
20-cycle test may subject the device to considerably
of the devices to be installed in the structure may be re-
more energy than what would be associated with an
quired to verify correct operation. Production testing is not
actual large earthquake loading, and may even
intended as a substitute for manufacturing quality control
overload the device. In such cases, the number of
procedures.
cycles and/or the amplitude of testing should be
CH10.2 Prototype Tests carefully determined to ensure that the device is
CH10.2.1 General. Although reduced-scale devices subjected to a realistic, but not unreasonable or
are permitted for certain prototype tests, full-scale devices implausible, total energy demand.
should be tested wherever possible. Failure or ultimate 3. The rules given for evaluating frequency dependence
load characteristics of devices should not be determined are based on similar rules developed for testing seis-
by reduced-scale testing. mic isolation devices. The frequency range of 0.5 f1 to
CH10.2.2 Data Recording. To adequately capture the 2.0 f1 should bound the frequency response of a build-
force-displacement or force-velocity response of the de- ing. The frequency of 2.0 f1 corresponds to a fourfold
vice, at least 100 data points per cycle of loading should be increase in building stiffness (perhaps due to non-
recorded. structural components, etc.); the frequency of 0.5 f1
CH10.2.3 Sequences and Cycles of Testing. Energy corresponds to a fourfold decrease in stiffness due to
dissipation devices are not permitted to support structure the effects of earthquake shaking, a likely upper
gravity loads, but nonetheless may still be required to sup- bound for the inelastic building response.
port their self-weight and the weight of attached braces or 4. If the properties of an energy dissipation device are in-
components, which could in some instances have a detri- fluenced by building displacements in the direction
mental effect on their performance. perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device
1. For short period structures the number of cycles of (termed bilateral displacement), such influence should
low amplitude testing may need to be increased to ad- be investigated by testing. The importance of bilateral
354 September 1999

displacements may be a consequence of either Item 1, References

the fundamental design characteristics of the device,
or Item 2, the as-designed installation configuration Aiken, I.D., D.K. Nims, A.S. Whittaker, and J.M. Kelly,
for the device. 1993. “Testing of passive energy dissipation systems,”
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, No. 3. Earthquake
CH10.2.4 Testing Similar Devices. A custom, or Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
one-off, energy dissipation device design with specific
mathematical behavior will require unique prototype test- ATC, 1993. Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Isolation,
ing for each device type. However, manufacturers may be Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control,
able to produce standardized energy dissipation device de- Report No. ATC-17-1. Applied Technology Council,
signs, in terms of design strength and operating behavior. Redwood City, CA.
A standard set of prototype tests could then be used to ATC, 1995. A Critical Review of Current Approaches To
meet prototype testing requirements. The adequacy of Earthquake Resistant Design, Report No. ATC-34.
such a standard set of tests for any particular project Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
should be determined by the Engineer of Record.
Constantinou, M.C. and M. D. Symans, 1993.
CH10.2.5 Determination of Force-Velocity-Displace-
“Experimental Study of Seismic Response of
ment Characteristics. The determination of energy dissi-
Buildings With Supplemental Fluid Dampers,” The
pation device properties and subsequent evaluation of
Structural Design of Tall Buildings. John Wiley &
adequacy should use consistent definitions for properties
Sons, London.
and parameters.
CH10.2.6 System Adequacy. Negative incremental Constantinou, M.C., T.T. Soong, and G.F. Dargush, 1996.
stiffness is ordinarily assumed to be indicative of unstable Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural
behavior in displacement dependent devices. It should be Design and Retrofit. NCEER Monograph, National
recognized that in some cases for these devices, and for all Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
velocity-dependent devices, negative incremental stiffness N.Y.
is an implicit feature of their behavior and is not detrimen- EERI, 1993. “Theme Issue: Passive Energy Dissipation,”
tal. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, No. 3. Earthquake
The 15 percent tolerance range is generally regarded Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
as a maximum acceptable range to meet design assump- FEMA, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
tions without significant deviation of actual versus mod- Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. FEMA 273.
eled behavior. A different tolerance range may be more Federal Emergency Management Agency,
appropriate for a particular type of device, or may be ac- Washington, D.C.
ceptable in specific project instances. In such cases, the ac-
ceptable range of device properties should be Miranda, E., 1991. Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of
appropriately incorporated in the design process, either by Existing Buildings, Ph.D. diss., Department of Civil
utilizing more sophisticated modeling techniques, or by Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
performing multiple analyses to account for the actual Nassar, A. and H. Krawinkler, 1991. Seismic Demands for
range of device properties. SDOF and MDOF Systems, Report No. 95. John A.
CH10.3 Production Testing Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
As part of the manufacturing quality control processes,
each production device should be subjected to testing and Soong, T.T. and M.C. Constantinou, 1994. Passive and
inspection. Upon completion of manufacture, additional Active Structural Vibration Control in Civil
testing may be appropriate to confirm the behavior of the Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York.
final assembled device. The need for and extent of for final Tsai, K-C, H-W. Chen, C-P. Hong, and Y-F. Su, 1993.
production testing should be reviewed and established by “Design of Steel Triangular Plate Energy Absorbers
the Engineer of Record. for Seismic-Resistant Construction,” Earthquake
Spectra. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA.
September 1999 355

Whittaker, A.S., M.C. Constantinou, and P. Tsopelas, Whittaker, A.S., V.V. Bertero, J. Alonso, and C.
1998. “Displacement Estimates for Thompson, 1991. “Seismic Testing of Steel-Plate
Performance-Based Seismic Design,” paper accepted Energy Dissipating Devices,” Earthquake Spectra,
for publication, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 7, no. 4. Earthquake Engineering Research
ASCE, Washington, D.C. Institute, Oakland, CA.
Whittaker, A.S., et al., 1993. “Code Requirements for the
Design and Implementation of Passive Energy
Dissipation Systems,” Proceedings of Seminar on
Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and
Active Control, Report No. ATC-17-1. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Figure AppCH-1. Effect of dampers on the force-displacement response of a building

[FEMA, 1997]
356 September 1999

Figure AppCH-2. Definition of components in an energy dissipation system [FEMA 273]
Figure AppCH-3. Idealized force-displacement loops for displacement-dependent EDDs
Figure AppCH-4. Idealized force-displacement loops for velocity-dependent EDDs
September 1999 357

Figure AppCH-5. Model for solid viscoelastic EDD [FEMA, 1997]
Figure AppCH-6. Model for fluid viscoelastic EDD [FEMA, 1997]
Figure AppCH-7. Force-displacement relation for a building [FEMA, 1997]
358 September 1999

Figure AppCH-8. Variations in damper response
Figure AppCH-9. Base shear/roof displacement relation for a building
September 1999 359

360 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
APPENDIX I
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
Part A Strength Design Adaptation
Part B Force-Displacement Approach
These Tentative Guidelines represent work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require significant case
studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to provide feedback to the SEAOC
Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Tentative Guidelines.

Ad Hoc Subcommittee
Robert E. Bachman (SEAOSC), Chair
Anthony B. Court (SEAOSD), Vice Chair, Editor
Sigmund A. Freeman (SEAONC)
Saiful M. Islam (SEAOSC)
Mervyn J. Kowalsky (SEAOSD)
Frank E. McClure (SEAONC)
Robert C. Thacker (SEAOCC)
September 1999 361
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering—Appendix I SEAOC Blue Book
362 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
APPENDIX I
Introduction f.Simplified force/strength approach added to

appendix.
In Appendix B of the 1996 SEAOC Blue Book, a concep-
tual framework for performance-based seismic design was g. Some advanced acceptability checks added to
introduced into the Requirements and Commentary for the appendix.
first time. This framework was based on SEAOC’s Vision 4. Year 2003 Blue Book
2000 report, published in April of 1995, which was pre- a. Move design approaches that have completed
pared for the California Office of Emergency Services. In consensus process from appendix to appropriate
Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Vision 2000 report, specific code pages.
goals were suggested for future editions of the SEAOC b. Move acceptability checks that have completed
Blue Book so that it would incorporate performance-based consensus process from appendix to appropriate
engineering (PBE) concepts. The suggested modifications code pages.
and timing were as follows. c. Displacement-based approach added to appendix.
1. 1995 Blue Book (actually the 1996 Blue Book) d. Energy-based approach added to appendix.
a. Performance definitions added to appendix. e. Comprehensive design approach added to
2. 1997 Blue Book (actually the 1999 Blue Book) appendix.
a. Matrix of performance objectives added to f. Remainder of advanced acceptability checks
appendix. added to appendix.
b. PBE Framework added to appendix. 5. Year 2006 Blue Book
c. Nonstructural provisions added to appendix. a. Move the remaining design approaches from
d. Current force/strength procedures modified in appendix to appropriate code pages.
code pages and commentary. b. Move the remaining acceptability checks from
3. Year 2000 Blue Book appendix to appropriate code pages.
a. Performance definitions moved from appendix to The above goals presumed that the Blue Book would
code pages. be published in 1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. In ac-
b. Matrix of performance objectives moved from tuality, we have not followed the presumed schedule. The
appendix to code pages. previous Blue Book was published in 1996, this edition in
c. PBE framework moved from appendix to code 1999, and the next publication has not yet been scheduled.
pages. In the 1996 edition of the Blue Book, goals for the as-
d. Nonstructural provisions moved from appendix to sumed 1995 Blue Book and the first three goals for the as-
code pages. sumed 1997 edition were accomplished. Furthermore, the
e. Prescriptive design approach added to appendix. nonstructural provisions were incorporated into the
strength provisions and adopted as part of the 1997 Uni-
form Building Code (UBC).
September 1999 363

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering—Appendix I SEAOC Blue Book
In early 1997, the SEAOC Seismology Subcommittee Other Considerations

formed the Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad
In order to achieve performance goals, performance-based
Hoc Subcommittee to develop PBSE design guidelines for
seismic engineering must address a full range of engineer-
incorporation into this edition of the Blue Book. After re-
ing design and quality assurance issues, in addition to
viewing the suggested goals, the subcommittee decided to
ground motion and the primary structural system design
create the following two separate performance-based seis-
issues. Issues such as nonstructural component design, de-
mic engineering (PBSE) guideline documents, which are
sign implementation, design review, and construction
presented after this Introduction.
quality assurance are all important if performance objec-
Part IA—Strength Design Adaptation tives are to be achieved. In the guideline documents that
follow, the subcommittee has attempted to address these
Part IB—Force-Displacement Approach
subjects in a manner that will encourage PBSE to proceed
Part IA is the 1997 UBC strength design provisions in a consistent and reasonably comprehensive manner.
(Strength Design provisions are found in Chapter 1) adapt-
Appropriate application of PBSE procedures can be
ed to achieve performance-based seismic engineering
expected to improve the seismic resistant design of struc-
goals. Part IA provides Tentative Guidelines for a dis-
tures and nonstructural systems and enhance performance
placement-based engineering approach. Both guideline
reliability. However, it must be recognized that many un-
documents are considered tentative because they have not
certainties remain in seismic design and that seismic per-
gone through extensive design trials. However, Parts IA
formance cannot be guaranteed.
and IB do provide two approaches that could be used to de-
sign structures to better achieve performance-based objec-
tives. Minority Opinion
Sigmund A. Freeman
It should be noted that the organization of the two
parts is essentially similar and many of the sections are This Appendix represents a work in progress by the Per-
identical. This approach was intentionally taken to allow formance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad Hoc Subcom-
each guideline document to be used independently without mittee. It has been developed over a period of two years.
the need to cross-refer. Many of the individual sections have not been coordinated
into a single workable document and have not gone
It should be noted that these documents represent a through the process of peer review. With some additional
majority opinion of the ad hoc subcommittee. A minority work, this document could be made into a useful tool for
(S.A. Freeman) of the subcommittee is of the opinion that the basis of a consensus document.
the documents should be further revised, evaluated and
tested before being published. While the majority opinion SEAOC and other members of the Subcommittee
has prevailed, it is highly recommended that these Tenta- have chosen to publish this document because it contains
tive Guidelines be treated as tentative and used with cau- useful information. However, there is a strong opinion by
tion. this writer that this document should not be published until
the document has been edited and reviewed for consisten-
Significant Finding cy and usability. A brief review by this writer, using sim-
ple design examples, found inconsistencies and instances
One of the more significant findings of the subcommittee where the document is not workable and the results are po-
was that, typically, the sizing of structural members is gov- tentially misleading.
erned by elastic design for the lowest level earthquake (50-
year return period for BSO). Thus, structures can be sized In its present form, this Appendix should be used only
for the elastic level and checked for stability at the more for review purposes and in sample cases to check for va-
extreme earthquake levels. lidity of the proposed procedures.
364 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I, Part A—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
APPENDIX I, PART A

Ad Hoc Subcommittee
September 1999 365
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering—Appendix I, Part A SEAOC Blue Book
366 September 1999

APPENDIX IA
IA-1 Introduction ety’s requirement that property and business interruption

losses in moderate earthquakes be controlled to acceptable
IA-1.1 Background levels.
The primary goal of the major building codes currently in
Even before these events, the SEAOC Board of Direc-
effect, e.g., UBC and Standard Building Code (SBBCI), is
tors established the Vision 2000 Subcommittee to develop
to protect life safety by providing for buildings with suffi-
a framework for a next generation performance-based
cient integrity, strength, and toughness to resist partial
seismic design code (see Appendix F). In essence, a per-
and/or complete collapse in severe, but relatively infre-
formance-based seismic design simply means developing
quent earthquakes. The implied secondary goal of these
and implementing a design so that, at specified levels of
codes is to control property damage and maintain function
ground motion and with definable levels of reliability, the
in more moderate but frequent events. These codes have
structure would not be damaged beyond certain limiting
been developed empirically, based on observations of ac-
states. The interim guideline prepared herein modifies the
tual damage to structures in past earthquakes in combina-
SEAOC’s strength design provisions to adapt to the basic
tion with research at various universities.
performance-based seismic engineering (PBSE) frame-
In recent years, performance of buildings in earth- work developed by the Vision 2000. A historical perspec-
quakes such as M6.7 Northridge earthquake and M7.1 tive regarding the development and relationship of the
Loma Prieta earthquake have shown that although current Blue Book, Vision 2000, and these Tentative Guidelines is
building codes, in general, provide good levels of life safe- provided in the Introduction and in Attachment 3 of this
ty protection in buildings that are properly designed and Appendix.
constructed, they are significantly less reliable in minimiz-
IA-1.2 Purpose
ing property damage in moderate and small events.
These Tentative Guidelines present interim recommenda-
Although loss of life that occurred in modern build- tions developed to permit immediate application of the
ings designed to recent building codes during the PBSE concepts using currently available design guidelines
Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes was minimal and and standards. Specifically, these PBSE Tentative Guide-
consistent with the implied performance objectives of the lines are based on SEAOC’s strength design provisions
codes, the economic loss resulting from extended loss of found in Chapter 1 of the Blue Book with appropriate
use and nonstructural damage was significant and far PBSE modifications. The term “tentative” is used herein to
greater than society, engineers and public policy makers indicate that the Part IA procedure is intended to be re-
are willing to accept for such moderate earthquake events. placed by the Part IB displacement-based procedure once
The loss due to nonstructural damage and loss of service the displacement-based procedure is further developed, re-
was significantly greater than the losses due to structural fined, and calibrated.
damage. A need was identified for new building design
and construction procedures that could better meet soci-
September 1999 367

These Tentative Guidelines are intended to be used by of expected performance levels with levels of seismic
practicing structural engineers engaged in the design of ground motions. It is described by designating the targeted
new buildings and/or structures primarily in Seismic maximum damage state (performance level) for an identi-
Zones 3 and 4. It is intended that these Tentative Guide- fied seismic hazard level (earthquake ground motion).
lines give the designer more control of the seismic design
A performance objective may be a single-level perfor-
and performance, thus resulting in improved reliability
mance objective or a multiple-level performance objec-
compared to that typically achieved using current seismic
tive. A single-level performance objective would consider
design codes.
building performance for one level of ground motion,
IA-1.3 Intent while a multiple-level performance objective would in-
The intent of this guideline is as follows: clude consideration of damage states for several levels of
ground motion. Three standard performance objectives are
1. Define a series of standard performance levels for the
defined in Section IA-2.4 and illustrated in Figure
seismic resistive design and construction of buildings.
AppIA-1.
A performance level is a limiting damage state. Dam-
age to structural elements, nonstructural elements, A performance objective should be selected based on
building contents and site utilities are considered in several factors, including the building’s occupancy, the
the performance level definitions. importance of functions occurring within the building, and
2. Define a series of reference earthquake hazard and economic considerations including costs related to build-
design levels. ing damage repair and business interruption. Each build-
3. Define a series of uniform design performance objec- ing and building owner is unique, and a
tives for buildings of different occupancies and uses. performance-based design should target the most appro-
A performance objective is a coupling of performance priate objective for that project. The performance objec-
level and earthquake hazard design levels. tive for a given project should be selected by the owner
and the engineer/architect prior to the design. In addition
4. Recommend uniform engineering procedures for
to meeting selected performance objectives, the design
PBSE using SEAOC’s strength design provisions and
must meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the ap-
other currently available technology and design prac-
plicable building code.
tices.
IA-2.2 Performance Levels
IA-1.4 Limitations
A performance level describes a limiting damage condi-
Appropriate use of these Tentative Guidelines is intended
tion that may be considered satisfactory for a given build-
to provide greater reliability in predicting and controlling
ing and a given ground motion. The limiting condition is
seismic performance than is currently achieved using the
described by the physical damage within the building, the
Blue Book provisions or other current seismic design
threat to life safety of the building’s occupants created by
codes. It is intended that, in a given seismic event, most
the damage, and the post-earthquake serviceability of the
structures designed in accordance with these Tentative
building.
Guidelines will meet their respective design performance
objectives. Due to the uncertainties inherent in ground mo- System performance levels can be defined to describe
tion prediction and seismic engineering, it can not be ex- the expected structural and nonstructural performance in a
pected that all structures will meet their performance building. For this Interim Guideline, five structural perfor-
objectives in a given seismic event. Considering the uncer- mance (SP) levels and five nonstructural performance
tainty, PBSE is an attempt to improve the probability of (NP) levels are defined in qualitative terms (see Figure
achieving intended seismic performance. However, there AppIA-1). Building performance is then described by de-
is no guarantee that the design performance objective will fining structural and nonstructural performance separately
actually be achieved. and in combination. For example, a building performance
target may be specified as SP1-NP3, meaning Perfor-
IA-2 Performance Objectives mance Level 1 for the structural system and Performance
Level 3 for nonstructural systems, for a given seismic haz-
IA-2.1 Introduction
ard level.
A performance objective is a statement of the desired
building performance when the building is subjected to Force-based design criteria are specified herein for
earthquake demands of specified severity. It is a coupling use to achieve the defined performance levels within ex-
368 September 1999

pected levels of reliability; i.e., most buildings, but not all may not be economically feasible. The strength
buildings, designed in accordance with these recommen- design to achieve SP4 should be based on a
dations are expected to achieve the targeted performance system “R” equal to 1.5 times the code R value
levels. It must be recognized that the building performance (R4=1.5R).
will not necessarily meet the targeted performance level
SP5 For structural systems, partial collapse is
due to the uncertainties in the estimates of ground motion
imminent or has occurred. This performance
and in seismic design methodologies and construction ma-
level, the stability limit state, is not expected to be
terials and quality. While the building performance may
used as a design target.
not meet the targeted objectives, the design should be con-
sistent with the strength and stiffness criteria specified Nonstructural Performance Levels
herein. NP1 Nonstructural systems response at NP1 is
Structural Performance Levels expected to be generally elastic, with negligible to
light damage in the nonstructural systems.
SP1 For structural systems at SP1, damage is
Economic loss-to-value ratio to the nonstructural
generally expected to be negligible. Structural
systems is expected to be in the range of 0 percent
response at this level corresponds to the effective
to 10 percent.
yield point, or yield limit state, of the structural
system. The system yield mechanism may be NP2 Nonstructural system performance at NP2 is
substantially developed but the inelastic expected to be generally elastic with yielding or
displacement capacity of the structure is slip in the connections. Nonstructural damage is
substantially unused; up to roughly half of the light to moderate. Expected loss-to-value in the
hinge elements of the system yield mechanism nonstructural systems is 5 percent to 30 percent.
may reach yield. To simplify the design NP3 Nonstructural elements at NP3 are expected to be
procedure while providing a higher degree of generally secure but may be extensively
confidence that this “serviceability” level will be damaged. Economic loss-to-value ratios are
achieved, it is recommended that structures be expected to be in the 20 percent to 50 percent
designed to remain elastic at SP1. The strength range.
design to achieve SP1 should be based on the
NP4 Nonstructural elements at NP4 are expected to be
appropriate response spectrum and a system “R”
extensively damaged but are generally restrained
equal to one (R1=1.0).
to prevent collapse. Loss-to-value ratios in the
SP2 For structural systems at SP2, damage is expected nonstructural systems are expected to be in the
to be minor to moderate; some repair is expected. 40 percent to 80 percent range.
The inelastic response is expected to be NP5 Nonstructural elements at NP5 have lost restraint
approximately 1/2 of that expected in a traditional against collapse or have collapsed.
code design during a 10 percent/50 year
Building Performance
earthquake. The strength design for SP2 should
be based on a system “R” equal to 1/2 the code R Building performance can be defined in terms of combina-
value (R2=R/2). tions of the structural performance levels and nonstruc-
tural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be
SP3 For structural systems at SP3, damage is specified, however, for economic reasons, it is expected
moderate to major; extensive structural repairs that the structural performance levels will typically be
are expected to be required. The inelastic specified to meet or exceed the specified nonstructural
response is expected to be the same as that performance.
expected in a traditional code design during a
10 percent/50 year earthquake. The strength Generally, buildings meeting performance levels
design to achieve SP3 should be based on a SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational. Buildings meeting
system “R” equal to the code R value (R3=R) at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are occupiable but are not fully
operational and will require repair. Buildings meeting at
SP4 For structural systems at SP4, damage is major; least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life-safe but need to be evac-
residual strength and stiffness of structure and uated for repairs. Buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a
margin against collapse are significantly reduced. substantially reduced margin against collapse and should
Extensive repairs are expected to be required and
September 1999 369

be evacuated for shoring and repairs. Buildings at recurrence interval of approximately 800 to 2,500
SP5-NP5 (Level 5) may be a total loss. years). In regions close to known faults with
significant slip rates and characteristic earthquakes
Again, note that building performance can be targeted
with magnitudes in excess of about 6.5, the EQ-IV
for different levels of structural versus nonstructural per-
ground shaking is limited by deterministic limits on
formance, such as SP1-NP3 for a specific level of ground
the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). The
motion.
MCE can be determined from the IBC earthquake
IA-2.3 Earthquake Hazards and Design hazard maps, adjusted for site soil conditions, or by
Levels site specific studies which satisfy the IBC MCE
Earthquake demands are a function of the location of the requirements.
building with respect to causative faults, the regional and IA-2.4 Performance Objectives
site-specific geologic characteristics, and the ground mo-
In this guideline, three standard performance objectives
tion hazard level(s) selected. In this guideline, consistent
are defined, as illustrated in Figure AppIA-2. The perfor-
with the Final Draft of the International Building Code
mance objective for a given project should be selected by
(IBC) 2000, hazard levels are defined on a probabilistic
the engineer/architect and the owner prior to design. Typ-
basis with a deterministic cap. Probabilistic hazards are
ically, the design should meet or exceed the appropriate
defined in terms of probability of exceedance in a 50-year
standard performance objective or, at a minimum, the de-
period and the annual probability of occurrence, which is
sign should meet the requirements of the applicable build-
the inverse of the return period. Deterministic demands are
ing code.
defined within a level of confidence in terms of a specific
■ Basic Safety Objective (BSO): The BSO is the
magnitude earthquake on a particular fault. Such deter-
performance objective recommended for PBSE of
ministic hazard definition is most appropriate for buildings
standard occupancy structures. The BSO is intended to
located within a few miles of a major active fault.
exceed the traditional code level design objective. In
Four levels of earthquake hazard are defined in this terms of the structural system, it is comparable to the
document for the formation of performance objectives. implied performance objective in traditional seismic
These are Earthquake I (EQ-I), Earthquake II (EQ-II), codes, as articulated in the Blue Book Commentary; in
Earthquake III (EQ-III), and Earthquake IV (EQ-IV). terms of nonstructural systems, it exceeds the implied
■ Earthquake I (EQ-I): EQ-I represents a frequent objective of the code by systematically addressing the
event and is defined as the earthquake that has an nonstructural systems. The BSO is similar the implied
87 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year performance objectives for school buildings in the
period. Such an earthquake has an annual probability State of California. It encompasses Level 1
of exceedance of 4 percent (mean recurrence interval performance in EQ-I, Level 2 performance in EQ-II,
of approximately 25 years). Level 3 performance in EQ-III, and Level 4
■ Earthquake II (EQ-II): EQ-II represents an performance in EQ-IV.
occasional event and is defined as the earthquake that ■ Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities
has a 50 percent probability of exceedance in a Objective): The EO1 is a higher objective than the
50-year period. Such an earthquake has an annual BSO, providing for operational performance
probability of exceedance of 1.4 percent (mean (SP1-NP1) in EQ-II. This objective is comparable to
recurrence interval of approximately 72 years). that for acute care hospital facilities and non-base-
■ Earthquake III (EQ-III): EQ-III represents a rare isolated emergency command and control centers. It
event and is two-thirds of the maximum considered may be considered for higher occupancy facilities
event defined below. Such an earthquake has an such as large assembly spaces or other facilities where
annual probability of exceedance ranging between the owner expects greater than code level protection
0.12 percent and 0.4 percent (mean recurrence for a facility. It encompasses Level 1 performance in
interval of approximately 250 to 800 years). the EQ-II, Level 2 performance in EQ-III and Level 3
■ Earthquake IV (EQ-IV): EQ-IV represents a performance in the EQ-IV.
maximum considered event. In the western United ■ Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical
States, this typically corresponds to an earthquake that Objective): This objective is similar to that
has an annual probability of exceedance ranging typically considered for safety critical facilities such
between 0.04 percent and 0.12 percent (mean as base isolated emergency command and control
370 September 1999

centers or high hazard nuclear process facilities. This address all aspects of the performance-based engineering
objective encompasses Level 1 performance in the framework outlined herein.
EQ-I, EQ-II and EQ-III and Level 2 performance for
IA-3.1 Site Selection
EQ-IV.
■ Other Enhanced Objectives: Other Enhanced Site plays an important role in overall seismic perfor-
Objectives include any objective higher than the Basic mance of a structure. The project site should be assessed
Safety Objective and may consist of any combination for its suitability based on the desired performance objec-
of performance levels and seismic hazard levels for tive. Table AppIA-1 gives the limitations that apply to the
structural and/or nonstructural systems. selection of sites for various performance objectives.
These limitations may be superseded provided that ad-
IA-3 Engineering Procedures verse site hazards are mitigated in the design, as substanti-
ated by analysis.
This section presents interim recommendations for spe-
cific engineering procedures to be employed in the perfor- IA-3.2 Ground Motion
mance-based seismic engineering of buildings and The ground motion representation may be one of the fol-
structures. lowing:
The following factors are essential to producing struc- 1. Elastic response spectrum constructed in accordance
tures with predictable seismic performance: with Figure AppIA-3, using the control point periods
and acceleration values given in the accompanying ta-
1. Site selection
bles. Figure AppIA-3 was developed for sites where
2. Characterization of design ground motions the 2/3 MCE site ground motions taken from the IBC
3. Structural materials and system selection seismic maps were equivalent to the 1997 UBC Seis-
4. Configuration and continuity of load path mic Zone 4 site motions (i.e. sites not located within
5. Detailing near-source zones. Where the sites are located within
6. Strength and stiffness near-source zones as defined in UBC 1997, the spec-
7. Nonstructural system and services tral acceleration parameters Sas and Sa1 should be
8. Design and construction documents multiplied by near-source factors Na (Table 16-S UBC
9. Project design peer review 1997) and Nv (Table 16-T, UBC 1997). However, for
10. Design plan check near-source areas, site Td is greater than 4.0 seconds
and therefore Sa should not transition from the veloc-
11. Construction quality assurance
ity region to the displacement region.
These interim recommendations are based on the 2. Site-specific elastic response spectrum corresponding
above framework, which is adapted from SEAOC’s Vi- to the earthquake levels defined in Section IA-2.3 of
sion 2000 framework. The engineering procedures out- this report, but the spectral ordinates should not be
lined are an adaptation of SEAOC’s strength design less than 70 percent of Item 1, above.
provisions and utilize a traditional forced-based design
3. Ground motion time histories developed for the spe-
and analysis approach. These procedures entail what is, in
cific site should be representative of actual earthquake
effect, a four level seismic design. Four levels of seismic
motions. Response spectra from time histories should
demand can be compared simply by comparing the re-
approximate the site-specific spectrum for the earth-
duced base shears resulting from each level of ground mo-
quake levels defined in Section IA-2.3.
tion. Then a single level design can be performed based on
the governing demand. Procedures for determining earthquake ground mo-
tion response spectra for the various earthquake levels and
In general, the design procedures recommended here-
equations for determining spectral points are provided in
in are intended to enable performance-based engineering
Attachment 1 and 2 of this Appendix. Spectra for Zone 3
with improved reliability compared to that achieved using
are provided in Appendix I Part B, Figure IB-6.
the current SEAOC strength design procedures alone. Oth-
er rational procedures, such as those outlined in Part IB of IA-3.3 Structural Materials and Systems
these Tentative Guidelines, may be employed to further Selection
enhance the reliability of performance-based seismic de- A wide variety of materials and structural lateral bracing
sign. Such alternative procedures should, at a minimum, systems are available for use in building construction.
September 1999 371

Each of these systems has unique characteristics that affect The design and analysis procedure should be at mini-
their behavior in response to strong ground motion. The mum a two level procedure, in which not less than two lev-
UBC has traditionally restricted the use of certain materi- els of earthquake are considered. These two earthquake
als and structural systems based on building occupancy, levels should include the expected yield level or “service
building size, and site environmental characteristics. level” earthquake and either EQ-III or EQ-IV. Typically,
one earthquake level can be shown to govern the design,
The restrictions imposed by current codes, however,
by comparing the appropriately reduced base shears. Then,
are not adequate for PBSE design. Additional constraints
the performance-based design of the structure can be
are needed to adapt the current strength design provisions
based on the single governing earthquake.
to PSBE.
IA-3.6.1 Analysis Procedure. The structural analysis
Table AppIA-2 shows the limitations on various later- should follow the elastic dynamic analysis procedure per
al load-resisting systems by performance objectives. Al- Section 1631 of Uniform Building Code 1997, for any per-
though not included in the table, the use of seismic formance objective, or the linear elastic static procedure
isolation and/or passive energy dissipation systems is en- per Section 1630 of the UBC for the Basic Safety Objec-
couraged for structures designed to attain enhanced perfor- tive for buildings up to two stories in height.
mance objectives.
IA-3.6.2 Strength Design. Each structure should be
IA-3.4 Configuration and Continuity of designed and verified to meet the specified strength crite-
Load Path ria at the considered earthquake demand levels, consistent
Performance of buildings in past earthquakes has shown with the selected Performance Objective. At least two lev-
that structures with regular distribution of mass and stiff- els of earthquake, should be considered, as specified in
ness and a direct and continuous path for lateral loads per- Section IA-3.6. In addition, the structural design should
form better and more reliably than structures that do not meet the minimum strength requirements prescribed by
possess such features. applicable building code.
The UBC and Title 24 of the State of California Ad- Typically, this multi-level design can be simplified by
ministrative Code contain specific restrictions on the de- comparing the appropriately reduced base shears at each
sign of structures with certain irregular features. In considered earthquake hazard level. The reduced base
addition to the applicable restrictions contained in those shear at each hazard level is determined from the corre-
codes, additional limitations are needed on irregularities to sponding response spectrum, reduced by the appropriate
achieve higher performance objectives. Tables AppIA-3 force reduction factor. Appropriate reduction factors (R1,
and AppIA-4 contain these restrictions. R2, R3 or R4) are defined for each performance level spec-
IA-3.5 Detailing ified in the selected performance objective (see Section
IA-2.2). The highest of the reduced base shears will gov-
In order to attain reliable seismic performance, it is essen-
ern the strength design of the structure. Then, a single level
tial that elements of the structure be detailed in a manner
design for the governing base shear can be performed to
that will permit the required inelastic deformations to oc-
satisfy the strength requirements of any multi-level perfor-
cur without excessive damage.
mance objective.
In order to achieve this, all structures, regardless of the
Strength criteria are established by substituting a mod-
intended performance objectives, should be detailed in ac-
ified force reduction factor, R1, R2, R3 or R4, related to per-
cordance with the requirements contained in the UBC for
Seismic Zones 3 and 4. formance Levels SP1, SP2, SP3 or SP4, for the code “R”
value in the seismic base shear equation. Strength criteria
IA-3.6 Design and Analysis for Strength for each defined performance objective are the following:
and Stiffness ■ Basic Safety Objective (BSO): Structures designed
The lateral strength and stiffness of the lateral bracing sys- to this performance objective should be designed, at a
tem should be evaluated and designed in accordance with minimum, to remain elastic in EQ-I and to remain
the criteria contained in this section. These criteria are stable in EQ-IV. The strength design should be based
based on the linear elastic force-based analysis procedures on the governing criteria, considering EQ-I with a
used in the 1997 UBC and the 1999 SEAOC strength pro- reduction factor R1=1.0, EQ-II with R2=R/2, EQ-III
visions, which are the Requirements found in Chapter 1 of with R3=R, and EQ-IV with R4=1.5R. The φ -factored
this edition of the Blue Book.
372 September 1999

capacity of every primary structural element should be The interstory drifts should be calculated by static or
greater than the prescribed force demand. dynamic elastic analysis procedures for the earthquake
■ Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1): Structures designed levels appropriate for the performance objectives using
to this performance objective should remain elastic in unreduced 5 percent damped response spectra (R = 1). The
EQ-II and substantially “life safe” in EQ-IV. The resulting elastic analysis drifts, when scaled by a factor of
strength design should be based on the governing 0.7, should not exceed the limits given in Table AppIA-5
criteria considering EQ-II with a reduction factor unless it is demonstrated that greater drifts can be tolerated
R1=1.0, EQ-III with R2=R/2, and EQ-IV with R3=R. by both structural and nonstructural elements. The 0.7 fac-
The φ -factored capacity of every primary structural tor which was introduced in Chapter 1, provides adjust-
element should be greater than the appropriately ments to the elastic analysis displacements to account for
reduced force demand. many items including the stiffness of other structural
■ Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2): Structures designed members not considered part of the lateral force resisting
to this performance objective should remain elastic in system (i.e. gravity columns), nonstructural components
EQ-III and moderately inelastic in EQ-IV. The (i.e. full-height partitions), and architectural components
strength design should be based on the governing (i.e. exterior cladding and stairs). Drifts should be checked
criteria considering EQ-III with a reduction factor at not less than two earthquake levels including the service
level (i.e. yield level) at either EQ-III or EQ IV.
R1=1.0, and EQ-IV with R2=R/2. The φ -factored
capacity of every primary structural element should be IA-3.7 Nonstructural Systems and
greater than the appropriately reduced force demand. Services
Reliable seismic performance of nonstructural compo-
Note that the strength criteria defined herein to
nents and services is also essential if buildings are to
achieve SP1 for each objective is more restrictive than SP1
achieve their functional objectives. Nonstructural compo-
implies. The criteria call for elastic design in which the φ - nents include architectural, mechanical, and electrical
factored capacity exceeds the calculated demand without components that are permanently installed in buildings.
consideration of element overstrength. This criteria pro-
vides a significant factor of safety relative to the “essen- The seismic design of nonstructural components is
tially elastic” behavior that defines SP1. This approach is typically acceleration sensitive or deformation sensitive.
taken to provide simplicity in design and to provide a high In Table AppIA-6, the analytical method that is used to de-
level of confidence that SP1 will be achieved for a given sign nonstructural components is specified. Unless other-
performance objective. wise specified, all nonstructural components should be
designed to satisfy these requirements.
Alternative criteria can be similarly established for al-
IA-3.7.1 Acceleration Sensitive Design. Items that
ternative performance objectives.
are acceleration sensitive should be designed on a strength
IA-3.6.3 Stiffness. Drift or horizontal displacements basis using design lateral force equations of the Blue Book
of the structure should be determined by dynamic analysis provisions for nonstructural systems and using the values
procedures, or by static analysis procedures for buildings of Rp provided in Table AppIA-7. Such design should be
less than 3 stories in height and meeting the requirements
based on EQ-III.
for structural regularity. The mathematical model of the
physical structure should include all elements of the lateral Alternatively, nonstructural systems may be designed
force-resisting system. The model should also include the to remain elastic at two times the spectral acceleration ex-
stiffness and strength of elements significant to the distri- pected to cause the primary lateral force resisting system
bution of forces and should represent the spatial distribu- to yield.
tion of the mass and stiffness of the structure. In addition, IA-3.7.2 Displacement Sensitive Design. For items
the model should comply with the following: that are drift sensitive, the components should be designed
■ Stiffness properties of reinforced concrete and to accommodate the drifts calculated for the structure.
masonry elements should consider the effects of Guidance regarding the drift performance of various non-
cracked sections. structural components is provided in Appendix B of this
■ For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of Blue Book.
panel zone deformations to overall story drift should
be included.
September 1999 373

Items that are sensitive to relative displacements IA-3.8 Design and Construction
should be designed to accommodate the following drift Documents
and relative displacement. IA-3.8.1 Fees. In order to meet the objectives of
D r = ( δ xA – δ yA ) ⁄ ( X – Y ) Eqn. AppIA-1 PBSE, design and construction documents that are beyond
normal scope of typical code-based design will need to be
Relative displacements (Dp) should be determined in prepared. This will therefore require additional design
accordance with the following equation. fees, which are consistent with this additional scope. It is
fully expected that these additional fees will be more than
For relative displacement of two connection points on offset by the value of the enhanced performance that will
separate buildings or structural systems, use be achieved by the design.
D p = δ xA + δ xB Eqn. AppIA-2 IA-3.8.2 Scope of Services and Responsibility. In
order to meet the seismic performance objective, it is es-
Where:
sential that responsibility and scope of services for the
Dp = Relative seismic displacement that the component seismic design for all structural and nonstructural systems
must be designed to accommodate be clearly defined and understood by all design profes-
Dr = Drift ratio sionals involved in the project. The lead design profes-
sional should prepare a matrix of design responsibility. For
X = Height of upper support attachment at level x as those items and systems for which the supplier is respon-
measured from grade sible for design and installation, the scope of services of
Y = Height of lower support attachment at level y as the design professional should clearly indicate who has re-
measured from grade sponsibility for preparing seismic bracing and anchorage
δ xA = Deflection at building level x of building A, detail drawings and calculations, and when these docu-
ments need to be submitted to the lead professional for re-
determined by analysis as defined in Section view. The lead professional also needs to clearly indicate
IA-3.6 how installation details need to be coordinated and how
δ y A= Deflection at building level y of Building A, physical conflicts are to be avoided or resolved.
determined by analysis as defined in Section IA-3.8.3 Design Documents. Design criteria docu-
IA-3.6 ments should be prepared for structural and nonstructural
δ xB = Deflection at building level x of Building B, documents. These documents should indicate the design
objectives, design ground motions levels, design criteria,
determined by analysis as defined in Section assumptions, and design concepts.
IA-3.6
Drawings and supporting calculations that satisfy the
The effects of seismic relative displacements should design criteria should be prepared. These documents will
be considered in combination with displacements caused have sufficient detail to be used to review the design for
by other loads, as appropriate. adequacy. Documents may be prepared for different stages
To accommodate these displacements the inelastic of the project. At any early stage, peer review level docu-
displacement capacity can be determined as follows, based ments may be required for reviewing design objectives,
on the Standard Performance Objectives and EQ-III. criteria, and design concept. At the plan submittal change,
full documentation is required to allow independent re-
∆L = Rp ∆E
view by building officials and/or other checkers.
Where: Where the design of nonstructural components is by
∆ L = allowable inelastic displacement capacity the supplier, sufficient documentation should be provided
in the design documents to allow the concepts for seismic
Rp = taken from Table AppIA-7 as a function of the anchorage and bracing to be independently reviewed dur-
nonstructural element of performance objective ing the plan check process.
∆E = elastic displacement of the nonstructural element IA-3.8.4 Construction Documents. Construction
at minimum specified yield stress documents consist of the construction scope of work,
drawings, and specifications. The scope of work should
374 September 1999

clearly describe all work that the contractor is to perform, achieve the enhanced performance and confirmation of the
including design and installation of seismic bracing for construction quality assurance program.
nonstructural components. It should also clearly indicate IA-3.9.2 Qualifications. The Peer Reviewer should be
whether submittal must include design calculations. The independent of the Engineer of Record and have no con-
extent of the nonstructural components that require seis- flict of interest with the project being reviewed. The ER
mic bracing should be clearly identified on the design should be consulted in the selection of the peer reviewer
drawings. Typical bracing details should also be prepared and should be able to cooperate with him. The peer re-
on the design drawings. Specific requirements should be viewer should be a registered engineer in the state where
provided in the specifications. the project is to be constructed and should have demon-
The construction documents should have sufficient strated knowledge and experience of the type of project
detail to adequately define the work of the contractor and being reviewed. The peer reviewer should also be knowl-
subcontractors for bidding purposes and for inspectors and edgeable about the construction practices and regulations
others to determine whether the seismic design compo- under which the project will be constructed.
nents have been adequately constructed and installed. Sub- IA-3.9.3 Responsibility. Since the responsibility for
contractor design, supply, and install items should be the structural design remains with the Engineer of Record,
subject to the same requirements for preparation construc- the written agreement should include an appropriate in-
tion documents. These documents must be adequate to al- demnification clause.
low installers and inspectors to verify that the seismic
anchorage and bracing have been properly constructed and IA-3.10 Design Plan Check Purpose
installed. Where the purpose of these provisions is to achieve en-
hanced and more reliable performance beyond the BSO,
IA-3.9 Project Design Peer Review
additional plan checking should be required beyond that
Purpose
provided to assure compliance with the building code. The
Where the purpose of these provisions is to achieve en- purpose of this additional plan checking is to confirm that
hanced and more reliable performance beyond the BSO, the design as presented in the construction documents con-
project design peer review (PDPR) must be performed. forms to the design assumptions, concepts, and criteria
The purpose of PDPR is to examine the design objectives, that have been confirmed in the PDPR. The additional plan
including reliable performance; the criteria for determin- checking will likely be done by the peer reviewer. The
ing acceptable performance; and any related design as- scope and responsibility should be defined in a written
sumptions and concepts. This independent evaluation agreement with the Owner. Additional discussion is in-
increases the likelihood that the goal of enhanced perfor- cluded in the ATC publication Quality Assurance Proce-
mance will be achieved. dures.
A more thorough discussion of how to implement IA-3.10.1 Scope. The additional plan checking be-
PDPR is included in references 1 and 2 of the Commen- yond that required to assure compliance with the building
tary. Those discussions include the purpose and objectives code should be specific to confirm that the construction
of PDPR, Qualifications of the peer reviewer, scope of documents are consistent with the design criteria, con-
provided services, responsibility, reporting, resolution of cepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also re-
differences between the peer reviewer and the engineer of view and confirm that the proposed structural observation
record, written agreement, and limitations. and testing and inspection program will provide the con-
IA-3.9.1 Scope of Services. The PDPR should be ini- struction quality assurance necessary to ensure conform-
tiated in the schematic design phase to allow evaluation of ance with the construction documents.
major engineering decisions. The scope and responsibility IA-3.10.2 Qualifications and Responsibility. The
should be identified in a written agreement between the qualifications and responsibilities of the plan checker will
owner and the peer reviewer. The scope, timing, and be similar to those of the peer reviewer, although he will
schedule of the peer review should be made available to be constrained to checking whether the construction docu-
the Engineer of Record (ER). The Scope should include ments and proposed construction quality assurance are
review, discussion with the ER, resolution of differences, consistent with what has already been agreed to by the En-
and a written report to the owner of the design objectives, gineer of Record and the peer reviewer. The plan checker
the design criteria, assumptions, and design concepts, does not have the responsibility to examine the appropri-
which are the elements and connections required to ateness of the project design objectives and criteria but
September 1999 375

must confine the scope of his review to whether the con- IA-3.11.2 Qualifications. The Structural Observer
struction documents will actually accomplish the specified should be the Engineer of Record, an engineer designated
criteria. by the ER, or a registered engineer in the state of the
project. The structural observer should have demonstrated
IA-3.11 Construction Quality Assurance
Purpose
knowledge and experience of the type of construction pro-
posed for the project. He should be independent of the con-
To ensure general conformance to the construction docu- tractor and have no conflicts of interest over the project for
ments, structural observation should be required of the En- which he providing structural observation.
gineer of Record at significant construction stages and at
IA-3.11.3 Responsibility. The structural observer is
the completion of the structural system. Structural obser-
vation does not supplant any necessary continuous inspec- responsible for general conformance of those specific ele-
tions or the building inspector’s progress inspections. ments and connections identified in the construction doc-
uments at the indicated significant construction stages and
The significant construction stages and the structural at the completion of the structural system. The structural
elements and connections to be observed should be deter- observer is not responsible to certify, guarantee, or assure
mined by the Engineer of Record, confirmed by the peer conformance with all of the specific requirements of the
reviewer and plan checker, and identified on the construc- construction documents.
tion documents.
IA-3.11.4 Testing and Inspection Program. The En-
The construction documents must provide for and al- gineer of Record should determine the required material
low the structural observer to perform his observations in testing and continuous inspection of those aspects of the
a responsible manner. There can be no interference from project that are necessary to achieve the design objectives.
the structural observer. The testing and inspection program should be reviewed
IA-3.11.1 Scope. As discussed above, the owner
and confirmed by the peer reviewer, the plan checker and
should employ the Engineer of Record to provide struc- should be should be administered by the Engineer of
tural observation at significant construction stages and at Record or the structural observer. The responsibilities for
the completion of the structural system. The scope should administering the testing and inspection program should
be specified in a written agreement and should state that be clearly indicated by written agreement with the Engi-
the structural observer will visit the project at each signif- neer of Record or the structural observer.
icant construction stage as defined on the construction
documents and will observe those elements and connec-
tions specified on the construction documents. The struc-
tural observer is to identify all significant errors or
deficiencies in the specified elements and connections. He
should report in writing on the same to the owner, contrac-
tor, and building inspector and should revisit the project to
observe the correction of those errors and deficiencies in a
timely manner. He should submit a final written observa-
tion report at completion of the structural system when all
work is in general conformance with construction docu-
ments and any approved changes.
376 September 1999

Table AppIA-1. Site Restrictions for Various Performance Objectives
Potential Site Hazard Performance Objectives1

Basic Safety Objective Enhanced Objective 1 Enhanced Objective 2
(BSO) (EO1) (EO2)
Minimum Distance to Active Fault Traces2
Seismic Source Type A d ≥ 200 feet d ≥ 500 feet d ≥ 1,000 feet
Seismic Source Type B d ≥ 100 feet d ≥ 200 feet d ≥ 500 feet
Soil Types/Profiles SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD
Liquefaction Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible

Landslide Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
Tsunami/Inundation Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
1. The limitations of this table apply to the selection of a site for buildings and/or structures designed to various performance objectives
unless the effects of such hazards can be shown to be mitigated.
2. Buildings designed to EO1 and EO2 should not be constructed within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone or known fault rupture zone
unless adequate measures are taken to control the effects of this hazard.
September 1999 377

Table AppIA-2. Recommended Limitations on Structural Materials and Systems

(by Performance Objectives)
Performance Objective1, 4
Basic Structural
Basic
System Description of Lateral Force Resisting System
Safety EO1 EO2
Bearing Wall System 1. Light framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panels 3 stories or fewer 65 feet 65 feet NR2
b. All other light framed walls NR NR NR
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete 160 feet 65 feet NR
b. Masonry 160 feet 65 feet NR
3. Light steel framed bearing walls with tension-only 65 feet NR NR
bracing
4. Braced frames where bracing carries gravity loads
a. Steel 160 feet 65 feet NR
b. Concrete NR NR NR
c. Heavy timber 65 feet NR NR
Building Frame System 1. Steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) 240 feet 240 feet 240 feet
a. Wood structural panels 3 stories or fewer 65 feet 65 feet NR
b. All other light frames walls 65 feet NR NR
3. Shear walls
a. Concrete 240 feet 240 feet 240 feet
b. Masonry 160 feet 160 feet NR
c. Heavy timber 65 feet NR NR
5. Special concentric braced frames (CBF)
a. Steel 240 feet 240 feet 240 feet
Moment Resisting 1. Special moment resisting frames (SMRF)

Frame System
a. Steel NL3 NL 160 feet
b. Concrete NL NL 160 feet
2. Masonry moment resisting wall frame 160 feet 65 feet 65 feet
3. Concrete intermediated moment resisting frame NR NR NR
4. Ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF)
378 September 1999

Table AppIA-2. (Continued) Recommended Limitations on Structural Materials and Systems

(by Performance Objectives)
Performance Objective1, 4
Basic Structural
Basic
System Description of Lateral Force Resisting System
Safety EO1 EO2
Dual System 1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF NL NL NL
b. Concrete with Steel OMRF 160 feet 160 feet NR
c. Concrete with concrete IMRF NR NR NR
d. Masonry with SMRF 160 feet 160 feet NR
e. Masonry with steel OMRF 160 feet 65 feet NR
f. Masonry with concrete IMRF NR NR NR
2. Steel EBF
a. With steel SMRF NL NL NL
b. Steel with steel OMRF 160 feet 160 feet 65 feet
a. Steel with steel SMRF NL 65 feet NR
b. Steel with steel OMRF 160 feet 65 feet NR
c. Concrete with concrete SMRF NR NR NR
d. Concrete with concrete IMRF NR NR NR
a. Steel with steel SMRF NL NL NL
b. Steel with steel OMRF 160 feet 160 feet 65 feet
Cantilevered Column 1. Cantilevered column system 35 feet NR NR
System
1. Height limit
2. NR = not recommended
3. NL = no limit
4. The limitations of this table may be superseded if behavior can be shown to be acceptable through appropriate
analysis.
September 1999 379

Table AppIA-3. Recommended Limitations on Horizontal Irregularity1
Performance Objective
Basic
Irregularity
Safety EO1 EO2
1. Torsional Irregularity — NR2 NR
When diaphragms are not flexible, and maximum story drift calculated
including accidental torsion at one end of the structure transverse to an axis
is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of two ends of the
structure.
2. Reentrant Corners — — —
Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force resisting system
contain reentrant corners where both projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the
structure in the given direction.
3. Diaphragm Discontinuity
a. Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, — — —
including those having cutout or open areas greater than 15 percent of
the enclosed area.
b. Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, — NR NR
including those having cutout or open areas greater than 50 percent of
the enclosed area, or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness or more
than 50 percent from one story to the next.
4. Out-of-Plane Offsets — NR NR
Discontinuities in a lateral force path, such as out-of-plane offsets of the
vertical elements.
5. Nonparallel Systems — — NR
The vertical lateral load resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric
about the major orthogonal axes of the lateral force resisting system.
1. The limitations of this table may be superseded if the effects of hazards resulting from such irregularity can be
shown to be mitigated through appropriate analysis.
380 September 1999

Table AppIA-4. Recommended Limitations on Vertical Irregularity1
Performance Objective
Basic
Irregularity
Safety EO1 EO2
1. Stiffness Irregularity—Soft Story
a. Lateral stiffness of story below less than 90 percent of that of story — — NR2
above, or less than 90 percent of stiffness of 3 stories above. Lateral
stiffness of story below exceeds 150 percent of stories above.
b. Lateral stiffness of story below less than 70 percent of that of story NR NR NR
above, or less than 80 percent of average of stiffness of 3 stories above.
2. Weight (Mass) Irregularity
a. The effective mass of any story is more than 120 percent of the effective — — NR
mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need
not be considered.
b. The effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective — NR NR
mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need
not be considered.
3. Vertical Geometric Irregularity — — NR
The Horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting element in any story
is less than 130 per4cent of that in adjacent story, excluding one-story
penthouses.
4. In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral Force Resisting Element — NR NR
An in-plane offset of the lateral force elements greater than the length of
those elements.
5. Discontinuity in Capacity—Weak Story
a. The story strength in a story is less than 100 percent of that in the story — — NR
above or more than 200 percent of that in the story above.
b. The story strength in a story is less than 80 percent of that in the story NR NR NR
above.
1. The limitations of this table may be superseded if the effects of hazards resulting from such irregularity can be
shown to be mitigated through appropriate analysis.
September 1999 381

Table AppIA-5. Recommended Drift Limits by Performance Levels
Basic Structural Description of Lateral Force Resisting Performance Levels

System System SP1 SP2 SP3 SP41
Bearing Wall System 1. Light framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panels 3 stories or fewer 0.004 0.012 0.020 0.030
b. All other light framed walls 2
NR NR NR NR
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.021
b. Masonry 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.018
3. Light steel framed bearing walls with NR NR NR NR
tension-only bracing
4. Braced frames where bracing carries gravity
loads
a. Steel 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.015
b. Concrete NR NR NR NR
c. Heavy timber NR NR NR NR
Building Frame 1. Steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) 0.004 0.013 0.022 0.032
System3
a. Wood structural panels 3 stories or fewer 0.004 0.012 0.020 0.030
b. All other light frames walls NR NR NR NR
3. Shear walls
a. Concrete 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.020
b. Masonry 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.018
a. Steel 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.015
c. Heavy timber NR NR NR NR
5. Special concentric braced frames (CBF)
a. Steel 0.004 0.009 0.015 0.022
Moment Resisting 1. Special moment resisting frames (SMRF)
Frame System
a. Steel 0.005 0.015 0.025 0.038
b. Concrete 0.005 0.015 0.025 0.038
2. Masonry moment resisting wall frame 0.005 0.008 0.012 0.018
3. Concrete intermediated moment resisting NR NR NR NR
frame
4. Ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF)
a. Steel 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.018
382 September 1999

Table AppIA-5. (Continued) Recommended Drift Limits by Performance Levels
Basic Structural Description of Lateral Force Resisting Performance Levels

System System SP1 SP2 SP3 SP41
Dual System 1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF 0.004 0.010 0.016 0.024
b. Concrete with Steel OMRF 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.021
c. Concrete with concrete IMRF NR NR NR NR
d. Masonry with SMRF 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.021
e. Masonry with steel OMRF 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.018
f. Masonry with concrete IMRF NR NR NR NR
2. Steel EBF
a. With steel SMRF 0.004 0.013 0.022 0.033
b. Steel with steel OMRF 0.004 0.010 0.016 0.024
a. Steel with steel SMRF 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.022
c. Concrete with concrete SMRF NR NR NR NR
d. Concrete with concrete IMRF NR NR NR NR
a. Steel with steel SMRF 0.004 0.009 0.015 0.022
Cantilevered Column 1. Cantilevered column system NR NR NR NR
System
1. Drift limits tabulated for SP4 are set at 1.5 times those for SP3. Structural designs should be analyzed to verify that
the maximum ductility demands do not exceed the maximum ductility capacities at the yielding elements.
3. Drift values for concrete and masonry shear walls are based on H/L in the range of 2 to 3. Alternate values may be
used where substantiated by analysis.
September 1999 383

Table AppIA-6. Method of Analysis and Nonstructural Components Applicability of Requirements to Performance
Objectives
Elements of Structures and Nonstructural Analysis

Components and Equipment Method1
1. Elements of structures
a. Walls including the following: F
■ Unbraced (cantilevered) parapets F/D
■ Exterior walls at or above the ground floor and parapets braced above their centers of gravity F/D
■ All interior bearing and nonbearing walls F
b. Penthouse (except when framed by an extension of the structural frame) F/D
c. Connections for prefabricated structural elements other than walls (see also Section 163.2.2) F
2. Nonstructural components F
a. Exterior and interior ornamentations and appendages F
b. Chimneys, stacks, and trussed towers supported on or projecting above the roof F
■ Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below the centers of mass F
■ Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at or above the centers of mass F
c. Signs and billboards F
d. Storage racks, including contents, over 6 feet (1829 mm) tall F
e. Permanent floor-supported cabinets and book stacks more than 6 fee (1829 mm) in height, F
including contents
f. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings and light fixtures F
g. Access floor systems PR/FD
h. Masonry or concrete fences over 6 feet (1829 mm) high F
i. Partitions F/D
3. Equipment
a. Tanks and vessels (include contents), including support system F
b. Electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment and associated conduit and ductwork and piping PR
c. Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below their F
center of mass
d. Anchorage of emergency power supply systems and essential communications equipment. F
Anchorage and support systems for battery racks and fuel tanks necessary for the operation of
emergency equipment (see also Section 1647.2)
e. Temporary containers with flammable or hazardous materials F
4. Other components
a. Rigid components with ductile material and attachments F
b. Rigid components with nonductile material or attachments F
c. Flexible components with ductile material and attachments F
d. Flexible component with nonductile material or attachments F
1. F = Force analysis
F/D = Analytical procedure: force and relative displacement analysis
PR = Prequalification required
384 September 1999

Table AppIA-7. Nonstructural Components: Horizontal Force Factors ap and Rp as a Function of Performance Objectives
Elements of Structures and Nonstructural Components and Equipment Rp

ap EO2 EO1 BSO
1. Elements of structures
a. Walls including the following:
■ Unbraced (cantilevered) parapets 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
■ Exterior walls at or above the ground floor and parapets braced above their 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
centers of gravity
■ All interior bearing and nonbearing walls 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
b. Penthouse (except when framed by an extension of the structural frame) 2.5 1.0 2.5 4.0
c. Connections for prefabricated structural elements other than walls (see also 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Section 163.2.2)
2. Nonstructural components
a. Exterior and interior ornamentations and appendages 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
b. Chimneys, stacks, and trussed towers supported on or projecting above the roof
■ Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below the 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
centers of mass
■ Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at or above the centers 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
of mass
c. Signs and billboards 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
d. Storage racks, including contents, over 6 feet (1829 mm) tall 1.0 1.0 2.5 4.0
e. Permanent floor-supported cabinets and book stacks more than 6 fee (1829 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
mm) in height, including contents
f. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings and light fixtures 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
g. Access floor systems 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
h. Masonry or concrete fences over 6 feet (1829 mm) high 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
i. Partitions 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
3. Equipment
a. Tanks and vessels (include contents), including support system 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
b. Electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment and associated conduit and 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
ductwork and piping
c. Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
point below their center of mass
d. Anchorage of emergency power supply systems and essential communications 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
equipment. Anchorage and support systems for battery racks and fuel tanks
necessary for the operation of emergency equipment (see also Section 1647.2)
e. Temporary containers with flammable or hazardous materials 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
4. Other components
a. Rigid components with ductile material and attachments 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
b. Rigid components with nonductile material or attachments 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
c. Flexible components with ductile material and attachments 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
d. Flexible component with nonductile material or attachments 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5
September 1999 385

Commentary:
1. The performance objective matrix illustrates the typical
performance levels to be achieved at each hazard level to meet
the three defined performance objectives.
2. Meeting one performance level at one hazard level does not
indicate that the specified performance objective is met.
Performance should be checked at each hazard level to verify
that the selected objective is met.
3. The performance objectives illustrated above indicate the same
performance objectives for both structural and nonstructural
systems. Alternatively, separate and different objectives can be
selected for the structural and nonstructural systems.
Figure AppIA-1. Standard Performance Objectives
386 September 1999

V EQUIP
Structural Qualitative ------------------- Nonstructural Nonstructural
Performance Level Description VY Performance Level Damage Ratio
SP-1 Operational 1 NP-1 0%-10%
SP-2 Occupiable R/2 NP-2 5%-30%
SP-3 Life safe R NP-3 20%-50%

SP-4 Near collapse 1.5R NP-4 40%-80%
SP-5 Collapsed — NP-5 > 70%
Note: The strength acceptance criteria recommended for design for SP1 defines a point well to the left of SP1 on the above
figure. See sections IA-2.2 and IA-3.6.2 for further discussion.
Figure AppIA-2. Illustration of structural performance levels and force-based acceptance criteria
September 1999 387

Figure AppIA-3. Acceleration response spectra for 5 percent damping
388 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I, Part B—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
APPENDIX I, PART B

Ad Hoc Subcommittee
September 1999 389

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering—Appendix I, Part B SEAOC Blue Book
390 September 1999

APPENDIX I, PART B
IB-1 Introduction mic engineering design principles and relies on sound

engineering judgment and peer review to be effective and
IB-1.1 General reliable.
These Tentative Guidelines provide PBSE procedures for
The two displacement-based procedures are intended
structural engineering of buildings. PBSE, as defined in
to provide usable and effective procedures for implement-
the SEAOC Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework (1995),
ing PBSE to selected seismic resisting systems utilizing
consists of a set of engineering procedures for design and
established ductile detailing standards. These displace-
construction of structures to achieve predictable levels of
ment-based procedures focus on displacement, both in
performance in response to specified levels of earthquake,
terms of drift and element deformation, as the key seismic
within definable levels of reliability. These Tentative
response parameter for performance prediction.
Guidelines are a focused development of the Vision 2000
Conceptual Framework, developing selected displace- With further development, these Tentative Guidelines
ment-based design and analysis procedures. are intended to achieve significantly improved reliability
in control and prediction of the seismic performance of
These Tentative Guidelines are initially intended for
buildings compared to that achieved using traditional seis-
trial use only, pending further development and comple-
mic design codes.
tion of validation studies. User input to the SEAOC Seis-
mology Committee is requested. Designs resulting from IB-1.3 Scope
the use of these guideline procedures should be rechecked These Tentative Guidelines encompass the full scope of
using established code procedures to verify that the code seismic engineering procedures outlined in Figure Ap-
minimum design levels are achieved. pIB-1, including selection of performance objectives, de-
IB-1.2 Purpose sign and analysis, and quality assurance procedures. The
scope of these Tentative Guidelines includes the engineer-
These Tentative Guidelines are intended to define seismic
ing of both structural and nonstructural systems.
performance in engineering terms and to provide practical
PBSE procedures for development and use in the next sev- These Tentative Guidelines are written specifically to
eral years. It is intended that development of the proce- apply to new building design, though they may be adapted
dures will provide the engineer with tools to both better to design of other structures. Guidelines for perfor-
understand and better control the seismic response of mance-based engineering for existing structures were de-
buildings. veloped in reference documents FEMA 273 and ATC 40.
These Tentative Guidelines present a general design These Tentative Guidelines, and performance-based
procedure and two displacement-based design procedures. engineering in general, are most effectively applied to a
The general design procedure is intended to outline a gen- regular framing systems, because the behavior of regular
eral PBSE conceptual approach for application to a wide structures is inherently more predictable than that of irreg-
range of structural systems and configurations. The gener- ular structures. However, these Tentative Guidelines can
al procedure emphasizes use of conceptually sound seis- also be applied to irregular structures, with appropriate en-
September 1999 391
hancements in the level and rigor of the analysis and de- IB-2 Performance Objectives
sign procedures.
IB-2.1 General
IB-1.4 Significant Features
Performance objectives are defined in terms of perfor-
Several significant features of these Tentative Guidelines mance levels to be achieved at several specified seismic
distinguish them from the traditional SEAOC Blue Book hazard levels (design earthquake levels). In these Tenta-
provisions and similar seismic design code documents. tive Guidelines, three typical performance objectives are
These features including the following: defined based on common occupancy considerations, as il-
1. Defined performance levels and objectives (adapted lustrated in Figure AppIB-2. Other enhanced performance
from Vision 2000). objectives that exceed code minimums can be defined by
2. Quantified definitions of structural performance lev- the engineer in consultation with the client/owner.
els, in terms of global response. The performance objective for a given project should
3. Multilevel seismic design, for multiple seismic haz- be selected by the engineer and owner prior to design. In
ard levels. addition to meeting selected performance objectives, the
4. Explicit incorporation of capacity design or similar design must meet or exceed the minimum requirements of
yield-control design procedures. the applicable building code.
5. Design focus on the full inelastic response rather than IB-2.2 Seismic Hazard Levels
reduced elastic response.
6. Emphasis on displacement-based rather than A set of seismic hazard levels, or ground motion lev-
force-based design procedures. els, should be established for design. In these Tentative
Guidelines, four hazard levels, equivalent to frequent, oc-
7. Focus on drift and element deformation as key seismic
casional, rare, and maximum considered events, are de-
response parameters.
fined in Section IB-3.3 and are designated as EQ-I, EQ-II,
8. Recommended system drift limits and component dis- EQ-III, and EQ-IV, respectively.
placement/rotation limits to be based on test data for
selected framing systems. IB-2.3 Performance Levels
9. Design verification using nonlinear static pushover System performance levels can be defined to describe the
analysis procedures. expected structural and nonstructural performance in a
building at specified hazard levels. A set of performance
IB-1.5 Statement of Limited Reliability
levels is defined in Figure AppIB-3. Structural perfor-
Appropriate use of these Tentative Guidelines is intended mance (SP) levels are defined in terms of the structural
to provide greater reliability in predicting and controlling system displacement response as measured by the inelastic
seismic performance than is currently achieved using the displacement demand ratio (IDDR). Corresponding non-
Blue Book provisions or other current seismic design structural performance (NP) levels are defined in terms of
codes. It is intended that most structures designed in accor- expected loss-to-value ratios for the nonstructural sys-
dance with these Tentative Guidelines will meet their re- tems. Building performance can be described in terms of
spective design performance objectives in a given seismic combinations of the structural performance levels and
event. Due to the uncertainties inherent in ground motion nonstructural performance levels. For example, a building
prediction and in seismic engineering of buildings, it can performance target may be specified as SP1-NP3, mean-
not be expected that all structures will meet their perfor- ing Structural Performance Level 1 and Nonstructural Per-
mance objectives in a given seismic event. It must be rec- formance Level 3, for a given seismic hazard level.
ognized that the reliability of PBSE is limited and that
design performance objectives can not be achieved with The structural performance is said to meet an SP level
certainty. if the structural system IDDR is less than or equal to the
specified ratio for that performance level. A substantial
In the future, it is envisioned that procedures for mea- portion, or approximately 80 percent, of the elements typ-
suring the reliability of PBSE designs will be developed. ically should meet the limiting criteria defined for that per-
Thereafter, predictions of seismic performance can be ac- formance level. Similarly, the nonstructural performance
companied by statements of the associated levels of reli- is said to meet an NP level if the damage to the nonstruc-
ability. tural system falls within the indicated loss-to-value range
for that level.
392 September 1999

Structural Performance Levels NP4 Nonstructural elements are extensively damaged

SP1 Structural response at this level corresponds to the but are generally restrained to prevent collapse.
effective yield point, or yield limit state, of the Loss-to-value ratios in the nonstructural systems
structural system; the system yield mechanism is are expected to be in the 40 percent to 80 percent
partially developed but the inelastic displacement range.
capacity of the structure is substantially unused NP5 Nonstructural elements have lost restraint against
(IDDR=0 approx.); up to roughly half of the hinge collapse or have collapsed.
elements of the system yield mechanism have Building Performance
reached yield (maximum hinge deformations
should not exceed 150 percent yield). For Building performance can be defined in terms of combina-
structural systems, damage is generally tions of the structural performance levels and nonstruc-
negligible. tural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be
specified; however, for economic reasons, it is expected
SP2 For structural systems, up to 30 percent of the that the structural performance levels will typically be
usable inelastic displacement capacity of the specified to meet or exceed the specified nonstructural
structure is used (IDDR=0.3). Damage is minor to performance.
moderate; some repair is required.
Generally, buildings that meet performance levels
SP3 For structural systems, up to 60 percent of the
SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational; buildings that
usable inelastic displacement capacity of the
meet at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are occupiable but not op-
structure is used (IDDR=0.6). Damage is
erational and will require repair; buildings that meet at
moderate to major; extensive structural repairs
least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life safe but need to be evac-
are required.
uated for repairs; buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a
SP4 For structural systems, up to 80 percent of usable substantially reduced margin against collapse and should
inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is be evacuated for shoring and repairs; and buildings at
expended (IDDR=0.8). Damage is major; SP5-NP5 (Level 5) may be a total loss.
residual strength and stiffness of structure and
margin against collapse are significantly reduced. Again, note that building performance can be targeted
Extensive repairs are required and may not be for different levels of structural versus nonstructural per-
economically feasible. formance, such as SP1-NP3, for a specific level of ground
motion.
SP5 For structural systems, up to 100 percent of
usable inelastic displacement capacity of the IB-2.4 Basic Safety Objective (BSO)
structure is used (IDDR=1.0). Partial collapse is The BSO is the performance objective recommended for
imminent or has occurred. PBSE design of standard occupancy structures. The BSO
Nonstructural Performance Levels exceeds traditional code level design objectives. In terms
of structural systems, it is similar to the implied perfor-
NP1 The response of nonstructural systems is
mance objective in traditional seismic codes, as articulated
generally elastic, with negligible to light damage
in the Blue Book Commentary. In terms of nonstructural
in the nonstructural systems. Economic
systems, it exceeds the implied objective of the code by
loss-to-value ratio to the nonstructural systems is
systematically addressing the nonstructural systems. The
expected to be in the range of 0 percent to
BSO is similar to the implied performance objectives for
10 percent.
school buildings in the State of California. It encompasses
NP2 Nonstructural performance should be generally SP1-NP1 performance in the EQ-I, SP2-NP2 performance
elastic with yielding or slip in the connections. in the EQ-II, SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-III, and
Nonstructural damage is light to moderate. SP4-NP4 performance for EQ-IV.
Expected loss-to-value in the nonstructural
systems is 5 percent to 30 percent. IB-2.5 Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1)
(Essential Facilities Objective)
NP3 Nonstructural elements are secure but may be
extensively damaged. Economic loss-to-value Enhanced Objective 1 is a higher objective than the BSO,
ratios are expected to be in the 20 percent to providing for operational performance (SP1-NP1) in
50 percent range. EQ-II. This objective is comparable to the one for acute
September 1999 393

care hospital facilities and non-base-isolated emergency Design ground motions should be based either on site-
command and control centers. It may be considered for specific seismic hazard analysis or on the generalized de-
higher occupancy facilities such as large assembly spaces sign spectra described in Sections IB-3.4 and IB-3.5 for
or other facilities where the owner expects greater than the BSO. Procedures for determining earthquake ground
code level protection for a facility. It encompasses motion response parameters for the various earthquake
SP1-NP1 performance in the EQ-II, SP2-NP2 perfor- levels are provided in Attachment 1 of these Tentative
mance in EQ-III, and SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-IV. Guidelines. The MCE may be determined from the IBC
2000 maps for the maximum considered earthquake.
IB-2.6 Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2)
(Safety Critical Objective) IB-3.4 Acceleration-Displacement
Enhanced Objective 2 is similar to the one typically con- Response Spectra (ADRS)
sidered for safety critical facilities such as base-isolated The design ground motions can be represented by the gen-
emergency command and control centers or high hazard eralized acceleration-displacement response spectrum in
nuclear process facilities. This objective encompasses Figures AppIB-4 and AppIB-5. For greater performance
SP1-NP1 performance in the EQ-I, EQ-II, and EQ-III, and reliability and for higher enhanced objectives such as EO1
SP2-NP2 performance for EQ-IV. or EO2, it is recommended that site-specific response
spectra be considered.
IB-2.7 Other Enhanced Objectives
Other enhanced objectives include any objective higher IB-3.5 Alternate Seismic Hazard
than the BSO and may consist of any combination of per- Representations
formance levels and seismic hazard levels for structural Design seismic hazard levels may also be represented by
and/or nonstructural systems. displacement response spectra (DRS), acceleration re-
sponse spectra (ARS), appropriate time-histories or other
IB-3 Site Suitability and Design measures, as determined by the structural and geotechnical
Ground Motions engineers and as appropriate for the design and analysis
methodologies. The DRS presented in Figures AppIB-6a
IB-3.1 General through AppIB-6j were developed for sites where the 2/3
The suitability of the site should be evaluated for each MCE site ground motions taken from the IBC seismic
project. This section defines siting restriction guidelines maps were equivalent to 1997 UBC Seismic Zone 4 site
with respect to occupancy types, structural systems, and motions (i.e. sites not located with near-source zones) and
geologic hazard conditions. The seismic hazard level for Zone 3. Generalized procedures for determining the DRS
each site should be represented in terms of design ground and ARS spectral points given the ground motion response
motions with specified probability of exceedance or simi- spectra parameters are provided in Attachment 2 of these
lar measures. This section also defines the recommended Tentative Guidelines.
design level ground motions and a generalized accelera-
tion-displacement response spectra (ADRS). IB-4 General Design and
IB-3.2 Site Suitability and Siting Analysis Procedures for
Restrictions PBSE
The project site should be evaluated for its suitability with IB-4.1 General
respect to the proposed structure and the selected perfor-
Performance-based seismic engineering design and analy-
mance objectives. Project siting should be restricted in ac-
sis procedures should account for the inelastic force-defor-
cordance with Table AppIB-2 unless adverse site effects
mation behavior of the structure and should predict the
are mitigated in the design, as substantiated by analysis.
seismic performance of the structural and nonstructural
IB-3.3 Design Ground Motions systems with a measurable and acceptable level of reliabil-
Recommended design ground motions for use in high seis- ity. The procedures should quantify the structural seismic
mic regions include the frequent, occasional, rare, and response in terms of force, displacement, and inelastic de-
maximum considered events as defined in Table AppIB-1. formation demands on elements and systems in order to
Alternate seismic hazard levels can be used where appro- compare the design capacity of the structure to the ex-
priate, considering the local hazard environment and the pected seismic demand for the considered seismic hazard
owner's objectives. levels.
394 September 1999

IB-4.2 Conceptual Design test data is available. This section identifies those selected
IB-4.2.1 General. The design should follow good systems and refers to appropriate ductile detailing stan-
seismic engineering principles to minimize the structural dards. (Note: For many of these systems and detailing
irregularities and other potential sources of uncertainty in standards, particularly where noted below, insufficient test
the structural system, materials, and elements in order to data is currently available to quantitatively predict inelas-
improve the predictability of the seismic response and per- tic performance with good reliability. Additional research
formance. To the extent that irregularities and uncertain- and testing is needed.)
ties are included in the design, the reliability of the design Components detailed in accordance with the refer-
in achieving the predicted performance objectives is di- enced detailing standards should be able to achieve the
minished. ductility limits specified in Table AppIB-5. These ductility
IB-4.2.2 System Regularity. Structural system reg- limits and associated system drift limits are discussed fur-
ularity in configuration, layout, and proportioning should ther in Section IB-4.4. If alternate systems or detailing
be maintained to the greatest extent feasible to minimize standards are used for design, measures of the usable duc-
unpredictable and undesirable seismic responses. Struc- tility of the resulting elements should be established by
tural irregularities and other potential sources of uncer- testing.
tainty should be accounted for in the structural design and IB-4.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Systems. Concrete
analysis. lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the
More stringent limitations should be placed on the following:
conceptual design in terms of system regularity, system se- 1. Special concrete moment frames - detailed in accor-
lection and detailing quality for designs intended to dance with 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue
achieve better performance and/or greater reliability. Book (or Paulay-Priestley).
IB-4.2.3 Structural System Selection and Ductile 2. Concrete shear walls - detailed in accordance with
Detailing Standards. Structural systems selected should 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book (or
have established ductile detailing standards for which in- Paulay-Priestley).
elastic force-deformation characteristics and usable ductil- 3. Coupled shear walls - detailed in accordance with
ity limits have been established by testing. Recommended 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book [or
lateral force-resisting systems and detailing standards that Paulay-Priestley].
meet this criteria are listed in Section IB-4.3. IB-4.3.3 Reinforced Masonry Systems. Masonry
IB-4.2.4 System Yield Mechanisms. System yield lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the
mechanisms should be designated and designed to provide following:
controlled and acceptable inelastic deformation patterns in 1. Shear walls - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC
the global structural response. Capacity design principles as revised by the 1999 Blue Book strength provisions
or similar yield-control design approaches should be used (or 1997 NEHRP or Paulay-Priestley guidelines).
to control and design for the inelastic response. Typical 2. Wall frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC
system yield mechanisms are illustrated in Table AppIB-3. as revised by the 1999 Blue Book strength provisions
IB-4.2.5 Drift Compatibility. Structural systems and (or 1997 NEHRP guidelines). (Additional testing is
nonstructural systems should be selected considering drift required to establish inelastic behavior characteris-
compatibility. Structural systems should be capable of tics).
providing sufficient stiffness to be compatible with the de- IB-4.3.4 Steel Systems. Steel lateral force-resisting
formation tolerance of the nonstructural systems selected systems should consist of one of the following:
for the design. Characteristic drift limits for typical struc- 1. EBFs - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as re-
tural systems are described in Section IB-4.4 and are tabu- vised by the 1999 Blue Book (or AISC Seismic De-
lated in Table AppIB-4. sign Provisions).
IB-4.3 Structural Systems 2. SCBFs - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as re-
IB-4.3.1 General. The structural system should con- vised by the 1999 Blue Book (or AISC Seismic De-
form to one of the several selected systems recommended sign Provisions).
in this section, for which appropriate ductile detailing pro- 3. SMRFs - detailed in accordance with SAC Joint Ven-
visions are documented and for which some performance ture latest guidelines.
September 1999 395

4. OCBFs - may be used if system yield mechanism is IB-4.6 Structural Element Design and
designed to be outside the OCBF (ordinary concentric Detailing
braced frames). IB-4.6.1 General. Structural elements should be de-
IB-4.3.5 Wood Systems. Wood-framed lateral signed to meet identified performance criteria consistent
force-resisting systems should consist of the following: with the selected performance objectives. Capacity design
1. Plywood shear walls - detailed in accordance with and detailing procedures or other yield-control procedures
1997 UBC Provisions as revised by the 1999 Blue are recommended for design and detailing to provide con-
Book. (Additional testing is required to establish in- trol of the inelastic behavior in the structure. Other design
elastic behavior characteristics.) procedures may be used as long as comparable control of
the inelastic behavior is achieved and as long as ductility
IB-4.3.6 Base Isolation and Added Damping
capacities are provided to exceed ductility demands.
Systems. Base isolation systems should be detailed in
accordance with 1997 UBC and the 1999 Blue Book Pro- IB-4.6.2 Element Acceptance Criteria. Yielding
visions. Added damping systems should be detailed in ac- (deformation controlled) elements of the yield mechanism
cordance with the 1999 Blue Book Provisions. should be designed to meet the IDDR criteria in Section
IB-2.3. Not every yielding element needs to meet the cri-
IB-4.4 Drift Limits teria for the structure to meet a given performance level.
IB-4.4.1 General. Each of the recommended lateral Typically, approximately 80 percent of the elements
systems has a characteristic range of interstory drift limits should meet the acceptance criteria to provide an appropri-
associated with each structural performance level. These ate margin of safety for the structural system to meet the
drift limits can be derived from the cyclic inelastic defor- criteria for a specified performance objective. The desig-
mation behavior of the selected framing systems detailed nated nonyielding (force-controlled) elements, those out-
in accordance with the recommended standards. side the yield mechanism, should generally remain near or
Table AppIB-4 summarizes the recommended inter- below yield levels.
story drift limits for use in preliminary design, based on IB-4.7 Design Verification Analysis
typical framing and detailing characteristics for each later- IB-4.7.1 Inelastic Force-Deformation Characteris-
al system type. The drift limits are intended to serve as de- tics of the System. Design verification analysis should
sign targets for both the structural and the nonstructural quantify the inelastic force-deformation characteristics of
systems but must be verified for each design based on the structural system design in order to compare the seis-
analysis of the structural system. Alternate design drift mic demands to the capacities of the structural systems and
limits may be used when substantiated by analysis. The elements and to verify that the acceptance criteria for the
drift capacity of the final design should meet or exceed the performance objectives are met. Analysis procedures
expected maximum drift demand. should account for the full nonlinear response with appro-
IB-4.5 Structural System Design priate accuracy considering the performance objectives
IB-4.5.1 General. The global structural system
and the acceptable risk levels.
should be designed to meet the selected seismic perfor- IB-4.7.2 System Response at Each Hazard
mance objectives, as measured by appropriate global re- Level. The structural system seismic response at each
sponse parameters including acceleration and interstory considered seismic hazard level should be analyzed as
drift. Any force-based or displacement-based design pro- necessary to verify that the global and local element seis-
cedures may be used as long as the seismic response be- mic response is consistent with the seismic performance
havior is analyzed in accordance with Section IB-4.7 to objectives. The seismic response should be measured by
verify that the seismic performance objectives are met response parameters, such as force, displacement, rotation,
within acceptable levels of reliability. curvature, strain or other appropriate measures, which can
IB-4.5.2 System Acceptance Criteria. The overall
be related to the selected performance levels for the con-
structural system response should meet the IDDR limits sidered ground motions.
indicated in Section IB-2.3, consistent with the perfor- IB-4.7.3 Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis.
mance objectives. Other measures of the system response Analysis procedures should follow the nonlinear static
may be used as acceptance criteria when rationally estab- (pushover) or nonlinear dynamic procedures (nonlinear
lished and agreed to by the Engineer of Record and the time history) documented in Section IB-5.5 and the Blue
peer reviewer. Book or in ATC 40 and FEMA 273, or other rational anal-
396 September 1999

ysis procedures capable of predicting nonlinear seismic re- IB-5.2.2 System Regularity. The procedures are
sponse. recommended for relatively regular structures. The effec-
IB-4.7.4 Linear Static Analysis. Linear static anal- tiveness of the procedures for irregular systems is ex-
ysis procedures should be not be used except where the pected to be limited.
BSO is targeted, where lower levels of reliability are ac- IB-5.2.3 Long Period Structures. The displace-
ceptable and where regular, well-balanced and well-de- ment procedures are expected to be most effective for
tailed systems are used, and where ductility demands longer period structures, with effective periods greater
capacity ratios are generally uniform throughout the struc- than Ts, typically about 0.5 seconds. Procedures may be
ture. less effective when applied to shorter period buildings. For
IB-4.8 Nonstructural Systems stiffer buildings, the soil-structure interaction (SSI) should
be explicitly accounted for when these displacement pro-
The nonstructural systems and elements should be de- cedures are used. FEMA 273 provides guidelines for SSI
signed and analyzed to verify that the performance is con- analysis.
sistent with the selected performance objectives. Design
and analysis procedures are outlined in Section IB-6. IB-5.3 Direct Displacement-Based Design
(DBD) Procedure
IB-5 Displacement-Based Design The DBD is a procedure that can be used for sizing the
and Analysis Procedures members of the lateral force resisting system based on the
target displacements and the effective inelastic system
IB-5.1 General properties. The DBD has been shown to be effective for
Consistent with the General Procedures of Section IB-4, certain concrete structures (Priestley, Kowalsky, et al).
displacement-based or other simplified design and analy- However, the procedure is still undergoing development
sis procedures can be used, provided that seismic perfor- and validation studies, and, therefore, alternative proce-
mance can be predicted with an acceptable level of dures may be appropriate for many structures.
reliability. In this section, two displacement-based design
The DBD utilizes the ADRS (Figures AppIB-4 and
procedures, the direct displacement-based (DBD) proce-
AppIB-5, or site-specific spectra) and a substitute elastic
dure and the equal displacement-based (EBD) procedure
structure to model the expected inelastic response of the
are outlined for use in preliminary design. The DBD and
actual structure. The procedure includes selection of target
EBD concepts and step-by-step procedures are illustrated
drifts based on the selected performance objectives and
in Figure AppIB-7. Design verification analysis of the pre-
structural system, determination of required effective stiff-
liminary design should be performed using nonlinear static
ness, based on the system ductility and damping the dis-
pushover analysis procedures, as outlined in Section
placement response spectrum, and includes determination
IB-5.5.
of the required effective strength. The procedure can also
Where specific guidelines are not provided, refer to include determination of required initial stiffness and elas-
the Blue Book Provisions for design and analysis require- tic strength based on the effective stiffness and strength
ments. and the known ductility and overstrength characteristics.
Members are designed based on required stiffness,
IB-5.2 Conceptual Design Limitations
strength, and ductility.
Considering that the displacement design procedures out-
lined in Sections IB-5.3 and IB-5.4 are relatively new and After selecting performance objectives, structural sys-
unproven, several additional limitations at the conceptual tems, and yield mechanisms, the structural system can be
design level are recommended. The design procedures can designed utilizing the DBD procedure as follows:
be applied to structures not meeting the criteria listed but Step 1 Estimate Target Displacements. The tar-
the effectiveness of the procedures may be reduced. The get displacement for each selected performance level (lim-
recommended limitations are noted in Sections IB-5.2.1, it state) is estimated based on the interstory drift limits
IB-5.2.2 and IB-5.2.3. (Table AppIB-4) for the selected structural system, con-
IB-5.2.1 Structural System Selection. The proce- sidering the expected inelastic displaced shape. In lieu of
dures are recommended for application to the selected sys- more detailed analysis, the target system displacement
tems indicated in Section IB-4.3. The effectiveness of the (drift) can by estimated by Equation AppIB-1:
procedures for other systems is expected to be limited.
September 1999 397

∆T = ( δ1 ) ( hE ) ( k2 ) = ( δ1 ) ( hR ) ( k1 ) ( k 2 ) Where:
Eqn. AppIB-1 Keff = effective stiffness
Where: Meff = effective mass (weight/g) = Mk3
∆ T = target displacement for the global system, at the k3 = ratio of effective mass/ mass, see Table AppIB-7.
effective height for the equivalent SDOF system. Teff = effective period per Step 2.
δ1 = interstory drift ratio limit from Table AppIB-4. The effective mass is calculated based on the target
h E = effective height for the equivalent SDOF displaced shape and the equivalence in work between the
real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure.
system = ( h R ) ( k 1 ) , length units
Step 3B Determine Required Initial Stiffness.
hR = height at roof level, length units. The required initial stiffness at the effective yield point can
be approximated from the effective stiffness and the ex-
k1 = factor to relate the height at the roof to the pected system ductility from Equation AppIB-4, which
effective height, calculated based on the provides a conservative estimate based on an elasto-plastic
equivalence of work between the real structure model.
and the equivalent SDOF structure. In lieu of K i = µK eff Eqn. AppIB-4
more detailed analysis, see Table AppIB-7.
Where:
k2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape
Ki = required initial stiffness
function to a linear displaced shape function. In
lieu of more detailed analysis, see Table AppIB-7. µ = usable system ductility factor for the selected
Note that ∆ RF = ( δ 1 ) ( h E ) ( k 2 ) = target displacement performance level
measured at the roof level. Keff = effective stiffness.
Step 2 Determine Effective Period. The effec- Alternatively, the initial stiffness can be more precisely
tive period at each limit state under consideration can be calculated using Equation AppIB-5, considering a positive
determined using the DRS (Figures AppIB-6c,d,h,j) with post-yield stiffness:
an appropriate system damping value (including both hys- K eff [ µ ⁄ ( rµ – r + 1 ) ] Eqn. AppIB-5
teretic damping and the traditional 5 percent viscous
damping), which can be taken from Table AppIB-6 in lieu Where:
of more detailed analysis. The effective period (Teff) is de- r = (post-yield stiffness)/(initial stiffness). Typically
termined by entering the DRS with ∆ T and reading across equal to 0.05 to 0.10, but may reach 0.50,
depending on the structural system
to the displacement response spectrum curve based on ap-
propriate system damping and down to Teff , as illustrated µ = system displacement ductility factor for the
in Figure AppIB-8. selected performance level.
Alternatively, the effective period (Teff) is determined by Step 4 Determine Required Strength. The re-
entering the ADRS with Sd = ∆ T , and reading up to the quired strength can be determined based on the effective
stiffness and the target displacement.
spectral curve and across to Sa, then utilizing the following
relationship: V base = K eff ∆ T Eqn. AppIB-6
2
T eff 2 = ( 4π S d ⁄ S a ) Eqn. AppIB-2
Where:
Vbase= design base shear
Step 3A Determine Effective Stiffness. The effective
stiffness at each selected performance level can be deter- Keff = effective stiffness
mined from Equation AppIB-3. ∆T = target displacement at the effective height per
2 2
K eff = 4π M eff ⁄ T eff Eqn. AppIB-3 Equation AppIB-1.
398 September 1999

Step 4A Determine Required Yield DRS rather than the acceleration response spectrum and
Strength. The required yield strength can be derived focuses on displacements rather than forces.
based on the required effective strength and the over-
The equal-displacement approximation is generally
strength factor.
applicable to buildings with a fundamental period greater
V y = V base ⁄ Ω Eqn. AppIB-7 than 0.5 seconds. For short period buildings, period less
than 0.5 seconds, the procedure can be modified by utiliz-
Where:
ing the following relationship proposed by New-
Ω = system overstrength factor mark-Hall.
= expected effective strength/yield strength µ∆ Elastic
∆ Inelastic = ----------------------
= typically 1.25 to 2 for concrete and steel SMRFs, 2µ – 1
depending on system redundancy and hinge Where:
formation sequencing
µ = Utilized system displacement ductility
Step 5 Prepare Preliminary Design/System Ele-
ment Sizes. The lateral load-resisting elements can be ∆ Inelastic = Displacement of an inelastically responding
sized to provide the strength and stiffness determined in short period structure
Steps 3B and 4, above. Simplified design procedures are
outlined in the Section AppIB-5.4, Step 5. ∆ Elastic = Displacement of an equivalent elastically
Step 6 Verify Design Using Pushover Analysis responding structure
Procedures. The lateral system design per step 5 should The EBD utilizes the 5 percent damped ADRS (Figures
be verified using pushover analysis procedures per Section AppIB-4 and AppIB-5), the equivalent elastic structure
AppIB-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is pushed to and the expected system ductility factor, µ , to model the
reach the target displacement at the effective height, the inelastic displacement response. The procedure includes
interstory drift limits are not exceeded and the element estimation of target drifts; determination of required initial
ductility demands are less than the achievable element stiffness based on the design ductility limits and the
ductility capacities. ADRS; determination of required strength based on the
Step 7 Modify Design if Required. If the prelimi- target displacement, initial stiffness, and system ductility.
nary design verification in step 6 indicates that the drift Members are designed based on required stiffness,
limits are not maintained or that the ductility demand ex- strength, and ductility.
ceeds the achievable ductility capacity at the design earth- For structures with a fundamental period greater than
quake levels, the design should be modified and step 6 0.5 seconds, the structural system can be designed utiliz-
repeated. ing the EBD procedure as follows:
Step 8 Prepare Final Design and Step 1 - Selection of Target Displacements
Detailing. Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and (Same as DBD). The target displacement at a selected
7, the final design and detailing proceeds, following ca- performance level (limit state) is estimated based on the
pacity design principles to assure that the yielding ele- interstory drift limits (Table AppIB-4) for the selected
ments possess the design ductility and that the remaining structural system and on the expected inelastic displaced
elements possess sufficient strength to develop the over- shape. In lieu of more detailed analysis, the target system
strength of the yielded elements. See Section IB-5.6. displacement (drift) can by estimated using Equation
IB-5.4 Equal Displacement-Based Design AppIB-8.
(EBD) Procedure ∆T = ( δ 1 ) ( hE ) ( k 2 ) = ( δ1 ) ( hR ) ( k1 ) ( k 2 )
The EBD is based on the equal displacement approxima- Eqn. AppIB-8
tion noted by Newmark-Hall according to which the dis-
placement of an inelastically responding system is Where:
approximately equal to the total displacement of an equiv- ∆ T = target displacement for the global system, at the
alent elastically responding system, as illustrated in Figure effective height for the equivalent SDOF system.
AppIB-9. The EBD is an adaptation of the traditional
force-based code procedures, but it uses the ADRS or the δ1 = interstory drift ratio limit from Table AppIB-4.
September 1999 399

hE = effective height for the equivalent SDOF ∆T = target displacement

system = ( h R ) ( k 1 ) , length units µ = system ductility factor per Table AppIB-5.
hR = height at roof level, length units Step 5 Preliminary Design: System Element
Sizes. The lateral load-resisting elements can be sized
k1 = factor to relate the height at the roof to the based on the governing performance goal to provide the
effective height, calculated based on the strength and stiffness determined in steps 3 and 4. The
equivalence of work between the real structure governing performance goal can be identified by compar-
and the equivalent SDOF structure. In lieu of ing the results of steps 1 through 4 for each performance
more detailed analysis, see Table AppIB-7. goal comprising the selected performance objective. Typ-
ically, the seismic hazard level resulting in the largest Vy
k2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape
governs the design.
function to a linear displaced shape function. In
lieu of more detailed analysis, see Table AppIB-7. Step5A. Distribute the base shear obtained from
Equation AppIB-3. Forces should be distributed according
Step 2 Determine Initial Period. The initial peri- to the displaced shape. The displaced shape can be simpli-
od at the yield limit state (SP-1) can be determined using fied to a linear displaced shape using the code redistribu-
the ADRS (Figures AppIB-4 and AppIB-5) with 5 percent tion formula:
of critical damping (considering traditional viscous damp-
ing). The initial period (Ti) is determined by entering the ( V – F t )w x h x
F x = ------------------------------- Eqn. AppIB-12
ADRS with S d = ∆ T , reading up to the spectral curve and ∑ wi hi
across to Sa, then utilizing the following relationship.
or by modal analysis scaled to the base shear.
2 2
Ti = ( 4π S d ⁄ S a ) Eqn. AppIB-9 Step 5B. Member strengths should be proportioned
so that the selected yield mechanism is uniformly devel-
Step 3 Determine Initial Stiffness. The initial oped at an equivalent base shear not less than that obtained
stiffness at the effective yield point can be determined from Equation AppIB-11. Generally, the stresses at the
from Eqn 5.4.2: yield points comprising the yield mechanism should be be-
2 2 tween 0.8Fy and 1.25Fy at this base shear:
K i = 4π M eff ⁄ T i Eqn. AppIB-10
0.80 < D/Cy < 1.25 Eqn. AppIB-13
Where:
Where:
Ki = initial stiffness
D = calculated seismic demand on yielding element
Meff = effective mass (weight/g) = Mk3
Cy = nominal yield capacity of yielding element.
k3 = ratio of effective mass/mass, see Table AppIB-7
Other elements in the structural system, not designat-
Ti = initial period per Step 2 ed as yield points, should be sufficiently below yield to
The effective mass is calculated based on the target dis- provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength in
placed shape and the equivalence in work between the real the yielding elements.
structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. If the requirements of Equation AppIB-13 are not met,
Step 4 Determine Required System Yield then more detailed verification analysis will be required
Strength. The required yield strength can be determined and greater redundancy will be required in the LFRS.
based on the initial stiffness, the target displacement and Step 5C Member sizes should be proportioned to
the system ductility value: provide the initial effective stiffness approximately equal
Vy = Ki ∆r ⁄ µ Eqn. AppIB-11 to that obtained from Equation AppIB-10. Initial effective
stiffness can be measured in terms of the applied seismic
Where: force divided by the displacement at the effective height,
Vy = design base shear at effective yield (taking into account cracked section properties for con-
Ki = initial stiffness at effective yield point
400 September 1999

crete or masonry structures, and gross sections for steel combination analysis, or other rational displaced shape,
and yield stiffness for plywood). amplify the displacements until the first significant ele-
ment yielding occurs. Place a first set of plastic hinges at
K y = V base ⁄ ∆ y ≈ K i +/-10% Eqn. AppIB-14
the yield points in the structural model to represent the ini-
Where: tial hinges and rerun the modal analysis to determine a
Ky = stiffness of structure at the effective yield point new deformed shape. Amplify the deformed shape and
sum the element stresses and deformations for the first two
Vbase= seismic force causing effective yielding runs until a second set of hinges forms, and repeat the pro-
cedure until system instability occurs. The summed struc-
∆ y = deflection at the structure measured at the
tural displacement to the point of instability represents the
effective height (Equation AppIB-8). collapse point on the pushover curve.
Step 6 Verify Design Using Pushover Analysis Step 2 Establish an Effective Yield Point for the
Procedure. The lateral system designed per Step 5 Structural System. Establish an effective yield point on
should be verified using pushover analysis per Section the pushover curve based on established rational proce-
IB-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is incrementally dures. Typically, at the effective yield point, approximate-
pushed through yield stages to reach the target displace- ly 25 percent to 50 percent the hinges in the yield
ments at the effective height, the interstory drifts limits are mechanism are developed.
not exceeded and the element ductility demands are less
Step 3 Plot the Performance Levels on the Push-
than the achievable element ductility capacities. See also
over Curve. Plot the performance level lines on the
Section IB-5.6.
pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the ef-
Step 7 Modify Design if Required. If the prelim- fective yield point) and IDDR =1 at Level 5 (the collapse
inary design verification in Step 6 indicates that the inter- point).
story drift limits or achievable ductility limits are not
Step 4 Plot the Performance Points on the Push-
maintained at the design earthquake levels, the design
over Curve for Each Design Earthquake. Determine
should be modified and Step 6 repeated until the design
the expected system displacement at each EQ level, using
criteria are met.
DBD or EBD procedures or capacity spectrum procedures
Step 8 Complete Final Design and (ATC 40), and add these performance points to the push-
Detailing. Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and over curve.
7, the final design and detailing should proceed, following
Step 5 Verify Story Drifts. Verify that at each EQ
“capacity design” principles to ensure that the yielding el-
ements are detailed to provide the required design ductility level the maximum interstory drifts are below the target
and that the remaining elements provide sufficient strength drifts.
to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements. Step 6 Verify Ductility Demand/Capacity Ratios.
Verify that the maximum cumulative-ductility-de-
IB-5.5 Verification Analysis Using
mand-to-designable-ductility-capacity ratios at the hinges
Nonlinear Static Pushover
Procedures meet the performance criteria at each performance level
and EQ level.
A nonlinear static pushover analysis of the structure
should be performed once the members are sized for Step 7 Reiterate the Design and Analysis. If the
strength and stiffness. Suggested pushover analysis proce- structure does not meet the performance criteria, revise the
dures are briefly outlined below and are described in detail design and rerun the verification analysis.
in FEMA 273 and ATC 40. The pushover analysis should IB-5.6 Final Design and Detailing
be used to verify the interstory drift ratios, the yield mech- Procedures
anisms, and the element ductility demand/capacity ratios.
The final design and detailing procedures should follow
The pushover analysis should include the following capacity design procedures (Paulay-Priestley) or similar
steps. yield-control procedures to ensure that the designated
yielding elements (displacement controlled) possess the
Step 1 - Develop Pushover Curve for the Structure.
required design ductility and that the remaining elements
Analyze structural design by applying incremental dis-
placements. Using the elastic mode shape from a modal
September 1999 401

(force controlled) possess sufficient strength to develop b. Inelastic deformations in ductile connections
the overstrength of the yielded elements. c. Inelastic deformations in ductile elements
Yielding elements (displacement controlled): De- When inelastic response is designed into the nonstruc-
tail in accordance with ductile detailing requirements per tural systems, the significant participation of the nonstruc-
standards referenced in Section IB-4.3 to provide the duc- tural systems should be accounted for in the structural
tility capacities listed in Table AppIB-5 or as established system design and analysis.
by testing.
IB-6.3 Nonstructural Systems
Nonyielding elements (forced controlled): Detail to
Design and Analysis Procedures The design of the non-
provide strength to develop overstrength of yielding ele-
structural systems should follow one of the methods out-
ments (1.3Fy, unless other overstrength ratios are appro-
lined below or an equivalent rational procedure.
priate).
IB-6.3.1 Method 1 Performance Specification for
IB-5.7 Nonstructural Systems Design-Build of Nonstructural Systems. The Engi-
The nonstructural systems and elements should be de- neer of Record should specify the design loading criteria
signed and analyzed to verify that the performance is con- and the performance criteria for the nonstructural design
sistent with the selected performance objectives. Design by a design-build contractor. The design loading criteria
and analysis procedures are outlined in Section IB-6. should identify the appropriate design accelerations and
interstory drifts at each seismic hazard level, as deter-
IB-6 Nonstructural Systems mined by analysis of the structural response or as other-
Design wise established. The performance requirements should be
stated to specify the acceptable damage state for each ele-
IB-6.1 General ment at each seismic hazard level. The design-build con-
The nonstructural systems and elements should be de- tractor/engineer should then prepare design documents for
signed and analyzed to verify that their seismic perfor- review by the Engineer of Record in accordance with Sec-
mance is consistent with the selected performance tions 7, 8, and 9.
objectives. A checklist of such potential elements should IB-6.3.2 Method 2 Design to Accommodate
be developed at the early stages of design. Those elements Structural Response Envelope. The nonstructural sys-
and systems critical to seismic life safety in the building tems should be designed to accommodate the maximum
(e.g., potential falling hazards and elements potentially ob- structural accelerations and displacements expected at
structing egress from the building) and those critical to the each seismic hazard level, while performing within the ex-
performance objective of the design should be addressed. pected performance levels, with an appropriate factor of
safety. Design criteria should be determined in accordance
The nonstructural elements to be seismically protect-
with Section IB-6.4.
ed should be designed to accommodate the drift and accel-
eration expected in the structural frame without being IB-6.3.3 Method 3 Detailed Design of Nonstruc-
damaged beyond defined limits, in accordance with the se- tural Systems. The nonstructural systems can be de-
lected performance objectives. signed by explicit modeling of nonstructural systems
acting in combination with the primary structural system
IB-6.2 Design Strategies
in response to seismic actions.
Nonstructural systems should be designed to accommo-
IB-6.3.3 Method 4 Prequalification of Nonstruc-
date drift and acceleration by one of the following strate-
tural Systems. The nonstructural systems can be
gies.
prequalified by the manufacturer to meet specific drift and
1. Drift accommodation by: acceleration criteria. The systems can then be selected
a. Separation joints based on the expected drift and acceleration, considering
b. Elastic deformations the selected performance objectives for the project.
c. Inelastic deformations consistent with the IB-6.4 Drift and Acceleration Criteria for
selected performance objective Nonstructural Design
2. Acceleration accommodation by: The nonstructural elements should be designed to accom-
a. Elastic response modate the maximum drift and acceleration response ex-
402 September 1999

pected in the structural frame. Conceptual design can be adequacy. Documents may be prepared for different stages
based on the default drift and acceleration design values of the project. At any early stage, peer review level docu-
specified in this Guideline. Final design should be based ments may be required for reviewing design objectives,
on or checked against envelope drift and acceleration re- criteria, and design concept. At the plan submittal stage,
sponse parameters determined by analysis of the structural full documentation is required to allow independent re-
response to the specified seismic hazard levels. view by building officials and/or other checkers.
In lieu of more detailed engineering procedures, the When the nonstructural components are designed by
following procedures may be used to determine the struc- the supplier, sufficient documentation shall be provided in
tural response parameters for nonstructural design: the design documents to allow the concepts for seismic an-
1. Drift. The maximum inter-story drifts for use in de- chorage and bracing to be independently reviewed during
sign of nonstructural elements can be taken as 1.5 x the plan check process.
drift values determined by pushover analysis (1.5 fac- IB-7.3 Construction Documents
tor is to account for a possible underestimation of drift
response by pushover analysis). Construction documents consist of the construction scope
of work, drawings, and specifications. The scope of work
2. Acceleration. The design acceleration for nonstruc-
should clearly describe all work that the contractor is to
tural elements can be calculated from the elastic re-
perform, including design and installation of seismic brac-
sponse for elastically responding structures or as the
ing for nonstructural components. It shall also clearly indi-
maximum acceleration limited by yielding for inelas-
cate whether the contractor's submittal must include
tically responding structures.
design calculations. The design drawings should clearly
identify the nonstructural components that require seismic
IB-7 Design and Construction bracing as well as typical bracing details. Specific require-
Documents ments shall be provided in the specifications.
IB-7.1 Scope of Services and The construction documents shall have sufficient de-
Responsibility tail to adequately define the work of the contractor and
In order to achieve enhanced performance and improved subcontractors for bidding purposes and to allow inspec-
reliability in PBE design and construction, it is essential tors and others to determine whether the seismic design
that responsibility and scope of services for the seismic de- components have been adequately constructed and in-
sign of all structural and nonstructural systems be clearly stalled. Items designed, supplied, and installed by the sub-
defined and understood by all design professionals in- contractor shall be subject to the same requirements for
volved in the project. The lead design professional shall preparation construction documents. These documents
prepare a matrix of design responsibility. The scope of ser- must be adequate to allow installers and inspectors to ver-
vices of the design professional shall clearly indicate who ify that the seismic anchorage and bracing have been prop-
has responsibility for preparing seismic bracing and an- erly constructed and installed.
chorage detail drawings and calculations those items and
systems that the supplier is responsible for designing and IB-8 Design Review Procedures
installing. The scope of services shall also clearly indicate
IB-8.1 Project Design Peer Review
when these documents need to be submitted to the lead
professional for review. The lead professional needs to in- IB-8.1.1 General. The purpose of PDPR is to pro-
dicate clearly how to coordinate installation details and vide independent review of the basis of design and the ex-
how to avoid or resolve physical conflicts. ecution of the design. By independently evaluating the
design objectives, criteria, assumptions, conceptual de-
IB-7.2 Design Documents sign, final design, and design verification, the PDPR in-
Design criteria documents shall be prepared for structural creases the likelihood that design performance objectives
and nonstructural design. These criteria documents shall will be achieved.
indicate the design objectives, design ground motions lev- IB-8.1.2 Scope of Services. The PDPR should be
els, design criteria, assumptions, and design concepts. initiated in the schematic design phase to allow evaluation
Drawings and supporting calculations shall be pre- of major engineering decisions. The scope and responsi-
pared that satisfy the design criteria. These documents will bility should be identified in a written agreement between
have sufficient detail to be used to review the design for the owner and the peer reviewer. The scope, timing and
September 1999 403

schedule of the peer review should be made available to ments and proposed construction quality assurance are
the Engineer of Record. The scope should include review, consistent with what has already been agreed to by the En-
discussion with the Engineer of Record, resolution of dif- gineer of Record and the peer reviewer. The plan checker
ferences, and a written report to the owner at the concept does not have the responsibility to examine the appropri-
review stage summarizing the design objectives, the de- ateness of the project design objectives and criteria, but
sign criteria, assumptions, and design concepts, and at the must confine the scope of his review to whether the con-
design development stage confirming the design resolu- struction documents effectively meet the project design
tion, identifying the critical elements and connections, and objectives and criteria.
confirming the construction quality assurance program.
IB-8.1.3 Qualifications. The peer reviewer(s) IB-9 Construction Quality
should be independent of the Engineer of Record and Assurance Procedures
should have no conflict of interest related to the project be-
IB-9.1 Structural Observation
ing reviewed. The Engineer of Record should be consulted
in the selection of the peer reviewer, and the two should be IB-9.1.1 General. To ensure general conformance to
able to work cooperatively. The peer reviewer should be a the construction documents, structural observation should
registered engineer in the state where the project is to be be performed by the Engineer of Record at significant con-
constructed and should have demonstrated knowledge and struction stages and at the completion of construction of
experience of the type of project being reviewed. The peer the structural system and significant nonstructural sys-
reviewer should also be knowledgeable of the construction tems. Structural observation does not supplant any neces-
practices and regulations applicable to the project. sary continuous inspections or the building inspector's
progress inspections.
IB-8.1.4 Responsibility. Since the responsibility
for the structural design remains with the Engineer of The significant construction stages and the structural
Record, the written agreement should include an appropri- elements and connections to be observed should be deter-
ate indemnification clause. mined by the Engineer of Record, confirmed by the peer
reviewer and plan checker, and identified on the construc-
IB-8.2 Design Plan Check
tion documents. The elements to be observed should in-
IB-8.2.1 General. Consistent with the purpose of clude the elements of the yield mechanism, major
these provisions to provide greater reliability in achieving nonstructural system connections, and other significant el-
predicted performance, additional plan checking should be ements as identified.
provided beyond that required to ensure compliance with
the building code. The purpose of this additional plan The construction documents must provide for and al-
checking is to confirm that the design as presented in the low the structural observer to perform his observations in
construction documents conforms to the design assump- a responsible manner. There can be no interference with
tions, concepts and criteria that have been confirmed in the the structural observer.
PDPR. The additional plan checking may be done by the IB-9.1.2 Scope. As discussed above, the owner
peer reviewer. The scope and responsibility should be de- should employ the Engineer of Record to provide struc-
fined in a written agreement with the owner. tural observation at significant construction stages and at
IB-8.2.2 Scope. The additional plan checking be- the completion of construction of the structural system and
yond that required to assure compliance with the building significant nonstructural systems. The scope should be
code should be specific in order to confirm that the con- specified in a written agreement and should include that
struction documents are consistent with the design criteria, the structural observer will visit the project at each signif-
concepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also icant construction stage as defined on the construction
review and confirm that the proposed structural observa- documents and will observe those elements and connec-
tion and testing and inspection program will provide the tions specified on the construction documents including
construction quality assurance necessary to reasonably en- the elements of the yield mechanism. The structural ob-
sure conformance with the construction documents. server is to identify all significant errors or deficiencies in
the specified elements and connections. The observer
IB-8.2.3 Qualifications and Responsibility. The should report in writing on the same to the owner, contrac-
qualifications and responsibilities of the plan checker will tor and building inspector and should revisit the project to
be similar to those of the peer reviewer, although he will observe the correction of those errors and deficiencies in a
be limited to checking whether the construction docu-
404 September 1999

timely manner. He should submit a final written observa- IB-9.2 Testing and Inspection Program
tion report at completion of the structural system and sig- The Engineer of Record should specify the requirements
nificant nonstructural systems when all work is in general for material testing and continuous special inspection of
conformance with construction documents and any ap- those elements of the construction critical to achieving the
proved changes. design objectives, including but not limited to the yielding
IB-9.1.3 Qualifications. The structural observer elements of the yield mechanism and the critical connec-
should be the Engineer of Record, or an engineer desig- tion details of the nonstructural systems. The testing and
nated by the Engineer of Record, registered in the state of inspection program should be reviewed and confirmed by
the project. The structural observer should have demon- the peer reviewer, the plan checker; it should be adminis-
strated knowledge and experience of the type of construc- tered by the Engineer of Record or the structural observer.
tion proposed for the project. He should be independent of The responsibilities for administering the testing and in-
the contractor and have no conflicts of interest related to spection program should be clearly indicated by written
the project for which he providing structural observation. agreement with the Engineer of Record or the structural
IB-9.1.4 Responsibility. The structural observer is observer.
responsible for verifying general conformance of those
specific elements and connections identified in the con- IB-10 Building Seismic
struction documents, including, but not limited to, ele- Maintenance
ments of the yield mechanism and the major nonstructural The Engineer of Record should develop maintenance
components, at the indicated significant construction guidelines to specifically address the long-term mainte-
stages and at the completion of the structural system. The nance of the more seismically significant structural and
structural observer is not responsible to certify, guarantee, nonstructural systems. These maintenance guidelines
or assure conformance with all of the specific require- should, at a minimum, state the seismic performance ob-
ments of the construction documents. jectives, identify the key components of the seismic resist-
ing system, identify nonstructural systems designed for
performance, and identify elements requiring special
maintenance. These guidelines should be briefly stated on
the construction drawings as a reference for the owner, fu-
ture owners, future remodel designers, and the building of-
ficial.
September 1999 405

Table AppIB-1. Recommended Design Ground Motions Definitions
Annual
Probability of Other Mean Return Probability of
EQ Description Exceedance Definition Period (yrs) Exceedance
EQ-I Frequent 87%/50 yrs — 25 4%
EQ-II Occasional 50%/50 yrs — 72 1.4%

EQ-III Rare — 2/3 MCE 250-800 0.12%-0.4%
EQ-IV Maximum considered — MCE 800-2,500 0.04%-0.12%
Table AppIB-2. Recommended Siting Restrictions For PBSE1
Restrictions Related to Performance Objectives

Basic Safety Objective Essential/Hazardous Safety Critical
Potential Site Hazard
(BSO) Objective (EO1) Objective (EO2)
Distance to Active Fault Traces
Class A d ≥ 200 ft d ≥ 500 ft d ≥ 1,000 ft

Class B d ≥ 100 ft d ≥ 200 ft d ≥ 500 ft
Soil Types/Profiles SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD SA, SB, SC, SD
Liquefaction Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible

Landslide Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
Tsunami/Inundation Potential Low to negligible Very low to negligible Negligible
1. It is recommended that projects with the above specified performance objectives be restricted to sites with not
greater than the tabulated hazard potentials. If the site hazard exceeds the tabulated level, the structural design
should be shown by specific analysis to account for or mitigate the hazard.
406 September 1999

Table AppIB-3. Recommended Yield Mechanisms
System Mechanism Commentary

1. SMFR, CMRF n Strong column/weak beam
n Flexural yielding in beams
n Prevent shear failure or yielding in beams
and columns
n Flexural yielding at base of columns
2. EBF n Shear and/or flexural yielding of link beam

n Elastic response in columns, braces, and nonlink
beams
3. SCBF n Flexural yielding at ends and middle of braces

n Elastic response in connections, columns, and braces
4. Slender shear wall n Flexural yielding at base of shear wall
5. Coupled shear wall n Flexural yielding at base of shear walls

n Flexural yielding at ends of link beams
6. Squat shear wall n Rocking on foundation

n Localized soil yielding
7. Base isolation n Yielding in isolators

n Elastic response in structure above isolators
8. Passive energy dissipators n Energy absorption in dampers

n Elastic response in structural frame
September 1999 407

Table AppIB-4. Recommended Drift Targets for Preliminary Design1
System Drift Values Related to Performance Level

Structural Systems SP-1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4
Concrete
Shear wall H/L=1 0.003 0.0055 0.008 0.010
H/L=2 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.015
H/L=3 0.010 0.019 0.028 0.035
Coupled shear wall 0.005 0.015 0.030 0.040
SCMRF 0.005 0.015 0.030 0.040
Steel
SCBF 0.003 0.008 0.012 0.015

EBF 0.004 0.013 0.022 0.032
SMRF 0.005 0.018 0.032 0.040
Masonry
Shear wall H/L=1 0.003 0.055 0.008 0.010
H/L=2 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.012
H/L=3 0.010 0.017 0.024 0.028
MMRF 0.005 0.011 0.022 0.030

Wood
Plywood shear wall 0.005 0.015 0.024 0.030
Special Technologies2, 3
Base isolated systems 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.010

PED systems 0.005 0.014 0.022 0.030
1. Tabulated drift limits are intended as design targets for both the structural and
nonstructural systems for use with displacement design approaches. Alternate limits
may be used where substantiated by analysis.
2. Drift limits for base isolated systems are guideline values for the structure above the
isolator system, assuming generic “rigid” lateral bracing system.
3. Drift limits for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic
“flexible” bracing system.
408 September 1999

Table AppIB-5. Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits for Preliminary Design1

.
System Displacement Ductility Limits Related to

Performance Level
Concrete
Shear wall (1 ≤ H/L ≤ 5) 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
H/L=102 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.5

Coupled shear wall 1.0 3.0 5.1 8.0
SCMRF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
Steel
SCBF 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0
EBF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
SMRF 1.0 3.6 6.2 8.0
Masonry
Shear wall (1 ≤ H/L ≤ 5) 1.0 2.1 3.3 4.0
H/L=102 1.0 1.4 2.8 2.0
MMRF 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.0

Wood
Plywood shear wall 1.0 2.9 4.8 6.0

Special Technologies
Base isolated systems3 1.0 1.0 1.0 NA
4
PED systems 1.0 1.0 1.0 NA
1. Tabulated values are recommended displacement ductility limits for selected structural
systems and their yielding elements. Alternate limit may be used where substantiated by
analysis. At this time, equal ductility limits are recommended for systems and elements; it
is expected that with further research different values will be used.
2. The maximum usable drift ratio is assumed to be about 4% for the purposes of these
recommendations. Therefore, for high H/L ratio walls, where the elastic drift is relatively
large, the useful displacement ductility of these walls is limited by the limiting drift ratio
( ∆ Total - ∆ Elastic = ∆ Plastic).
3. Values for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system,
assuming generic “rigid” lateral bracing system.
4. Values for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic
“flexible” bracing system.
September 1999 409

Table AppIB-6. Recommended System Damping Design Values for Preliminary Design1
System Damping Values Related to Performance

Level
Concrete
Shear wall (1 ≤ H/L ≤ 5) 5% 15% 18% 20%
Coupled shear wall 5% 16% 22% 24%

SCMRF 5% 18% 25% 28%
Steel
SCBF 5% 10% 15% 20%
EBF 5% 10% 20% 25%

SMRF 5% 10% 20% 25%
Masonry
Shear wall (1 ≤ H/L ≤ 5) 5% 15% 18% 20%
MMRF 5% 10% 15% 20%

Wood
Plywood shear wall 5% 10% 15% 20%
Special Technologies
Base isolated systems 5% 15% 25% 30%
PED systems2 5% 15% 25% 30%
1. Tabulated systems damping values are estimates for use in design based on currently
available test data for the selected systems. These values are based on the ductility
values in Table AppIB-5. If lower ductility demands than are shown in Table AppIB-5
are expected, then the appropriate damping values should be calculated (see
Commentary).
2. Damping values for base isolation systems and passive damping systems are
representative ranges. Values for use in design shall be substantiated by analysis.
410 September 1999

Table AppIB-7. K factors for Equations AppIB-1 and AppIB-8
K1 Effective Height Factor K2 Shape Factor K3 Effective Mass Factor=Meff /M

#
Shape 3 Shape 3 Shape 3
Stories
Shape Shape Shape Shape Shape Shape
1 2
H/L=2 H/L=5
1 2
µ =1 µ =2 µ =5 1 2
H/L=2 H/L=5
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85
3 0.78 0.78 0.85 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75
4 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.75
5 0.73 0.74 0.85 0.77 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.75
10 0.67 0.70 0.85 0.77 0.87 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.84 0.79 0.85 0.75
15 0.62 0.69 0.85 0.77 0.79 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.83 0.77 0.85 0.75
20 0.57 0.68 0.85 0.77 0.73 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.82 0.77 0.85 0.75
50 0.56 0.68 — 0.77 0.72 1.00 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.82 0.77 — 0.75
Where µ =displacement ductility
September 1999 411

Figure AppIB-1. Scope and methodology for performance-based seismic design
412 September 1999

Commentary:
1. The performance objective matrix illustrates the typical performance
levels to be achieved at each hazard level to meet the three defined
performance objectives.
2. Meeting one performance level at one hazard level does not indicate that
t specified performance objective is met. performance should be checked
at each hazard level to verify that the selected objective is met.
3. The performance objectives illustrated above indicate the same
performance objectives for both structural and nonstructural systems.
Alternatively, separate and different objectives can be selected for the
structural and nonstructural systems.
Figure AppIB-2. Typical seismic performance objectives for buildings
September 1999 413

Inelastic
Structural System Displacement Nonstructural Nonstructural
Performance Qualitative Displacement Demand Performance Damage
Level Description Limit Ratio (IDDR)) Level Ratio
SP1 Operational ∆y 0% NP1 0%-10%
SP2 Occupiable ∆ y+.3 ∆ P 30% NP2 5%-30%
SP3 Life safe ∆ y+.6 ∆ P 60% NP3 20%-50%
SP4 Near collapse ∆ y+.8 ∆ P 80% NP4 40%-80%
SP5 Collapsed ∆ y+ ∆ P 100% NP5 > 70%

(Refer to Section IB-2.3)
Figure AppIB-3. Illustration of structural performance levels seismic response curve for structural systems
414 September 1999

Figure AppIB-4. Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQ1
September 1999 415

Figure AppIB-5. Acceleration-displacement response spectra—EQIV
416 September 1999

Figure AppIB-6a. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where a displacement transition
period Td=4.0 seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw ≥ 6.5)
September 1999 417

Figure AppIB-6b. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4 sites where a displacement transition
418 September 1999

Figure AppIB-6c. Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw ≥ 6.5)
September 1999 419

Figure AppIB-6d. Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
420 September 1999

Figure AppIB-6e. Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
September 1999 421

Figure AppIB-6f. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition
422 September 1999

Figure AppIB-6g. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition
September 1999 423

Figure AppIB-6h. Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
424 September 1999

Figure AppIB-6i. Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
September 1999 425

Figure AppIB-6j. Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
426 September 1999

Procedure:
1. Start with target displacement ( ∆ T )
2. Use DBD to determine required Teff, Vmax, and Vy, or use EBD to determine
required KI and Vy for a given µ capacity
3. Design structure to provide required properties.
4. Verify design with pushover analysis. ∆ cap must be greater than ∆ T
Figure AppIB-7. Illustration of DBD and EBD concepts
September 1999 427

Figure AppIB-8. Direct displacement-based design
428 September 1999

Figure AppIB-9. Equal displacement approximation
September 1999 429

430 September 1999

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I, Attachments—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
Appendix I—Attachment 1
Procedures for Determining Earthquake Ground Motion Response Spectra
The demands of earthquake ground motion can easily be Where:

defined by response spectra. Earthquake hazard maps have Si = Spectral acceleration parameter (i = s for “short
recently been produced for the 1997 NEHRP that give
period,” and i = 1 for “1 - second” period) at the
spectral acceleration contours for the maximum consid-
desired probability of exceedance.
ered earthquake (MCE) motion.The MCE, which repre-
sents the big earthquake (EQ IV), is generally defined by Si 10/50=Si for 10 percent/50
a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years; how- PR = Return period (years) at the desired probability of
ever, the maximum values are governed by deterministic
exceedance (inverse of annual probability of
methods of estimating ground motion. This results in the
exceedance)
MCE having an equivalent larger than 2 percent probabil-
ity of exceedance in 50 years (e.g., 5 percent/50) in some PE50= Probability of exceedance in 50 years
high seismic areas of California. Equations are given in Examples illustrating the use of these equations are
FEMA 273 for approximating these variations in probabil- given in the Tables AppI-Att1-1 and AppI-Att1-2.
ities. Equations are also given for converting probabilities
of exceedance in 50 years, PE50, to return periods, PR. For The discussion to this point leads us to the develop-
example, 2 percent/50 equates to a return period of 2,475 ment of 5 percent damped response spectra for site Class
years and 10 percent/50 to 475 years. B (rock) ground motion at geographical locations in the
United States. From the contour map data we have been
The design earthquake (EQ III), which is smaller than able to approximate response spectra for different return
the MCE, is generally defined by 10 percent/50; however, periods that represent probabilities of exceedance. Ss rep-
it is limited to a maximum value of two-thirds of the EQ resents the constant acceleration region of the idealized re-
IV. Thus, the EQ-III may have a larger than 10 percent sponse spectrum. S1 represents the constant velocity
probability of exceedance in 50 years. Equations are also
region by giving the spectral acceleration at a response pe-
given for approximating these variations in probabilities.
riod of 1 second. The constant spectral velocity can be cal-
In addition to determining the EQ III and EQ IV, culated by multiplying S1 by the acceleration of gravity
smaller earthquakes, with more frequent periods of return, divided by 2π .
may be required for various performance objectives.
Equations and coefficients are given for making these ap- Sv = (S1g)(T/ 2π ), where T = 1 second
proximations.
g = 386/in/sec2 (980 cm/sec2 )
PR = 475 (Si /Si 10/50)1/n which reduces to:
50 ⁄ P R Sv=61.5 S1 in/sec (156 S1cm/sec)
PE50 = 1 – ( 1 ⁄ e )
The effective peak ground acceleration (Z) can be ap-
PR = 1/[1 - (1 - PE50)1/50]
proximated by taking 40 percent of Ss.
Si = Si 10/50 (PR /475)n Z=0.4 Ss
September 1999 431

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering—Appendix I, Attachments SEAOC Blue Book
Response Spectra as a Function of response spectra can be adjusted by dividing by damping

Site Class coefficients BS and B1 to represent other values of damp-
ing, (percent of critical damping). Damping values higher
Five site classes are designated by the letters A thorough
than 5 percent (of critical) can be used to approximate in-
F. The site class adjusted response spectra use is obtained
elastic-nonlinear response spectra as a function of hyster-
by multiplying Ss and S1 by site class coefficients Fa and
etic behavior or systems ductility. The BI coefficients can
Fv, respectively.
also be a function of systems ductility, µ s . BI coefficients
Sxs = Fa Ss as a function of can be obtained from FEMA 273 Tables
Sx1 = Fv S1 2-15.
Sxv = Fv Sv
Graphical Representation of
where Fa and Fv are determined from tables 2-13 and 2-14 Response Spectra
(FEMA 273) and x designates the site class
Response spectra may be plotted in various formats of
For site class B, Fa and Fv equal 1.0: coordinates (e.g., Sa versus T, Sa versus Sd, Sd versus T,
SBS = SS and tripartite log graphs). The traditional format has been
spectral acceleration versus period (Sa versus T). When
SB1 = S1 this format is used, spectral displacements (Sd) and
SBV = Sv = 61.5 S1 velocities (Sv) may be calculated by the following:
2
Note that similar site class adjustments can be found S d = S ag ( T ⁄ 2π )
in the 1997 UBC in tables 16Q and16-R, where Fa = Ca /Z
The ADRS format uses orthogonal coordinates Sa versus
and Fv = Cv /Z.
Sd. The periods (T) are represented by radial lines and the
Response Spectra Adjustments for spectral velocities (Sv) can be represented by curved lines
Effective Damping that follow the shape of S1/T. Examples follow:
The SXi (i.e., Sxs, Sx1, Sxv) values represent 5 percent

damped response spectra for linear elastic systems. These
Table AppI-Att1-1. Equivalent Probability of EQ-IV (n=0.29 for California)
Si (MCE) Si 10/50 PR (MCE) PE50

Case
Ss S1 Ss S1 Ss S1
1. Si ratio = 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.4 1,922 1,922 2.6%
1,922
2. Si ratio < 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.2 0.5 1,025 890 5.1%
950
3. Si (MCE) > 1.5 1.75 0.7 1.3 0.5 1,323 1,515 3,5%
1,400
432 September 1999

Table AppI-Att1-2. Equivalent Probability of EQ-III and smaller (n=0.44 for California)
Si Si 10/50 PR PE50
Case
Ss S1 Ss S1 Ss S1
4. EQ III, 2/3 MCE 1.0 0.4 1.2 0.5 313 285 15%
(from Case 2 in Table I-Att-1 above)
300
5. EQ II, PR = 72 0.55 0.22 1.2 0.5 72 50%
6. EQ I, PR = 25 0.33 0.13 1.2 0.5 25 86%
Figure AppI-Att1-1. Spectral acceleration versus period
September 1999 433

Figure AppI-Att1-2. Acceleration displacement response spectra (ADRS)
434 September 1999

Equations for Determining Spectral Points
Figure AppI-Att2-1. Equations for determining spectral points
Given: 2.31 – 0.41 • ln ( β )

D V = ----------------------------------------------
SDS and SD1 for a specified earthquake design level and 1.65
site soil classification.
1.82 – 0.27 • ln ( β )
where: D D = ----------------------------------------------
1.39
SDS = Spectral acceleration at 0.2 seconds at 5 percent 2. Next determine values of TO, TS, and TD as follows:
damping for specified probability and soil site
conditions. S P1 D V
T O ( β ) = --------------------------
-
SD1 = Spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds at 5 percent 12.5S PS D A
damping for specified probability and soil site T S ( β ) = 5T O ( β )
conditions
Determine: T D ( 5% )D D
T D ( β ) = ---------------------------
-
For a specified level of damping (the following: TO, TS, DV
TD, Sa ( β ), and Sd ( β ) for the full range of structure pe- TD (5%) is typically 4.0 seconds except for sites in the
riod. near-source zones of large earthquakes (Mw=6.5). For
1. For a given value of damping β , determine spectral near-source zones, site-specific analysis is required to de-
damping factors as follows: termine TD.
3.21 – 0.68 • ln ( β ) 3. Next determine Sa ( β ), and Sd ( β ) for full range of pe-
D A = ----------------------------------------------
2.12 riods, in accordance with the following equations:
September 1999 435

Sa Sd
T = 0 EPA = 0.4S PS 0
0 < T < TO T T T 2
S a ( β ) = 0.4S PS 1 + ------ ( 2.5D A – 1 ) ------ ( 2.5D – 1 )  ------  g
S d ( β ) = 0.4S PS 1 + T
TO O
A  2π 
T = TO S a ( β ) = S PS D A TO 2
S d ( β ) = S PS D A  ------  g
 2π 
TO < T < TS S a ( β ) = S PS D A T 2
S d ( β ) = S PS D A  ------  g
 2π 
T = TS S a ( β ) = S PS D A TS 2
S d ( β ) = S PS D A  ------  g
 2π 
TS < T < TD S P1 D V S P1 D V gT
S a ( β ) = ---------------
- S d ( β ) = ----------------------
-
T ( 2π )
2
T = TD 2 T D S P1 D D g
S P1 D V
S a ( β ) = ---------------
- S d ( β ) = --------------------------
-
2
TD DD ( 2π )
T > TD T D S P1 D D T D S P1 D D g
S a ( β ) = -----------------------
- S d ( β ) = --------------------------
-
2 2
T ( 2π )
436 September 1999

Figure AppI-Att2-2. Alternate ground motion spectra
Where:
TO 2
S do ( β ) = S PS D A  ------  g , which corresponds to TO
 2π 
T 2
S ds ( β ) = S PS D A  ------  g , which corresponds to TS
 2π 
T D S P1 D D g
S D ( β ) = --------------------------
- , which corresponds to TD
2
( 2π )
Note: SD and TD are not considered valid in Zone 4 near-source zones.
September 1999 437

Appendix I, Attachments—Performance-Based Seismic Engineering SEAOC Blue Book
Historical Perspective and Context
PBSE in the past has been used as an all encompassing within the linear elastic limits of the materials. However,
term to describe techniques for advancing and improving for earthquake resistant design, it is assumed that the later-
procedures for design, evaluation, and upgrade of build- al force-resisting system will make excursion into the non-
ings to resist earthquake-induced ground motion. Perfor- linear inelastic regions of the capacities of the structural
mance engineering, as a generic term, does not have a materials. Therefore, the performance of a code-designed
precise definition and tends to have a variety of meanings building is not predictable with any degree of confidence
to different people. For this discussion, PBSE will apply to and the engineer must rely on experience, judgment, in-
any procedure or criteria that go beyond the standard stinct, and good fortune. The code provides for an elastic
model codes that are in current use. This includes the na- strength that is a fraction of the full linear-elastic demands
tional model codes (e.g., UBC (ICBO)), NBC (BOCA), of major earthquakes and relies on special prescribed de-
SBC (SBCC)], FEMA NEHRP recommendations tails to provide ductility for the extreme nonlinear-inelas-
(FEMA) and the SEAOC Blue Book (Structural Engineer- tic demands. The primary objective of the code is to
ing Association of California). These standard model provide life safety (strength and ductility) and some dam-
codes will hereinafter be referred to as “code” procedures. age control (drift limits).
Code procedures are generally referred to as pre- It should be noted that code procedures have served us
scribed requirements as opposed to performance require- well and generally provide us with safe buildings. When
ments. In this terminology, the engineer follows the deficiencies in the code provision are discovered, correc-
prescribed requirements to design the building. It is as- tive clarification or modifications are made. There is no
sumed that the finished product will satisfy performance substitute for good engineering judgment, thus, as long as
objectives, such as those stated in the SEAOC Blue Book: some flexibility is allowed, the code procedure can contin-
ue to serve us well.
Structures designed in conformance with these Rec-
ommendations should, in general, be able to: Performance-based procedures can provide engineers
1. Resist a minor level of earthquake ground motion with the added flexibility required to interpret and improve
without damage. on codified procedures. This sets the stage for the purpose
2. Resist a moderate level of earthquake ground motion of PBSE guidelines. PBSE can be expressed in a variety of
without structural damage, but possibly experience ways. Examples follow:
some nonstructural damage. 1. Validate a code-designed building for the code perfor-
3. Resist a major level of earthquake ground motion hav- mance goal of life safety.
ing an intensity equal to the strongest either experi- 2. Alternate the method to code procedure to get a more
enced or forecast for the building site, without efficient structural design that satisfies the intent of
collapse, but possibly with some structural as well as the code (i.e., it may not satisfy the letter of the code,
nonstructural damage. but it provides equal or better performance).
3. Provide a higher performance objective than required
In most engineering design criteria, the results are
by code provisions.
fairly predictable because stresses and strains are kept well
438 September 1999
4. Provide a lower than code level of performance to pro- value of spectral displacement (Sd) to make direct compar-
vide a voluntary (nonmandated) seismic upgrade to isons between demands and capacities.
reduce hazards of existing buildings.
Capacities defined by allowable stresses and/or code
5. Provide a multilevel performance menu that matches
strength will be referred to as service level capacities
probabilistic earthquakes with a variety of perfor-
(SLC). These capacities are determined by calculating the
mance objectives.
V/W that results in the first significant lateral force-resist-
PBSE can be broken down to two major components: ing elements (or components) reaching code acceptable
1.) the demands of the earthquake ground motion causes limits. The code prescribed value for V (e.g., V/W = ZIC/
the building to shake and 2.) the capacity of the building to Rw) will usually provide a lower limit for the SLC. The ac-
resist the shaking. tual SLC will generally be larger because of some conser-
vatism in sizing structural members, code limits on drift,
Demands of Earthquakes and detailing requirements for ductility.
In the Vision 2000 recommendations (Appendix G), four The ultimate overall, global capacity of a structure can
earthquake levels are defined. be approximated by a pushover curve that defines a non-
Frequent 43-year return period linear force-displacement curve that accounts for sequen-
tial yielding of elements and redistribution of forces until
Occasional 72-year return period the building approaches a condition of unacceptable defor-
Rare 475-year return period mation of instability under gravity. This capacity level will
be designated as the no collapse capacity (NCC) and rep-
Very Rare 970-year return period resents the capacity required to resist the demands of the
After much discussion and debate, the PBE Ad Hoc EQ IV earthquake.
Committee decided to use different ground motion defini- Other capacity designations represent performance
tion. These definitions are: levels intermediate to the SLC and NCC. For example, the
Earthquake I 25-year mean return period yield level capacity (YLC) represents a yield point repre-
senting an idealized bilinear capacity plot of the pushover
Earthquake II 72-year mean return period curve. The life-safety capacity (LSC) designation repre-
Earthquake III 2/3 MCE sents a point on the nonlinear slope of the capacity curve
that provides a factor of safety against collapse. This point
Earthquake IV MCE is generally taken at a point two-thirds from the YLC to the
The MCE is the maximum considered earthquake as NCC.
defined in the 2000 IBC. Earthquake III is the 2000 IBC From the point of view of PBSE, it would appear that
design level earthquake. the SLC and NCC are the key capacity levels for represent-
It should be noted that because of soil site amplifica- ing no damage (serviceability) and no collapse (survivabil-
tion, factors are now much more acceleration-level sensi- ity) limits, respectively, of a building. The intermediate
tive then in the past. Typically, the 25-year earthquake level represents optional levels of continued occupancy
governs the design except on rock site conditions. and damage control. It should be noted that the LSC is gen-
erally considered as the code-intended performance goal
Capacity of Structural System for a EQ III earthquake demand level. However, this is
consistent with the NCC goal for the EQ IV. In other
The capacity of a structure to resist earthquake ground mo- words, if the building satisfies NCC for EQ IV, it should
tion can be described as a function of allowable stresses, be in the vicinity of a LSC for EQ III.
code strength, yield strength, or inelastic capacity (e.g.,
pushover curve). These capacities are generally repre- Relationships Between Capacity
sented by values of base shear coefficient (V/W) and lateral
and Demand
displacement at the roof ( ∆ R ). As will be shown later,
Performance objectives can be satisfied if the building has
V/W can be converted to an equivalent value of spectral ac-
the capacity to satisfy the demand (i.e., C ≥ D). There is an
celeration (Sa) and ∆ R can be converted to an equivalent
abundance of methodologies that attempt to evaluate this
September 1999 439

relationship, varying from simple static linear elastic to Displacement Approach

nonlinear inelastic dynamic. Some of these methodologies This methodology is based on the assumption that the elas-
will be discussed in detail and others by reference. Three tic demand displacement of an elastic structure with a
generic types of evaluations include 1.) a static code-type DCR-1 will have the same displacement as a similar in-
approach that reviews elastic demand capacity ratios; 2.) a elastic structure with a DCR greater than 1. This relation-
displacement approach that equates inelastic displace- ship is assumed applicable if the elastic period is in the
ments with elastic displacements; and 3.) nonlinear force- constant velocity region (i.e., S1 /T curve). When the elas-
displacement pushover approaches that compare capacity
tic period is in the constant acceleration region (i.e., Ss re-
with inelastic response demands. A brief summary of these
three types follows. gion) the inelastic displacement. Adjustments for the
difference are made by the use of special coefficients. The
Static-Elastic Demand Capacity Ratios (DCR) results of this procedure are validated by the use of a push-
This procedure starts as a code-type analysis procedure. A over curve.
base shear value V is calculated using the full value of the Capacity Versus Inelastic Response
demand elastic response spectrum (i.e., R=Rw = 1.0) and Demands
appropriate coefficients. The DCR is the resulting demand This procedure uses both pushover curves and 5 percent
action on each structural element divided by that element's damped elastic response spectra demands that are reduced
capacity to resist the action (i.e., flexure, shear, axial). to approximate inelastic response spectra by means of in-
These DCRs are compared to list acceptable ratios (e.g., creased damping values or the use of ductility factors.
“m” or “IDR” values) that represent some form of ductility
limits (e.g., rotations or deformations). This type of analyt-
ical procedure does not take into account redistribution
and sequence of yielding, leaving a degree of uncertainty
that is usually balanced by a degree of added conserva-
tism.
440 September 1999

SEAOC BlueBook PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEAOC BlueBook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recommended

Lateral Force Requirements

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

September 1999 iii

105.6 Horizontal Distribution of Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

153.4 Configuration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

202.3 Structural Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

602.2 General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

September 1999 vii

C104.3 Soil Profile Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

viii September 1999

C150 UBC §1654 General Requirements for

C404.3 UBC §1921.3.2.3 Lap Splices in Flexural Members

C602.2 General Design Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213

xii September 1999

September 1999 xiii

xiv September 1999

Table 104-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z (UBC Table 16-I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table AppG-3 Performance Levels and Permissible Structural Damage —

xvi September 1999

Figure 104-1 Seismic zone map for California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

September 1999 xvii

xviii September 1999

Figure AppIB-6g Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites

September 1999 xix

1999 Blue Book Recommendations 1997 UBC

September 1999 xxi

UBC Numbering System 3. Site Geology and Soil Characteristics

xxii September 1999

9. Simplified Base Shear Equation 17. Building Separations

September 1999 xxiii

approach to design. The guidelines are intended for 24. Steel

xxiv September 1999

1999 Blue Book Committee Scott A. Stedman (SEAOSD)

September 1999 xxv

1996-1997 Seismology Committee 1995-1996 Seismology Committee

1958-1996 Seismology Committees

xxvi September 1999

Kircher, Charles (SEAONC) 1992-1994 Sabol, Thomas A. (SEAOSC) 1994-1996

September 1999 xxvii

Reference to 1999 1999 1999

xxviii September 1999

1999 1999 Reference to 1999

xxix September 1999

xxx September 1999

101.7.2 UBC §1612.2 Load Combinations Using D Eqn. 101-7

= 0.5 for other live loads. D + L + S + W/2 Eqn. 101-15

where: Concentrically Braced Frame. A braced frame in

Component. A part or element of an architectural, Drift. See Story Drift.

103 UBC §1628 Symbols and L = Live load on a structural element.

resisting a total lateral seismic force of Ωo times the

Cv in a properly substantiated analysis. The analysis shall

2. Concrete slabs supporting light-frame wood shear 105.9 Drift

where: 107.5 Alternative Designs

V = 0.56C a IW Eqn. 109-2a

n sui = undrained shear strength in accordance with

112 UBC §3400 2. Fail to provide adequate egress in compliance with

113–149 Reserved structural elements that transfer force between elements of

BD = Numerical coefficient related to the effective d =

W 154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces

154.6 Drift Limits 155.3 Structural Elements Above the

Table 104-1. Seismic Zone Factor Z (UBC Table 16-I)

Table 104-2. Soil Profile Types (UBC Table 16-J)