SEAOC - SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL VOL 1 - Code Application PDF

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume I
Code Application Examples
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the
written permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publishe
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

555 University Avenue, Suite 126
Sacramento, California 95825-6510
Telephone: (916) 427-3647; Fax: (916) 568-0677
E-mail: seaoc@aol.com; Web address: www.seaint.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional

association of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern
California, San Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural
engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with
SEAOC’s stated mission: “to advance the structural engineering profession; to
provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application
of state-of-the-art structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining
professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to
provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers
with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain
the honor and dignity of the profession.”
Editor
Gail Hynes Shea, Albany, California, shea@slip.net
Disclaime
Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) and/or its member organizations are published as part of our association’s
educational program. While the information presented in this document is believed to
be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers,
editors, or individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty,
expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use,
application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations included in this publication. The material presented in this
publication should not be used for any specific application without competent
examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified
professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising
from such use.
Table of Contents

Preface .......................................................................... ................................... v

Acknowledgments..................................................................... ..................................vi
Introduction .......................................................................... ................................... 1
Notation .......................................................................... ................................... 3
Example 1 Earthquake Load Combinations:
Strength Design ............................................... §1612.2...................... 7
Example 2 Combinations of Loads .................................... §1612.3.................... 12
Example 3 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factor ................ §1629.4.2................. 17
Introduction to Vertical Irregularities ....................................... §1629.5.3................. 20
Example 4 Vertical Irregularity Type 1 ............................. §1629.5.3................. 21
Introduction to Plan Irregularities ............................................. §1629.5.3................. 36
Example 10 Plan Irregularity Type 1 ................................... §1629.5.3................. 37
Example 15 Reliability/Redundancy Factor ρ ..................... §1630.1.1................. 47
Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications... §1630.1.1................. 52
Example 17 P∆ Effects......................................................... §1630.1.3................. 56
Example 18 Design Base Shear ........................................... §1630.2.1................. 59
Example 19 Structure Period Using Method A.................... §1630.2.2................. 61
Example 20 Simplified Design Base Shear.......................... §1630.2.3................. 65
Example 21 Combination of Structural Systems: Vertical... §1630.4.2................. 68
Example 22 Combination of Structural Systems:
Along Different Axes....................................... §1630.4.3................. 71
Example 23 Combination of Structural Systems:
Along the Same Axis ....................................... §1630.4.4................. 73
Example 24 Vertical Distribution of Force .......................... §1630.5.................... 74
Example 25 Horizontal Distribution of Shear...................... §1630.6.................... 76
Example 26 Horizontal Torsional Moments ........................ §1630.7.................... 81
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Table of Contents
Table of Contents (continued)

Example 27 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems.. §1630.8.2.................85
Example 28 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems.. §1630.8.2.................88
Example 29 At Foundation................................................... §1630.8.3.................90
Example 30 Drift .................................................................. §1630.9....................96
Example 31 Story Drift Limitations ..................................... §1630.10..................98
Example 32 Vertical Component ......................................... §1630.11................100
Example 33 Design Response Spectrum .............................. §1631.2..................101
Example 34 Dual Systems.................................................... §1631.5.7...............104
Example 35 Lateral Forces for One-Story Wall Panels........ §1632.2..................107
Example 36 Lateral Forces for Two-Story Wall Panel ........ §1632.2..................111
Example 37 Rigid Equipment............................................... §1632.2..................116
Example 38 Flexible Equipment .......................................... §1632.2..................118
Example 39 Relative Motion of Equipment Attachments.... §1632.4..................121
Example 40 Deformation Compatibility .............................. §1633.2.4...............123
Example 41 Adjoining Rigid Elements................................ §1633.2.4.1............126
Example 42 Exterior Elements: Wall Panel ......................... §1633.2.4.2............128
Example 43 Exterior Elements: Precast Panel...................... §1633.2.4.2............131
Example 44 Beam Horizontal Tie Force .............................. §1633.2.5...............138
Example 45 Collector Elements ........................................... §1633.2.6...............139
Example 46 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage to
Flexible Diaphragm.......................................... §1633.2.8.1............142
Example 47 Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms......... §1633.2.8.1............145
Example 48 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx:
Lowrise............................................................. §1633.2.9...............147
Example 49 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx:
Highrise ............................................................ §1633.2.9...............150
Example 50 Building Separations ........................................ §1633.2.11.............152
Example 51 Flexible Nonbuilding Structure........................ §1634.2..................154
Example 52 Lateral Force on Nonbuilding Structure........... §1634.2..................157
Example 53 Rigid Nonbuilding Structure ............................ §1634.3..................159
Example 54 Tank With Supported Bottom .......................... §1634.4..................160
Example 55 Pile Interconnections........................................ §1807.2..................161

Preface

This document is the initial volume in the three-volume SEAOC Seismic Design
Manual. It has been developed by the Structural Engineers Association of Californi
(SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Its purpose is to provide guidance on
the interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Official
(ICBO), and SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary (also called the Blue Book).
The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the
Commentary of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic
provisions, and everyday structural engineering design practice. The Seismic Design
Manual illustrates how the provisions of the code are used. Volume I: Code
Application Examples, provides step-by-step examples of how to use individual code
provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period. Volumes II and III:
Building Design Examples, furnish examples of the seismic design of common types
of buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are designed
to show, calculation-by-calculation, how the various seismic requirements of the code
are implemented in a realistic design.
SEAOC intends to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition of the
building code used in California.
Ronald P. Gallagher
Project Manager

Acknowledgements

Authors
The Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly qualified structural
engineers. These individuals are both California registered structural engineers and
SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set up by the
SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and experience with
structural engineering practice and seismic design. The Consultants for Volumes I, II
and III are
Ronald P. Gallagher, Project Manager

David A. Hutchinson
Jon P. Kiland
John W. Lawson
Joseph R. Maffei
Douglas S. Thompson
Theodore C. Zsutty
Volume I was written principally by Theodore C. Zsutty and Ronald P. Gallagher.

Many useful ideas and helpful suggestions were offered by the other Consultants.
Consultant work on Volumes II and III is currently underway.
Steering Committee
Overseeing the development of the Seismic Design Manual and the work of the
Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was made
up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural engineers and
have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering Committee
attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the document.
The Steering Committee consisted of
John G. Shipp, Chair

Robert N. Chittenden
Stephen K. Harris
Maryann T. Phipps
Scott A. Stedman

Acknowledgments
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members and other structural engineers helped check the
examples in this volume. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent to
these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as
well as detailed checking of the numerical computations. The assistance of the
following individuals is gratefully acknowledged
Saeed R. Amirazizi Thomas Hunt Manuel Morden

Jefferson W. Asher Mark S. Jokerst Farzad Naeim
Brent Berensen Isao M. Kawasaki David A. Napoleon
Donald A. Cushing John W. Lawson Josh Plummer
Vincent DeVita Ronald Lugue Mehran Pourzanjani
Richard M. Drake Robert Lyons Ian Robertson
Todd W. Erickson Peter Maranian John G. Shipp
Daniel Fisher Brian McDonal Donald R. Strand
Kenneth Gebhar Rory M. McGruer
Edward R. Haninger Brian Montes
Seismology Committee
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during
the development of the document. The 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Committees
reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their
assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
1998-1999 1997-1998
Saif M. Hussain, Chair Tom H. Hale, Chair
Tom H. Hale, Past Chair Ali M. Sadre, Past Chair
Robert N. Chittenden Robert N. Chittenden
Stephen K. Harris Stephen K. Harris
Douglas Hohbach Saif M. Hussain
Y. Henry Huang Saiful Islam
Saiful Islam Martin W. Johnson
Martin W. Johnson Eric T. Lehmkuhl
Jaiteerth B. Kinha Roumen V. Mladjov
Eric T. Lehmkuhl Simin Naaseh
Simin Naaseh Carl B. Schulze
Hassan Sassi, Assistant to the Chair Chris V. Tokas
Joyce Copelan, Assistant to the Chair
Production and Art

Special thanks are due Lenore Henry of R.P. Gallagher Associates, Inc. who input the
entire text from handwritten copy, did all the subsequent word processing, drew al
the figures, and formatted the entire document. Without her expertise, this project
would never have come to fruition.

Suggestions for Improvement

In keeping with two of its Mission Statements: (1) “to advance the structura
engineering profession” and (2) “to provide structural engineers with the most current
information and tools to improve their practice”, SEAOC plans to update this
document as seismic requirements change and new research and better understanding
of building performance in earthquakes becomes available.
Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the
following:

Attention: Executive Director
555 University Avenue, Suite 126
Telephone: (916) 427-3647; Fax: (916) 568-0677
E-mail: seaoc@aol.com; Web address: www.seaint.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document
is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be
posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaint.org or on the ICBO website at
http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not issue written
errata.

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume I
Code Application Examples
Introduction

Volume I of the SEAOC Seismic Design Manual: Code Application Examples deals
with interpretation and use of the seismic provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC). The Seismic Design Manual is intended to help the reader understand
and correctly use the UBC seismic provisions and to provide clear, concise, and
graphic guidance on the application of specific provisions of the code. It primaril
addresses the major seismic provisions of Chapter 16 of the UBC, with interpretation
of specific provisions and examples highlighting their proper application.
Volume I presents 55 examples that illustrate the application of specific seismic

provisions of the UBC. Each example is a separate problem, or group of problems,
and deals primarily with a single code provision. Each example begins with a
description of the problem to be solved and a statement of given information. The
problem is solved through the normal sequence of steps, each of which are illustrated
in full. Appropriate code references for each step are identified in the right-hand
margin of the page.
The complete Seismic Design Manual will have three volumes. Volumes II and III
will provide a series of seismic design examples for buildings illustrating the seismic
design of key parts of common building types such as a large three-story wood frame
building, a tilt-up warehouse, a braced steel frame building, and a concrete shear wal
building.
While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, there are some
provision of SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Provisions and
Commentary (Blue Book) that are applicable. When differences between the UBC
and Blue Book are significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader.
The Seismic Design Manual is applicable in regions of moderate and high seismicity
(e.g., Zones 3 and 4), including California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It is
intended for use by practicing structural engineers and structural designers, building
departments, other plan review agencies, and structural engineering students.

How to Use This Document

The various code application examples of Volume I are organized in numerical order
by 1997 UBC section number. To find an example for a particular provision of the
code, look at the upper, outer corner of each page, or in the table of contents.
Generally, the UBC notation is used throughout. Some other notation is also defined
in the following pages, or in the examples.
Reference to UBC sections and formulas is abbreviated. For example, “1997 UBC
Section 1630.2.2” is given as §1630.2.2 with 1997 UBC being understood. “Formula
(32-2)” is designated Equation (32-2) or just (32-2) in the right-hand margins.
Throughout the document, reference to specific code provisions and equations (the
UBC calls the latter formulas) is given in the right-hand margin under the category
Code Reference. Similarly, the phrase “Table 16-O” is understood to be 1997 UBC
Table 16-O.
Generally, the examples are presented in the following format. First, there is a
statement of the example to be solved, including given information, diagrams, and
sketches. This is followed by the “Calculations and Discussion” section, which
provides the solution to the example and appropriate discussion to assist the reader.
Finally, many of the examples have a third section designated “Commentary.” In this
latter section, comments and discussion on the example and related material are
made. Commentary is intended to provide a better understanding of the example
and/or to offer guidance to the reader on use of the information generated in the
example.
In general, the Volume I examples focus entirely on use of specific provisions of the
code. No design is illustrated. Design examples are given in Volumes II and III.
The Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, unless otherwise indicated.
Occasionally, reference is made to other codes and standards (e.g., ACI 318-95 or
1997 NDS). When this is done, these documents are clearly identified.

Notation

The following notations are used in this document. These are generally consistent
with that used in the UBC. However, some additional notations have also been added.
AB = ground floor area of structure in square feet to include area

covered by all overhangs and projections.
Ac = the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls

in the first story of the structure.
Ae = the minimum cross-sectional area in any horizontal plane in

the first story, in square feet of a shear wall.
Ax = the torsional amplification factor at Leve x.
ap = numerical coefficient specified in §1632 and set forth in Table

16-O of UBC.
Ca = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-Q of UBC.
Ct = numerical coefficient given in §1630.2.2 of U BC.
Cv = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-R of UBC.
D = dead load on a structural element.
De = the length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the

direction parallel to the applied forces.
E, Eh, Em, Ev, Fi, Fn = earthquake loads set forth in §1630.1 of UBC.
Fx = design seismic force applied to Leve i, n or x, respectively.
Fp = design seismic force on a part of the structure.
Fpx = design seismic force on a diaphragm.
Ft = that portion of the base shear, V, considered concentrated at

the top of the structure in addition to Fn.
Fa = axial stress.

Notation
Fy = specified yield strength of structural steel.
fc’ = specified compressive strength of concrete.
fi = lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (30-10) of UBC.
fm’ = specified compressive strength of masonry.
fp = equivalent uniform load.
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcing steel
g = acceleration due to gravity.
hi, hn,hx = height in feet above the base to Leve i, n or x, respectively.
I = importance factor given in Table 16-K of UBC.
Ip = importance factor specified in Table 16-K of UBC.
L = live load on a structural element.
Level i = level of the structure referred to by the subscript i. “i = 1”

designates the first level above the base.
Level n = that level that is uppermost in the main portion of the

structure.
Level x = that level that is under design consideration. “x = 1”

Na = near-source factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic

Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or
structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set
forth in Tables 16-S and 16-U of UBC.
Nv = near-source factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic

forth in Tables 16-T and 16-U of UBC.
R = numerical coefficient representative of the inherent

overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral-force-
resisting systems, as set forth in Table 16-N or 16-P of UBC.

Notation
r = a ratio used in determining ρ. See §1630.1 of UBC.
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, SF = soil profile types as set forth in Table 16-J of UBC.
T = elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the

structure in the direction under consideration.
V = the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by

Formula (30-5), (30-6), (30-7) or (30-11) of UBC.
Vx = the design story shear in Story x.
W = the total seismic dead load defined in §1620.1.1 of UBC.
wi, wx = that portion of W located at or assigned to Level i or x,

respectively.
Wp = the weight of an element of component.
wpx = the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary thereto
at Level x, including applicable portions of other loads
defined in §1630.1.1 of UBC.
Z = seismic zone factor as given in Table 16-I of UBC.
∆M = Maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the tota

drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is
subjected to the Design Basis Ground Motion, including
estimated elastic and inelastic contributions to the total
deformation defined in §1630.9 of UBC.
∆S = Design level response displacement, which is the total drift or

total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to
the design seismic forces.
δi = horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due to

applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (30-10) of UBC.
φ = capacity-reduction or strength-reduction factor.
ρ = Redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (30-3) of UBC.
Ωo = Seismic force amplification factor, which is required to

account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table 16-N
of UBC.

Example 1 Earthquake Load Combinations: Strength Design §1612.2

! "# # $%&'&
This example demonstrates the application of the strength design load combinations
that involve the seismic load E given in §1630.1.1. This will be done for the moment-
resisting frame structure shown below:
Zone 4
C a = 0.44
I = 1.0
ρ = 1.1
f 1 = 0.5
Snow load S = 0 A B
Beam A-B and Column C-D are elements of the special moment-resisting frame.
Structural analysis has provided the following individual beam moments at A, and the
column axial loads and moments at C due to dead load, office building live load, and
lateral seismic forces.
Dead Load D Live Load L Lateral Seismic Load Eh

Beam Moment at A 100 kip-ft 50 kip-ft 120 kip-ft
Column C-D Axial Load 90 kips 40 kips 110 kips
Column Moment at C 40 kip-ft 20 kip-ft 160 kip-ft
Find the following:
Strength design moment at beam end A.

Strength design axial load and moment at column top C.

§1612.2 Example 1 Earthquake Load Combinations: Strength Design
Calculations and Discussion Code Reference
Strength design moment at beam end A.

To determine strength design moments for design, the earthquake component E must
be combined with the dead and live load components D and L . This process is
illustrated below.
Determine earthquake load E: §1630.1.1

The earthquake load E consists of two components as shown below in
Equation (30-1). E h is due to horizontal forces, and E v is due to vertical
forces.
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
The moment due to vertical earthquake forces is calculated as
E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.5 (0.44 )(1.0)(100 ) = 22 k - ft §1630.1.1
The moment due to horizontal earthquake forces is given as
E h = 120 k - ft
Therefore
E = ρE h + E v = 1.1(120) + 22 = 154 k - ft
Apply earthquake load combinations: §1612.2.1

The basic load combinations for strength design (or LRFD) are given in
§1612.2.1. For this example, the applicable equations are:
1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L (12-5)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E (12-6)
Using Equation (12-5) and Equation (12-6), the strength design moment at A
for combined dead, live, and seismic forces are determined.
M A = 1.2 M D + 1.0 M E + f 1 M L = 1.2 (100) + 1.0 (154 ) + 0.5 (50) = 299 k - ft
M A = 0.9 M D ± 1.0M E = 0.9 (100) ± 1.0 (154 ) = 244 k - ft or − 64 k - ft
∴ M A = 299 k - ft or − 64 k - ft

Specific material requirements:

There are different requirements for concrete (and masonry) frames than for
steel as follows.
Structural Steel: Section 2210 specifies use of the load combinations of

§1612.2.1 as given above without modification.
Reinforced Concrete: Section 1909.2.3 specifies use of the load

combinations of §1612.2.1, where Exception 2 requires the factor load
combinations of Equation (12-5) and Equation (12-6) to be multiplied by 1.1
for concrete and masonry elements. ( Note: At the time of publication, April
1999, the 1.1 factor is under consideration for change to 1.0.) Therefore, for a
reinforced concrete frame, the combinations are:
1.1 (1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L ) = 1.32 D + 1.1E + 1.1 f 1 L (12-5)
1.1 (0.9 D ± 1.0E ) = 0.99 D ± 1.1E (12-6)
M A = 1.1 (299 k - ft ) = 328.9 k - ft
M A = 1.1 (244 k - ft or − 64 k - ft ) = 268.4 k - ft or − 70.4 k - ft
∴ M A = 328.9 k - ft or − 70.4 k - ft for a concrete frame.
Strength design axial load and moment at column top C.
Determine earthquake load E: §1630.1.1
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
where
E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.22 D §1630.1.1
For axial load
E = E h + E v = 1.1 (110 kips ) + 0.22 (90 kips ) = 140.8 kips
For moment
E = E h + E v = 1.1 (160k - ft ) + 0.22 (40k - ft ) = 184.8 k - ft

§1612.2 Example 1 Earthquake Load Combinations: Strength Design
Apply earthquake load combinations: §1630.1.1
1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L (12-5)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E (12-6)
Design axial force PC at point C is calculated as
PC = 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L = 1.2 (90) + 1.0 (140.8) + 0.5 (40) = 268.8 kips
PC = 0.9 D ± 1.0 E = 0.9 (90 ) ± 1.0 (140.8) = 221.8 and − 59.8 kips
∴ PC = 268.8 kips compression, or 59.8 kips tension
Design moment M C at point C is calculated as
M C = 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1L = 1.2 (40 k - ft ) + 1.0 (184.8 k - ft ) + 0.5 (20 k - ft ) = 242.8 k - ft
M C = 0.9 D ± 1.0 E = 0.9 (40 k - ft ) ± 1.0(184.8 k - ft ) = 220.8 k - ft or − 148.8 k - ft
∴ M C = 242.8 k-ft or –148.8 k-ft
Note that the column section capacity must be designed for the interaction of
PC = 268.8 kips compression and M C = 242.8 k-ft (for dead, live and
earthquake), and the interaction of PC = 59.8 kips tension and
M C = −148.8 k-ft (for dead and earthquake).
Specific material requirements §1630.1.1

Structural Steel: Section 2210 specifies the use of the load combinations of
§1612.2.1 as given above without modification.
Reinforced Concrete: The axial force PC and the moment M C must be

multiplied by 1.1 per §1612.2.1.
Commentary
Use of strength design requires consideration of vertical seismic load E v . When
allowable stress design is used, the vertical seismic load E v is not required under
§1630.1.1.

The incorporation of E v in the load combinations for strength design has the effect
of increasing the load factor on the dead load action D. For example, consider the
load combination of Equation (12-5)
1.2 D + 1.0 E + ( f 1 L + f 2 S ) (12-5)
where E = ρE h + E v
and E v = 0.5C a ID
this becomes
1.2 D + 1.0 (0.5C a ID + ρ E h ) + ( f 1 L + f 2 S )
(1.2 + 0.5C a I ) D + 1.0ρ E h + ( f 1 L + f2S)
in the numerical example
0.5C a I = 0.22
Thus, the total factor on D is 1.2 + 0.22 = 1.42
For the allowable stress design load combinations of §1612.3, E v may be taken as
zero. When these combinations are converted to an equivalent strength design basis,
the resulting factor on dead load D is comparable to (1.2 + 0.5C a I ) in §1612.2.
For example, consider the following:
The basic load combinations of §1612.3.1, without increase in allowable stresses,

have a 1.70 factor on D (using the procedure permitted in §1630.8.2.1 for conversion
to design strength).
The alternate basic load combinations of §1612.3.2 with a permitted one-third

1.70
increase in allowable stress has a = 1.28 factor on D.
1.33

§1612.3 Example 2 Combinations of Loads
&
$%&'(
The code requires the use of allowable stress design for the design of wood members
and their fastenings (see §2301 and §2305). Section 1612.3 permits two different
combinations of load methods. These are:
1. Allowable stress design (ASD) of §1612.3.1
2. Alternate allowable stress design of §1612.3.2
This example illustrates the application of each of these methods. This is done for the
plywood shear wall shown below. The wall is a bearing wall in a light wood framed
building.
The following information is given:
Gravity loads
Zone 4
I = 1.0 VE
ρ = 1.0 Plywood
Ca = 0.40 shear wall
V E = 4.0 kips (seismic force

h = 9'
determined from §1630.2)
Hold-down
Gravity loads: Nailing
Dead w D = 0.3 klf (tributary
dead load, including weight q
of wall) Pt. O
Live w L = 0 (roof load supported by 9' - 7"
other elements)
L = 10'
Determine the required design loads for shear capacity q and hold-down capacity T
for the following load combinations:
Basic allowable stress design.

Alternate allowable stress design.

Example 2 Combinations of Loads §1612.3
Basic allowable stress design. §1612.3.1

The governing load combinations for basic allowable stress design are Equations (12-
9), (12-10) and (12-11). These are used without the usua one-third stress increase
except as permitted by 1809.2 for soil pressure. For wood design, however, the
allowable stresses for short-time loads due to wind or earthquake may be used.
E
D+ (12-9)
1.4
E
0.9 D ± (12-10)
1.4
E
D + 0.75L + 0.75 (12-11)
1.4
where
E = ρ Eh + Ev = (1.0) Eh + O = Eh (30-1)
Note that under the provisions of §1630.1.1, E v is taken as zero for ASD.
Dead and live load are not involved when checking shear, and both the governing
Equations (12-10) and (12-11) reduce to 1.0 E . In this example, E reduces to E h .
For checking tension (hold-down capacity), Equation (12-10) governs. Whenever
compression is checked, then Equations (12-9) and (12-11) must be checked.
Required unit shear capacity q.

Base shear and the resulting element seismic forces determined under
§1630.2 are on a strength design basis. For allowable stress design, these
must be divided by 1.4 as indicated above in Equations (12-9), (12-10) and
(12-11). Thus
E E V 4,000
= h = e = V ASD = = 2,857 lbs
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
The unit shear is
V ASD 2,857
q= = = 286 plf
L 10 ′
This unit shear is used to determine the plywood thickness and nailing
requirements from Table 23-ΙΙ-I-1. Footnote 1 of that Table states that the
allowable shear values are for short-time loads due to wind or earthquake.

Required hold-down capacity T.

Taking moments about point O at the right edge of wall and using
V E = 2,875 lbs , the value of the hold-down force TE due to horizontal
seismic forces is computed
9.58T E = 9V E
9V 9 ′ × 2.857
TE = = = 2.68 kips
9.58 9.58′
Using Equation (12-10) the effect of dead load and seismic forces are
combined to determine the required ASD hold-down capacity. In this
example
D=
1
(w D )(10 ′) = 1 (0.3)(10 ) = 1.5 kips
2 2
= 0.9 D − TE = 0.9 (1.5) − 2.68 = − 1.33 kips tension

E
T = 0.9 D − (12-10)
1.4
This value is used for the selection of the premanufactured hold-down elements.
Manufacturer’s catalogs commonly list hold-down sizes with their “ 1.33 × allowable”
capacity values. Here the 1.33 value represents the allowed Load Duration factor,
C D , given in Table 2.3.2 of §2316.2 for resisting seismic loads. This is not
considered a stress increase (although it has the same effect). Therefore, the
“ 1.33 × allowable” capacity values may be used to select the appropriate hold-down
element.
Alternate allowable stress design. §1612.3.2

Under this method of load combination, the customary one-third increase in
allowable stresses is allowed. However, Item 5 of §2316.2 states that the one-third
increase shall not be used concurrently with the load duration factor C D . The
governing load combinations, in the absence of snow load, are the following:
E
D+L+ (12-13)
1.4
E
0.9 D ± (12-16-1)
1.4
where E = ρ E h + E v = (1.0) E h + O = E h (30-1)
Note: Equation (12-16-1) is a May 1998 errata for the first printing of the code.

Example 2 Combinations of Loads §1612.3
Note that E v is taken as zero for ASD per §1630.1.1.
Required unit shear capacity q.
E E V 4,000
= h = e = V ASD = = 2,857 lbs
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
V ASD 2,856
q= = = 286 plf
L 10
This value may be used directly to select the plywood thickness and nailing
requirements from Table 23-ΙΙ-I-1. This method recognizes that Table 23-ΙΙ-I-
1 already includes a 1.33 allowable stress increase for seismic loading, and
the one-third increase cannot be used again with the tabulated values.
Required hold-down capacity T.

Taking moments about point O at the right edge of wall for only seismic
forces
9.58T E = 9V E
9 (2.857 kips )
TE = = 2.68 kips
9.58
The dead load effect on the hold-down is one-half the dead load. Thus,
D=
1
(w D )(10 ′) = 1 (0.3)(10 ) = 1.5 kips
2 2
The governing tension is determined from Equation (12-16-1)
= 0.9 D − TE = 0.9 (1.5) − 2.68 = − 1.33 kips tension

E
T = 0.9 D − (12-10)
1.4
This value may be used directly, without modification, to select the

“ 1.33 × allowable” capacity of the hold-down elements. Note that the
“ 1.33 × allowable” value can be considered either as the one-third increase
permitted by §1612.3.1, or the use of a load-duration factor of C D = 1.33 .

Commentary
For wood design, the use of the load duration factor C D is not considered as an
increase in allowable stress. Together with the other factors employed in establishing
the allowable resistance of wood elements, it is the means of representing the extra
strength of wood when subject to short duration loads and provides the allowable
stress for wind or earthquake load conditions. The allowable shear values given in the
Chapter 23 Tables 23-II-H, 23-II-I-1, and 23-II-1-2 are based on this use of this load
duration factor. Therefore, the use of the C D factor or the aforementioned table
values is permitted for the wind and earthquake load combinations of §1612.3.
However, both §1622.3.1 and §2316.2, Item 5, prohibit the concurrent use of a one-
third increase in the normal loading allowable stress with the load duration
factor C D .
It is important to note that, for other than the wind or earthquake load combinations,
and for other materials such as masonry where there is no load duration factor, the
equivalency of the capacity requirements for §1612.3.1 and §1612.3.2 does not apply
mainly because of the prohibited use of a stress increase in §1612.3.1. In this case,
the minimum required allowable stress design capacity requirements are best given
by the alternate basic load combinations in §1612.3.2.

Example 3 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Facto §1629.4.2
(
" ) * +" , $%&-'*'&
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of near-source factors. Structures built in close
proximity to an active fault are to be designed for an increased base shear over
similar structures located at greater distances. This example illustrates the
determination of the near-source factors N a and N v . These are used to determine the
seismic coefficients C a and C v used in §1630.2.1 to calculate design base shear.
Determine the near-source factors Na and N v for a site near Lancaster,

California.

First locate the City of Lancaster in the book Maps of Known Active Fault Near-
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. This is published by
the International Conference of Building Officials and is intended to be used with the
1997 Uniform Building Code. Lancaster is shown on map M-30. Locate the site on
this map (see figure), and then determine the following:
The shaded area on map M-30 indicates the source is a type A fault. Therefore
Seismic source type: A
The distance from the site to the beginning of the fault zone is 6 km. Another 2 km
must be added to reach the source (discussed on page vii of the UBC Maps of Known
Active Faults). Thus, the distance from the site to the source is 6 km + 2 km = 8 km.
Distance from site to source: 8 km.
Values of N a and N v are given in Tables 16-S and 16-T for distances of 2, 5, 10,
and 15 km. For other distances, interpolation must be done. N a and N v have been
plotted below. For this site, N a and N v can be determined by entering the figures at
a distance 8 km. and using the source type A curves. From this
N a = 1.08
N v = 1.36

§1629.4.2 Example 3 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factor
Commentary
The values of N a and N v given above are for the site irrespective of the type of
structure to be built on the site. Had N a exceeded 1.1, it would have been possible to
use a value of 1.1 when determining C a , provided that all of the conditions listed in
§1629.4.2 were met.
Ref. Table 16-S
2.0
Na Source Type A
1.0 Source Type B
0.0
0 5 10 15
Distance to Source (km)
Ref. Table 16-T
2.0
Source Type A
Nv
1.0 Source Type B
0.0
0 5 10 15

Example 3 Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Facto §1629.4.2
Site
§1629.5.3 Introduction to Vertical Irregularities
.
/ .# $%&-'0'(
Vertical irregularities are identified in Table 16-L. These can be divided into two
categories. The first are dynamic force distribution irregularities. These are
irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3. The second category is irregularities in load path or
force transfer, and these are Types 4 and 5. The five vertical irregularities are as
follows:
1. Stiffness irregularity-soft story
2. Weight (mass) irregularity
3. Vertical geometric irregularity
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral-force resisting element
5. Discontinuity in capacity-weak story
The first category, dynamic force distribution irregularities, requires that the
distribution of lateral forces be determined by combined dynamic modes of vibration.
For regular structures without abrupt changes in stiffness or mass (i.e., structures
without “vertical structural irregularities”), this shape can be assumed to be linearly-
varying or a triangular shape as represented by the code force distribution pattern.
However, for irregular structures, the pattern can be significantly different and must
be determined by the combined mode shapes from the dynamic analysis procedure of
§1631. The designer may opt to go directly to the dynamic analysis procedure and
thereby bypass the checks for vertical irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3.
Regular structures are assumed to have a reasonably uniform distribution of inelastic

behavior in elements throughout the lateral force resisting system. When vertical
irregularity Types 4 and 5 exist, there is the possibility of having localized
concentrations of excessive inelastic deformations due to the irregular load path or
weak story. In this case, the code prescribes additional strengthening to correct the
deficiencies.

Example 4 Vertical Irregularity Type 1 §1629.5.3
*
/ .#1 1 $%&-'0'(
A five-story concrete special moment-resisting frame is shown below. The specified
lateral forces F x from Equations (30-14) and (30-15) have been applied and the
corresponding floor level displacements ∆ x at the floor center of mass have been
found and are shown below.
Ft + F5
∆S5 = 2.02"
10'
F4
∆S4 = 1.75"
10' Triangular
shape
F3
∆S3 = 1.45"
10'
F2
∆S2 = 1.08"
10'
F1
∆S1 = 0.71"
12'
Determine if a Type 1 vertical irregularity—stiffness irregularity-soft story—

exists in the first story.
To determine if this is a Type 1 vertical irregularity—stiffness irregularity-soft

story—here are two tests:
1. The story stiffness is less than 70 percent of that of the story above.
2. The story stiffness is less than 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three
stories above.
If the stiffness of the story meets at least one of the above two criteria, the structure is
considered to have a soft story, and a dynamic analysis is generally required under
§1629.8.4 Item 2, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65-feet
in height (see §1629.8.3 Item 3).
The definition of soft story in the code compares values of the lateral stiffness of
individual stories. Generally, it is not practical to use stiffness properties unless these
can be easily determined. There are many structural configurations where the
evaluation of story stiffness is complex and is often not an available output from

§1629.5.3 Example 4 Vertical Irregularity Type 1
computer programs. Recognizing that the basic intent of this irregularity check is to
determine if the lateral force distribution will differ significantly from the linear
pattern prescribed by Equation (30-15), which assumes a triangular shape for the first
dynamic mode of response, this type of irregularity can also be determined by
comparing values of lateral story displacements or drift ratios due to the prescribed
lateral forces. This deformation comparison may even be more effective than the
stiffness comparison because the shape of the first mode shape is often closely
approximated by the structure displacements due to the specified triangular load
pattern. Floor level displacements and corresponding story drift ratios are directly
available from computer programs. To compare displacements rather than stiffness, it
is necessary to use the reciprocal of the limiting percentage ratios of 70 and 80
percent as they apply to story stiffness, or reverse their applicability to the story or
stories above. The following example shows this equivalent use of the displacement
properties.
From the given displacements, story drifts and the story drift ratio values are
determined. The story drift ratio is the story drift divided by the story height. These
will be used for the required comparisons, since these better represent the changes in
the slope of the mode shape when there are significant differences in interstory
heights. (Note: story displacements can be used if the story heights are nearly equal.)
In terms of the calculated story drift ratios, the soft story occurs when one of the
following conditions exists:
∆ S1 ∆ S 2 − ∆ S1
1. When 70 percent of exceeds
h1 h2
or
∆ S1
h1
1  ( ∆ S 2 − ∆ S1 ) ( ∆ S 3 − ∆ S 2 ) ( ∆ S 4 − ∆ S 3 ) 
+ +
3  h2 h3 h4


The story drift ratios are determined as follows:
∆ S1
=
(0.71 − 0) = 0.00493
h1 144
∆ S 2 − ∆ S1
=
(1 .08 − 0 .71 ) = 0 .00308
h2 120
∆ S3 − ∆ S2 (1 . 45− 1 . 08 )
= = 0 . 00308
h3 120

∆ S4 − ∆ S3
=
(1 .75 − 1 .45 ) = 0 .00250
h4 120
1
(0.00308 + 0.00308 + 0.00250 ) = 0.00289
3
Checking the 70 percent requirement:
∆ 
0 .70  S 1  = 0 .70 (0.00493 ) = 0 .00345 > 0 .00308
 h1 
∴Soft story exists
∆ 
0 .80  S 1  = 0 .80 (0 .00493 ) = 0 .00394 > 0 .00289
 h1 
∴Soft story exists
Commentary
Section 1630.10.1 requires that story drifts be computed using the maximum inelastic
response displacements ∆ M . However, for the purpose of the story drift, or story drift
ratio, comparisons needed for soft story determination, the displacement ∆ S due to
the design seismic forces can be used as done in this example. In the example above,
only the first story was checked for possible soft story vertical irregularity. In
practice, all stories must be checked, unless a dynamic analysis is performed. It is
often convenient to create a table as shown below to facilitate this exercise.
Story Story Drift .7x (Story .8x (Story Avg. of Story Drift Ratio Soft Story
Level Displacement Story Drift Ratio Drift Ratio) Drift Ratio) of Next 3 Stories Status
5 2.02 in. 0.27 in. 0.00225 0.00158 0.00180 — No
4 1.75 0.30 0.00250 0.00175 0.00200 — No
3 1.45 0.37 0.00308 0.00216 0.00246 — No
2 1.08 0.37 0.00308 0.00216 0.00246 0.00261 No
1 0.71 0.71 0.00493 0.00345 0.00394 0.00289 Yes

0
/ .#1 1 & $%&-'0'(
The five-story special moment frame office building has a heavy utility equipment
installation at Level 2. This results in the floor weight distribution shown below:
Level 5 W5 = 90 k
4 W4 = 110 k
3 W3 = 110 k
2 W2 = 170 k
1 W1 = 100 k
Determine if there is a Type 2 vertical weight (mass) irregularity.

A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective mass
of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent story.
However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter than the
floor below.
Checking the effective mass of Level 2 against the effective mass of Levels 1 and 3
At Level 1
1.5 ×W1 = 1.5 (100 k ) = 150 k
At Level 3
1.5 × W3 = 1.5 (110 k ) = 165 k
W2 = 170 k > 150 k
∴ Weight irregulari ty exists

Example 5 ertical Irregularity Type 2 §1629.5.3
Commentary
As in the case of vertical irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a
primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape and
lateral load distribution given by Equation (30-15). Consequently, the appropriate
load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis procedure of §1631,
unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65 feet in height (see
§1629.8.3 Item 3).

%
/ .#1 1 ( $%&-'0'(
The lateral force-resisting system of the five-story special moment frame building
shown below has a 25-foot setback at the third, fourth and fifth stories.
1 2 3 4 5
4 @ 25' = 100'
Level 5
Determine if a Type 3 vertical irregularity, vertical geometric irregularity,

exists.

A vertical geometric irregularity is considered to exist where the horizontal
dimension of the lateral force-resisting system in any story is more than 130 percent
of that in the adjacent story. One-story penthouses are not subject to this requirement.
In this example, the setback of Level 3 must be checked. The ratios of the two
levels is
Width of Level 2 (100')

= = 1.33
Width of Level 3 (75' )
133 percent > 130 percent
∴ Vertical geometric irregulari ty exists

Commentary
The more than 130 percent change in width of the lateral force-resisting system
between adjacent stories could result in a primary mode shape that is substantially
different from the triangular shape assumed for Equation (30-15). If the change is a
decrease in width of the upper adjacent story (the usual situation), the mode shape
difference can be mitigated by designing for an increased stiffness in the story with a
reduced width.
Similarly, if the width decrease is in the lower adjacent story (the unusual situation),
the Type 1 soft story irregularity can be avoided by a proportional increase in the
stiffness of the lower story. However, when the width decrease is in the lower story,
there could be an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that would require
the application of §1630.8.2.
When there is a large decrease in the width of the structure above the first story along
with a corresponding large change in story stiffness that creates a flexible tower, then
§1629.8.3, Item 4 and §1630.4.2, Item 2 may apply.
Note that if the frame elements in the bay between lines 4 and 5 were not included as
a part of the designated lateral force resisting system, then the vertical geometric
irregularity would not exist. However, the effects of this adjoining frame would have
to be considered under the adjoining rigid elements requirements of §1633.2.4.1.

2
/ .#1 1 * $%&-'0'(
A concrete building has the building frame system shown below. The shear wall between
Lines A and B has an in-plane offset from the shear wall between Lines C and D.
A B C D
3 @ 25' = 75’
Level
5
12'
Shear wall
4
12'
12' 25’
2
50' Shear wall
12'
12'
Determine if there is a Type 4 vertical irregularity, in-plane discontinuity in

the vertical lateral force-resisting element.

A Type 4 vertical irregularity exists when there is an in-plane offset of the lateral load
resisting elements greater than the length of those elements. In this example, the left
side of the upper shear wall (between lines A and B) is offset 50 feet from the left
side of the lower shear wall (between lines C and D). This 50-foot offset is greater
than the 25-foot length of the offset wall elements.
∴ In - plane discontinu ity exists

Commentary
The intent of this irregularity check is to provide correction of force transfer or load
path deficiencies. It should be noted that any in-plane offset, even those less or equal
to the length or bay width of the resisting element, can result in an overturning
moment load transfer discontinuity that requires the application of §1630.8.2. When
the offset exceeds the length of the resisting element, there is also a shear transfer
discontinuity that requires application of §1633.2.6 for the strength of collector
elements along the offset. In this example, the columns under wall A-B are subject to
the provisions of §1630.8.2 and §1921.4.4.5, and the collector element between Lines
B and C at Level 2 is subject to the provisions of §1633.2.6.

3
/ .#1 1 0 $%&-'0'(
A concrete bearing wall building has the typical transverse shear wall configuration
shown below. All walls in this direction are identical, and the individual piers have
the shear contribution given below. Vn is the nominal shear strength calculated in
accordance with §1921.6.5, and Vm is the shear corresponding to the development of
the nominal flexure strength calculated in accordance with §1921.6.6.
Level 3
2
Pier Vn Vm
4
1 20 k 30 k
5
2 30 40
1
3 15 10
4 80 120
1 2 3
5 15 10
Determine if a Type 5 vertical irregularity, discontinuity in capacity – weak

story, condition exists.

A Type 5 weak story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is less
than 80 percent of that in the story above. The story strength is considered to be the
total strength of all seismic force-resisting elements sharing the story shear for the
direction under consideration.
Using the smaller values of Vn and Vm given for each pier, the story strengths are
First story strength = 20 + 30 + 10 = 60 k
Second story strength = 80 + 10 = 90 k
Check if first story strength is less than 80 percent of that of the second story:
60k < 0.8 (90) = 72 k
∴ Weak story condition exists

Commentary
This irregularity check is to detect any concentration of inelastic behavior in one
supporting story that can lead to the loss of vertical load capacity. Elements subject to
this check are the shear wall piers (where the shear contribution is the lower of either
the shear at development of the flexural strength, or the shear strength), bracing
members and their connections, and frame columns. Frame columns with weak
column-strong beam conditions have a shear contribution equal to that developed
when the top and bottom of the column are at flexural capacity. Where there is a
strong column-weak beam condition, the column shear resistance contribution should
be the shear corresponding to the development of the adjoining beam yield hinges
and the column base connection capacity. In any case, the column shear contribution
shall not exceed the column shear capacity.
Because a weak story is prohibited (under §1629.9.1) for structures greater than two
stories or 30 feet in height, the first story piers in this example must either be
strengthened by a factor of 72/60 = 1.2, or designed for Ω o times the forces
prescribed in §1630.

-
/ .#1 1 0 $%&-'0'(
A four-story building has a steel special moment resisting frame (SMRF). The frame
consists of W24 beams and W14 columns with the following member strength
properties (determined under 2213.4.2 and 2213.7.5):
A B C D
Beams at Levels 1 and 2:

3 @ 25'
M b =ZF y = 250 kip-ft Level
5
Columns on lines A, B, C, and D at
12'
both levels:
( )
M c = Z Fy − f a = 200 kip-ft at 4
12'
axial loading of 1.2 PD + 0.5 PL .
3
Column base connections at grade:
M f = 100 kip-ft
12'
2
In addition, the columns meet the
12'
exception of §2213.7.5 such that a
strong beam-weak column 1
condition is permitted. 14’
Determine if a Type 5 vertical irregularity—discontinuity in capacity-weak story—

condition exists in the first story:
Determine first story strength.
Determine second story strength.
Determine if weak story exists at first story.

A Type 5 weak story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is less
than 80 percent of that of the story above. The story strength is considered to be the
total strength of all seismic force-resisting elements that share the story shear for the
direction under consideration.
To determine if a weak story exists in the first story, the sums of the column shears in
the first and second stories—when the member moment capacities are developed by
lateral loading—must be determined and compared.
In this example, it is assumed that the beam moments at a beam-column joint are
distributed equally to the sections of the columns directly above and below the joint.
Given below is the calculations for first and second stories.

Determine first story strength.

Columns A and D must be checked for strong column-weak beam considerations.
2M c = 400 > M b = 250
∴ strong column-weak beam condition exists.
Next, the shear in each column must be determined.
V
M b 2 = 125 k - ft
Clear height = 14 ft − 2 ft = 12 ft
125 + 100
V A = VD = = 18.75 k
12
V
M f = 100 k - ft
Checking columns B and C for strong column-weak beam considerations.
2 M c = 400 < 2 M b = 500
∴ Strong beam-weak column condition exists.
Next, the shear in each column must be determined.
V Mc = 200 k-ft
200 + 100
V B = VC = = 25.0 k V
12 Mf = 100 k-ft
First story strength = V A + V B + VC + V D = 2(18.75) + 2(25.0) = 87.5 k

Determine second story strength.

Columns A and D must be checked for strong column-weak beam at Level 2.
2M c = 400 > M b = 250
∴ strong column-weak beam condition exists.
V
M b 2 = 125 k - ft
125 + 125
VA = VD = = 25.0 k
10
V
M b 2 = 125 k - ft
Checking columns B and C for strong column-weak beam considerations.
2M c = 400 < 2 M b = 500
∴ Strong beam-weak column condition exists.
V Mc = 200 k-ft
10’
200 + 200
V B = VC = = 40.0 k
10
V
Mc = 200 k-ft
Second story strength = V A + V B + VC + V D = 2( 25.0) + 2(40.0) = 130.0 k

Determine if weak story exists at first story.

First story strength = 87.5 k
Second story strength = 130.0 k
87.5 < 0.80 (130) = 104 Table 16-L Item 5
∴ Weak story condition in first story exists

§1629.5.3 Introduction to Plan Irregularities
.
.# $%&-'0'(
Plan structural irregularities are identified in Table 16-M. There are five types of plan
irregularities:
1. Torsional irregularity—to be considered when diaphragms are not flexible

2. Re-entrant corners
3. Diaphragm discontinuity
4. Out-of-plane offsets
5. Nonparallel systems
These irregularities can be categorized as being either special response conditions or

cases of irregular load path. Types 1, 2, 3, and 5 are special response conditions:
Type 1. When the ratio of maximum drift to average drift exceeds the given limit,
there is the potential for an unbalance in the inelastic deformation demands at the two
extreme sides of a story. As a consequence, the equivalent stiffness of the side having
maximum deformation will be reduced, and the eccentricity between the centers of
mass and rigidity will be increased along with the corresponding torsions. An
amplification factor Ax is to be applied to the accidental eccentricity to represent the
effects of this unbalanced stiffness.
Type 2. The opening and closing deformation response or flapping action of the
projecting legs of the building plan adjacent to re-entrant corners can result in
concentrated forces at the corner point. Elements must be provided to transfer these
forces into the diaphragms.
Type 3. Excessive openings in a diaphragm can result in a flexible diaphragm

response along with force concentrations and load path deficiencies at the boundaries
of the openings. Elements must be provided to transfer the forces into the diaphragm
and the structural system.
Type 4. The Type 4 plan irregularity, out-of-plane offset, represents the irregular load
path category. In this case, shears and overturning moments must be transferred from
the level above the offset to the level below the offset, and there is a horizontal
“offset” in the load path for the shears.
Type 5. The response deformations and load patterns on a system with nonparallel
lateral force-resisting elements can have significant differences from that of a regular
system. Further analysis of deformation and load behavior may be necessary.

Example 10 Plan Irregularity Type 1 §1629.5.3
4
.#1 1 $%&-'0'(
A three-story special moment resisting frame building has rigid floor diaphragms.
Under specified seismic forces, including the effects of accidental torsion, it has the
following displacements at Levels 1 and 2:
δ L ,2 = 1.30" δ R , 2 = 1.90"
δ L ,1 = 1.00" δ R ,1 = 1.20"
δR,2
Level
3
δR,1
δL,2
2
Level 2
δL,1
1
Level 1
Determine if a Type 1 torsional irregularity exists at the second story.

If it does:
Compute the torsional amplification factor Ax for Level 2.

A Type 1 torsional plan irregularity is considered to exist when the maximum story
drift, including accidental torsion effects, at one end of the structure transverse to an
axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of the two ends of the
structure.
Determine if a Type 1 torsional irregularity exists at the second story. Table 16-M
Referring to the above figure showing the displacements δ due to the prescribed
lateral forces, this irregularity check is defined in terms of story drift
∆δ X = (δ X − δ X −1 ) at ends R (right) and L (left) of the structure. Torsional
irregularity exists at level x when

§1629.5.3 Example 10 Plan Irregularity Type 1
1.2(∆ +∆ )
∆ max = ∆ R , X >
R,x L, x
(
= 1.2 ∆ avg )
2
where
∆δ L, 2 = δ L , 2 − δ L ,1
∆δ R ,2 = δ R ,2 − δ R ,1
∆δ L, X + ∆δ R , X
∆δ max = ∆δ R , X , ∆δ avg =
2
Determining story drifts at Level 2
∆ L, 2 = 1.30 − 1.00 = 0.30 in.
∆ R ,2 = 1.90 − 1.20 = 0.70 in.
0.30 + 0.70
∆ avg = = 0.50 in.
2
Checking 1.2 criteria
∆ max ∆ R ,2 0.7
= = = 1.4 > 1.2
∆ avg ∆ avg 0.5
∴Torsional irregulari ty exists
Compute amplification factor A X for Level 2. §1630.7

When torsional irregularity exists at a level x , the accidental eccentricity, equal to 5
percent of the building dimension, must be increased by an amplification factor Ax .
This must be done for each level, and each level may have a different Ax value. In
this example, Ax is computed for Level 2.
2
 δ 
Ax =  max 

(30-16)
 1.2 avg 
δ max = δ R , 2 = 1.90 in.
δ L, 2 + δ R , 2 1.30 + 1.90
δ avg = = = 1.60 in.
2 2

2
 1.90 
A2 =   = 0.98 < 1.0
 1.2 (1.60) 
∴ use Ax = 1.0
Commentary
In §1630.7, there is the provision that “the most severe load combination must be
considered.” The interpretation of this for the case of the story drift and
displacements to be used for the average values ∆δ avg and δ avg is as follows. The
most severe condition is when both δ R, X and δ L, X are computed for the same
accidental center of mass displacement that causes the maximum displacement δ max .
For the condition shown in this example where δ R , X = δ max , the centers of mass at
all levels should be displaced by the accidental eccentricity to the right side R, and
both δ R, X and δ L, X should be evaluated for this load condition.
While Table 16-M calls only for §1633.2.9, Item 6 (regarding diaphragm
connections) to apply if this irregularity exists, there is also §1630.7, which requires
the accidental torsion amplification factor Ax given by Equation (30-16). It is
important to recognize that torsional irregularity is defined in terms of story drift
∆δ X while the evaluation of Ax by Equation (30-16) is in terms of displacements
δ X . There can be instances where the story drift values indicate torsional irregularity
and where the related displacement values produce an Ax value less than one. This
result is not the intent of the provision, and the value of Ax used to determine
accidental torsion should not be less than 1.0.
The displacement and story drift values should be obtained by the equivalent lateral
force method with the specified lateral forces. Theoretically, if the dynamic analysis
procedure were to be used, the values of ∆δ max and ∆δ avg would have to be found
for each dynamic mode, then combined by the appropriate SRSS or CQC procedures,
and then scaled to the specified base shear. However, in view of the complexity of
this determination and the judgmental nature of the 1.2 factor, it is reasoned that the
equivalent static force method is sufficiently accurate to detect torsional irregularity
and evaluate the Ax factor.
If the dynamic analysis procedure is either elected or required, then §1631.3 requires
the use of a three-dimensional model if there are any of the plan irregularities listed in
Table 16-M.

For cases of large eccentricity and low torsional rigidity, the static force procedure
can result in a negative displacement on one side and a positive on the other. For
example, this occurs if δ L ,3 = −0.40′′ and δ R ,3 = 1.80′′ . The value of δ avg in
Equation (30-16) should be calculated as the algebraic average:
δ avg =
δ L ,3 + δ R ,3
=
(− 0.40 ) + 1.80 = 1.40 = 0.70 in.
2 2 2
When dynamic analysis is used, the algebraic average value δ avg should be found for
each mode, and the individual modal results must be properly combined to determine
the total response value for δ avg .


.#1 1 & $%&-'0'(
The plan configuration of a ten-story special moment frame building is as shown
below:
A B C D E
4 @ 25' = 100'
Determine if there is a Type 2 re-entrant corner irregularity.

A Type 2 re-entrant corner plan irregularity exists when the plan configuration of a
structure and its lateral force-resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both
projections of the structure beyond a re-entrant corner are greater than 15 percent of
the plan dimension of the structure in the direction considered.
The plan configuration of this building, and its lateral force-resisting system, have
identical re-entrant corner dimensions. For the sides on Lines 1 and 4, the projection
beyond the re-entrant corner is
100 ft − 75 ft = 25 ft
25
This is or 25 percent of the 100 ft plan dimension.
100
For the sides on Lines A and E, the projection is
60 ft − 40 ft = 20 ft
20
This is or 33.3 percent of the 60 ft plan dimension.
60

Since both projections exceed 15 percent, there is a re-entrant corner irregularity.
∴ Re - entrant corner irregulari ty exists
Commentary
Whenever the Type 2 re-entrant corner plan irregularity exists, see the diaphragm
requirements of §1633.2.9 Items 6 and 7.

&
.#1 1 ( $%&-'0'(
A five-story concrete building has a bearing wall system located around the perimeter
of the building. Lateral forces are resisted by the bearing walls acting as shear walls.
The floor plan of the second floor of the building is shown below. The symmetrically
placed open area in the diaphragm is for an atrium, and has dimensions of 40 ft x 75
ft. All diaphragms above the second floor are without significant openings.
1 2 3 4
125'
75'
B
Atrium
80'
40'
Second floor pla
Determine if a Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity exists at the second floor level.

A Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity irregularity exists when diaphragms have abrupt
discontinuities or variations in stiffness, including cutout or open areas greater than
50 percent of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragm, or changes in effective
diaphragm stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the next.
Gross enclosed area of the diaphragm is 80 ft × 125 ft = 10,000 sq ft
Area of opening is 40'×75' = 3,000 sq ft
50 percent of gross area = 0.5 (10,000) = 5,000 sq ft
3,000 < 5,000 sq ft
∴ No diaphragm discontinu ity irregulari ty exists

Commentary
The stiffness of the second floor diaphragm with its opening must be compared with
the stiffness of the solid diaphragm at the third floor. If the change in stiffness
exceeds 50 percent, then a diaphragm discontinuity irregularity exists for the
structure.
This comparison can be performed as follows:
Find the simple beam mid-span deflections ∆ 2 and ∆ 3 for the diaphragms at Levels
2 and 3, respectively, due to a common distributed load w , such as 1 klf.
w = 1 klf
Level 2
∆2
Deflected shape
w = 1 klf
Level 3
∆3
Deflected shape
If ∆ 2 > 1.5∆ 3 , then there is diaphragm discontinuity.

(
.#1 1 * $%&-'0'(
A four-story building has a concrete shear wall lateral force-resisting system in a
building frame system configuration. The plan configuration of the shear walls is
shown below.
3
1 2 3
10'
1
10'
Typical Floor Plan
Typical floor plan
10'
A B C D E
10'
4 @ 25' = 100'
3
Elevation Line E
2 @ 25' = 50'
First Floor Plan
Ground (first) floor pla
Determine if there is a Type 4 out-of-plane offset plan irregularity between

the first and second stories.

An out-of-plane offset plan irregularity exists when there are discontinuities in a lateral force
path, for example: out-of-plane offsets of vertical resisting elements such as shear walls. The first
story shear wall on Line D has 25 ft out-of-plane offset to the shear wall on Line E at the second
story and above. This constitutes an out-of-plane offset irregularity, and the referenced sections
in Table 16-M apply to the design.
∴Offset irregulari ty exists

*
.#1 1 0 $%&-'0'(
A ten-story building has the floor plan shown below at all levels. Special moment
resisting-frames are located on the perimeter of the building on Lines 1, 4, A, and F.
A B C D E
F
4 @ 25' = 100'
4
3 @ 25' = 75'
Typical floor plan
Determine if a Type 5 nonparallel system irregularity exists.

A Type 5 nonparallel system irregularity is considered to exist when the vertical
lateral load resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major
orthogonal axes of the building’s lateral force-resisting system.
The vertical lateral force-resisting frame elements located on Line F are not parallel
to the major orthogonal axes of the building (i.e., Lines 4 and A). Therefore a
nonparallel system irregularity exists, and the referenced section in Table 16-M
applies to the design.
∴ A nonparalle l system irregulari ty exists

Example 15 Reliability/Redundancy Facto ρ §1630.1.1
0
5 1651 , ρ
Evaluate the reliability/redundancy factor, ρ , for the three structural systems shown
below. Given information for each system includes the story shears Vi due to the
design base shear V, and the corresponding element forces E h . The ρ factor is
defined as
20
ρ=2− (30-3)
rmax AB
where rmax is the largest of the element-story shear ratios, ri , that occurs in any of the
story levels at or below the two-thirds height level of the building; and AB is the
ground floor area of the structure in square feet. Once ρ has been determined, it is to
be used in Equation (30-1) to establish the earthquake load E for each element of the
lateral force-resisting system.
For purposes of this example, only the frame line with maximum seismic force is
shown. In actual applications, all frame lines in a story require evaluation. The E h
forces given include any torsional effects. Note that the story shear Vi is the total of
the shears in all of the frame lines in the direction considered.
Braced frame structure.
A B C D
16' 16' 16'
Level 5
12'
12'
12'
12'
12'

§1630.1.1 Example 15 Reliability/Redundancy Factor ρ
Total Story Horizontal ri = Fx Vi

Story i Brace Force Eh
Shear Vi Component Fx
1 952 kips 273 kips 218.4 kips 0.229
2 731 292 233.6 0.320
3 517 112 89.6 0.173
4 320 91.4 73.1 0.229
5 Not required above 2/3 height level (see definition of ri)
AB = 48 ft × 100 ft = 4,800 sq ft, where 100 ft is the building width.
Horizontal component in each brace is
4
Fx = Eh
5
where E h is the maximum force in a single brace element in story i.
For braced frames, the value of ri is equal to the maximum horizontal force
component Fx in a single brace element divided by the total story shear Vi .
rmax = 0.320
20 20
ρ=2− =2− = 1.10 (30-3)
rmax AB (0.320) 4800
Moment frame structure.
A B C D
24' 24' 24'
Level 5
12'
5.9 k 11.4 k 13.1 k 7.5 k
4
12'
15.6 k 27.9 k 30.2 k
3 16.4 k
12'
21.5 k 40.2 k 45.7 k 25.6 k
2
12'
28.3 k 51.2 k 56.8 k 30.7
1
12'
38.7 k 68.6 k 71.8 k 46.1

AB = 72'×120' = 8,640 sq ft, where 120' is the building width
Column shears are given above.
E h = V A , V B , VC , V D in column lines A, B, C, D, respectively.
Column Lines B and C are common to bays on opposite sides.
For moment frames, ri is maximum of the sum of

V A + 0.7 V B , or 0.7 ( V B + VC ), or 0.7VC + V D divided by the story shear Vi . §1630.1.1
Section 1630.1.1 requires that special moment-resisting frames have redundancy such
that the calculated value of ρ does not exceed 1.25.
The story shears and ri evaluations are:
Story i Vi VA + 0.7VB 0.7(VB + VC) 0.7VC + VD ri
1 388 kips 86.7 kips 98.3 kips 96.4 kips 0.253

2 306 64.1 75.6 70.5 0.247
3 228 49.6 60.1 57.6 0.264
4 151 35.1 40.7 37.5 0.270
5 Not required above 2/3 height level
rmax = r4 = 0.270
20
ρ=2− = 1.20 < 1.25 o.k. (30-3)
(0.270) 8640
Building frame system with shear walls.

A B C D E
10' 20' 20' 20'
Level 5
12'
4
12'
3
12'
2
12'
1
12'

§1630.1.1 Example 15 Reliability/Redundancy Factor ρ
AB = 70'×120' = 8,400 sq ft., where 120' is the building width
E h is the wall shear V w
V wi  10 
For shear walls, ri is the maximum of   . The following information is given
Vi  lw 
for the walls.
Wall A-B Wall C-D-E and C-D

Story i Vi Vwi lwi Vwi lwi
1 363 kips 34.1 kips 10 ft 92.4 kips 40 ft
2 288 26.9 10 75.2 40
3 208 36.3 10 69.3 20
4 105 19.7 10 39.8 20
5 Above 2/3 height level
A-B C-D-E and C-D

i VI Vwi  10  Vwi  10  ri
   
Vi  lw  Vi  lw 
1 363 kips 0.094 0.064 0.094
2 288 0.093 0.065 0.093
3 208 0.175 0.167 0.175
4 105 0.188 0.190 0.190
5 Not required above 2/3 height level
rmax = r4 = 0.190
20
ρ=2− = 0.641 < 1.0 (30-3)
(0.190) 6000
∴ use ρ = 1.0

Commentary
A separate value of ρ must be determined for each principal building direction. Each value of ρ
is applied to the elements of the vertical lateral force-resisting system for that direction. Note that
the redundancy factor does not apply to horizontal diaphragms, except in the case of transfer
diaphragms.
The following code provisions require the designer to provide sufficient redundancy such that ρ
is less than or equal to specified values:
1. Section 1630.1.1 requires that the number of bays of special moment resisting
frames be such that the value of ρ is less than or equal to 1.25.
2. Section 1629.4.2 allows that the near-source factor Na need not exceed 1.1, if
along with other stated conditions, the redundancy is such that the calculated ρ
value is less than or equal to 1.00.

§1630.1.1 Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications
%
5 1651 , 7 $%(4''
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of the reliability/redundancy factor. The intent
of this provision is to penalize those lateral force-resisting systems without adequate
redundancy by requiring that they be more conservatively designed. The purpose of
this example is to develop approximate relationships that will enable the engineer to
estimate the number of lateral force-resisting elements required to qualify for given
values of the redundancy factor ρ . These relationships are particularly useful in the
conceptual design phase. Note that a redundancy factor is computed for each
principal direction and that these are not applied to diaphragms, with the exception of
transfer diaphragms at discontinuous vertical lateral force-resisting elements.
For the following structural systems, find the approximate relation for ρ in terms of
the number N of resisting elements (e.g., braces, frames, and walls).
Braced frames.
Moment-resisting frames.
Shear walls.

Before developing the approximate relationships for the three structural systems, a
brief discussion of methodology is presented.
For a given story level i with story shear Vi , the approximate number of lateral force-
resisting elements N required a given value of ρ can be found as follows. The basic
reliability/redundancy relationship given in §1630.1.1 is
20
ρ=2− (30-3)
rmax AB
The term rmax is the maximum element-story shear ratio. This is the fraction of the
total seismic shear at a given floor level that is carried by the most highly loaded
element. AB is the ground floor area of the structure in square feet.
The value of rmax can be approximated in terms of the story shear Vi and the number
of elements N in the story. This is done for each system below to provide the
approximate relationship for ρ .

Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications §1630.1.1
Braced frames.
For a braced frame system with N braces having a maximum force component H max
(this is the horizontal component of the maximum brace force), assume that the
maximum component is 125 percent of the average. Thus
Vi
H max = (1.25) H average = (1.25)
N braces
H max 1.25Vi 1.25

rmax = = =
Vi N braces (Vi ) N braces
20
ρ=2−
rmax AB
20 N braces
∴ρ = 2 − , where N braces = number of braces.
1.25 AB
Moment-resisting frames.
For a moment-resisting frame system with N bays having a maximum shear per bay of
V bay,max , assume that the maximum component is 125 percent of the average
component. Thus,
Vi
V bay,max = (1.25)
N bays
Vbay,max 1.25
rmax = =
Vi N bays
20 N bays
∴ρ = 2 − , where N bays = number of bays
1.25 AB
Note that for a SMRF, ρ shall not exceed 1.25 . Thus, the number of bays of special
moment-resisting frames must be increased to reduce rmax , such that ρ is less than or
equal to 1.25 . §1630.1.1

§1630.1.1 Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications
Shear walls.
Section 1630.1.1 requires that rmax be based on the number of 10-foot lengths of
shear wall. For a shear wall system, let N 10 = number of 10-foot-long wall segments
V 
in story i, and let the maximum shear per 10-foot length be 10  w  . V w and l w
 l w  max
are the shear and length for a wall pier. Assuming the maximum component is 125
percent of the average.
V  V
10  w  = (1.25) i
 l w  max N 10
V 
10  w 
 l w  max 1.25
rmax = =
Vi N 10
20 N 10
∴ρ = 2 − , where N 10 = number of 10-foot long segments of shear walls.
1.25 AB
Commentary
20 N
Following this page is a plot of ρ versus N for the equation ρ = 2 − . This
1.25 AB
approximate relationship can be used to estimate ρ for conceptual design. Following this
20
is a plot of ρ = 2 − . This is Equation (30-3) and can be used for final design.
rmax AB

Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications §1630.1.1
AB =
ρ = 2 - 20N /(1.25A B 1/2)
1,000
A
10
2,5
5,0
40 60 B =1
30
,00
20
80 00
00
,0 ,00
,0
,0
00
,0
00 ,00
0s
0s 00
00
00
sq. ft
0s
sq.
sq
sq.
q. sq
q.
sq
q.
sq
.f ft. .f ft.
.f
t. t.
ft.
ft.
.f
ft.
t.
.
t.
1.5
1.4
1.3
ρ
1.2
1.1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
N
Approximate relationship of ρ for various values of N and AB

. ft.
ρ = 2 - 20/(r max A B 1/2)

00 sq
.
q. ft
100,0
ft.
t.
q.
t.
.f
00 s
.f
t.
0s
sq sq. f ft.
sq
q. t. ft. ft.
q. f sq.
AB =
0 0 0s sq.
,00
00
60,0
0 0s
,0 ,00 0 00 00
,0
0 ,0 00 ,0 2,0
40
8 6 , 3
20
1 4
1.5
. ft.
,000 sq
A =1
1.4 B
1.3
ρ
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
r max
Reliability/redundancy factor ρ for various values of rmax and AB

§1630.1.3 Example 17 P ∆ Effects
2
∆ $%(4''(
In highrise building design, important secondary moments and additional story drifts
can be developed in the lateral force-resisting system by P∆ effects. P∆ effects are
the result of the axial load P in a column being “moved” laterally by horizontal
displacements, thereby causing additional “secondary” column and girder moments.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the procedure that must be used to check
the overall stability of the frame system for such effects.
A 15-story building has a steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF). The

following information is given:
Zone 4
R = 8.5
At the first story,

ΣD = W = 8,643 kips
ΣL = 3,850 kips
V1 = V = 0.042W = 363.0 kips
h1 = 20 ft
Story drift = ∆ S1 = 0.003h1 = 0.72 in. h1 = 20'
Determine the following:
P∆ criteria for the building.

Check the first story for P∆ requirements.
P∆ criteria for the building. §1630.1.3

P∆ effects must be considered whenever the ratio of secondary moments to primary
moments exceed 10 percent. As discussed in Section C105.1.3 of the 1999 SEAOC
Blue Book Commentary, this ratio is defined as a stability coefficient θ :
Px ∆ sx
θx =
V x hx

Example 17 P ∆ Effects §1630.1.3
where
θ x = stability coefficient for story x
Px = total vertical load (unfactored) on all columns in story x
∆ sx = story drift due to the design base shear
V x = design shear in story x
h x = height of story x
P∆ effects must be considered when θ > 0.10
An alternative approach is to check story drift.
In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, P∆ effects need not be considered for SMRF buildings
whenever the story drifts satisfy the following criterion:
∆ s 0.02 0.02
≤ = = .00235 §1630.1.3
h R 8.5
Therefore, when the story drift in a given story of an SMRF is less than or equal to
.00235, P∆ effects need not be considered for that story.
Check P∆ requirements for the first story.

The first story drift ratio is
∆ S 1 0.003h1
= = 0.003
h1 h1
Check drift criteria
.003 > .00235
Section 1630.1.3 requires that the total vertical load P1 at the first story be considered
as the total dead (ΣD ) plus floor live (ΣL ) and snow (S ) load above the first story.
These loads are unfactored for determination of P∆ effects.
P1 = ΣD + ΣL + S
using S = 0 for the building site
P1 = 8,643 + 3,850 = 12,493 kips

§1630.1.3 Example 17 P ∆ Effects
P1 ∆ S 1 (12,493)(0.003h1 )
θ1 = = = 0.103 > 0.100
V1 h1 (363.0)h1
∴P∆ effects must be considered
Commentary
The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book Commentary, in Section C105.1.3, provides an
acceptable P∆ analysis: for any story x where P∆ effects must be considered, the
θ
story shear V x must be multiplied by a factor (1 + a d ) , where a d = , and the
1− θ
structure is to be re-analyzed for the seismic force effects corresponding to the
augmented story shears. Also, some computer programs include the option to include
P∆ effects. The user should verify that the particular method is consistent with the
requirements of this §1630.1.3.

Example 18 Design Base Shea §1630.2.1
3
# 8 " $%(4'&'
Find the design base shear for a 5-story steel special moment-resisting frame building
shown below, given the following information:
Z = 0.4
Seismic source type = B
Distance to seismic source = 5 km 60'
Soil profile type = SC
I = 1.0
R = 8.5
W = 1,626 kips
In solving this example, the following steps are followed:
Determine the structure period.
Determine the seismic coefficients C a and Cv .
Determine base shear.
Determine the structure period. §1630.2.2

Method A to be used. Ct for steel moment-resisting frames is 0.035.
T = C t (hn ) = .035 (60 )

3 3
4 4 = .75 sec . (30-8)
Determine the seismic coefficients C a and Cv §1628
From Table 16-Q for soil profile type S C and Z = .4
C a = .40 N a
From Table 16-R for soil profile type S C and Z = .4
C v = .56 N v
Find N a and N v from Tables 16-S and 16-T, respectively, knowing that the seismic
source type is B and the distance 5 km.
N a = 1.0

§1630.2. 1 Example 18 Design Base Shear
N v = 1.2
Therefore
C a = .40 (1.0) = .40
C v = .56 (1.2 ) = .672
Determine base shear. §1630.2.1

The total base shear in a given direction is determined from:
Cv I .672 × 1.0
V= W= × 1,626 = 171.4 kips (30-4)
RT 8.5 × .75
However, the code indicates that the total design base shear need not exceed:
2.5C a I 2.5 × 0.4 × 1.0

V= W= × 1,626 = 191.3 kips (30-5)
R 8.5
Another requirement is that total design base shear cannot be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 × .40 × 1.0 × 1,626 = 71.5 kips (30-6)
In Zone 4, total base shear also cannot be less than:
.8ZN v I 0.8 × 0.4 × 1.2 × 1.0

V= W= × 1,626 = 73.5 kips (30-7)
R 8.5
In this example, design base shear is controlled by Equation 30-4.
∴V = 171.4 kips
Commentary
The near source factor Na used to determine Ca need not exceed 1.1 if the conditions
of §1629.4.2 are met.

Example 19 Structure Period Using Method §1630.2.2
-
" # 9 7 $%(4'&'&
Determine the period for each of the structures shown below using Method A.
Method A uses the following expression to determine period:
T = C t (hn )
3
4 (30-8)
The coefficient Ct is dependent on the type of structural system used. The code also
allows use of Method B for the analytical evaluation of the fundamental period. It
should be noted that the computation of the fundamental period using Equation 30-10
of this method can be cumbersome and time consuming. With widespread use of
personal computers and structural analysis software in practice, a computer can
determine periods much more easily than through use of Equation 30-10.
Steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) structure.

Concrete special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) structure.
Steel eccentric braced frame (EBF).
Masonry shear wall building.
Tilt-up building.
Steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) structure. §1630.2.2
Height of the structure above its

base is 96 feet. The additional 22-foot
depth of the basement is not
considered in determining hn 96′
Superstructure
for period calculation.
C t = 0.035
Grade
T = C t (hn ) = 0.035 (96)

3 3
4 4 = 1.07 sec.
22′ Basement

§1630.2.2 Example 19 Structure Period Using M ethod A
Concrete special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) structure. §1630.2.2

Height of tallest part of the building is 33 feet,
and this is used to determine period. Roof
penthouses are generally not considered in Setback
determining hn , but heights of setbacks are

included. However, if the setback represents
33′
more than a 130 percent change in the lateral
22′
force system dimension, then there is a
vertical geometric irregularity (Table 16-L).
For taller structures, more than five stories or
65 feet in height, dynamic analysis is required
for this type of irregularity.
C t = 0.030
T = C t (hn ) = 0.030 (33)

3 3
4 4 = 0.41 sec .
Steel eccentric braced frame (EBF). §1630.2.2

EBF structures use the Ct for the
category “all other buildings.”
C t = 0.030 44'
T = C t (hn ) = 0.030 (44 )

3 3
4 4 = 0.51 sec .
Masonry shear wall building. §1630.2.2
29'
29'
10' Typ. 10' Typ.
60' 45'
Front wall elevation Back wall elevatio

Example 19 Structure Period Using Method §1630.2.2
For this structure, Ct may be taken as 0.020, the value for “all other buildings,” or its
value may be computed from the following formula:
0.1
Ct = §1630.2.2
Ac
where
 D 
2
Ac = ∑ Ae 0.2 +  e   (30-9)
  hn  
Solving for De and Ae for front and back walls, respectively, the value of Ac can be
determined.
Front Wall
Nominal CMU wall thickness = 8”
Actual CMU wall thickness = 7.625”
hn = 29 ft
De = 60 ft
Ae = (60'−4 x10') x
7.63
= 12.7 sq ft
12
De
= 2.07
hn
Back Wall
De = 45 ft
Ae = (45'−3x10') x
7.63
= 9.5 sq ft
12
De
= 1.55
hn
Using Equation 30-9, the value of Ac is determined. Note that the maximum value of
De /hn that can be used is 0.9.
[ (
Ac = 12.7 0.2 + 0.9 2 ) ]+ [9.5 ( 0.2 + 0.9 ) ]= 22.4 sq ft
2

§1630.2.2 Example 19 Structure Period Using M ethod A
0.1
Ct = = 0.021
22.4
= 0.021 (29 )
3 3
T = C t (h n ) 4 4 = 0.26 sec .
Alternately, the period can be determined using Ct = .020 for “all other buildings”
= 0.020 (29 )
3 3
T = C t (h n ) 4 4 = 0.25 sec .
Under current code provisions, either period can be used to determine base shear.
Tilt-up building.
Consider a tilt-up building 150 ft x 200 ft in plan that has a panelized wood roof and
the typical wall elevation shown below.
20' 15' typ.
3' typ. 20' typ.

8' typ.
150'
Typical wall elevatio
C t = 0.020
= 0.02 (20)
3 3
T = C t (h n ) 4 4 = 0.19 sec .
This type of structural system has relatively rigid walls and a flexible roof diaphragm.
The code formula for period does not take into consideration the fact that the real
period of the building is highly dependent on the roof diaphragm construction. Thus,
the period computed above is not a good estimate of the real fundamental period of
this type of building. It is acceptable, however, for use in determining design base
shear.
It should be noted that the actual diaphragm response is approximately taken into
account in the design process by increased seismic force provisions on wall anchors
and by the limit of R = 4 for calculation of diaphragm loads as required under
§1633.2.9.3.

Example 20 Simplified Design Base Shea §1630.2.3
&4
" # 8 " $%(4'&'(
Determine the design base shear and the design lateral forces for a three-story wood
structural panel wall building using the simplified design base shear. The soil profile
type for the site is unknown. The following information is known:
1 2 3
Z = 0.4 20' 20' Story

weight
Seismic source type B Level
Distance to seismic source = 5 km 3

150k
R = 5.5 12'
W = 750k
2 300k
12'
1 300k
12'
Check applicability of simplified method.
Determine base shear.
Determine lateral forces at each level.
Check applicability of simplified method. §1629.8.2

Light frame construction not more than three stories, or other buildings not more than
two stories can use the simplified method.
∴ o.k.
Determine base shear. §1630.2.3

Because soil properties for the site are not known, a default/prescribed soil profile
must be used. Section 1630.2.3.2 requires that a Type S D soil profile be used in
seismic Zones 3 and 4.
N a = 1.0 Table 16-S

§1630.2. 3 Example 20 Simplified Design Base Shear
C a = 0.44 N a = 0.44 (1.0) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
3.0C a 3.0 (0.44 )750

V= W= = (0.24)750 = 180 k (30-11)
R 5.5
Determine lateral forces at each level. §1630.2.3.3
3.0C a
Fx = w x = 0.24 w x (30-12)
R
F1 = 0.24 (300) = 72 k
F2 = 0.24 (300 ) = 72 k
F3 = 0.24 (150) = 36 k
Commentary
The following is a comparison of simplified base shear with standard design base
shear. The standard method of determining the design base shear is as follows:
2.5C a I 2.5 (0.44 )(1.0 )

V= W = W = 0.2W = 0.2 (750) = 150 kips (30-12)
R 5.5
The distribution of seismic forces over the height of the structure is
(V − Ft ) w x h x
Fx = n
(30-15)
∑ wi hi
i =1
where
V − Ft = 150 kips since Ft = 0 in this example.

Example 20 Simplified Design Base Shea §1630.2.3
w x hx
Level x hx wx w x hx Fx Fx w x
Σw i h i
3 36 ft 150 kips 5,400 k-ft 0.333 50.0 kips 0.33
2 24 300 7,200 0.444 66.7 0.22
1 12 300 3,600 0.222 33.3 0.11
Σw i hi = 16,200 Σv = 150.0
The design base shear V and the lateral force values Fx at each level are all less than
those determined by the simplified method. The principal advantage of the simplified
method is that there is no need to conform to the provisions listed in §1630.2.3.4,
which are otherwise applicable.
Another advantage is that the value of the near-source factor N a used to determine
Ca need not exceed:
1.3 if irregularities listed in §1630.2.3.2 are not present
and
1.1 if the conditions of §1629.4.2 are complied with
It should be noted that Section 104.8.2 of the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book has different
requirements for applicability of the simplified method:
Single family two stories or less
Light frame up to three stories
Regular buildings up to two stories
Blue Book §105.2.3 allows the near source factor N a = 1.0 for evaluation of C a .
The Blue Book equation V = 0.8C aW does not contain the R factor, which eliminates
the sometimes difficult problem of selecting the appropriate R value for small
buildings that have complex and/or mixed lateral load resisting systems.

§1630.4.2 Example 21 Combination of Structural Systems: Vertical
&
" "1 ! / $%(4'*'&
In structural engineering practice, it is sometimes necessary to design buildings that
have a vertical combination of different lateral force-resisting systems. For example,
the bottom part of the structure may be a rigid frame and top part a braced frame or
shear wall. This example illustrates use of the requirements of §1630.4.2 to determine
the applicable R values for combined vertical systems.
For the three systems shown below, determine the required R factor and related
design base shear requirements.
Steel ordinary braced frame over steel SMRF.
Steel ordinary braced frame

R = 5.6
Steel special moment-resisting frame

R = 8.5
This combined system falls under vertical combinations of §1630.4.2. Because the
rigid system is above the flexible system, Item 2 of §1630.4.2 cannot be used.
Therefore, under Item 1 of §1630.4.2, the entire structure must use R = 5.6 .
Concrete bearing wall over concrete SMRF.
Concrete bearing wall

R = 4.5
Concrete special moment-

resisting frame R = 8.5

Example 21 Combination of Structural Systems: Vertical §1630.4.2
This combined system falls under vertical combinations of §1630.4.2. Because the
rigid portion is above the flexible portion, Item 2 of §1630.4.2 cannot be used.
Therefore, under Item 1 of §1630.4.2, the entire structure must use R = 4.5 .
Concrete SMRF over a concrete building frame system.
Applicable criteria.
This is a vertical combination of a flexible system over a more rigid system.
Under §1630.4.2, Item 2, the two stage static analysis may be used, provided
the structures conform to §1629.8.3, Item 4.
Concrete SMRF
R = 8.5, ρ = 1.5
Avg. stiffness upper portion = 175 k/in.
Tupper = 0.55 sec
Tcombined = 0.56 sec
Shear walls
Concrete building frame system

R = 5.5, ρ = 1.0
Stiffness = 10,000 k/in.
Tlower = 0.03 sec
Check requirements of §1629.8.3, Item 4:
1. Flexible upper portion supported on rigid lower portion. o.k.

2. Average story stiffness of lower portion is at least 10 times average story stiffness
of upper portion.
10,000 k/in. > 10 (175) = 1,750 k/in. o.k.
3. Period of entire structure is not greater than 1.1 times period of upper portion.
0.56 sec < 1.1 (.55) = 0.61 sec o.k.
∴ Provisions of §1630.4.2, Item 2 can be used

§1630.4.2 Example 21 Combination of Structural Systems: Vertical
Design procedures for upper and lower structures.
Design upper SMRF using

R = 8.5 and ρ = 1.5
Vframe
Design the lower portion of the

building frame system for the  8.5 1.5 
Amplified Vframe =   Vframe = 1.03 Vframe

combined effects of the amplified  5.5 1.0 
V frame force and the lateral forces due

to the base shear for the lower portion
of the structure (using R = 5.5 and
Vbase
ρ = 1.0 for the lower portion).
( )
∴V base = Amplified V frame + (V lower )

Example 22 Combination of Structural Systems: Along Different Axes §1630.4.3
&&
" "1 !
7# 7 $%(4'*'(
This example illustrates determination of R values for a building that has different
structural systems along different axes (i.e., directions) of the building.
In this example, a 3-story building has concrete shear walls in one direction and
concrete moment frames in the other. Floors are concrete slab, and the building is
located in Zone 4. Determine the R value for each direction.
A B C D
Shear wall
Typical floor plan
Lines A and D are reinforced concrete bearing walls: R = 4.5
Lines 1, 2 and 3 are concrete special moment-resisting frames: R = 8.5
Determine th R value for each direction.

In Zones 3 and 4, the provisions of §1630.4.3 require that when a structure has
bearing walls in one direction, the R value used for the orthogonal direction cannot be
greater than that for the bearing wall system.
∴ Use R = 4.5 in both directions.

§1630.4.3 Example 22 Combination of Structural Systems: Along Different Axes
Commentary
The reason for this orthogonal system requirement is to provide sufficient strength
and stiffness to limit the amount of out-of-plane deformation of the bearing wall
system. A more direct approach would be to design the orthogonal system such that
the ∆ M value is below the value that would result in the loss of bearing wall
capacity.
The design loads for the special moment-resisting frames are calculated using
R = 4.5 . However, the frame details must comply with the requirements for the
R = 8.5 system.

Example 23 Combination of Structural Systems: Along Same Axis §1630.4.4
&(
" "1 !
7# " 7 $%(4'*'*
Occasionally, it is necessary to have different structural systems in the same
direction. This example shows how the R value is determined in such a situation.
A one-story steel frame structure has the roof plan shown below. The structure is
located in Zone 4. Determine the R value for the N/S direction.
North
Roof plan
Lines 1 and 4 are steel ordinary moment-resisting frames: R = 4.5 .
Lines 2 and 3 are steel ordinary braced frames: R = 5.6 .
Determine th R value for the N/S direction.

In Zones 2, 3, and 4, when a combination of structural systems is used in the same
direction, §1630.4.4 requires that the value of R used be not greater than the least
value of the system utilized.
∴ Use R = 4.5 for entire structure.

§1630.5 Example 24 Vertical Distribution of Force
&*
/ , $%(4'0
A 9-story building has a moment resisting steel frame for a lateral force-resisting
system. Find the vertical distribution of lateral forces Fx . The following information
is given:
1 2 3
27' 27' Story

Level weight
9 214k
Zone 4 12'
W = 3,762 k 8 405k
12'
C v = 0.56 7 405k
12'
R = 8.5 6 405k
I = 1.0 5 584k
12'
T = 1.06 sec . 12'
V = 233.8 k
4 422k
12'
3 422k
12'
2 440k
12'
1 465k
20'
Determine Ft.
Find Fx at each level.
Determine Ft. §1630.5

This is the concentrated force applied at the top of the structure. It is determined as
follows. First, check that the Ft is not zero.
T = 1.06 sec . > 0.7 sec ∴ Ft > 0
Ft = 0.07TV = 0.07 (1.06)(233.8) = 17.3 k (30-14)

Example 24 Vertical Distribution of Force §1630.5
Find Fx at each level.

The vertical distribution of seismic forces is determined from Equation 30-15.
(V − Ft ) w x h x
Fx = n
(30-15)
∑ wi h
i =1
where
(V − Ft ) = (233.8 − 17.3) = 216.5k
Since there are nine levels above the ground, n = 9 . Therefore
216.5 wx hx
Fx = 9
∑ wi hi
i =1
This equation is solved in the table below.
w x hx
Level x hx wx w x hx Fx Fx w x
Σw i h i
9 116 ft 214 kips 24,824 k-ft 0.103 22.3 + 17.3 = 39.6 kips 0.185
8 104 405 42,120 0.174 37.7 0.093
7 92 405 37,260 0.154 33.3 0.082
6 80 405 32,400 0.134 29.0 0.072
5 68 584 39,712 0.164 35.5 0.061
4 56 422 23,632 0.098 21.2 0.050
3 44 422 18,568 0.077 16.7 0.039
2 32 440 14,080 0.058 12.6 0.028
1 20 465 9,300 0.038 8.2 0.018
Σ =3,762 241,896 233.8
Commentary
Note that certain types of vertical irregularity can result in a dynamic response having
a load distribution significantly different from that given in this section. If the
structural system has any of the stiffness, weight, or geometric vertical irregularities
of Type 1, 2, or 3 of Table 16-L, then Item 2 of §1629.8.4 requires that the dynamic
lateral force procedure be used unless the structure is less than five stories or 65 feet
in height. The configuration and final design of this structure must be checked for
these irregularities. Most structural analysis programs used in practice today perform
this calculation, and it is generally not necessary to manually perform the calculations
shown above. However, it is recommended that these calculations be performed to
check the computer analysis and to gain insight to structural behavior.

§1630.6 Example 25 Horizontal Distribution of Shear
&0
: " $%(4'%
A single story building has a rigid roof diaphragm. Lateral forces in both directions
are resisted by shear walls. The mass of the roof can be considered to be uniformly
distributed, and in this example, the weight of the walls is neglected. In actual
practice, particularly with concrete shear walls, the weight of the walls should be
included in the determination of the Center of Mass (CM). The following information
is given:
Design base shear: V = 100 k

Wall rigidities: R A = 300 k/in.
R B = 100 k/in.
RC = R D = 200 k/in.
Center of mass: x m = 40 ft y m = 20 ft
D
Shear wall below
xR e
A B
40'
CM
CR Roof diaphragm
V = 100k
yR xm = 40' ym
80'
Roof plan
Eccentricity and rigidity properties.

Direct shear in walls A and B.
Plan irregularity requirements.
Torsional shear in walls A and B.
Total shear in walls A and B.

Example 25 Horizontal Distribution of Shea §1630.6

Eccentricity and rigidity properties. §1630.6
The rigidity of the structure in the direction of applied force is the sum of the
rigidities of walls parallel to this force.
R = R A + R B = 300 + 100 = 400 k/in.
The center of rigidity (CR) along the x and y axes are
R B (80' )
xR = = 20 ft.
R A +R B
R D (40 ′)
yR = = 20 ft
R D + RC
eccentricity e = x m − x R = 40 − 20 = 20 ft
Torsional rigidity about the center of rigidity is determined as
J = R A (20)2 + R B (60)2 + RC (20)2 + R D (20)2
= 300 (20 )2 + 100 (60)2 + 200 (20 )2 + 200 (20)2 = 64 × 10 4 (k/in. ) ft 2
The seismic force V applied at the CM is equivalent to having V applied at the CR

together with a counter-clockwise torsion T. With the requirements for accidental
eccentricity e acc , the total shear on walls A and B can be found by the addition of the
direct and torsional load cases:
VD,A D VD,B VT,A D VT,D VT,B
A 20' B A B
CR
CR T = V (e ± eacc)
20'
20' 60'
V VT,C
C C
Direct shear contribution Torsional shear contributio

Direct shear in walls A and B.
RA 300
VD, A = × (V ) = × 100 = 75.0 kips
R A + RB 300 + 100
RB 100
V D,B = × (V ) = × 100 = 25.0 kips
R A + RB 300 + 100
Plan irregularity requirements.

The determination of torsional irregularity, Item 1 in Table 16-M, requires the
evaluation of the story drifts in walls A and B. This evaluation must include
accidental torsion due to an eccentricity of 5 percent of the building dimension.
e acc = 0.05 (80' ) = 4.0 ft
The corresponding initial most severe torsional shears V ' using e acc = 4.0 ft are:
V ( e − e acc ) ( x R ) ( R A ) 100 ( 20 − 4) ( 20) (300)

V 'T ,A = = = 15.0 kips
J 64 × 10 4
V ( e + eacc ) (80 − x R ) ( R B ) 100 ( 20 + 4) (60) (100)

V ' T ,B = = = 22.5 kips
J 64 × 10 4
Note: these initial shears may need to be modified if torsional irregularity exists and
the amplification factor Ax > 1.0 .
The initial total shears are:
V ' A = V ' D , A − V ' T , A = 75.0 − 15.0 = 60.0 kips
(Torsional shears may be subtracted if they are due to the reduced eccentricity e − e acc )
V ' B = V ' D , B + V ' T , B = 25.0 + 22.5 = 47.5 kips
The resulting displacements δ ' , which for this single story building are also the story
drift values, are:
V ' A 60.0
δ' A = = = 0.20 in.
RA 300

Example 25 Horizontal Distribution of Shea §1630.6
V ' B 47.5
δ' B = = = 0.48 in.
RB 100
0.20 + 0.48
δ avg = = 0.34 in.
2
δ max = δ ' B = 0.48 in.
δ max 0.48
= = 1.41 > 1.2
δ avg 0.34
∴ Torsional irregularity exists.
Section 1630.7 requires the accidental torsion amplification factor,
2
 δ   0 . 48 
2
Ax =  max  =
 1.2 (0.34)  = 1.38 < 3.0 (30-16)
 1.2δ avg   
 
Torsional shears in walls A and B.
The final most severe torsional shears are determined by calculating the new
accidental eccentricity and using this to determine the torsional shears
e acc = Ax (4.0) = (1.38) ( 4.0) = 5.54'
100 (20 − 5.54) ( 20) (300)

VT , A = = 13.6 kips
64 × 10 4
100 ( 20 + 5.54) (60) (100)

VT , B = = 23.9 kips
64 × 10 4
Total shear in walls A and B.
Total shear in each wall is the algebraic sum of the direct and torsional shear
components.
V A = V D , A − VT , A = 75.0 − 13.6 = 61.4 kips
V B = V D , B + VT , B = 25.0 + 23.9 = 48.9 kips

Commentary
Section 1630.7 requires that “the most severe load combination for each element shall
be considered for design.” This load combination involves the direct and torsional
shears, and the “most severe” condition is as follows:
1. For the case where the torsional shear has the same sense, and is therefore added
to the direct shear, the torsional shear shall be calculated using actual eccentricity
plus the accidental eccentricity so as to give the largest additive torsional shear.
2. For the case where the torsional shear has the opposite sense to that of the direct
shear and is to be subtracted, the torsional shear shall be based on the actual
eccentricity minus the accidental eccentricity so as to give the smallest
subtractive shear.

Example 26 Horizontal Torsional Moments §1630.7
&%
: 9 $%(4'2
This example illustrates how to include the effects of accidental eccentricity in the
lateral force analysis of a multi-story building. The structure is a five-story reinforced
concrete building frame system. A three-dimensional rigid diaphragm model has been
formulated per §1630.1.2 for the evaluation of element actions and deformations due
to prescribed loading conditions. Shear walls resist lateral forces in both directions.
1 2 3 4 5
4 @ 20' = 80'
Shear wall, typ.
B
3 @ 20' = 60'
xc CMx
B
A Fx
C
N
D
Floor plan at Level x
The lateral seismic forces Fx in the north-south direction, structure dimensions, and
accidental eccentricity eacc for each level x are given below:
Level x Fx Lx x cx eacc = 0.05Lx

5 110.0 kips 80.0 ft 24.2 ft ± 4.0 ft
4 82.8 80.0 25.1 ± 4.0
3 65.1 80.0 27.8 ± 4.0
2 42.1 80.0 30.3 ± 4.0
1 23.0 80.0 31.5 ± 4.0
In addition, for the given lateral seismic forces Fx a computer analysis provides the
following results for the second story. Separate values are given for the application of
the forces Fx at the centers of mass and the ± 0.05 Lx displacements as required by
§1630.6.

§1630.7 Example 26 Horizontal Torsional M oments
Force Fx Position
x c2 x c 2 − e acc x c 2 + eacc
Wall shear V A 185.0 k 196.0 k 174.0 k
Wall shear VB 115.0 k 104.0 k 126.0 k
Story drift ∆δ A 0.35" 0.37" 0.33"
Story drift ∆δ B 0.62" 0.56" 0.68"
Level 2 displacement δA 0.80" 0.85" 0.75"
Level 2 displacement δB 1.31" 1.18" 1.44"
For the second story find the following:
Maximum force in shear walls A and B.
Check if torsional irregularity exists.
Determine the amplification factor Ax.

New accidental torsion eccentricity.
Maximum force in shear walls A and B.

The maximum force in each shear wall is a result of direct shear and the contribution
due to accidental torsion. From the above table, it is determined that
V A = 196.0 k
V B = 126.0 k
Check if torsional irregularity exists.
The building is L-shaped in plan. This suggests that it may have a torsion irregularity
Type 1 of Table 16-M. The following is a check of the story drifts.
∆δ max = 0.68 in.
0.68 + 0.33
∆δ avg = = 0.51 in.
2
∆δ max 0.68
= = 1.33 > 1.2
1.2 ∆δ avg 0.51
∴Torsional irregulari ty exists

Example 26 Horizontal Torsional Moments §1630.7
Determine the amplification factor Ax.

Because a torsional irregularity exists, §1630.7 requires that the second story
accidental eccentricity be amplified by the following factor.
2
 δ 
Ax =  max  (30-16)
 1.2δ 
 avg 
where δ max = δ B = 1.44 in.
The average story displacement is computed as
1.44 + 0.75
δ avg = = 1.10 in.
2
2
 1.44 
A2 =   = 1.19
 (1.2) (1.10) 
New accidental torsion eccentricity.

Since A2 (i.e., Ax for the second story) is greater than unity, a second analysis for
torsion must be done using the new accidental eccentricity.
e acc = (1.19) ( 4.0' ) = 4.76 ft
Commentary
Example calculations were given for the second story. In practice, each story requires
an evaluation of the most severe element actions and a check for the torsional
irregularity condition.
If torsional irregularity exists and Ax is greater than one at any level (or levels), then
a second torsional analysis must be done using the new accidental eccentricities.
However, it is not necessary to find the resulting new Ax values and repeat the
process a second or third time (until the Ax iterates to a constant or reaches the limit
of 3.0). The results of the first analysis with the use of Ax are sufficient for design
purposes.
While this example involved the case of wall shear evaluation, the same procedure
applies to the determination of the most severe element actions for any other lateral
force-resisting system having rigid diaphragms.
When the dynamic analysis method of §1631.5 is used, rather than static force
procedure of §1630.2, the following equivalent static force option may be used in lieu

§1630.7 Example 26 Horizontal Torsional M oments
of performing the two extra dynamic analyses for mass positions at x cx ± (0.05L x ) as
per §1631.5.6:
1. Perform the dynamic analysis with masses at the center of mass, and reduce
results to those corresponding to the required design base shear.
2. Determine the Fx forces for the required design base shear, and apply pure
torsion couple loads Fx (0.05L x ) at each level x . Then add the absolute value of
these couple load results to those of the reduced dynamic analysis.

Example 27 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems §1630.8.2
&2
"# "1 $%(4'3'&
A reinforced concrete building has the lateral force-resisting system shown below.
Shear walls at the first floor level are discontinuous between Lines A and B and Lines
C and D. The following information is given:
Zone 4
Concrete shear wall building frame system: R = 5.5 and Ω o = 2.8 Table 16-N
Office building live load: f1 = 0.5 §1612.4
Axial loads on column C: D = 40 kips L = 20 kips E h = 100 kips
A B C D
Level
4
12'
3
Shear wall
12'
12'
Column C
24" x 24"
1 f'c = 4000 psi
12'
Determine the following for column C:
Required strength.
Detailing requirements.

This example demonstrates the loading criteria and detailing required for elements
supporting discontinued or offset elements of a lateral force-resisting system.

§1630.8.2 Example 27 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems
Required strength. §1630.8.2.1

Because of the discontinuous configuration of the shear wall at the first story, the first
story columns on Lines A and D must support the wall elements above this level.
Column “C” on Line D is treated in this example. Because of symmetry, the column
on Line A would have identical requirements.
Section 1630.8.2 requires that the column strength be equal to or greater than
Pu = 1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m (12-17)
Pu = 0.9 D ± 1.0 E m (12-18)
where
E m = Ω o E h = 2.8(100) = 280 kips (30-2)
Substituting the values of dead, live and seismic loads
Pu = 1.2 (40 ) + 0.5 (20) + 280 = 338 kips compression, and
Pu = 0.9(40) − 1.0(280) = − 244 kips tension
Detailing requirements. §1630.8.2.2

The concrete column must meet the requirements of §1921.4.4.5. This section
requires transverse confinement tie reinforcement over the full column height if
Ag f 'c (24)2 (4 ksi )

Pu > = = 230 kips
10 10
Pu = 338 > 230 kips
∴Confinemen t is required over the full height
Commentary
To transfer the shears from walls A-B and C-D to the first story wall B-C, collector
beams A-B and C-D are required at Level 1. These would have to be designed
according to the requirements of §1633.2.6.
The load and detailing requirements of §1630.8.2, Elements Supporting

Discontinuous Systems, apply to the following vertical irregularities and vertical
elements:

1. Discontinuous shear wall. The

wall at left has a Type 4 vertical
structural irregularity.
Column
2. Discontinuous column. This frame

has a Type 4 vertical structural
irregularity.
Transfer
girder
C
3. Out-of-plane offset. The wall on
Line A at the first story is B
discontinuous. This structure has a
Type 4 plan structural irregularity, A
and §1620.8.2 applies to the VE
supporting columns. The portion

of the diaphragm transferring Discontinued
wall
shear (i.e., transfer diaphragm) to
the offset wall must be designed
for shear wall detailing Transfer
diaphragm
requirements, and the transfer
loads must use the Offset wall Supporting columns
reliability/redundancy factor ρ for
the vertical-lateral-force-resisting
system.
It should be noted that for any of the supporting elements shown above, the load
demand Em of Equation (30-2) need not exceed the maximum force that can be
transferred to the element by the lateral force-resisting system.

§1630.8.2 Example 28 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems
&3
"# "1 $%(4'3'&
This example illustrates the application of the requirements of §1630.8.2 for the
allowable stress design of elements that support a discontinuous lateral force-resisting
system.
In this example, a light-framed wood bearing wall building with plywood shear
panels has a Type 4 vertical irregularity in one of its shear walls, as shown below.
Zone 4
R = 5.5 Light framed wall
Ω o = 2.8 with plywood
sheathing
f1 = 0.5
Axial loads on the timber column under the

discontinuous portion of the shear wall are:
Timber column
Dead D = 6.0 kips

Live L = 3.0 kips
Seismic E h = ±7.0 kips
Applicable load combinations.
Required column design strength.
Applicable load combinations.

For vertical irregularity Type 4, §1630.8.2.1 requires that the timber column have the
“design strength” to resist the special seismic load combinations of §1612.4. This is
required for both allowable stress design and strength design. These load
combinations are:
1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m (12-17)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E m (12-18)

Required column design strength.

In this shear wall, the timber column carries only axial loads. The appropriate dead,
live and seismic loads are determined as:
D = 6.0 kips
L = 3.0 kips
E m = Ω o E h = 2.8 (7.0 ) = 19.6 kips (30-2)
For the required “design strength” check, both Equations (12-17) and (12-18) must be
checked.
P = 1.2 D + f 1 L + E m (12-17)
P = 1.2 (6.0) + 0.5 (3.0) + 19.6 = 28.3 kips
P = 0.9 D ± 1.0 E m (12-18)
P = 0.9 (6.0) ± 1.0 (19.6 ) = 25.0 kips or − 14.2 kips
Commentary
For allowable stress design, the timber column must be checked for a compression
load of 28.3 kips and a tension load of 14.2 kips . In making this “design strength”
check, §1630.8.2.1 permits use of an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and a resistance
factor, φ , of 1.0 . The 1.7 increase is not to be combined with the one-third increase
permitted by §1612.3.2, but may be combined with the duration of load increase
C D = 1.33 given in Table 2.3.2 of Chapter 23, Division III. The resulting “design
strength” = (1.7 )(1.0)(1.33) (allowable stress). This also applies to the mechanical
hold-down element required to resist the tension load.
The purpose of the “design strength” check is to check the column for higher and,
hopefully, more realistic loads that it will be required to carry because of the
discontinuity in the shear wall at the first floor. This is done by increasing the normal
seismic load in the column, E h , by the factor Ω o = 2.8 .

§1630.8.3 Example 29 At Foundation
&-
7 , $%(4'3'(
Foundation reports usually provide soil bearing pressures on an allowable stress
design basis while seismic forces in the 1997 UBC, and most concrete design, are on
a strength design basis. The purpose of this example is to illustrate footing design
under this situation.
A spread footing supports a reinforced concrete column. The soil classification at the
site is sand (SW). The following information is given:
P
Zone 4 Grade
M
ρ = 1.0 for structural system V
PD = 80 k M D = 15 k - ft 4'
2'
PL = 30 k M L = 6 k - ft
PE = ± 40 k V E = 30 k M E = ± 210 k - ft
Snow load S = 0
Find the following:
Determine the design criteria and allowable bearing pressure.
Determine footing size.

Check resistance to sliding.
Determine soil pressures for strength design of the footing section.
Determine the design criteria and allowable bearing pressure. §1630.8.3

The seismic force reactions on the footing are based on strength design. However,
§1629.1 states that allowable stress design may be used for sizing the foundation
using the load combinations given in §1612.3. Here it is elected to use the alternate
basic load combinations of §1612.3.2.
D+L+S (12-12)
E
D+L+ (12-13)
1.4
E
0.9 D ± (12-16-1)
1.4
Because foundation investigation reports for buildings typically specify bearing
pressures on an allowable stress design basis, criteria for determining footing size are
also on this basis.

Example 29 At Foundation §1630.8.3
The earthquake loads to be resisted are specified in §1630.1.1 by Equation 30-1.
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
Since Ev = 0 for allowable stress design, Equation 30-1 reduces to
E = ρE h = (1.0 ) E h
Table 18-1-A of §1805 gives the allowable foundation pressure, lateral bearing
pressure, and the lateral sliding friction coefficient. These are default values to be
used in lieu of site-specific recommendations given in a foundation report for the
building. They will be used in this example.
For the sand (SW) class of material and footing depth of 4 feet, the allowable
foundation pressure p a is
p a = 1.50 + (4 ft − 1 ft )(0.2 )(1.50) = 2.40 ksf Table 18-1-A and Footnote 2
A one-third increase in pa is permitted for the load combinations that include

earthquake load.
Determine footing size.

The trial design axial load and moment will be determined for load combination of
Equation (12-13) and then checked for the other combinations.
E P 40
Pa = D + L + = PD + PL + E = 80 + 30 + = 138.6 kips (12-13)
1.4 1.4 1.4
E M 210
Ma = D + L + = M D + M L + E = 15 + 6 + = 171.0 k - ft (12-13)
1.4 1.4 1.4
Select trial footing size.
Try 9 ft x 9 ft footing size, B = L = 9 ft
BL2 9 3
A = BL = 81 ft 2 , S= = = 121.5 ft 3
6 6
Calculated soil pressures due to axial load and moment
Pa M a 138.6 171.0
p= + = + = 1.71 + 1.41 = 3.12 ksf
A S 81 121.5
Check bearing pressure against allowable with one-third increase,

3.12 ksf < 1.33 p a = 1.33 (2.40) = 3.20 ksf , o.k.
Check for the load combination of Equation (12-16-1).
P
= 0.9 PD ± E = 0.9 (80) ±
E 40
Pa = 0.9 D ± = 100.6 kips or 43.4 kips (12-16-1)
1.4 1.4 1.4
M
= 0.9 M D ± E = 0.9 (15) ±
E 210
M a = 0.9 D ± = 163.5 k - ft or 136.5 k - ft
1.4 1.4 1.4
(12-16-1)
M a 163.5 k - ft 136.5 k - ft
Eccentricity e = = = 1.63 ft, or = .15 ft, ∴ e = 3.15 ft governs.
Pa 100.6 43.4
Check for uplift.
L 9 L
e> = = 1.5 ft (where is the limit of the kern area)
6 6 6
Since e = 3.15 > 1.5, there is partial uplift, and a triangular pressure distribution is
assumed to occur.
Center line
4.5' 4.5'
For the footing free-body:
Pa = R p = (3a )B
p e a
2 Pa
R p must be co-linear with Pa
such that the length of the
triangular pressure distribution
is equal to 3a . p
R p = Pressure resultant
a
Rp
3a
E
The load combination 0.9 D − , with Pa = 43.4 kips and M a = 136.5 k - ft (12-10)
1.4
governs bearing pressure
B
a= − e = 4.5 − 3.15 = 1.35 ft
2

Pa =
p
(3a ) B
2
or
2  1  2  
 = (43.4 ) 
1
p= Pa   = 2.38 ksf < 1.33 p a = 3.20 ksf o.k.
3  aB  3  (1.35)(9.0)
If p had been greater than 1.33 p a , the footing size would have to be increased.
Finally, check the gravity load combination (12-12) for p < p a = 3.2 ksf .
Pa = D + L = PD + PL = 80 + 30 = 110 kips (12-12)
M a = D + L = M D + M L = 15 + 6 = 21 k - ft (12-12)
Pa M a 110 21
p= + = + = 1.53 ksf < 3.2 ksf, o.k.
A S 81 121.5
All applicable load combinations are satisfied, therefore a 9ft x 9ft footing is
adequate.
Check resistance to sliding.

Unless specified in the foundation report for the building, the friction coefficient and
lateral bearing pressure for resistance to sliding can be determined from Table
18-1-A. These values are:
Friction coefficient µ = 0.25 Table 18-1-A
Lateral bearing resistance p L = 150 psf × depth below grade Table 18-1-A
Assume the footing is 2 feet thick with its base 4 feet below grade. Average
300 + 600
resistance on the 2 feet deep by 9 feet wide footing face is = 450 psf .
2
p L = 450 psf = 0.45 ksf
Load combination of Equation (12-16-1) will 2'
be used because it has the lowest value of

vertical load 0.9 D = 0.9 PD ). The vertical and
300 psf
2'
lateral loads to be used in the sliding
resistance calculations are: 600 psf
P = 0.9 PD = 0.9 (80) = 72 kips

Face of footing

V E 30
Lateral load = = = 21.4 kips
1.4 1.4
The resistance due to friction is
P (µ ) = 72(0.25) = 18.0 kips
The resistance from lateral bearing is
p L (face area) = 0.45 (2 ′ × 9 ′) = 8.1 kips
The total resistance is then the sum of the resistance due to friction and the resistance
due to lateral bearing pressure.
Total resistance = 18.0 + 8.1 = 26.1 > 21.4 kips, o.k.
∴ No sliding occurs
Determine soil pressures for strength design of footing section.

To obtain the direct shear, punching shear, and moments for the strength design of
the reinforced concrete footing section, it is necessary to compute the upward design
soil pressure on the footing due to factored strength loads:
1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1 L (12-5)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E (12-6)
The section design must have the capacity to resist the largest moments and forces
resulting from these load combinations.
Soil pressure due to load combination 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L .
f1 = 0.5 §1612.2.1
Pu = 1.2 PD + 1.0 PE + 0.5PL = 1.2 (80) + 1.0 (40) + 0.5 (30) = 151 kips (12-5)
M u = 1.2 M D + 1.0 M E + 0.5M L = 1.2 (15) + 1.0 (210) + 0.5 (6) = 231 k - ft (12-5)

M u 231
Eccentricity e = = = 1.53 ft
Pu 151
Face of column
L 9
e > = = 1.5 ft
6 6
Therefore partial uplift occurs. p = 3.77 ksf
a = 4.5 − e = 4.5 = 1.53 = 2.97 ft 3a = 8.91'
2  1  2  
Pu   = (151) 
1
p=  = 3.77 ksf
3  aB  3  (2.97 )(9.0) 
Soil pressure due to load combination 0.9 D ± 1.0 E :
Pu = 0.9 PD ± 1.0 PE = 0.9 (80) ± 1.0 (40) = 112 kips or 32 kips (12-6)
M u = 0.9 M D ± 1.0M E = 0.9 (15) ± 1.0 (210 ) = 223.5 k - ft or 196.5 k - ft (12-6)
Compute pressure load due to Pu = 112 kips and M u = 223.5 k - ft
M u 223.5
Eccentricity e = = = 2.00 ft
Pu 112
Face of column
L
e> = 1.5 ft
6
p = 3.32 ksf
therefore partial uplift occurs.
a = 4.5 − e = 4.5 − 2.0 = 2.50 ft

3a = 7.50'
2  1  2  
Pu   = (112 ) 
1
p=  = 3.32 ksf
3  aB  3  (2 . 50 )(9 . 0 ) 
The footing pressure is less than that for the combination of 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L .
Therefore the 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1 L combination governs. Note that the resulting direct
shear, punching shear, and moments must be multiplied by 1.1 per Exception 1 of
§1612.2.1. (Note: At the time of publication, the 1.1 factor is under consideration for
change to 1.0).
Note also that the value of p due to the strength design factored loads need not be
less than 1.33 p a = 3.20 ksf, since it is used as a load for concrete section design
rather than for determining footing size.

§1630.9 Example 30 Dri
(4
$%(4'-
A four-story special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) building has the typical floor
plan as shown below. The elevation of Line D is also shown, and the following
information is given:
A B C D
Zone 4
I = 1.0
R = 8.5
Ω o = 2.8
T = 0.60 sec Seismic force
Typical floor plan
∆S Deflected shape
Level
4
12'
12'
12'
12'
Elevation of Line D
The following are the design level response displacements ∆ S (total drift) for the
frame along Line D. These values include both translational and torsional (with
accidental eccentricity) effects. As permitted by §1630.10.3, ∆ S has been determined
due to design forces based on the unreduced period calculated using Method B.
Level ∆S
4 1.51 in
3 1.03
2 .63
1 .30
SEAOC Seismic Design M anual

Example 30 Dri §1630.9
For the frame on Line D, determine the following:
Maximum inelastic response displacements ∆ M .
Story drift in story 3 due to ∆ M .

Check story 3 for story drift limit.
Maximum inelastic response displacements ∆ M . §1630.9.2

These are determined using the ∆ S values and the R-factor
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S = 0.7 (8.5)(∆ S ) = 5.95∆ S (30-17)
Therefore
Level ∆S ∆M
4 1.51 in 8.98 in
3 1.03 6.12
2 0.63 3.75
1 0.30 1.79
Story drift in story 3 due to ∆ M . §1630.10

Story 3 is located between Levels 2 and 3. Thus
∆ M drift = 6.12 − 3.75 = 2.37 in.
Check story 3 for story drift limit. §1630.10.2

For structures with a fundamental period less than 0.7 seconds, §1630.10.2
requires that the ∆ M story drift not exceed 0.025 times the story height.
For story 3
Story drift using ∆ M = 2.37 in.
Story drift limit = .025 (144) = 3.60 in > 2.37 in.
∴ Story drift is within limits

§1630.10 Example 31 Story Drift Limitations
(
"1 $%(4'4
For the design of new buildings, the code places limits on story drifts. The limits are
based on the maximum inelastic response displacements and not the design level
response displacements determined from the design base shear of §1630.2.
In the example given below, a four-story steel special moment-resisting frame

(SMRF) structure has the design level response displacements ∆ S shown. These
have been determined according to §1630.9.1 using a static, elastic analysis.
A B C D
Level
Deflected
shape ∆S
4 2.44 in.
Zone 4 12'
T = 0.60 sec. 3 1.91
R = 8.5 12'
2 1.36
12'
1 0.79
16'
0
Maximum inelastic response displacements.
Compare story drifts with the limit value.
Maximum inelastic response displacements. §1630.9.1

Maximum inelastic response displacements, ∆ M , are determined from the following:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S (30-17)
∴ ∆ M = 0.7 (8.5) ∆ S = 5.95∆ S
Compare story drifts ith the limit value. §1630.10.2

Using ∆ M story displacements, the calculated story drift cannot exceed 0.025 times
the story height for structures having a period less than 0.7 seconds.
Check building period.
T = .60 sec < .70 sec

Example 31 Story Drift Limitations §1630.10
Therefore, limiting story drift is 0.025 story height.
Determine drift limit at each level.
Levels 4, 3, and 2
∆ M drift ≤ .025h = .025 (12 ft × 12 in./ft ) = 3.60 in. §1630.10.2
Level 1
∆ M drift ≤ .025h = .025 (16 ft × 12 in./ft ) = 4.80 in.
For ∆ M drift = ∆ Mi − ∆ Mi−1 , check actual story drifts against limits:
Level i ∆S ∆M ∆ M drift Limit Status
4 2.44 in. 14.52 in. 3.16 in. 3.60 in. o.k.

3 1.91 11.36 3.27 3.60 o.k.
2 1.36 8.09 3.39 3.60 o.k.
1 0.79 4.70 4.70 4.80 o.k.
Therefore, the story drift limits of §1630.10 are satisfied.
Commentary
Whenever the dynamic analysis procedure of §1631 is used, story drift should be
determined as the modal combination of the story drift for each mode. Determination
of story drift from the difference of the combined mode displacements may produce
erroneous results because maximum displacement at a given level may not occur
simultaneously with those of the level above or below. Differences in the combined
mode displacements can be less than the combined mode story drift.

§1630.11 Example 32 Vertical Component
(&
/ $%(4'
Find the vertical seismic forces on the non-prestressed cantilever beam shown below.
Beam unit weight = 200 plf

C a = 0.40
I = 1.0
Z = .4 A
10'
Find the following:
Upward seismic forces on beam.
Beam end reactions.
Upward seismic forces on beam. §1630.11

In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, the design of horizontal cantilever beams must consider
a net upward seismic force. The terminology of “net upward seismic force” is
intended to specify that gravity load effects cannot be considered to reduce the
effects of the vertical seismic forces and that the beam must have the strength to
resist the actions due to this net upward force without consideration of any dead
loads. This force is computed as
q E = 0.7C a IW p = 0.7 (0.40)(1.0)(200 plf ) = 56 plf §1630.11

Beam end reactions.
qE
MA
VA
V A = q E l = 56 plf (10 ft ) = 560 lbs
l 2 56 (10) 2
M A = qE = = 2,800 lb/ft
2 2
The beam must have strengths φ V n and φ M n to resist these actions.

Example 33 Design Response Spectrum §1631.2
((
# 5 " $%('&
Determine the elastic design response spectrum for a site in Zone 4 with the
following characteristics:
Soil Profile Type S D

Seismic source type C
Distance to nearest seismic source = 23 km
Determine design response spectrum.

The design response spectrum can be determined, under §1631.2, using Figure 16-3
of the code and the coefficients C a and C v . The values of C a and C v are
determined from the soil profile type, seismic source type, and distance to nearest
source. In Zone 4, the values of C a and C v are dependent upon the near field factors
N a and N v , respectively, as given in Tables 16-Q and 16-R.
Determine N a and N v §1629.4.2
From Table 16-S with seismic source type C and distance of 23 km.
N v = 1.0
From Table 16-T with seismic source type C and distance of 23 km.
N v = 1.0
Determine C a and C v §1629.4.3
From Table 16-Q with Soil Profile Type SD and Z = 0.4
C a = 0.44 N a = (0.44 )(1.0) = 0.44
From Table 16-R with Soil Profile Type SD and Z = 0.4
C v = 0.64 N v = (0.64 )(1.0) = 0.64
Once the values of C a and C v for the site are established, the response spectrum can
be constructed using Figure 16-3. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the value of
spectral acceleration at the zero period of the spectrum (T = 0). In this case it is 0.44g.

§1631.2 Example 33 Design Response Spectrum
PGA is designated as the coefficient C a by the code. This is also called the zero
period acceleration (ZPA).
The peak of the response spectrum for 5 percent damping is 2.5 times C a . In this
example, it is
2.5C a = (2.5)(0.44 ) = 1.1g
The control periods To and T s are
Cv 0.64
Ts = = = 0.58 sec Figure 16-3
2.5C a (2.5 × .44 )
To = 0.2Ts = (0.2 )(0.58) = 0.12 sec
The long period portion of the spectrum is defined as
C v 0.64
= Figure 16-3
T T
From this information the elastic design response spectrum for the site can be drawn
as shown below.
1.5
Sa = 1.1
1.0
Sa = 0.64 / T
Sa (g)
To = 0.58 sec
To = 0.12 sec
0.5
0.44
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T (sec)

Example 33 Design Response Spectrum §1631.2
Commentary
The spectrum shown above is for 5 percent damping. If a different damping is used,
the spectral accelerations of the control periods To and T s and values of C v / T must
be scaled. However, the value of C a is not scaled.

§1631.5.7 Example 34 Dual Systems
(*
"1 $%('0'2
This example illustrates the determination of design lateral forces for the two basic
elements of a dual system. Section 1629.6.5 prescribes the following features for a
dual system:
1. An essentially complete space frame for gravity loads.
2. Resistance to lateral load is provided primarily by shear walls or braced frames,
but moment-resisting frames must be provided to resist at least 25 percent of the
design base shear.
3. The two systems are designed to resist the total design base shear in proportion to
their relative rigidities.
In present practice, the frame element design loads for a dual system are usually a
result of a computer analysis of the combined frame-shear wall system.
In this example, a dynamic analysis using the response spectrum procedure of

§1631.5 has been used to evaluate the seismic load E h at point A in the dual system
of the building shown below. This is the beam moment M A . The building is
classified as regular and the Eh values have been scaled to correspond to 90 percent
of the design base shear determined under the requirements of §1630.2. The
following information is given:
Shear wall
Moment frame
Zone 4
I = 1.0
Reduced dynamic base shear
Eh = MA = 53.0 k-ft
V D = 0.9V = 400 kips
E h = M A = 53.0 k-ft
T = 0.50 sec Point A
VD = 400 kips
Determine the following for the moment frame system:
Design criteria.
Required design lateral seismic forces F x .
Moment at A

Example 34 Dual Systems §1631.5.7
Design criteria.
Section 1629.6.5 Item 2 requires that the moment-resisting frame be designed to
independently resist at least 25 percent of the design base shear, which in this case
would be 0.25VD.
Section 1631.5.7 allows the use of either the static force method of §1630.5 or the
response spectrum analysis of §1631.5, scaled to the 0.25VD base shear.
Since the independent frame, without shear wall interaction, is an idealization that
never really exists, the use of the response spectrum analysis is not particularly
appropriate since the true dynamic characteristics would be those of the combined
frame and wall system. The purpose of a response spectrum analysis is to better
define the lateral load distribution, and this would not be achieved by an analysis of
the independent frame. Therefore, the use of the static force option is judged to be
more consistent with the simple requirement that the frame strength should meet or
exceed 0.25VD.
∴V D of frame = 0.25V D = 0.25 (400) = 100 kips
Required design lateral seismic forces F x .

Design base shear on the frame due to 0.25V D = 100 kips
This base shear must be distributed over the height of the structure, and the design
lateral seismic forces at each level are determined from
(V − Ft ) w x h x
Fx = (30-15)
Σwi hi
where
(V − Ft ) = 0.25V D = 100 kips
In this example, Ft = 0 because the building period of 0.50 seconds is less than 0.7
seconds.
100w x h x
∴ Fx =
Σwi hi

§1631.5.7 Example 34 Dual Systems
Moment at A
Apply the F x forces to the frame structure and find the resulting seismic moments,
denoted M ' A . At point A,
E' h = M' A = 75.2 k-ft > M A = 53.0 k-ft

The seismic moment at A must be the larger of the two values.
∴ M ' A = 75.2 k − ft
In actual application, each frame element load E h due to V D in the dual system must
be compared with the E'h value due to 0.25V D in the independent frame, and the
element must be designed for the larger of E h or E'h .
Commentary
Use of a dual system has the advantage of providing the structure with an
independent vertical load carrying system capable of resisting 25 percent of the
design base shear while at the same time the primary system, either shear wall or
braced frame, carries its proportional share of the design base shear. For this
configuration, the code permits use of a larger R value for the primary system than
would be permitted without the 25 percent frame system.
The dual system has been in the code for many years. The widespread use of
computers in structural analysis revealed that the interaction between the frame and
the shear wall (or braced frame) system produced results quite different than those
obtained by the often cumbersome approximate methods used with hand calculations.
For example, a shear wall system in a highrise building was found to be “loading” the
frame system at the upper stories. Consequently, a dual system should be carefully
analyzed as a combined system to detect critical interaction effects.

Example 35 Lateral Forces for One-Story Wall Panels §1632.2
(0
, ;+"1 < $%(&'&
This example illustrates the determination of the total design lateral seismic force on
a tilt-up wall panel supported at its base and at the roof diaphragm level.
For the tilt-up wall panel shown below, determine the out-of-plane seismic forces
required for the design of the wall section. This is usually done for a representative
one-foot width of the wall length, assuming a uniformly distributed out-of-plane
loading. The following information is given:
Top of parapet
Roof framing
4'
Zone 4 Roof
I p = 1.0
C a = 0.4
fp
Panel thickness = 8 inches Tilt-up panel
Normal weight concrete (150 pcf) 20'
Assumed pin support

Ground
Out-of-plane forces for wall panel design.
Shear and moment diagrams for wall panel design.

Loading, shear and moment diagrams for parapet design.
Out-of-plane forces for wall panel design. §1632.2

Under §1632.2, design lateral seismic forces can be determined using either: a.)
Equation (32-1), or b.) Equation (32-2) with the limits of Equation (32-3).
F p = 4.0C a I pW p (32-1)
a p Ca I p  h 
Fp =  1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
0.7C a I pW p ≤ F p ≤ 4.0C a I pW p (32-3)
Generally, it is more advantageous to use Equation (32-2) with the Equation (32-3)
limits, and this will be used in this example.

§1632.2 Example 35 Lateral Forces for One-Story Wall Panels
The wall panel is laterally supported at its base and at the roof. The value of F p to be
used must represent the average of the acceleration inputs from these two attachment
locations. Thus, the out-of-plane seismic forces on the wall panel are determined
from the “average” of the seismic coefficients at the roof and the base. As will be
shown below, the minimum force level from Equation (32-3) controls the seismic
coefficient at the base.
Using the coefficient method, a general expression for the force F p applied midway
between the base and the top of the parapet is derived below.
a p = 1.0 Table 16-O
R p = 3.0 Table 16-O
At roof level, h x = hr , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (32-2) is
(1.0 ) C a I p  h 
1 + 3 r  = 1.33C a I p < 4.0C a I p
3.0  hr 
 
∴ use 1.33C a I p
At base level, h x = 0 , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (32-2) is
(1.0 ) C a I p  0 
1 + 3  = 0.33C a I p < 0.7C a I p
3.0  hr 
∴ use 0.7C a I p
The average coefficient over the entire height of the wall may be taken as
(1.33 + 0.70 )
C a I p = 1.02C a I p
2
The force F p is considered to be applied at the mid-height (centroid) of the panel,

but this must be uniformly distributed between base and top of parapet.
For the given C a = 0.4 and I p = 1.0 , the wall panel seismic force is
F p = 1.02 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.408W p

Example 35 Lateral Forces for One-Story Wall Panels §1632.2
The weight of the panel between base and the top of the parapet is
8
W p =   (150) (24) = 2,400 lbs per foot of width
 12 
F p = 0.408 (2,400) = 979 lbs/ft
The force F p is the total force on the panel. It acts at the centroid. For design of the
panel for out-of-plane forces, F p must be expressed as a distributed load f p :
979 lbs/ft
fp = = 40.8 plf/ft
24 ft
Shear and moment diagrams for wall panel design.

Using the uniformly distributed load f p , the loading, shear and moment diagrams are
determined for a unit width of panel. The 40.8 plf/ft uniform loading is also applied
to the parapet. See step 3, below, for the parapet design load.
40.8 plf/ft
4'
RR -424 163 -326
20'
1883
9.6'
RB
392
Loading Shear (lbs/ft) Moment lb-ft/ft
When the uniform load is also applied to the parapet, the total force on the panel is
40.8 plf/ft (24ft ) = 979 plf
979 (12)
RR = = 587 lb/ft
20
R B = 979 − 587 = 392 lb/ft
The shears and moments are the E h load actions for strength design. However, the
reaction at the roof, R R , is not the force used for the wall-roof anchorage design.

§1632.2 Example 35 Lateral Forces for One-Story Wall Panels
This anchorage force must be determined under §1633.2.8.1 when the roof is a
flexible diaphragm.
Loading, shear and moment diagrams for parapet design.

Table 16-O requires a p = 2.5 , and R p = 3.0 for unbraced (cantilevered) parapets.
The parapet is considered as an element with an attachment elevation at the roof
level.
hx = hr
The weight of the parapet is
8
W p =   (150 )(4 ) = 400 lbs per foot of width
 12 
The concentrated force applied at the mid-height (centroid) of the parapet is

determined from Equation (32-2).
Fp =  1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
2.5(0.4 )(1.0 )  20 
Fp = 1 + 3  W p
3.0  20 
F p = 1.33W p = 1.33 (400) = 532 lbs/ft < 4.0C a I pW p = 1.6W p o.k.
The equivalent uniform seismic force is
532 133 plf/ft

fp = = 133 plf/ft for parapet design
4
4'
RR
532 -1064
Shear (lbs/ft) Moment (lb-ft/ft) Loading

Example 36 Lateral Forces for Two-Story Wall Panel §1632.2
(%
, +"1 < $%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of out-of-plane seismic forces for the design of
the two-story tilt-up wall panel shown below. In this example, a typical solid pane
(no door or window openings) is assumed. Walls span from floor to floor to roof. The
typical wall panel in this building has no pilasters and the tilt-up walls are bearing
walls. The roof consists of 1½-inch, 20 gauge metal decking on open web steel joists
and is considered a flexible diaphragm. The second floor consists of 1½-inch, 18
gauge composite decking with a 2½-inch lightweight concrete topping. This i
considered a rigid diaphragm. The following information is given:
Roof 2'
Zone 4 Wall
panel
I p = 1.0 20'
C a = 0.4 nd
2
Wall weight = 113 psf 38' Floor
Assumed 16'
pinned
Out-of-plane forces for wall panel design. Wall sectio
Out-of-plane forces for wall anchorage design.
Out-of-plane forces for wall panel design. §1632.2

Requirements for out-of-plane seismic forces are specified in §1632.2 for Zones 3
and 4. Either Equations (32-1) or (32-2) and (32-3) are used to determine the
forces on the wall.
F p = 4.0C a I p W p (32-1)
Fp = 1 + 3 × x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
0.7C a I p W p ≤ F p ≤ 4.0C a I p W p (32-3)
R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.0 Table 16-O, Item 1.A.(2)

§1632.2 Example 36 Lateral Forces for Two-Story Wall Panel
To determine out-of-plane forces over the height of the wall, seismic coefficients at
the roof, second floor, and first floor are determined. An out-of-plane force, Fp , is
determined for each story from the average of the seismic coefficients at the support
points for that story. The required coefficients are evaluated as follows.
Seismic coefficient at roof:
a p Ca I p  h  1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0)  36 

1 + 3 × x  = 1 + 3 ×  = 0.533
Rp  hr  3.0  36 
4.0Ca I p = 4.0 (0.4 )(1.0) = 1.60 > 0.533
∴ use 0.533
Seismic coefficient at second floor:
a p Ca I p  h  1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0)  16 

1 + 3 × x  = 1 + 3 ×  = 0.311
Rp  hr  3.0  36 
Seismic coefficient at first floor:
a p Ca I p  h  1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0)  0 

1 + 3 × x  = 1 + 3 ×  = 0.133
Rp  hr  3.0  36 
0.7Ca I p = 0.7 (0.4 ) (1.0) = 0.28 > 0.133
∴ use 0.28
Using the average of the coefficient for the given story, the out-of-plane seismic
forces are determined as follows:
W p 2 = 113 (20 + 2 ) = 2,486 plf
W p1 = (113) (16) = 1,808 plf
(0.533 + 0.311)
Fp 2 = W p 2 = 0.422W p 2 = 0.422 (2,486) = 1,049 plf
2
(0.311 + 0.280 )
Fp1 = W p1 = 0.296W p1 = 0.296 (1,808) = 535 plf
2

F p 2 and Fp1 are the out-of-plane forces

Roof
2'
acting on the centroids of the second and
first level portions, respectively, of the tilt- Fp2
up wall panel. For design of the wall 20'
these forces must be uniformly distributed nd

2
over their tributary height. Panel desi Floor
forces are given below. 27'
Fp1
16'
8'
Fp2 1,049
f p2 = = = 47.7 plf
(20 + 2 ) 22
Out-of-plane forces at centroids
F p1 535
f p1 = = = 33.4 plf
16 16
R3 =
572 plf 2'
Alternatively, panel design forces can be
determined using seismic coefficients as
fp2 = 47.7 psf

shown below. 22'
20'
f p 2 = .422 (113) = 47.7 psf

R2 =
f p1 = .296 (113) = 33.4 psf

fp1 = 33.4 psf 744 plf
16' 16'
Note that the 2-foot high parapet must be R1 =

designed for seismic forces determined 267 plf
from Equations (32-2) and (32-3) with
R p = 3.0 and a p = 2.5 . This calculation
Out-of-plane wall forces
is not shown.
Out-of-plane forces for wall anchorage design. §1633.2.8.1

For design of wall anchorage, §1633.2.8.1 requires use of higher design forces than
those used for panel design. Anchorage forces are determined using Equations (32-1),
or (32-2) and (32-3), where W p is the weight of the panel tributary to each anchorage
level. Values of R p and a p to be used at the second floor and roof are:
R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.5 §1633.2.8.1, Item 1
The building of this example has a flexible diaphragm at the roof and a rigid
diaphragm at the second floor. Because the code is not clear about wall anchorage
requirements for buildings with both rigid and flexible diaphragms, the requirements
for flexible diaphragms will be used for determination of anchorage forces at both

§1632.2 Example 36 Lateral Forces for Two-Story Wall Panel
levels. Equation (32-3), with the limits of Equation (32-3), will be used with hx equal
to the attachment height of the anchorage.
Seismic anchorage force at roof:
 20 
W3 = (113)  + 2  = 1,356 plf
 2 
Fp =  1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
1.5 (0.4 )(1.0)  36 

F3 =  1 + 3  W3 = 0.8 (1,356) = 1,085 plf
3.0  36 
Check limit of Equation (32-3)
4.0C a I pW p = 4.0 (0.4 )(1.0 )W3 = 1.6W3 > 0.8W3 o.k. (32-3)
1,085 plf > 420 plf §1633.2.8.1, Item 1
∴ F3 = 1,085 plf
Seismic anchorage force at second floor:
 20 + 16 
W2 = (113)   = 2,034 plf
 2 
1.5 (0.4 )(1.0 )  16 

F2 = 1 + 3  W2 = .467 (2,034 ) = 950 plf (32-2)
3.0  36 
Seismic anchorage force at first floor:
At the first floor, a p = 1.0 because there is no diaphragm.
 16 
W1 = (113)   = 904 plf
 2
1.0 (0.4 )(1.0)  0 

F1 =  1 + 3  W1 = 0.133W1 (32-2)
3.0  36 

Check limit of Equation (32-3)
0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W1 = 0.28W1 controls (32-3)
∴ F1 = 0.28W1 = 0.28 (904 ) = 253 plf

F3 = 1,085 plf 2'
22' 20'
Note that the 420 plf minimum anchorage

F2 = 950 plf
force of §1633.2.8.1, Item 1 does not
apply at the first floor.
16' 16'
Wall reactions for anchorage design are
shown at right.
F1 = 253 plf
Wall anchorage forces
Commentary
Anchorage forces have been determined on the basis of the weight tributary to each
level using Equation (32-2), with limits of Equation (32-3) and §1633.2.8.1, Item 1.
Panel forces, on the other hand, have been determined using seismic coefficients for
each floor level. If reactions are determined from the uniform out-of-plane forces
used for panel design, these will be different than those determined for anchorage
requirements. This inconsistency is rooted in the fact that the code does not call for
determination of both panel design forces and anchorage design forces from the same
method. To be consistent, forces would have to first be determined at the panel
centroids (between floors) and then anchorage reactions determined from statics
equilibrium.
In all significant California earthquakes, beginning with the 1971 San Fernando
event, wall-roof anchorage for flexible diaphragms has failed repeatedly. After the
1994 Northridge earthquake, when over 200 tilt-up buildings in the city of Los
Angeles experienced collapse or partial collapse of roofs and/or walls, wall-roof
anchorage forces were increased significantly in the 1996 Supplement to the 1994
UBC. The 1997 UBC requirements reflect this change. It is extremely important that
bearing wall tilt-up buildings maintain wall-roof (and wall-floor) connections under
seismic motions. This is the principal reason that anchorage forces are 50-percent
higher than those used for out-of-plane wall panel design.
See §1633.2.8.1 for the special material load factors used for the design of steel and
wood elements of the wall anchorage system (i.e., 1.4 for steel and 0.85 for wood).

§1632.2 Example 37 Rigid Equipment
(2
5# $%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of the design seismic force for the attachments
of rigid equipment. Attachment as used in the code means those components,
including anchorage, bracing, and support mountings, that “attach” the equipment to
the structure.
The three-story building structure shown below has rigid electrical equipment
supported on nonductile porcelain insulators that provide anchorage to the structure.
Identical equipment is located at the base and at the roof of the building.
Wp
Nonductile attachments
Level
Zone 4
Ca = 0.4 Roof
12'
I p = 1.0
W p = 10 k 2
12'
1
Wp
12'
Find the following:
Design criteria.
Design lateral seismic force at base.

Design lateral seismic force at roof.
Design criteria. §1632.2

The total design lateral seismic force is determined from
Fp =  1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
Values of a p and R p are given in Table 16-O. Since the equipment is rigid and has
nonductile attachments
a p = 1.0, R p = 1.5 Table 16-O, Item 4B

Example 37 Rigid Equipmen §1632.2
Design lateral seismic force at base. §1632.2

hx = 0
(1.0)(0.4 )(1.0 )  0 
Fp = 1 + 3  (10) = 2.67 k
(1.5)  36 
Section 1632.2 has a requirement that F p be not less than 0.7C a I p W p (32-3)
Check F p ≥ 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4) (1.0) 10 = 2.8 k
∴ F p = 2.8 k
h x = h r = 36 ft
(1.0)(0.4 )(1.0 ) 1 3 36  (10) 10.7 k

Fp =  +  =
(1.5)  36 
Section 1632.2 states that F p need not exceed 4C a I p W p (32-3)
Check F p ≤ 4C a I pW p = 4 ( 0.4) (1.0) 10 = 16 k
∴ F p = 10.7 k
Commentary
The definition of a rigid component (e.g., item of equipment) is given in §1627. Rigid
equipment is equipment, including its attachments (anchorages, bracing, and support
mountings), that has a period less than or equal to 0.06 seconds.
The anchorage design force F p is a function of 1 R p , where R p = 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0
for nonductile, shallow, and ductile anchors, respectively.
Generally, only equipment anchorage or restraints need be designed for seismic

forces. This is discussed in Footnote 5 of Table 16-O. Item 3.C, also in Table 16-O
states that this applies to “Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the
structural frame at a point below their center of mass.” For the case where equipment,
which can be either flexible or rigid, comes mounted on a supporting frame that is
part of the manufactured unit, then the supporting frame must also meet the seismic
design requirements of §1632.2.

§1632.2 Example 38 Flexible Equipment
(3
, $%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of the design seismic force for the attachments
of flexible equipment. Attachment as used in the code means those components,
including anchorage, bracing, and support mountings, that “attach” the equipment to
the structure.
The three-story building structure shown below has flexible air-handling equipment
supported by a ductile anchorage system. Anchor bolts in the floor slab meet the
embedment length requirements. Identical equipment is located at the base and at the
roof of the building.
Wp Ductile attachments
Level
Roof
Zone 4 12'
Ca = 0.4
I p = 1.0 2
W p = 10 k 12'
1
Wp
12'
Find the following:
Design criteria.

The total design lateral seismic force is determined from
Fp = 1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 

Example 38 Flexible Equipment §1632.2
Values of a p and R p are given in Table 16-O. Since the equipment is flexible and
has ductile supports
a p = 2.5, R p = 3.0 Table 16-O, Item 3C

hx = 0
(2.5)(0.4)(1.0) 1 + 3 0  (10) = 3.33 k

Fp =  
(3.0 )  36 
Section 1632.2 has a requirement that F p be not less than 0.7C a I p W p (32-3)
Check F p ≥ 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4) (1.0) 10 = 2.8 k
∴ F p = 3.33 k

h x = h r = 36 ft
(2.5)(0.4 )(1.0 ) 1 3 36  (10) 13.33 k

Fp =  +  =
(3.0)  36 
Section 1632.2 states that F p need not exceed 4C a I p W p (32-3)
Check F p ≤ 4C a I pW p = 4 ( 0.4) (1.0) 10 = 16 k
∴ F p = 13.33 k
Commentary
The definition of flexible equipment is given in §1627. Flexible equipment is
equipment, including its attachments (anchorages, bracing, and support mountings),
that has a period greater than 0.06 seconds.
It should be noted that the anchorage design force F p is a function of 1 R p , where

R p = 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 for nonductile, shallow, and ductile anchors, respectively.
Generally, only equipment anchorage or restraints need be designed for seismic

forces. This is discussed in Footnote 5 of Table 16-O. Item 3.C of that table states
that this applies to “Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the

§1632.2 Example 38 Flexible Equipment
structural frame at a point below their center of mass.” For the case where the
equipment, which can be either flexible or rigid, comes mounted on a supporting
frame that is part of the manufactured unit, then the supporting frame must also meet
the seismic design requirements of §1632.2.

Example 39 Relative M otion of Equipment Attachments §1632.4
(-
5= 9 7 $%(&'*
Section 1632.4 of the UBC requires that the design of equipment attachments in
buildings having occupancy categories 1 and 2 of Table 16-K, essential facilities and
hazardous facilities, respectively, have the effects of the relative motion of
attachment points considered in the lateral force design. This example illustrates
application of this requirement.
A unique control panel frame is attached to the floor framing at Levels 2 and 3 of the
building shown below. The following information is given.
Zone 4 Level
Occupancy Category 1, 4 ∆S
(essential facility) 12'
Story drift: ∆ S = 0.34 in.
R = 8.5
3
Panel
12'
Panel frame: EI = 10 × 10 4 k/in. 2
2
Determine the following: 12'
1
Story drift to be considered. 12' Deflected
shape
Induced moment and shear in frame.
Story drift to be considered.

Section 1632.4 requires that equipment attachments be designed for effects induced
by ∆ M (maximum inelastic story drift). This is determined as follows:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S = 0.7 (8.5) 0.34 = 2.02 in. (30-17)
Induced moment and shear in frame. §1632.4
M=
6 EI∆ M
=
( )
6 10 × 10 4 (2.02)
= 58.45 k - in.
H2 (144 ) 2
M 58.45
V= = = 0.81 k
(H 2 ) 72

§1632.4 Example 39 Relative M otion of Equipment Attachments
Commentary
The attachment details, including the body and anchorage of connectors, should
follow the applicable requirements of §1632.2. For example, if the body of the
attachment is ductile, then the induced forces can be reduced by R p = 3.0 . However,
if the anchorage is provided by shallow anchor bolts, then R p = 1.5 .
When anchorage is constructed of nonductile materials, R p = 1.0 . One example of a

nonductile anchorage is the use of adhesive. Adhesive is a “glued” attachment (e.g.,
attachment of pedestal legs for a raised computer floor). It should be noted that
attachment by adhesive is not the same as anchor bolts set in a drilled hole with
epoxy.

Example 40 Deformation Compatibility §1633.2.4
*4
1 $%(('&'*
A two-level concrete parking structure has the space frame shown below. The
designated lateral force-resisting system consists of a two bay special moment-
resisting frame (SMRF) located on each side of the structure. The second level
gravity load bearing system is a post-tensioned flat plate slab supported on ordinary
reinforced concrete columns,
A B C D E
Plan at second level

1 2 3 4 5
Zone 4
∆ S = 0.42 in.
R = 8.5 Ordinary column ∆S
SMRF
Column section = 12 in. x 12 in.
Column clear height = 12 ft
Concrete E c = 3 × 10 3 ksi
Find the following: Elevation Line E
Moment in ordinary column.

Detailing requirements for ordinary column.

§1633.2.4 Example 40 Deformation Compatibility
Moment in ordinary column. §1633.2.4

Section 1921.7 specifies requirements for frame members that are not part of the
designated lateral force-resisting system. The ordinary columns located in the
perimeter frames, and the interior flat plate/column system, fall under these
requirements and must be checked for the moments induced by the maximum
inelastic response displacement. For this example, the columns on Line E will be
evaluated.
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S = 0.7 (8.5) 0.42 = 2.50 in. (30-17)
Section 1633.2.4 requires that the value of ∆ S used for this determination of ∆ M be
computed by neglecting the stiffening effect of the ordinary concrete frame.
The moment induced in the ordinary column due to the maximum inelastic response
displacement ∆ M on Line E must be determined.
For purposes of this example, a fixed-fixed condition is used for simplicity. In actual
applications, column moment is usually determined from a frame analysis.
6E c I c ∆ M
M col =
h2
h = 12 × 12 = 144 in.
bd 3 (12 )3
Ig = = 12 = 1728 in. 4
12 12
The cracked section moment of inertia I c can be approximated as 50 percent of the
gross section I g . Section 1633.2.4 requires that the stiffness of elements that are part
of the lateral force-resisting system shall not exceed one half of the gross section
properties. This requirement also applies to elements that are not part of the lateral
force-resisting system.
Ig
Ic = = 864 in. 4
2
M col =
( )
6 3 × 10 3 (864 )(2.5)
= 1875 k − in.
(144 )2

Example 40 Deformation Compatibility §1633.2.4
Detailing requirements for ordinary column.

Section 1921.7 requires that frame members, such as the column, that are assumed
not to be part of the lateral force-resisting system must be detailed according to
§1921.7.2 or §1921.7.3, depending on the magnitude of the moments induced by ∆M .
Commentary
In actual applications, the flat plate slab must be checked for flexure and punching
shear due to gravity loads and the frame analysis actions induced by ∆ M .
Section 1633.2.4 requires that the stiffening effect of those elements not part of the
lateral force-resisting system shall be neglected in the structural model used for the
evaluation of ∆ M . To evaluate the force induced by ∆ M in the elements not part of
the lateral force-resisting system when using frame analysis, it is necessary to
formulate an additional structural model that includes the stiffening effect of these
elements. This model should be loaded by the same lateral forces used for the
evaluation of ∆ M to obtain the corresponding element forces FM′ and displacement
∆′M . The required element forces FM induced by ∆ M can then be found by:
∆M
FM = (F ′ )
∆′M M
The values used for the displacements ∆ M and ∆′M should be those corresponding to
the frame line in which the element is located.
Section 1633.2.4 also requires the consideration of foundation flexibility and

diaphragm deflections in the evaluation of displacement. The following criteria and
procedures may be used for this consideration:
1. Foundation Flexibility
If the design strength capacity at the foundation-soil interface is less than the
combined loads resulting from the special load combinations of §1612.4, then
the lateral stiffness of the supported shear wall, braced frame, or column shall
be reduced by a factor of .5.
2. Diaphragm Deflection
For a given diaphragm span between two lateral force-resisting elements,
compare the mid-span diaphragm deflection for a given uniform load with the
average of the story drifts of the two lateral force-resisting elements due to
the reactions from the diaphragm load. If the diaphragm deflection exceeds
20 percent of the average story drift, then include diaphragm deflection
in ∆ M .
Otherwise, for cases where the effects are critical for design, a soil-spring model of
the foundation and/or a finite element model of the diaphragm may be required.

§1633.2.4.1 Example 41 Adjoining Rigid Elements
*
7># 5# $%(('&'*'
During the 1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California, nonductile concrete
and masonry elements in frame structures with ductile lateral force-resisting systems
experienced failure because they lacked deformation compatibility. Deformation
compatibility refers to the capacity of nonstructural elements, or structural elements
not part of the lateral force system, to undergo seismic displacements without failure.
It also implies that structural elements of the lateral force system will not be
adversely affected by the behavior of nonstructural or nonseismic structural elements.
The 1997 UBC has new requirements for deformation compatibility. These are given
in §1633.2.4.1. The purpose of this example is to illustrate use of these requirements.
The concrete special moment-resisting frame shown below is restrained by the partial
height infill wall. The infill is solid masonry and has no provision for an expansion
joint at the column faces. The maximum deflection ∆ M was computed neglecting the
stiffness of the nonstructural infill wall, as required by §1633.2.4.
Zone 4 SMRF
∆M
∆ M = 2.5"
Column properties:
f ' c = 3,000 psi
12'
6'
E c = 3 × 10 3 ksi
Ac = 144 in. 4 Infill wall
Typical elevatio
I c = 854 in. 4
Deformation compatibility criteria.

Approximate column shear.
Deformation compatibility criteria. §1633.2.4.1

The infill wall, which is not required by the design to be part of the lateral force-
resisting system, is an adjoining rigid element. Under §1633.2.4.1, it must be shown
that the adjoining rigid element, in this case the masonry infill wall, must not impair
the vertical or lateral load-resisting ability of the SMRF columns. Thus, the columns
must be checked for ability to withstand the ∆ M displacement of 2.5 inches while
being simultaneously restrained by the 6-foot-high infill walls.

Example 41 Adjoining Rigid Elements §1633.2.4.1
Approximate column shear.

Column shear will be determined from the frame inelastic displacement ∆ M . For
purposes of the example, the expression for the fixed-fixed condition will be used for
simplicity.
V col =
12 E c I c ∆ M
=
(
12 3 × 10 3 ) (854)(2.5) = 205.9 kips
h3 (72 )3
Column clear height = 72 in
Because the SMRF is the primary lateral force-resisting system, ∆ M is to be

determined by neglecting the stiffness of the ordinary columns and the rigid masonry
infill per §1633.2.4.
Vcol
The induced column shear stress is = 1,447 psi . This is approximately 26 f 'c
Ac
and would result in column shear failure. Therefore, a gap must be provided between
the column faces and the infill walls. Alternately, it would be necessary to either
design the column for the induced shears and moments caused by the infill wall, or
demonstrate that the wall will fail before the column is damaged. Generally, it is far
easier (and more reliable) to provide a gap sufficiently wide to accommodate ∆ M .
For this example, with the restraining wall height equal to one half the column height,
∆
the gap should be greater than or equal to M = 1.25 in . If this were provided, the
2
column clear height would be 144 inches, with resulting column shear
′ =
V col
( )
12 3 × 10 3 (854 )(2.5) 1
= 25.7 kips . This is of the restrained column shear
(144)3 8
of 205.9 kips .

§1633.2.4.2 Example 42 Exterior Elements: Wall Panel
*&
! < $%(('&'*'&
This example illustrates the determination of the design lateral seismic force, Fp , on
an exterior element of a building, in this case an exterior wall panel.
A five-story moment frame building is shown below. The cladding on the exterior of
the building consists of precast reinforced concrete wall panels. The following
information is known:
Level
5
12'
4 Typical
exterior
Zone 4 12' panel
I p = 1.0
C a = 0.4 3
12'
Panel size : 11’-11” x 19’-11”
Panel thickness: 6 in. 2
Panel weight: W p = 14.4 kips
12'
12'
Find the following:
Design criteria.
Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the fourth story.

Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the first story.

For design of exterior elements, such as the wall panels on a building, that are
attached to the building at two levels, design lateral seismic forces are determined
from Equation (32-2). The panels are attached at the two elevations h L and hU . The
intent of the code is to provide a value of F p that represents the average of the
acceleration inputs from the two attachment locations. This can be taken as the
average of the two F p values at h x equal to h L and hU .

Example 42 Exterior Elements: Wall Panel §1633.2.4.2
Fp = 1 + 3 x  W p ≥ 0.7C a I pW p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
a p = 1.0, R p = 3.0 Table 16-O
Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the fourth story.

Assuming connections are 1 foot above and below the nominal 12-foot panel height
hU = 47 ft
h L = 37 ft
h r = 60 ft
(1.0 )(0.4)(1.0)  +  47  = 0.447W p

F pU = 1 3  60  W p
(3.0)   
(1.0)(0.4 )(1.0 )  +  37  = 0.380W p

F pL = 1 3  60  W p
(3.0)   
F pU + F pL (0.447 + 0.380)
Fp4 = = Wp
2 2
F p 4 = 0.414W p = (0.414 )(14.4 ) = 5.96 kips
Check: F p 4 > 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.2W p o.k. (32-3)
Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the first story.

The following are known
hU = 11ft
hL = 0
h r = 60ft
(1.0 )(0.4)(1.0)   11 
F pU = 1 + 3   W p = 0.207W p
(3.0)   60 
Check that F pU is greater than 0.7C a I pW p

§1633.2.4.2 Example 42 Exterior Elements: Wall Panel
F pU = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W p = 0.28W p not o.k.
Also F pL < F pU < 0.28W p
∴ use F pL = F pU = 0.28W p
F pU + F pL
F p1 = = 0.28W p = (0.28)(14.4 ) = 4.03k
2
Commentary
The design lateral seismic force F p is to be used for the design of the panel for out-
of-plane seismic forces. This can be represented by a distributed load equal to F p
divided by the panel area.
Note that the §163.2.4.2 Item 1 requirement to accommodate the relative movement
of ∆ M is about twice the equivalent value of the previous code.

Example 43 Exterior Elements: Precast Panel §1633.2.4.2
*(
! $%(('&'*'&
This example illustrates the determination of the total design seismic lateral force for
the design of the connections of an exterior wall panel to a building. Design of the
body of the panel is often controlled by the non-seismic load conditions of the
fabrication, transport, and erection.
An exterior nonbearing panel is located at the fourth story of a five-story moment

frame building. The panel support system is shown below, where the pair of upper
brackets must provide resistance to out-of-plane wind and seismic forces and in-plane
vertical and horizontal forces. The panel is supported vertically from these brackets.
The lower pair of rod connections provide resistance to only the out-of-plane forces.
20'
Zone 4
Bracket
C a = 0.4 9' 9'
I p = 1.0
Height to roof h r = 60 ft 5'
hU = 47'
C
12'
Panel weight = 14.4 k
5'
ρ = 1.0 per 1632.2
hL = 37'
Rod
Wall panel
Find the following:
Strength design load combinations.
Lateral seismic forces on connections and panel.

Vertical seismic forces on panel.
Combined dead and seismic forces on panel and connections.
Design forces for the brackets.

Design forces for the rods.
Calculations and Discussion Code eference
Strength design load combinations.

For design of the panel connections to the building, the strength design load
combinations are:
1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L (12-5)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E (12-6)

§1633.2.4.2 Example 43 Exterior Elements: Precast Panel
where
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
ρ = 1.0 §1632.2
E h = load due to application of Equations (32-2) and (32-3) §1630.1.1
E v = 0.5C a I p D §1630.1.1
Lateral seismic forces on connections and panel.

Out-of-plane panel seismic forces on the connections are determined from Equations
(32-2) and (32-3) for the particular elevation of the connections. Forces at the upper
level connections will be different than those at the lower level.
Fp =  1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
0.7C a I pW p ≤ F p ≤ 4C a I pW p (32-3)
a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 §1633.2.4.2, Item 4
W p = weight of portion of panel tributary to the connection
Upper bracket connections
h x = hU = 47 ft
14.4
Tributary W p for the two brackets = = 7.2 kips
2
(1.0)(0.4 )(1.0)  +  47  = 0.447W p

F pU = 1 3  60  W p (32-2)
(3.0)   
Check minimum force requirements of Equation (32-3).
0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.28W p

The force on each bracket is:
1
PB = × F pU
2
0.447(7.2 )
∴ PB = = 1.61 kips/brack et
2
Lower rod connections
h x = h L = 37ft
14.4
Tributary W p for the two rods = = 7.2 kips
2
(1.0)(0.4 )(1.0)   37 
F pL = 1 + 3   W p = 0.38W p > 0.28W p (32-2)
(3.0 )   60 
The axial force on each rod is:
1
PR = × F pL
2
0.38 (7.2 )
∴ PR = = 1.39 kips/rod
2
Body of panel
The body of the panel is also designed using a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 as indicated in
Table 16-O, Item 1.A(2). Thus, the seismic force on the body of the panel is the sum
of the forces on the upper and lower levels. Alternatively, as shown below, an
equivalent coefficient for the panel body can be determined by using the average of
the coefficients for the upper and the lower levels.
Upper coefficient = 0.447 @ hU
Lower coefficient = 0.380 @ h L
Average coefficient =
(0.447 + 0.380) = 0.413 > 0.28
o.k.
2

The panel seismic force is the average coefficient times the weight of the entire
panel:
( )
FP = 0.413 W p = 0.413 (14.4 ) = 5.95 kips
This force is applied at the panel centroid C and acts horizontally in either the out-of-
plane or the in-plane direction.
For panel design for out-of-plane forces, this force can be made into an equivalent
uniform loading:
5,950
fP = = 24.8 psf
12 × 20
Vertical seismic forces on panel. §1630.1.1

The code requires consideration of vertical seismic forces when strength design is
used. Vertical forces are determined from the equation
E v = 0.5C a I p D §1630.1.1
D = dead load effect (or weight W p of panel)
E v = 0.5 (.4 )(1)W p = 0.2W p = 0.2 (14.4 ) = 2.88 kips
Combined dead and seismic forces on panel and connections. §1630.1.1

There are two seismic load conditions to be considered: out-of-plane and in-plane.
These are shown below as concentrated forces. In this example, Equation (12-5) is
considered the controlling load case. Because there is no live load on the panel, the
term f 1 L of this equation is zero.
FpU out-of-plane seismic
force at upper level
FP = in-plane
seismic force
at centroid
FpL out-of-plane
± 0.2Wp = vertical seismic force at centroid
seismic force at
lower level
Out-of-plane seismic forces In-plane seismic forces

Dead load and seismic out-of-plane and vertical forces.

Panel connection reactions due to dead load, out-of-plane seismic forces, and
vertical seismic forces are calculated as follows:
9' 9'
5' FpU = 3.22 k
5'
FpL = 2.78 k 1.2Wp + 0.2Wp = 1.4Wp = 1.4 (14.4) =20.16 k
Each bracket connection takes the following out-of-plane force due to lateral loads:
F pU 3.22
PB = = = 1.61 kips
2 2
Each bracket takes the following downward in-plane force due to vertical loads:
1.4W p 20.16
VB = = = 10.08 kips
2 2
Each rod connection takes the following out-of-plane force due to lateral loads:
F pL 2.78
PR = = = 1.39 kips
2 2
Note that each rod, because it carries only axial forces, has no in-plane
seismic loading.
Dead load and seismic in-plane and vertical forces:

Panel connection reactions due to dead load, in-plane seismic forces, and
vertical seismic forces are calculated as follows:
9' 9'
5' FP = 5.95 k
C
5'
1.4Wp = 20.16 k

Each bracket takes the following in-plane horizontal force due to lateral
seismic load:
FP 5.95
HB = = = 2.98 kips
2 2
Each bracket takes the following upward or downward force due to lateral
seismic load:
5 (FP ) 5 (5.95)
FB = = = ± 1.65 kips
18 18
Each bracket takes the following downward force due to vertical loads:
1.4W p 20.16
RB = = = 10.08 kips
2 2
Under the in-plane seismic loading, each rod carries no force.
Design forces for the brackets.
Body of connection.
Under §1633.2.4.2, Item 4, the body of the connection must be designed for
a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 . These are the same values as used for the
determination of F pU , F pL and FP . Therefore there is no need to change
these forces. The bracket must be designed to resist the following sets of
forces:
PB = ±1.61 k out-of-plane together with
V B = 10.08 k downward shear

and
H B = ± 2.98 k horizontal shear together with
FB + R B = 1.65 + 10.08 = 11.73 k downward shear
Fasteners.
Under §1633.2.4.2, Item 5, fasteners must be designed for a p = 1.0 and
R p = 1.0 . Thus, it is necessary to multiply the FpU , FpL and FP reactions by
3.0 since these values were based on R p = 3.0 . Fasteners must be
designed to resist
3PB = 3 (1.61) = 4.83 k out-of-plane together with

V B = 10.08 k downward shear

and
3H B = 3 (2.98) = 8.94 k horizontal shear together with
3FB + R B = 3 (1.5) + 10.08 = 15.03 k downward shear
Design forces for the rods.
Body of connection.
Under §1633.2.4.2, Item 4, the body of the connection must be designed to
resist
PR = ±1.39 k out-of-plane
Fasteners.
Under §1633.2.4, Item 5, all fasteners in the connecting system must be
designed to resist a force based on R p = 1.0 :
3PR = 3 (1.39 ) = 4.17 k out-of-plane

§1633.2.5 Example 44 Beam Horizontal Tie Force
**
8 : , $%(('&'0
This example illustrates use of the beam tie requirement of §1633.2.5. This
requirement derives from ATC-3 and is to ensure that important parts of a structure
are “tied together.”
Find the minimum required tie capacity for the connection between the two simple
beams shown in the example below. The following information is given:
Tie
D + L = 10 k/ft
Zone 4
C a = 0.44
I = 1.0
Support, typ. Beam
40' 40'
Determine tie force.

Requirements for ties and continuity are specified in §1633.2.5. For this particular
example, it is required to determine the “tie force” for design of the horizontal tie
interconnecting the two simply supported beams. This force is designated as E h ,
where E h is the horizontal earthquake load to be used in Equation (30-1). The
minimum value of E h is 0.5C a I times the dead plus live load supported on the
beam.
Dead plus live load supported = (10 kpf )(40 ft ) = 400 kips
E h = 0.5 (0.44 )(1.0)(400) = 88 kips
Commentary
The tie force calculated above for 1997 UBC requirements is .22 times dead plus live
load. This is on a strength design basis and is about twice the load factored value
given in the 1994 UBC. The 1994 UBC value is Z 5 times dead plus live load, or
.112 times dead plus live load using a 1.4 load factor.

Example 45 Collector Elements §1633.2.6
*0
$%(('&'%
Collectors “collect” forces and carry (i.e., drag) them to vertical shear-resisting
elements. Collectors are sometimes called “drag struts.” The purpose of this example
is to show the determination of the maximum seismic force for design of collector
elements. In the example below, a tilt-up building with a panelized wood roof has a
partial interior shear wall on Line 2. A collector is necessary to “collect” the
diaphragm loads tributary to Line 2 and bring them to the shear wall. The following
information is given:
1 2 3
100' 100'
Zone 4 A 50' 50'
R = 4.5 A Tributary roof area

Ω o = 2.8 50'
for collector
Collector
I = 1.0
B
C a = .44
50'
Roof dead load = 15 psf Shear walls

C
Wall height = 30 ft , no parapet
A
Wall weight = 113 psf Roof plan
Note: Roof framing, except
collector, not shown.
Base shear = V = .244W
Interior 50'
shear wall
Collector 30'
Collector design force at tie to wall.

Elevation Section A-A
Special seismic load of §1612.4 at tie to wall.
Collector design force at tie to wall. §1633.2.6

The seismic force in the collector is made up of two parts: (1) the tributary out-of-
plane wall forces, and (2) the tributary roof diaphragm force. Because the roof is
considered flexible, the tributary roof area is taken as the 100ft by 50ft area shown on
the roof plan above. Seismic forces for collector design are determined from Equation

§1633.2.6 Example 45 Collector Elements
(33-1) used for diaphragm design. This equation reduces to the following for a single
story structure:
Froof
F px = W px
Wroof
where
F px = collector design force
W px = weight tributary to collector
Froof
The term is the base shear coefficient adjusted for the diaphragm R value of 4
Wroof
required by §1633.2.9.
 Rbuilding 
 = .244  4.5  = .275
Froof V
= 
W roof W  R diaphragm   4 
 
F px = .275W px
The tributary roof weight and out-of-plane wall weight is
 30 
W px = 15 psf (100)(50) + 113 psf   (100) = 75,000 + 169,500 = 244.5 kips
 2 
∴ F px = .275 (244.5) = 67.2 kips
Special seismic load of §1612.4 at tie to wall. §1633.2.6

In addition to the forces specified by Equation (33-1), collectors must resist special
seismic loads specified in §1612.4.
Collector load E h = 67.2 kips
Required collector strength = E m = Ω o E h = 2.8 (67.2 ) = 188.2 kips (30-2)
This load is to be resisted on a strength design basis using a resistance factor of

φ = 1.0 , and 1.7 times the allowable values for allowable stress design. The
connection must have the capacity to deliver this collector load to the shear wall on
Line 2.

Example 45 Collector Elements §1633.2.6
Commentary
Note that the UBC in §1633.2.6 specifies that E m need not exceed the maximum
force that can be delivered by the diaphragm to the collector or other elements of the
lateral force-resisting system. For example, the overturning moment capacity of the
shear wall can limit the required strength of the collector and its connection to the
shear wall.

§1633.2.8.1 Example 46 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragm
*%
;++ < 7#
, # $%(('&'3'
For the tilt-up wall panel shown below, the seismic force required for the design of
the wall anchorage to the flexible roof diaphragm will be determined. This will be
done for a representative one foot width of wall.
The following information is given: Top of parapet

4'
Fanch Roof
Zone 4
I p = 1.0
Ca = 0.4
Panel thickness = 8 in. Tilt-up panel
Normal weight concrete (150 pcf) 20'
Determine the following: Assumed pin support
Design criteria. Ground
Wall anchorage force.

Because of the frequent failure of wall/roof ties in past earthquakes, the code requires
that the force used to design wall anchorage to flexible diaphragms be greater than
that used to design the panel sections. Either Equation (32-1) or Equations (32-2) and
(32-3) can be used to determine anchor design forces. Normally, Equations (32-2)
and (32-3) are used.
a pCa I p  3h 
Fp =  1 + x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
0.7C a I pW p ≤ F p ≤ 4C a I pW p (32-3)
The wall panel is supported at its base and at the roof level. The value of F p to be
used in wall/roof anchorage design is determined from Equation (32-2) using
h x = hr , and W p is the tributary weight.

Example 46 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragm §1633.2.8.1
For design of elements of wall anchorage system:
R p = 3.0, a p = 1.5 §1633.2.8.1, Item 1
Also, the value of Fanch must not be less than 420 plf §1633.2.8.1, Item 1
Wall anchorage force.

The tributary wall weight is one-half of the weight between the roof and base plus all
of the weight above the roof.
8
W p = 150   (4 ′ + 10′)(1′) = 1,400 lbs/ft
 12 
Since
h x = h r = 20 ft
R p = 3.0
a p = 1.5
The minimum force is
0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W p = 0.28W p = 0.28 (1,400 ) = 392 plf (32-3)
Check Equation (32-2)
1.5 (0.4 )(1.0)  3 (20) 

Fanch = 1 +  W p = 0.80W p (32-2)
3.0  20 
Fanch = 0.80W p = 0.8 (1,400) = 1,120 plf > 420 plf o.k., and < 4.0C a I pW p = 1.6W p o.k.
∴ Fanch = 1,120 plf
Commentary
Design of wall anchorage is crucial for successful earthquake performance of tilt-up
buildings in Zones 3 and 4. Generally, it is desirable that the connections of walls to
the diaphragm develop the strength of the steel. The following code sections apply to
the anchorage design:
1. Sections 1605.2.3 and 1633.2.8 call for a positive direct connection. Embedded
straps must be attached to, or hooked around, the wall reinforcing steel, or
otherwise effectively terminated to transfer forces.

§1633.2.8.1 Example 46 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragm
2. Section 1633.2.9, Item 4 states that Fanch may be carried by a subdiaphragm.

3. Section 1633.2.8.1 has the following additional anchorage requirements.
Item 4: Steel elements of anchorage must be designed to take 1.4 Fanch .
Item 5: Wood elements of anchorage must have strength to take 0.85Fanch , and
wood elements must have minimum net thickness of 2 1 2 " (i.e., be at least 3x
members).
4. Section 1633.2.8 and §1633.2.9, Item 1 require that details of anchors tolerate
∆ M of the diaphragm.
5. When allowable stress design is used, the minimum anchorage force is not
420 plf as specified in §1633.2.8.1, Item 1 but 300 plf. This is determined by
substituting E = 420 plf in the load combinations of §1612.3. This gives:
E 420
= = 300 plf .
1.4 1.4

Example 47 Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms §1633.2.8.1
*2
< 7# , # $%(('&'3'
This example illustrates use of the allowable stress design procedure for the design of
steel and wood elements of the wall anchorage system in a building with a flexibl
roof diaphragm.
In the example below, a tilt-up wall panel is shown. It is connected near its top to a
flexible roof diaphragm. The anchorage force has been calculated per §1633.2.8.1 as
Fanch = 1,120 plf. The wall anchorage connections to the roof are to be provided at
4 feet on center.
Fanch
Wall panel
Subpurlin
Hold-down each side
Wall-roof tie detail
Determine the strength design requirements for the following:
Design force for premanufactured steel anchorage element.
Design force for wood subpurlin tie element.
Design force for premanufactured steel anchorage element.

The basic task is to design the steel anchorage elements (i.e., hold-downs) that
connect the tilt-up wall panel to the wood subpurlins of the roof diaphragm. The
anchorage consists of two hold-down elements, one on each side of the subpurlin.
The manufacturer’s catalog provides allowable capacity values for earthquake
loading for a given type and size of hold-down element. These include the allowabl
stress increase and are typically listed under a heading that indicates a “1.33 x
allowable” capacity.
For the steel hold-down elements of the anchorage system, the code requires that the
anchorage force PE used in strength design be 1.4 times the force otherwise required.
PE = 1.4 Fanch §1633.2.8.1, Item 4

§1633.2.8.1 Example 47 Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms
PE = 1.4 (1,120 plf )(4 ft ) = 6,272 lbs
Since PE is determined on a strength design basis, it is the earthquake load E to be

used in the design load combinations. In this example, it is elected to use the alternate
basic load combinations of §1612.3.2, where the applicable combinations of
E
Equations (12-13), (12-16) and (12-16-1) permit to be resisted with a one-third
1.4
increase in allowable stress.
The allowable stress design requirement for each pair of hold-down elements is:
E P 6,272
= E = = 4,480 lbs
1.4 1.4 1.4
From the manufacturer’s catalog, select a hold-down element having a

( 1.33 × allowable) capacity of at least
4,480
= 2,240 lbs
2
Whenever hold-downs are used in pairs, as shown in the wall-roof tie detail above,
the through-bolts in the subpurlin must be checked for double shear bearing. Also, the
paired anchorage embedment in the wall is likely to involve an overlapping pull-out
cone condition in the concrete: refer to §1923 for design requirements. When single-
sided hold-downs are used, these must comply with the requirements of Item 2 of
§1633.2.8.1. Generally, double hold-downs are preferred, but single-sided hold-
downs are often used with all eccentricities fully considered.
Design force for wood subpurlin tie element.

The strength design forces on the wood elements of the wall anchorage system can be
0.85 times the force otherwise required:
PE = 0.85Fanch §1633.2.8.1, Item 5
PE = 0.85 (1120 plf )(4 ft ) = 3,808 lbs
Select the wood element such that 1.33 times the allowable capacity of the element,
including dead load effects, is at least equal to
PE 3,808
= = 2,720 lbs
1.4 1.4
Note that tie elements, such as the subpurlin, are required to be 3x or larger. §1633.2.8.1, Item 5

Example 48 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx: Lowrise §1633.2.9
*3
# , ! $%(('&'-
This example illustrates determination of the diaphragm design force F px of
Equation (33-1), for the design of the roof diaphragm of a single story building.
A single-story tilt-up building with a panelized wood roof is shown below. This type
of roof construction is generally considered to have a flexible diaphragm.
1 6
200'
Normal wall
A
100'
Seismic force
Given:
D
Zone 4
Normal wall
I = 1.0
C a = 0.4 Roof plan
R = 4.5 (bearing wall system)
ρ = 1.2
Diaphragm weight = 15 psf
A D
Wall weight = 80 psf
Roof diaphragm
10'
Mid-height 20'
Elevation through building

Find the following:
Diaphragm force at the roof.

§1633.2.9 Example 48 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx: Lowrise
Diaphragm force at the roof.

For buildings with tilt-up concrete walls, §1633.2.9, Item 3, requires that the flexible
diaphragm design force be based on the design base shear and forces F px using an R
value not exceeding 4, even though the tilt-up wall-frame system uses R = 4.5 .
For a short period single story building, the diaphragm force, using R = 4 , becomes:
w px = weight of diaphragm + weight of ½ height of normal walls =

100 (15) + 2 (10)(80) = 3,100 plf
2.5C a I 2.5 (0.4 )(1.0)

F px = w px = (3,100) = 775 plf (33-1)
R 4
Note that the redundancy factor of ρ = 1.2 is not applied to the E h loads due to F px
(such as chord forces and diaphragm shear loads in the diaphragm).
Commentary
1. The weight, w px , includes the weight of the diaphragm plus the tributary weight
of elements normal to the diaphragm that are one-half story height below and
above the diaphragm level. Walls parallel to the direction of the seismic forces
are usually not considered in the determination of the tributary roof weight
because these walls do not obtain support, in the direction of the force, from the
roof diaphragm.
2. The single story building version of Equation (33-1) is derived as follows:
n
Ft + ∑ Fi
i= x
F px = n
w px (33-1)
∑ wi
i= x
(V − Ft ) w x h x
Fi = n
(30-15)
∑ w i hi
i =1

Example 48 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx: Lowrise §1633.2.9
For a single story building,
i = 1 , x = 1 and n = 1
Ft = 0 , since T < 0.7 sec
1
∑ wi =W
i =1
and Equation (30-15) gives
Vw1 h1
F1 = =V
w1 h1
where
2.5C a IW
V= (30-5)
R
Finally, for the single story building, Equation (33-1) is
2.5C a I
F p1 = F1 w p1 = w p1
R

§1633.2.9 Example 49 Determination of Diaphragm Force F px : Highrise
*-
# , ! # $%(('&'-
This example illustrates determination of the diaphragm design force F px of
Equation (33-1) for a representative floor of a multi-story building.
The nine-story moment frame building shown below has the tabulated design seismic
forces F x . These were determined from Equations (30-14) and (30-15) and the
design base shear. The following information is given:
1 2 3
Zone 4 Story
27' 27'
W = 3,762 k Level Weight
C a = 0.40 12'
9 214k
C v = 0.56 12'
8 405k
R = 8.5 12'
7 405k
ρ = 1.2 6 405k
12'
I = 1.0 5 584k
12'
T = 1.06 sec 4 422k
V = 233.8 k 12'
3 422k
Ft = 17.3 k
12'
2 440k
12'
1 465k
20'
wh
Level x h(ft) w(k) wh Fx (k)
Σwh
9 116 214 24,824 0.103 22.3 + 17.3 = 39.6

8 104 405 42,120 0.174 37.7
7 92 405 37,260 0.154 33.3
6 80 405 32,400 0.134 29.0
5 68 584 39,712 0.164 35.5
4 56 422 23,632 0.098 21.2
3 44 422 18,568 0.077 16.7
2 32 440 14,080 0.058 12.6
1 20 465 9,300 0.038 8.2
Σ =3,762 241,896 233.8
Find the diaphragm force at Level 7.

Example 49 Determination of Diaphragm Force Fpx: Highrise §1633.2.9

Diaphragm force at Level 7.
Seismic forces on floor and roof diaphragm are specified in §1633.2.9. The following
expression is used to determine the diaphragm force F px at level x:
n
Ft + ∑ Fi
i= x
F px = n
w px (33-1)
∑ wi
i= x
Section 1633.2.9 also has the following limits on F px :
0.5C a Iw px ≤ F px ≤ 1.0C a Iw px
For level 7, x = 7 .
[17.3 + (33.3 + 37.7 + 22.3)] (405) = (0.108)(405) = 43.7k

Fp7 =
(405 + 405 + 214)
Check limits:
0.5C a Iw px = 0.5 (0.40)(1.0) 405 = 81.0k
1.0C a Iw px = 1.0 (0.40)(1.0) 405 = 162.0k
∴ F p 7 = 81.0 kips
Note that the redundancy factor, in this example ρ = 1.2 , is not applied to the loads
E h due to F px (such as chord forces and floor-to-frame shear connections).

§1633.2.11 Example 50 Building Separation
04
8# " $%(('&'
Building separations are necessary to prevent or reduce the possibility of two
adjacent structures impacting during an earthquake. Requirements for building
separations are given in §1633.2.11. In this example, the static displacements and
information about each structure are given below.
Separation
Level Structure 1 Structure 2
4
Level ∆S Level ∆S
4 1.38 in. — —
3 3 1.00 3 0.75 in
2 0.47 2 0.35
2 1 0 1 0
R = 8.5 R = 7.0
1
Structure 1 Structure 2
Find the required separations for the following situations:
Separation within the same building.

Separation from an adjacent building on the same property.
Separation from an adjacent building on another property.
Separation within the same building. §1633.2.11

Expansion joints are often used to break a large building, or an irregular building,
into two or more parts above the foundation level. This effectively creates separate
“structures” within the same “building.” The code requires that the structures be
separated by the amount ∆ MT .
where
∆ MT = (∆ M 1 )2 + (∆ M 2 )2 (33-2)
∆ M 1 = maximum inelastic displacement of Structure 1
∆ M 2 = maximum inelastic displacement of Structure 2
The required separation is determined in the following two steps.

Example 50 Building Separations §1633.2.11
Determine inelastic displacements of each structure. §1630.9.2

To determine the minimum separation between parts of the same “building”
that are separated by an expansion joint, the maximum inelastic floor
displacements under code seismic forces must be determined for each
structure. These are
For Structure 1
∆ M 1 = 0.7 R∆ s = 0.7 × 8.5 × 1.0 = 5.95 in. (30-17)
For Structure 2
∆ M 2 = 0.7 R∆ s = 0.7 × 7.0 × .75 = 3.68 in. (30-17)
Determine the required separation. §1633.2.11

The required separation is determined from the individual maximum inelastic
displacements of each structure as follows:
∆ MT = (∆ ) + (∆ )
M1
2
M2
2
= (5.95)2 + (3.68)2 = 7.0 in. (33-2)
Separation from an adjacent building on the same property.

If Structures 1 and 2 above were adjacent, individual buildings on the same property,
the solution to this problem is the same as that shown above in Step 1. The code
makes no distinction between an “internal” separation in the same building and the
separation required between two adjacent buildings on the same property.
∆ MT = 7.0 in.
Separation from an adjacent building on another property. §1633.2.11

If Structure 1 is a building under design and Structure 2 is an existing building on
another property, we would generally not have information about the seismic
displacements of Structure 2. Often even basic information about the structural
system of Structure 2 may not be known. In this case, separation must be based only
on information about Structure 1. The maximum static displacement of Structure 1 is
1.38 inches and occurs at the roof (Level 4). The inelastic displacement is calculated
as:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ s = 0.7 × 8.5 × 1.38 = 8.2 in. (30-17)
Structure 1 must be set back 8.2 inches from the property line, unless a smaller
separation is justified by a rational analysis based on maximum ground motions. Such
an analysis is difficult to do, and is generally not done except in very special cases.

§1634.2 Example 51 Flexible Nonbuilding Structure
0
, # " $%(*'&
A tall cylindrical steel vessel is supported by a heavy, massive concrete foundation.
Weight of tank and maximum

normal operating contents = 150 k
Occupancy Category 2
Wall thickness
Zone 4 t = 3/8"
I = 1.25 (toxic contents
per Table 16-K) L = 150'
C a = 0.44 D = 8'
C v = 0.64
Assumed
N v = 1.0 base Grade
Period of vibration.
Design base shear.
Vertical distribution of seismic forces.
Overturning moment at base.
Period of vibration.
In this example, only the case with the vessel full of contents will be considered. In
actual practice, other conditions may need to be considered. For calculation purposes,
the base is assumed to be located at the top of the pier. The weight of the vessel is
assumed to be uniformly distributed over its height. The period of the vessel must be
determined by Method B. This is required by §1634.1.4. For this particular vessel, the
expression for the period of a thin-walled cantilever cylinder may be used.
1
2
 L   wD  2
T = 7.65 × 10 − 6    
D  t 
where:
L = 150 ft , D = 8 ft
t = 3 8 in.
W = 150 k

Example 51 Flexible Nonbuilding Structure §1634.2
W 150,000
w= = = 1000 plf
L 150
wD 1000 × 8
= = 256,000
t (0.375 / 12 )
L 150
= = 18.75
D 8
T = 7.65 × 10 −6 × 18.75 2 × 256,000 = 1.36 sec
Because the period is greater than .06 seconds, the vessel is considered flexible.
It should be noted that the value of the period T determined using Method B is not
subject to the 30-percent limit mentioned in §1630.2.2, Item 2. This is because
Method A is intended for buildings and is not applicable to structural systems that
differ from typical building configurations and characteristics. Refer to Section
C109.1.4 of the SEAOC Blue Book for further discussion.
Design base shear.

The design base shear for nonbuilding structures is calculated from the same
expressions as for buildings. These are given in §1630.2.1. In addition, nonbuilding
structures such as the vessel must also satisfy the requirements of §1634.5.
Cv I
V = W (30-4)
RT
R = 2.9 and Ω o = 2.0 Table 16-P
0.64 (1.25)
V= (150) = 30.4 kips
2.9 (1.36)
Under §1634.5 Item 1, design base shear must not be less than the following:
V = 0.56C a IW = 0.56 (.44 )(1.25)150 = 46.2 kips (34-2)
nor in Zone 4 less than
1.6 ZN v I 1.6 (.4 )(1.0)(1.25)

V= W= (150) = 41.4 kips (34-3)
R 2.9
∴ V = 46.2 kips

§1634.2 Example 51 Flexible Nonbuilding Structure

Requirements for the vertical distribution of seismic forces are given in §1634.5
Item 2. This specifies the use of the same vertical distribution of force as for
buildings, either Equation (30-13) or a dynamic analysis. The following shows use of
the static procedures of Equation (30-13).
n
V = Ft + ∑ Fi (30-13)
i =1
where
T = 1.36 sec > 0.7
Ft = 0.07TV
∴ Ft = 0.07 (1.36)(46.2 ) = 4.4 k < 0.25V o.k. (30-14)
∴ F = V − Ft = 46.2 − 4.4 = 41.8 k acting at 2L/3

(centroid of triangular distribution)
The vertical distribution of seismic forces on the vessel is shown below.
Ft = 4.4 k
F = 41.8 k
L = 150'
2L/3 = 100'
V = 46.2 k
Overturning moment at base.

M = 4.4 (150 ) + 41.8 (100 ) = 4,840 k − ft (at the top of the foundation)

Example 52 Lateral Force on Nonbuilding Structure §1634.2
0&
, # " $%(*'&
A nonbuilding structure with a concrete intermediate moment-resisting frame (IMRF)
supports some rigid aggregate storage bins. Weights W1 and W2 include the
maximum normal operating weights of the storage bins and contents as well as the
tributary frame weight. The following information is given:
Zone 4 W2 = 200k
I = 1.0
Level
F2 2
Soil Profile Type D
C a = 0.44 W1 = 100k 15'
C v = 0.64
F1
N v = 1.0
1
T = 2.0 sec
Determine the following: 30'
Design base shear.
Design base shear. §1634.2

Because this is a flexible structure, the general expressions for design base shear
given in §1630.2.1 must be used. Note that the Exception of §1634.2 permits use of
an IMRF in Zones 3 and 4, provided the height of the structure is less than 50 feet
and R does not exceed 2.8.
The total base shear in a given direction is determined from
Cv I 0.64 (1.0 )
V= W= (200 + 100) = 0.114 (300) = 34.2 k (30-4)
RT 2.8 (2.0)
However, the total base shear need not exceed
2.5C a I 2.5 (0.44 )(1.0)

V≤ W= (200 + 100) = 117.9 kips (30-5)
R 2.8
The total design base shear cannot be less than
V ≥ 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.44 )(1.0)(200 + 100) = 14.5 kips (30-6)

§1634.2 Example 52 Lateral Force on Nonbuilding Structure
In Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear also cannot be less than
0.8ZN v 0.8 (0.4 )(1.0)

V≥ W= (200 + 100) = 34.3 kips (30-7)
R 2.8
In this example, design base shear is controlled by Equation (30-7).
V = 34.3 kips
Vertical distribution of seismic forces. §1634.2

The design base shear must be distributed over the height of the structure in the same
manner as that for a building structure.
(V − Ft ) w x h x (V − Ft )(W x h x )
Fx = = (30-15)
n (W1 h 1 + W2 h 2 )
∑ wi hi
i =1
Because T > 0.7 seconds, a concentrated force Ft must be applied to the top level.
Ft = 0.07TV = 0.07 (2.0)(34.3) = 4.90 k (30-14)
(34.3 − 4.90)(200)(45)
F2 = 4.90 + = 26.9 kips (30-15)
[200 (45) + 100 (30)]
(34.3 − 4.90)(100)(30)
F1 = = 7.4 kips (30-15)
[200 (45) + 100 (30 )]
Commentary
Section 1634.1.2 permits use of ρ = 1.0 for load combinations for nonbuilding
structures using §1634.3, §1634.3 or §1634.5 for determination of seismic forces.

Example 53 Rigid Nonbuilding Structure §1634.3
0(
5# # " $%(*'(
The code has special requirements for the determination of seismic forces for design
of rigid nonbuilding structures. In this example, rigid ore crushing equipment is
supported by a massive concrete pedestal and seismic design forces are to be
determined. The following information is given:
Zone 4 CM
F2
C a = 0.4
I = 1.0
T = 0.02 sec CM
F1
WEQUIPMENT = 100 k
WSUPPORT = 200 k 30'
20'
Determine the following: Grade
Design base shear.
Design base shear. §1634.3

For rigid nonbuilding structures, Equation (34-1) is used to determine design base
shear.
V = 0.7C a IW = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )(200 + 100) = 84 kips (34-1)
Vertical distribution of seismic forces. §1634.3

Design base shear is distributed according to the distribution of mass
F1 =
200
(84 ) = 56.0 kips
300
F2 =
100
(84 ) = 28.0 kips
300
Commentary
Section 1634.1.2 permits use of ρ = 1.0 for load combinations for nonbuilding
structures using §1634.3, §1634.4 or §1634.5 for determination of seismic forces.

§1634.4 Example 54 Tank With Supported Bottom
0*
< " 8 $%(*'*
A small liquid storage tank is supported on a concrete slab. The tank does not contain
toxic or explosive substances. The following information is given:
Zone 4
C a = 0.4
I p = 1.0 20'
Weight of tank and maximum D = 10.0'

Slab
normal operating contents
Grade
= 120 kips
Find the design base shear. §1634.4

The tank is a nonbuilding structure, and seismic requirements for tanks with
supported bottoms are given in §1634.4. This section requires that seismic forces be
determined using the procedures of §1634.3* for rigid structures. Base shear is
computed as
V = 0.7Ca IW = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)(120) = 33.6 kips (34-1)
The design lateral seismic force is to be applied at the center of mass of the tank and
its contents.
*Note: There is a typographical error on page 2-21 in some versions of the 1997
UBC in §1634.4. Section 1632 should be “Section 1634.3.”
Commentary
The above procedures are intended for tanks that have relatively small diameters and
where the forces generated by fluid sloshing modes are small. For large diameter
tanks, the effects of sloshing must be considered. Refer to American Water Works
Association Standard ANSI/AWWA D100-84 “Welded Steel Tanks for Water
Storage,” or American Petroleum Institute Standard 650, “Welded Steel Tanks for Oil
Storage” for more detailed guidance. Also see Section C109.5.1 of the SEAOC Blue
Book for a discussion of tank anchorage methods.

Example 55 Pile Interconnections §1807.2
00
. $342'&
A two-story masonry bearing wall structure has a pile foundation. Piles are located
around the perimeter of the building. The foundation plan of the building is shown
below. The following information is given:
Original grade
Zone 4
I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) 1'-6" x 2'-0"
Grade beam 2'-0"
Pile cap size: 3'-0" square x 2'-0" deep
Grade beam: 1'-6" x 2'-0"
Allowable lateral bearing = 200 psf Pile cap 2'-0"
per ft. of depth below natural grade.
Pile
Pile Dead Reduced Seismic

Cap Load Live Load N/S E/W Section A-A: Typical pile cap
3 46 k 16 k 14 k 0
10 58 16 14 0
1 2 3 4 5
North
4 @ 25' = 100'
A
A
1 2 3 4 5
2 @ 30' = 60'
A
B 6 7
C
8 9 10 11 12
Foundation pla
Interconnection requirements.
Interconnection force between pile caps 3 and 10.
Required “tie” restraint between pile caps 3 and 10.

§1807.2 Example 55 Pile Interconnections
Interconnection requirements. §1807.2

The code requires that individual pile caps of every structure subject to seismic forces
be interconnected with ties. This is specified in §1807.2. The ties must be capable of
resisting in tension and compression, a minimum horizontal tie force equal to
10 percent of the larger column vertical load. The column vertical load is to be
considered the dead, reduced live, and seismic loads on the pile cap. An exception to
§1807.2 allows use of “equivalent restraint.”
Interconnection force between pile caps 3 and 10.

Maximum loads on each pile cap under E/W seismic forces are
Pile cap 3 = 46 + 16 + 0 = 62 kips
Pile cap 10 = 58 + 16 + 0 = 74 kips
Minimum horizontal tie force is 10 percent of largest column vertical load
P = 0.10 (74 ) = 7.40 kips

Required “tie” restraint between pile caps 3 and 10.
The choices are to add a grade beam (i.e., tie beam) connecting pile caps 3 and 10, or
to try to use passive pressure restraint on the pile cap in lieu of a grade beam. The
latter is considered an “equivalent restraint” under the exception to §1807.2.
Check passive pressure resistance.
(400 + 800 ) (
Passive pressure = 2 ft ) = 1,200 plf
2
7,400 lbs
Required length = = 6.2 ft
1,200 plf
This is greater than 3'-0" pile cap width, but pile cap and a tributary length of N/S
grade beam on either side of the pile cap may be designed to resist “tie” forces using
passive pressure. This system is shown below, and if this is properly designed, no
grade beam between pile caps 3 and 10 (or similar caps) is required.

Example 55 Pile Interconnections §1807.2
1,200 plf
1'-6"
Grade
beam B
400 psf/ft
Pile cap
B 2'-0"
1.6' 3' 1.6'
800 psf/ft
6.2'
Equivalent restraint system in pla Section B-B: Grade beam
Commentary
Normally, buildings on pile foundations are required to have interconnecting ties
between pile caps. This is particularly true in the case of highrise buildings and
buildings with heavy vertical loads on individual pile caps. Ties are essential in tall
buildings. Ties are also necessary when the site soil conditions are poor such that
lateral movements, or geotechnical hazards, such as liquefaction, are possible. Also
note that while §1807.2 has the wording “tension or compression,” the intent is that
the ties must resist the required forces in both tension and compression.
In design of relatively lightweight one- and two-story buildings, the exception to the
interconnecting tie requirement of §1807.2 may permit a more economical foundation
design. However, when interconnecting ties are omitted, a geotechnical engineer
should confirm the appropriateness of this decision.

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume II
Building Design Examples:
Light Frame, Masonry and Tilt-up
April 2000
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the
written permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publisher

1730 I Street, Suite 240
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 443-8065
E-mail: info@seaoc.org; Web address: www.seaoc.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional

association of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern
California, San Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural
engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with
SEAOC’s stated mission: “to advance the structural engineering profession, to
provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application
of state-of-the-art structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining
professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to
provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers
with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain
the honor and dignity of the profession.”
Editor
Gail H. Shea, Albany, California
Disclaimer
Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of

California (SEAOC) and/or its member organizations are published as part of
our association’s educational program. While the information presented in this
document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member
organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed
to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any
legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this
publication. The material presented in this publication should not be used for
any specific application without competent examination and verification of its
accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of
information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
ii SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... vii
Suggestions for Improvement ........................................................................................ ix
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
How to Use This Document ............................................................................................ 2
Notation ....................................................................................................................... 3
References ..................................................................................................................... 10
Design Example 1
Wood Light Frame Residence................................................................................. 11
Design Example 2
Wood Light Frame Three-Story Structure ............................................................... 87
Design Example 3
Cold-Formed Steel Light Frame Three-Story Structure ........................................ 159
Design Example 4
Masonry Shear Wall Building ................................................................................ 213
Design Example 5
Tilt-Up Building ...................................................................................................... 247
Design Example 6
Tilt-Up Wall Panel With Openings ......................................................................... 289
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC) iii

Table of Contents
iv SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

Preface
Preface
This document is the second volume of the three-volume SEAOC Seismic Design Manual.
The first volume, “Code Application Examples,” was published in April 1999. These
documents have been developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Their purpose is to provide guidance on the
interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and
SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (also called the
Blue Book).
The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the Commentary
of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic provisions, and everyday
structural engineering design practice. While the Manual illustrates how the provisions of the
code are used, the examples shown do not necessarily illustrate the only appropriate methods
of seismic design, and the document is not intended to establish a minimum standard of care.
Engineering judgment needs to be exercised when applying these examples to real projects.
Volume I: Code Application Examples, provides step-by-step examples of how to use

individual code provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period. Volumes II
and III: Design Examples, furnish examples of the seismic design of common types of
buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are designed to show,
calculation-by-calculation, how the various seismic requirements of the code are
implemented in a realistic design.
Volume II contains six examples. These illustrate the seismic design of the following
structures: (1) a two-story wood light frame residence, (2) a three-story wood light frame
building, (3) a three-story cold formed light frame building, (4) a one-story masonry building
with panelized wood roof, (5) a one-story tilt-up building with panelized wood roof, and (6)
the design of a tilt-up wall panel with large openings.
Work on the final volume, Building Design Examples, Volume III—Steel, Concrete and
Cladding, is nearing completion and is scheduled for release in late Spring 2000.
It is SEAOC’s present intention to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition of
the building code used in California. Work is currently underway on a 2000 International
Building Code version.
Ronald P. Gallagher
Project Manager
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC) v

Preface
vi SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Authors
engineers. These individuals are both California registered civil and structural
engineers and SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set
up by the SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and
experience with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The
Consultants for Volumes I, II and III are:

Robert Clark
David A. Hutchinson
Jon P. Kiland
John W. Lawson
Joseph R. Maffei
Douglas S. Thompson
Theodore C. Zsutty
Volume II was written principally by Douglas S. Thompson (Examples 1, 2,

and 3), Jon P. Kiland (Example 4), Ronald P. Gallagher (Example 5), and John
W. Lawson (Example 6). Many useful ideas and helpful suggestions were
offered by the other Consultants. Consultant work on Volume III is currently
underway.
Steering Committee
Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was
made up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural
engineers and have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering
Committee attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the
document. The Steering Committee consisted of:

Stephen K. Harris
Martin W. Johnson
Scott A. Stedman
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC) vii

Acknowledgments
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members, and other structural engineers, helped check the
examples in this volume. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent
to these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as
following individuals is gratefully acknowledged:
Ricardo Arevalo Gary Ho Michael Riley

Gary Austin John Lawson George Richards
Robert Chittenden Dilip M. Khatri Alan Robinson (for CMACN)
Kelly Cobeen Harry (Hank) Martin (AISC) John Rose (APA)
Michael Cochran David McCormick Douglas Thompson
Susan Dowty Gary Mochizuki Jerry Tucker
Gerald Freeman William Nelson Craig Wilcox
Stephen K. Harris Neil Peterson Dennis Wish
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained

during the development of the document. The 1999-2000 Committee reviewed the
document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their assistance
is gratefully acknowledged.
1999-2000
Martin W. Johnson, Chair
Saif Hussain, Past Chair
David Bonowitz
Tom H. Hale
Stephen K. Harris
Douglas C. Hohbach
Y. Henry Huang
Saiful Islam
H. John Khadivi
Jaiteeerth B. Kinhal
Robert Lyons
Simin Naaseh
Chris V. Tokas
Michael Riley, Assistant to the Chair
viii SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

In keeping with two of its Mission Statements: (1) “to advance the structural
engineering profession” and (2) “to provide structural engineers with the most
current information and tools to improve their practice”, SEAOC plans to update
this document as seismic requirements change and new research and better
understanding of building performance in earthquakes becomes available.
Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to
the following:

Telephone: (916) 447-1198
Fax: (916) 443-8065
E-mail: info@seaoc.org
Web address: http://www.seaoc.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this
document is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed,
these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaoc.org or on the
ICBO website at http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not
issue written errata.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC) ix

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume II
Light Frame, Masonry and Tilt-up

Introduction
Introduction
Seismic design of new light frame, masonry and tilt-up buildings for the
requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) is illustrated in this
document. Six examples are shown: (1) a two-story wood frame residence, (2)
a large three-story wood frame building, (3) a three-story cold formed steel
light frame building, (4) a one-story masonry (concrete block) building with
panelized wood roof, (5) a one-story tilt-up building with panelized wood roof,
and (6) the design of a tilt-up wall panel with large openings.
The buildings selected are for the most part representative of construction types
found in Zones 3 and 4, particularly California and the Western States. Designs
have been largely taken from real world buildings, although some
simplifications were necessary for purposes of illustrating significant points and
not presenting repetive or unnecessarily complicated aspects of a design.
The examples are not complete building designs, or even complete seismic
designs, but rather they are examples of the significant seismic design aspects
of a particular type of building.
In developing these examples, SEAOC has endeavored to illustrate correct use

of the minimum provisions of the code. The document is intended to help the
reader understand and correctly use the design provisions of UBC Chapters 16
(Design Requirements), 19 (Concrete), 21 (Masonry), 22 (Steel) and 23
(Wood). Design practices of an individual structural engineer or office, which
may result in a more seismic-resistant design than required by the minimum
requirements of UBC, are not given. When appropriate, however, these
considerations are discussed as alternatives.
In some examples, the performance characteristics of the structural system are

discussed. This typically includes a brief review of the past earthquake
behavior and mention of design improvements added to recent codes. SEAOC
believes it is essential that structural engineers not only know how to correctly
interpret and apply the provisions of the code, but that they also understand
their basis. For this reason, many examples have commentary included on past
earthquake performance.
While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, references are
made to the provisions of SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force
Provisions and Commentary (Blue Book). When differences between the UBC
and Blue Book are significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC) 1

Generally, each design example is presented in the following format. First,

there is an “Overview” of the example. This is a description of the building to
be designed. This is followed by an “Outline” indicating the tasks or steps to
be illustrated in each example. Next, “Given Information” provides the basic
design information, including plans and sketches given as the starting point for
the design. This is followed by “Calculations and Discussion”, which provides
the solution to the example. Some examples have a subsequent section
designated “Commentary” The commentary is intended to provide a better
understanding of aspects of the example and/or to offer guidance to the reader
on use of the information generated in the example. Finally, references and
suggested reading are given under “References.” Some examples also have a
“Forward” and/or section “Factors Influencing Design” that provide remarks on
salient points about the design.
Because the document is based on the UBC, UBC notation is used throughout.
However, notation from other codes is also used. In general, reference to UBC
sections and formulas is abbreviated. For example, “1997 UBC Section
1630.2.2” is given as §1630.2.2 with 1997 UBC (Volume 2) being understood.
“Formula (32-2)” is designated Equation (32-2) or just (32-2) in the right-hand
margins of the examples. Similarly, the phrase “Table 16-O” is understood to
be 1997 UBC Table 16-O. Throughout the document, reference to specific
code provisions, tables, and equations (the UBC calls the latter formulas) is
given in the right-hand margin under the heading Code Reference.
When the document makes reference to other codes and standards, this is
generally done in abbreviated form. Generally, reference documents are
identified in the right-hand margin. Some examples of abbreviated references
are shown below.
Right-Hand Margin Notation More Complete Description

23.223, Vol. 3 Section 23.223 of Volume 3, of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC).
96 AISI E3.3 Section E3.3 of the 1996 Edition of the American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI) Specification for the Design
of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members.
91 NDS Table 5A Table 5A of the 1991 National Design Specification
for Wood Construction (NDS).
Table 1-A, AISC-ASD Table 1-A of Ninth Edition, American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel
Construction, Allowable Stress Design.
2 SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

Notation
Notation
with that used in the UBC and other codes such as ACI, AISC, AISI and NDS.
Some additional notations have also been added. The reader is cautioned that the
same notation may be used more than once and may carry entirely different
meaning in different situations. For example, E can mean the tabulated elastic
modulus under the NDS definition (wood) or it can mean the earthquake load
under §1630.1 of the UBC (loads). When the same notation is used in two or more
definitions, each definition is prefaced with a brief description in parentheses (e.g.,
wood or loads) before the definition is given.
A = (wood diaphragm) area of chord cross section, in square

inches
A = (wood shear wall) area of boundary element cross section,

in square inches (vertical member at shear wall boundary)

covered by all overhangs and projections.
Ac = the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear

walls in the first story of the structure.

the first story, in square feet of a shear wall.
Ap = the effective area (in square inches) of the projection of an

assumed concrete failure surface upon the surface from
which the anchor protrudes.
As = area of tension reinforcing steel
Ase = equivalent area of tension reinforcing steel
Ax = the torsional amplification factor at Level x.
Aconc = net concrete section area
a = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
ap = numerical coefficient specified in §1632 and set forth in

Table 16-O of UBC.

Notation
Btn = nominal tensile strength of anchor bolt in masonry, in

pounds.
b = (concrete beam) width of compression face of member
b = (wood diaphragm) diaphragm width, in feet
b = (wood shear wall) wall width, in feet
btu = factored tensile force supported by anchor bolt in masonry,

in pounds
Ca = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-Q of UBC.
Cd = penetration depth factor
CD = load duration factor
CM = wet service factor
Ct = numerical coefficient given in §1630.2.2 of UBC.
Cv = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-R of UBC.
c = distance from neutral axis to extreme fiber
D = (loads) dead load on a structural element.
D = (wood) diameter
De = the length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the

direction parallel to the applied forces.
d = (wood) dimension of wood member (assembly)
d = (concrete or masonry) distance from extreme compression

fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement
d = (loads) distance from lateral resisting element to the center

of rigidity
d = (wood) pennyweight of nail or spike
da = deflection due to anchorage details in wood shear wall

(rotation and slip at tie-down bolts), in inches

Notation
E = (wood diaphragm) elastic modulus of chords, in psi
E = (wood shear wall) elastic modulus of boundary element

(vertical member at shear wall boundary), in psi
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, in psi
Em = modulus of elasticity of masonry, in psi
E, E ' = (wood) tabulated and allowable modulus of elasticity, in psi
e = diaphragm eccentricity
en = nail deformation in inches (see Table 23-2-K of UBC)
E, Eh, Em, Ev, = (loads) earthquake loads set forth in §1630.1 of UBC.
Fb ' Fb ' = tabulated and allowable bending design value, in psi
Fc⊥ ' Fc⊥' = tabulated and allowable compression design value perpendicular to
grain, in psi
Fv ' Fv ' = tabulated and allowable compression shear design value parallel to
grain (horizontal shear), in psi
Fx = design seismic force applied to Level i, n or x, respectively.
Fp = design seismic force on a part of the structure.
Fpx = design seismic force on a diaphragm.
Ft = (loads) that portion of the base shear, V, considered

concentrated at the top of the structure in addition to Fn.
Ft = torsional shear force
Fv = direct shear force
Fy = specified yield strength of structural steel.
fb = extreme fiber bending stress
fc = (wood) actual compression stress parallel to grain

Notation
fc ' = specified compressive strength of concrete.
f c⊥ = (wood) actual compression stress perpendicular to grain
fi = lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (30-10) of UBC.
fm ' = specified compressive strength of masonry, in psi
fp = equivalent uniform load.
fr = (masonry) modulus of rupture, in psi
fy = specified tension yield strength of reinforcing steel.
fv = (wood) actual shear stress parallel to grain
G = modulus of rigidity of plywood, in pounds per square inch

(see Table 23-2-J of UBC)
g = acceleration due to gravity.
h = (concrete) height of wall between points of support, in

inches
h = (wood shear wall) wall height, in feet
hi, hn, hx = height in feet above the base to level i, n or x, respectively
I = importance factor given in Table 16-K of UBC.
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked concrete or masonry section
Ig = moment of inertia of gross concrete or masonry section

about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement
Ip = importance factor specified in Table 16-K of UBC.
k = (wood) wall stiffness
L = (loads) live load on a structural element, except roof live

load
Lr = (loads) roof live load

Notation
L = (wood) span length of bending member
L = (wood diaphragm) diaphragm length, in feet
lc = (concrete) vertical distance between wall supports, in

inches
Level i = level of the structure referred to by the subscript i. “i = 1”

Level n = that level that is uppermost in the main portion of the

structure.
Level x = that level that is under design consideration. “x = 1”

M = maximum bending moment
Mcr = nominal cracking moment strength in concrete or masonry
Mn = nominal moment strength
Ms = the maximum moment in the wall resulting from the

application of the unfactored load combinations
Mu = factored moment at section
M.C. = moisture content based on oven-dry weight of wood, in

percent
Na = near-source factor used in the determination of Ca in

Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the
building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and
slip rates as set forth in Tables 16-S and 16-U of UBC.
Nv = near-source factor used in the determination of Cv in

Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the
building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and
slip rates as set forth in Tables 16-T and 16-U of UBC.
P = total concentrated load or total axial load
Pc = (concrete) design tensile strength of anchors, in pounds
Pu = factored axial load

Notation

overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral-force-
resisting systems, as set forth in Table 16-N or 16-P of
UBC.
r = a ratio used in determining ρ. See §1630.1 of UBC.
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, SF = soil profile types as set forth in Table 16-J of UBC.

structure in the direction under consideration.
T = (loads) torsional moment
t = thickness
t = (plywood) effective thickness of plywood for shear, in

inches (see Tables 23-2-H and 23-2-I of UBC)
tm = thickness of main member
ts = thickness of side member
V = (wood) shear force.
V = (loads) the total design lateral force or shear at the base

given by Formula (30-5), (30-6), (30-7) or (30-11) of UBC.
Vm = nominal shear strength of masonry
Vn = (concrete or masonry) nominal shear strength
Vn = (wood) fastener load, in pounds
Vs = nominal shear strength of shear reinforcement
Vu = (masonry) required shear strength
Vx = the design story shear in Story x.
v = (wood diaphragm) maximum shear due to design loads in

the direction under consideration, plf
v = (wood shear wall) maximum shear due to design loads at

the top of the wall, in plf

Notation
W = (wood) total uniform load.
W = (loads) the total seismic dead load defined in §1630.1.1 of UBC.

respectively.
Wp = the weight of an element or component.
wpx = the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary

thereto at Level x, including applicable portions of other
loads defined in §1630.1.1 of UBC.
x, y = distance to centroid
Z = seismic zone factor as given in Table 16-I of UBC.
Z, Z' = (wood) nominal and allowable lateral design value for a

single fastener connection.
∆ = (wood) the calculated deflection of wood diaphragm or

shear wall, in inches.
∆M = maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the

total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure
is subjected to the design basis ground motion, including
deformation defined in §1630.9 of UBC.
∆S = design level response displacement, which is the total drift

or total story drift that occurs when the structure is
subjected to the design seismic forces.
∆ cr = deflection at M cr
∆n = deflection at M n
∆s = (concrete) deflection at M s
∆u = deflection due to factored loads, in inches.
γ = load/slip modulus for a connection, in pounds per inch.
δi = horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due

to applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (30-10) of
UBC.

Notation
φ = strength-reduction factor
ρ = (loads) redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (30-3) of

UBC.
ρ = (concrete and masonry) ratio of area of flexural tensile

reinforcement, As , to area bd.
ρb = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions.
Ωo = seismic force amplification factor, which is required to

account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table
16-N of UBC.
∑(∆ c X ) = sum of individual chord-splice slip values on both sides of

wood diaphragm, each multiplied by its distance to the
nearest support.
References
The following codes and standards are referenced in this document. Other
reference documents are indicated at the end of each Design Example.
ACI-318, 1995, American Concrete Institute, Building Code Regulations for

Reinforced Concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan
AISC, American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction,

Allowable Stress Design-ASD, Chicago, Illinois
AISI, 1996, American Iron and Steel Institute, Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, Washington, D.C
NDS, 1991, American Forest & Paper Association, National Design Specification
for Wood Construction, Washington, D.C.
UBC 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building

Code. Whittier, California.
SEAOC Blue Book, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and

Commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.

Design Example 1 n Wood Light Frame Residence
'HVLJQ([DPSOH
:RRG/LJKW)UDPH5HVLGHQFH
Figure 1-1. Wood light frame residence
)RUHZRUG
Small wood frame residences, such as the one in this example, have traditionally
been designed using simplified design assumptions and procedures based largely
on judgment and precedent. This example illustrates the strict, literal application of
the 1997 UBC provisions. Two of the requirements shown, while required by the
code, are considerably different than current California practice:
1. The use of wood diaphragms as part of the lateral force resisting system.
Traditionally, light frame dwellings have been designed assuming that such
diaphragms behave as infinitely flexible elements. This assumption simplifies
the analysis and allows lateral forces to be distributed to the vertical elements of
the lateral force resisting system by tributary area methods. The code has had a
definition of a flexible diaphragm since the 1988 UBC (§1630.6 of the 1997
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)

UBC). UBC §1630.6 permits diaphragms to be treated as flexible, only if the

maximum deflection of the diaphragm under the lateral loading is equal to or
greater than twice the deflection of the vertical elements supporting the
diaphragm in the story below. In this example, the diaphragm has been
determined not to meet these criteria, and the design is based on the rigid
diaphragm assumption. However, recognizing that the diaphragms in this
structure likely behave as semi-rigid elements, neither fully flexible nor fully
rigid, in this example an envelope approach has been used in which two
analyses are performed. The first analysis uses the traditional flexible
diaphragm assumptions and the second analysis is based on rigid diaphragm
assumptions. The lateral resisting elements have been designed for the most
severe forces produced by either assumption. Refer to the overview portion of
this design example for further discussion about using the envelope approach.
Although these examples are a literal application of the 1997 UBC, the SEAOC
Code and Seismology committees are of the joint opinion that the use of the
more traditional design approach can provide acceptable lift-safety performance
for most one- and two-family dwellings. The commentary below provides more
discussion of these issues:
2. The use of a system with limited ductility specifically cantilevered columns.
In this example, the cantilevered columns are used to provide lateral resistance
at the garage door openings. In conventional practice, these would be designed
for forces calculated using the R value associated with that system (R= 2.2),
with the balance of the structure designed with an R value with light framed
shear walls (R=5.5). UBC §1630.4.4 requires that the R value used in each
direction, may not be greater than the least value for any of the systems used in
that same direction. Therefore, in this design example, because the R value for
the cantilevered columns at the garage has an R value of 2.2, the entire structure
in this direction has been designed using this R value.
Rigid versus flexible diaphragm assumptions.

Small, light frame detached one- and two-family dwellings have traditionally been
designed using flexible diaphragm assumptions, or by a “hybrid” approach of
treating closely spaced walls as a unit (i.e., as rigidly connected) and treating the
remaining diaphragm as flexible. Also, light frame detached one- and two-family
dwellings have been built with the conventional construction provisions of the code
without an engineering design. These light frame structures have historically
performed satisfactorily from a life-safety standpoint when subjected to strong
seismic shaking. Two exceptions to light frame structures performing
satisfactorily—both of which were addressed in the 1997 UBC by more stringent
requirements—have been related to problems with the height-to-length ratio of
shear wall panels and the use of plaster and drywall materials to resist seismic
forces.

In the Commentary of the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book (§C805.3.1), it is recognized

that lateral forces for many structures with wood diaphragms, mostly large
buildings, may be better represented as rigid, as opposed to flexible, diaphragms.
Relative to the small structure used in this example, the use of the rigid diaphragm
assumptions generally will not significantly improve the seismic behavior.
While the building response remains elastic, the rigid diaphragm assumptions will
better reflect the initial stiffness of the building system. However, it is not
practically possible to accurately calculate the stiffness of all the various elements,
including the stiffness contributed by finishes and nonstructural elements and
taking into account the fact that stiffness of these elements will degrade as the
ground shaking intensifies. As a result, the use of the rigid diaphragm assumptions
may not be significantly better than the traditional flexible diaphragm assumption
for structures of this type.
At the time of this publication, both the SEAOC Code and Seismology Committees
agree that many one- and two-family residential structures can be safely designed
using the traditional flexible diaphragm assumptions. Consequently, SEAOC
recommends modification of the 1997 UBC provisions to allow use of the flexible
diaphragm assumption for the design of one- and two-family dwellings. The
engineer is cautioned, however, to discuss this with the building official prior to
performing substantive design work.
Cantilever column elements in light frame construction.

The UBC requirement that buildings be designed using the least value R for
combinations along the same axis was developed with two considerations in mind.
The first is that in most structures, the building’s ability to resist seismic forces can
be limited to the weakest element in the structure. The second is purely a method of
discouraging the more nonductile systems. The potential for P∆ instability of
cantilevered column systems limits the column’s capacity to carry large gravity
loads when subjected to large building drifts. Therefore, the code has assigned a
low R value to this system.
However, cantilever columns used in one- and two-family dwellings are typically
lightly loaded, and can not develop this P∆ instability. Further, the literal
application of §1630.44 would discourage the use of ordinary moment frames and
cantilever column systems in favor for the use of slender shear walls that have been
known to perform poorly. Consequently, the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book §105.4.4
(page 12) recommends the following alternative approach:
Exception: For light frame buildings in occupancy groups 4 and 5 and of two
stories or less in height, the lateral force resisting elements are permitted to be
designed using the least value of R for the different structural systems found
on each independent line of resistance. The value of R used for design of

diaphragms for a given direction of loading in such structures shall not be

greater than the least value used for any of the systems in that same direction.
Therefore, SEAOC recommends this alternative approach. The cantilever columns

(together with any shear walls along that line of force, if present) would be
designed using an R = 2.2, with the shear walls located along other lines of force
designed using R = 5.5. In other words, the lateral load is factored up for the line
with the cantilever column elements, but the conventional R value is used on the
remainder of the structure. Consult with your local building official, however,
before using this recommendation.
2YHUYLHZ
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a 2,800-square-foot single

family residence. The structure, shown in Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5, is of
wood light frame construction with wood structural panel shear walls, roof, and
floor diaphragms. Roofing is clay tile. Due to the high h/w (height/width) ratios of
the walls next to the garage doors, cantilevered column elements are used to
provide lateral support. As shown in Figure 1-3, there is an out-of plane offset from
the cantilevered column elements on Line E to the glulam beams (GLBs)
supporting the shear walls above Line D. The wood structural panel shear walls
over the GLBs in the garage do not meet the required h/w ratios without the
addition of straps and blocking above and below the window.
The residence cannot be built using conventional construction methods for reasons
shown in Part 8 of this design example. The following steps illustrate a detailed
analysis for some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC that
pertain to design of wood light frame buildings. As stated in the introduction of this
manual, these design examples, including this one, are not complete building
designs. Many aspects of building design are not included, and only selected parts
of the seismic design are illustrated. As is common for Type V construction (see
UBC §606), a complete wind design is also necessary, but is not given in this
design example.
Although the code criteria only recognize two diaphragm categories, flexible and
rigid, the diaphragms in this design example are judged to be semi-rigid.
Consequently, the analysis in this design example will use the envelope method,
which considers the worst loading condition from both the flexible and rigid
diaphragm analyses for vertical resisting elements. It should be noted that the
envelope method, although not explicitly required by the code, will produce a more
predictable performance than will use of only flexible or rigid diaphragm
assumptions.

This design example will first determine the shear wall nailing and tiedown
requirements obtained using the flexible diaphragm assumption to determine shear
wall rigidities for the rigid diaphragm analysis.
The method of determining shear wall rigidities used in this design example is by
far more rigorous than normal practice, but is not the only method available to
determine shear wall rigidities. The Commentary at the end of this design example
illustrates two other simplified approaches that would also be appropriate.
2XWOLQH
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process:
Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces.
Lateral forces on shear walls and shear wall nailing assuming flexible
diaphragms.
Rigidities of shear walls and cantilever columns at garage.
Centers of mass and rigidity of diaphragms.
Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls with rigid diaphragms.
Reliability/redundancy factor ρ.
Diaphragm deflections and whether diaphragms are flexible or rigid.
Does residence meet requirements for conventional construction

provisions?
Design shear wall frame over garage on line D.
Diaphragm shears at the low roof over garage.
Detail the wall frame over the GLB on line D.
Detail the anchorage of wall frame to the GLB on line D.
Detail the continuous load path at the low roof above the garage doors.

*LYHQ,QIRUPDWLRQ
Roof weights (slope 5:12): Floor weights:

Tile roofing 10.0 psf Flooring 1.0 psf
½-in. sheathing 1.5 5/8" sheathing 1.8
Roof framing 4.0 Floor framing 4.0
Insulation 1.0 Miscellaneous 0.4
Miscellaneous 0.2 Gyp ceiling 2.8
Gyp ceiling 2.8 10.0 psf
D (along slope) = 19.5 psf
D = dead load
D = (horiz. proj.) = 19.5 (13/12) = 21.1 psf (the roof and ceilings are assumed to be
on a 5:12 slope, vaulted)
Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including exterior and interior walls:
W roof = 64,000 lb (roof and tributary walls)

W floor = 39,000 lb (floor and tributary walls above and below)
W = 103,000 lb
Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by adding the tributary weights of

the walls to the diaphragm, e.g., add one-half the height of walls at the second floor
to the roof and one-half the height of second floor walls plus one-half the height of
first floor walls to second floor diaphragm. It is acceptable practice to ignore the
weight of shear walls parallel to the direction of seismic forces to the upper level
and add 100 percent of the parallel shear wall weight to the level below, instead of
splitting the weight between floor levels. Weights of bearing partitions (not shear
walls) should still be split between floors. Unlike commercial construction, the
code minimum of 20 psf (vertical load) and 10 psf (lateral load) is often exceeded
in residential construction.
Framing lumber is Douglas Fir-Larch grade stamped No. 1S-Dry.
APA-rated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32-inch thick
Structural I, 32/16 span rating, 5-ply with Exposure I glue, however, 4-ply is also
acceptable. Three-ply 15/32-inch sheathing has lower allowable shears and the
inner ply voids can cause nailing problems.
The roof is 15/32-inch thick APA-rated sheathing (equivalent to C-D sheathing in

Table 23-II-4), 32/16 span rating with Exposure I glue.
The floor is 19/32-inch thick APA-rated Sturd-I-floor 16 inches o.c. rating (or
APA-rated sheathing, 42/20 span rating) with Exposure I glue.

Boundary members for the shear walls are 4x posts.
Common wire nails are to be used for diaphragms, shear walls, and straps.
Sinker nails are to be used for design of the shear wall sill plate nailing at the
second floor. (Note: many nailing guns use the smaller diameter box and sinker
nails instead of common nails. Closer nail spacing may be required for smaller
diameter nails).
Seismic and site data:

Z = 0.4 (Zone 4) Table 16-I
I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Table 16-K
Distance to seismic source = 12 km
Soil profile type = S C
S C has been determined by geotechnical investigation. Without a geotechnical

investigation, S D can be used as a default value.
Figure 1-2. Foundation plan (ground floor)

Figure 1-3. Second floor framing plan and low roof framing plan
Figure 1-4. Roof framing plan

Figures 1-2 through 1-4 depict the shear walls as dark solid lines. This has been
done for clarity in this example. Actual drawings commonly use other graphic
depictions. Practice varies on how framing plans are actually shown and on which
level the shear walls are indicated.
Actual drawings commonly do not call out shear wall lengths. However, building
designers should be aware that some building departments now require shear wall
lengths to be called out on plans.
)DFWRUV7KDW,QIOXHQFH'HVLJQ
Prior to starting the seismic design of the residence, three important related aspects
of the design bear discussion. These are the effect of moisture content on lumber,
the level of engineering design required to meet code requirements in present-day
California practice, and effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.
Moisture content in lumber connections. 91 NDS Table 7.3.3

This design example is based on dry lumber. Project specifications typically call
for lumber to be grade stamped S-Dry (Surfaced Dry). Dry lumber has a moisture
content (MC) less than or equal to 19 percent. Partially Seasoned or Green lumber
grade-stamped S-GRN (surfaced green) has a MC between 19 percent and 30
percent. Wet lumber has a MC greater than 30 percent. Construction of structures
using lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent can produce shrinkage
problems in the structures. Also, many engineers and building officials are not
aware of the reduction requirements, or wet service factors, related to installation
of nails, screws, and bolts (fasteners) into lumber with moisture contents greater
than 19 percent at time of installation. For fasteners in lumber with moisture
contents greater than 19 percent at the time of installation, the wet service factor,
C M = 0.75 for nails and C M = 0.67 for bolts, lags and screws (91 NDS Table
7.3.3). In other words, in lumber whose moisture content exceeds 19 percent, there
is a 25 percent to 33 percent reduction in the strength of connections, diaphragms,
and shear walls that is permanent. Drying of the lumber after installation of the
connectors does not improve the connector capacity. The engineer should exercise
good engineering judgment in determining whether it is prudent to base the
structural design on dry or green lumber. Other areas of concern are geographical
area and time of year the structure will be built. It is possible for green lumber (or
dry lumber that has been exposed to rain) to dry out to a moisture content below 19
percent. For 2x framing, this generally takes about two to 3 weeks of exposure to
dry air. Thicker lumber takes even longer. Moisture contents can easily be verified
by a hand-held “moisture meter.”

Level and type of engineering design required for California residences.

The residence structure in this design example was chosen because it contains
many of the structural problem areas that are commonly present in residential
construction. These include:
1. The discontinuous shear wall at the north end of the line 5. (Although this is
not a code violation per se, selection of a shear wall location that is
continuous to the foundation would improve performance).
2. Lack of a lateral resisting element along line 4. (Although this is not a code
violation per se, the addition of a shear wall at this location would improve
performance).
3. The reduced scope of many structural engineering service contracts, such as
“calculation and sketch” projects where the structural engineer provides a set
of calculations and sketches of important structural details and the architect
produces the actual plans and specifications. This often leads to poorly
coordinated drawings and missing structural information. This method also
makes structural observation requirements of the building code less effective
when the engineer responsible for the design is not performing the site
observation. Refer to the Commentary at the end of this design example for
further discussion on this subject.
An important factor in the design of California residences, and residences in other

high seismic zones, is the level of sophistication and rigor required by the designer.
In this design example, a complete, rigorous analysis has been performed. In some
jurisdictions, this may not be required by the building official or may not be
warranted given the specifics of the design and the overall strength of the lateral
force resisting system. The designer must chose between use of the more rigorous
approach of considering a rigid diaphragm with torsional resistance characteristics
with the more common approach of considering flexible diaphragms with tributary
mass. The former may not be necessary in some situations, while at the same time
recognizing that the laws of physics must be obeyed. In all cases, the completed
structure must have a continuous lateral load path to resist lateral forces. Complete
detailing is necessary, even for simple structures.
Effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.

This design example uses common nails for fastening wood structural panels.
Based on cyclic testing of shear walls and performance in past earthquakes, the use
of common nails is preferred. UBC Table 23-II-I-1 lists allowable shears for wood
structural panel shear walls for “common or galvanized box nails.” Footnote
number five of Table 23-II-I-1, states that the galvanized nails shall be “hot-dipped
or tumbled” (these nails are not gun nails). Most contractors use gun nails for
diaphragm and shear wall installations. The UBC does not have a table for
allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls or diaphragms using box
nails.

Box nails have a smaller diameter shank and a smaller head size. Using 10d box
nails would result in a 19 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and
shear walls as compared to 10d common nails. Using 8d box nails would result in a
22 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared
to 8d common nails. This is based on comparing allowable shear values listed in
Tables 12.3A and 12.3B in the 1997 NDS for one-half-inch side member thickness
(t s ) and Douglas Fir-Larch framing. In addition to the reduction of the shear wall
and diaphragm capacities, when box nails are used, the walls will also drift more
than when common nails are used.
A contributor to the problem is that when contractors buy large quantities of nails
(for nail guns), the word “box” or “common” does not appear on the carton label.
Nail length and diameters are the most common listing on the labels. This is why it
is extremely important to list the required nail lengths and diameters on the
structural drawings for all diaphragms and shear walls. Another problem is that
contractors prefer box nails because their use reduces splitting, eases driving, and
they cost less.
Just to illustrate a point, if an engineer designs for “dry” lumber (as discussed
above) and “common” nails, and subsequently “green” lumber and “box” nails are
used in the construction, the result is a compounding of the reductions. For
example, for 10d nails installed into green lumber, the reduction would be 0.81
times 0.75 or a 40 percent reduction in capacity.
&DOFXODWLRQVDQG'LVFXVVLRQ &RGH5HIHUHQFH
Design base shear and vertical distribution of seismic forces. §1630.2.2
This example uses the total building weight W applied to each respective direction.
The results shown will be slightly conservative since W includes the wall weights
for the direction of load, which can be subtracted out. This approach is simpler than
using a separated building weight W for each axis under consideration.
D Design base shear.
Period using Method A (see Figure 1-5 for section through structure):
T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(23)3 / 4 = .21sec. (30-8)
where:
hn is the center of gravity (average height) of diaphragm above the first floor.

With seismic source type B and distance to source = 12 km
N v = 1.0 Table 16-T
For soil profile type S C and Z = 0.4
C a = 0.40 N a = 0.40(1.0 ) = 0.40 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.56 N v = 0.56(1.0 ) = 0.56 Table 16-R
North-south direction:
For light framed walls with wood structural panels that are both shear walls and
bearing walls:
R = 5.5 Table 16-N
Design base shear is:
CV I 0.56(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.485W (30-4)
RT 5.5(.21)
(Note that design base shear in the 1997 UBC is now on a strength design basis)
but need not exceed:
2.5C a I 2.5(.40 )(1.0 )

V = W = W = 0.182W (30-5)
R 5.5
A check of Equations 30-6 and 30-7 indicates these do not control:
∴ V N − S = 0.182W
Comparison of the above result with the simplified static method permitted under
§1630.2.3 shows that it is more advantageous to use the standard method of
determining the design base shear.
3.0C a 3.0(.40)
V= W= W = 0.218W > 0.182W (30-11)
R 5.5
All of the tables in the UBC for wood diaphragms and shear walls are based on
allowable loads.

It is desirable to keep the strength level forces throughout the design of the
structure for two reasons:
1. Errors in calculations can occur and confusion on which load is being used—
strength or allowable stress design. This design example will use the
following format:
Vbase shear = strength

F px = strength
Fx = force to wall (strength)
v = wall shear at element level (ASD)
Fx
v= = ASD
1.4b
2. This design example will not be applicable in the future, when the code will
be all strength design.
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h (30-1)
where:
E v is allowed to be assumed as zero for allowable stress design, and ρ is assumed

to be 1.0. This is the case for most of Type V residential construction structures.
Since the maximum element story shear is not yet known, the value for ρ will
have to be verified. This is done later in Part 6.
The basic load combination for allowable stress design is:
E E E
D+ = 0+ = (12-9)
1.4 1.4 1.4
VN − S = 0.182W
∴V N −S = 0.182(103,000 lb ) = 18,750 lb §1612.3.1
East-west direction:
Since there are different types of lateral resisting elements in this direction,
determine the controlling R value.
For light framed walls with wood structural panels that are both shear walls and
bearing walls:
R = 5 .5

For cantilevered column elements:
R = 2 .2 Table 16-N
For combinations along the same axis, the UBC requires the use of least value for
any of the systems utilized in that same direction, therefore the value for the
cantilevered column elements must be used for the entire east-west direction. This
provision for combinations along the same axis first appeared in the 1994 UBC.
R = 2 .2 §1630.4.4
CV I 0.56(1.0 )
V = W = W = 1.21W (30-4)
RT 2.2(.21)
2.5C a I 2.5(.40)(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.454W (30-5)
R 2.2
A check of Equations 30-6 and 30-7 indicates that these do not control:
∴ V E −W = 0.454W
This is less than that obtained with the simplified static method:
3.0C a 3.0(.40 )
V = W = W = 0.545W > 0.454W (30-11)
R 2.2
V E −W = 0.454W
VE −W = 0.454(103,000 lb ) = 46,750 lb §1612.3.1
Discussion of R factors.
The UBC places a severe penalty on the use of cantilevered column elements. The
design base shear for the east-west direction is two and a half times that for the
north-south direction. Some engineers use the greater R factor for light framed
walls (e.g., R = 5.5) , determine the design base shear, and then factor up the force
for the respective frame element by using the ratio of the R for the shear walls over
the R for the frame element (e.g., 5.5 2.2 = 2.5) . However, under a strict
interpretation of the UBC, the factoring up approach does not appear to meet the
intent of the UBC requirements. Another approach could be to design the residence

using a rigid diaphragm assumption with the wood shear walls taking 100 percent
of the lateral force using R = 5.5 . Then design the cantilever columns using
R = 2.2 and a flexible diaphragm. Usually in residential construction, cantilevered
column elements are preferred over moment frames by engineers and builders
because of the elimination of field welding.
The 1999 Blue Book has added an exception for light frame buildings in
Occupancy Groups 4 and 5 and of two stories or fewer in height. The local building
department should be consulted on whether or not they will accept this exception.
A higher force level could be counter productive in terms of splitting caused by
added close nailing.
An ordinary moment-resisting frame could be used with an R value equal to 4.5.

This would produce design base shear values only 22 percent higher than in the
north-south direction. Additionally, the architecture could be modified to provide
shear wall lengths that meet the h/w ratio limit of 2:1. With the plate height at 9’-0",
the minimum wall length needed would be 4’-6". Another solution would be to
increase the concrete curb height at the base of the wall such that the h/w ratio limit
of 2:1 is not exceeded. For illustrative purposes, this design example uses the
cantilevered column elements with the higher design base shear for the entire
east-west direction. This conforms to the 1997 UBC. Pre-manufactured proprietary
trussed wall systems and factory-built wood shear wall systems are also available.
Special design considerations should be given when using these systems as
outlined below:
1. Building system R values are to be based on officially adopted evaluation

reports, such as ICBO reports.
2. Pre-manufactured systems should not be used in the same line as field-built
shear walls because of deformation compatibility uncertainties.
3. Pre-manufactured systems should be limited to the first floor level only (of
multi-story wood frame buildings) until testing is completed for these systems
that sit on wood framing and are not rigidly attached to a concrete foundation.
4. Many of the these “systems” exceed not only the new aspect ratio limit of 2:1,
but also exceed the old aspect ratio limit of 3½: 1. Some are as narrow as 16
inches wide, leaving unanswered the question of whether this is a shear wall
or a cantilever column (by comparison, if the “system” were a steel channel
with the same width, it would be considered a cantilever column).
5. Many building officials are requesting that the same aspect ( 2:1) ratio limit
for wood structural panel shear walls be adhered to for the pre-manufactured
systems.

E Vertical distribution of seismic forces.
The vertical distribution of seismic forces is determined from Equation 30-15.
F px =
(V − Ft )wx hx
n (30-15)
∑ wi hi
i =1
where:
h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above the
base.
Since T = 0.21 seconds < 0.7 seconds, Ft = 0
Determination of F px is shown in Table 1-1.
Figure 1-5. Cross-section through residence

Table 1-1. Vertical distribution of seismic forces

w x hx
∑wi hi
wx hx w x hx Fpx Fpx Fpx Fpx
Level N −S N −S E −W E −W
(lb) (ft) (lb-ft) (lb) wx (lb) wx
(%)
Roof 64,000 23.0 1,472,000 79 14,800 0.231 36,950 0.577
Floor 39,000 10.0 390,000 21 3,950 0.101 9,800 0.251
Σ 103,000 — 1,862,000 100 18,750 0.182 46,750 0.454
Lateral forces on shear walls and shear wall nailing assuming flexible
diaphragms.
Determine the forces on shear walls. As has been customary practice in the past,
this portion of the example assumes flexible diaphragms. The UBC does not
require torsional effects to be considered for flexible diaphragms. The effects of
torsion and wall rigidities will be considered later in Part 5 of this design example.
The selected method of determining loads to shear walls is based on tributary areas
with simple spans between supports. Another method of determining loads to shear
walls can assume a continuous beam. A continuous beam approach may not be
accurate because of shear deformations in the diaphragm. The tributary area
approach works with reasonable accuracy for a continuous beam with 100 percent
shear deflection and zero bending deflection. This design example uses the exact
tributary area to the shear walls, an approach that is fairly comprehensive. An
easier and more common method would be to use a uniform load equal to the
widest portion of the diaphragm, which results in conservative loads to the shear
walls.
D Forces on east-west shear walls.
Roof diaphragm:
Roof area = 2,164 sq ft
36,950 lb
f p roof = = 17.07 psf
2 ,164 sf
w1 = (17.07 psf ) (43.0 ft ) = 734 plf

w2 = (17.07 psf )(37.0 ft ) = 632 plf
w3 = (17.07 psf )(32.0 ft ) = 546 plf
Figure 1-6. Roof diaphragm loading for east-west forces
Check sum of forces:
1,092 + 4,106 + 4,256 + 4,788 + 5,080 + 8,074 + 8,074 + 1,468 = 36,938 lb
V Roof = 36,938 lb ≈ 36,950 lb o.k.
Note that Figures 1-6, 1-7, 1-8 and 1-9 are depicted as a continuous beam. From a
technical standpoint, “nodes” should be shown at the interior supports. In actuality,
with the tributary area approach, these are considered as separate simple span
beams between the shear wall “supports” (Figure 1-6 has three separate single span
beams).
Floor diaphragm:
Second floor area = 1,542 sf
f p floor 9,800 lb
= = 6.36 psf
1,542 sf
w4 = (6.36 psf )(16.0 ft ) = 102 plf

w5 = (6.36 psf )(20.0 ft ) = 127 plf
w6 = (6.36 psf )(33.0 ft ) = 210 plf
w7 = (6.36 psf )(28.0 ft ) = 178 plf
w8 = (6.36 psf )(32.0 ft ) = 204 plf
PD = (1,092 lb + 4,106 lb) = 5,198 lb
Figure 1-7. Second floor diaphragm loading for east-west forces
408 + 5,655 + 3,640 + 1,470 + 1,470 + 1,233 + 1,136= 15,012 lb
Subtract PD from the sum of forces:
15,012 − 5,198 = 9,814 lb
V floor = 9,814 lb ≈ 9,800 lb o.k.

E Required edge nailing for east-west shear walls using 10d common nails. Table 23-II-I-1
Table 1-2. East-west shear walls at roof level (second floor to roof)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
∑ Fabove ∑ Fx
Ftot Allowable Edge Nail
Wall Ftot b v= Sheathing(5)
(grid line) (lb) (ft) (b )1.4 1 or 2 sides
Shear Spacing
(lb) (lb) (plf) (in.)
(plf)
A 0 9,542 9,542 10.0 681(6) One 870 2(2) (4)
B 0 13,154 13,154 14.0 671(6) Two 1330 3(4)
C 0 9,044 9,044 8.5 760(6) Two 1330 3(4)
D 0 5,198 5,198 6.0 619(6) Two(8) 1740 2(2) (4)
Σ 0 36,938 36,938 38.5
Notes:
1. Minimum framing thickness. The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3x nominal thickness
stud framing and blocking at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 2 inches on
center or when sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. The
1997 UBC (Table 23-II-I-1 footnotes) requires 3x nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panel
edges and at foundation sill plates when the allowable stress design shear values exceed 350 pounds
per foot or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints.
2. Sill bolt washers. Section 1806.6.1 requires a minimum of 2-inch-square by 3/16-inch-thick plate
washers to be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values in the wall).
These changes were a result of the splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the Northridge
earthquake and in cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist uplift
forces on shear walls. Because of vertical displacements of holdowns, these plate washers are
required even if the wall has holdowns designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The
washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill plate.
3. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC (Table 23-II-I-1 footnotes) added an exception to the 3x
foundation sill plates by allowing 2x foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less
than 600 pounds per foot, provided that sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values.
4. Refer to Design Example 2 for discussions about fasteners for pressure—preservative treated wood
and the gap at bottom of sheathing.
5. APA Structural I rated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
6. Note forces are strength level and shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress design.
7. It should be noted that having to use a nail spacing of 2 inches is an indication that more shear wall
length should be considered. However, in this example, the close nail spacing is a direct result of R =
2.2 for the cantilever column elements. Some jurisdictions, and many engineers, as a matter of
judgment, put a limit of 1,500 plf on wood shear walls.
8. A minimum of 3-inch nail spacing with sheathing on only one side is required to satisfy shear
requirements. In this design example, sheathing has been provided on both sides with closer nail
spacing in order to increase the stiffness of this short wall.
9. The 1999 Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4-inch on
center.

Table 1-3. East-west shear walls at floor level (first floor to second floor)
∑ Fabove ∑ Fx
Ftot Edge Nail
Wall Ftot b v= Sheathing Allowable
(grid line) (lb) (ft) (b)1.4 1 or 2 sides Shear (plf)
Spacing
(lb) (lb) (in)
(plf)
A 9,542 1,136 10,678 10.0 763(2) One 870 2
B 13,154 2,703 15,857 14.0 809(2) Two 1330 3
C 9,044 5,110 14,154 19.0 532(2) Two(3) 1330 3
D 5,198 0 0 0 0
E 0 6,063 6,063 Frame Frame
Σ 36,938 15,012 46,752 43.0
Notes: See notes for Table 1-2.
F Forces on north-south shear walls.
Roof diaphragm:
14 ,800 lb
2 ,164 sq ft
w1 = (6.84 psf ) (55.0 ft ) = 376 plf
w2 = (6.84 psf ) (40.0 ft ) = 274 plf
w3 = (6.84 psf ) (34.0 ft ) = 233 plf
Figure 1-8. Roof diaphragm loading for north-south forces

466 + 713 + 767 + 726 + 848 + 5,264 + 5,264 + 752 = 14,800 lb
Vroof = 14,800 lb ≈ 14,800 lb o.k.
Floor diaphragm:
3,950 lb
f p floor = = 2.56 psf
1,542 sq ft
w4 = (2.56 psf ) (9.0 ft ) = 23.0 plf
w5 = (2.56 psf ) (60.0 ft ) = 154 plf
w6 = (2.56 psf ) (43.0 ft ) = 110 plf
w7 = (2.56 psf ) (38.0 ft ) = 97.2 plf
w8 = (2.56 psf ) (23.0 ft ) = 58.9 plf
w9 = (2.56 psf ) (14.0 ft ) = 35.8 plf
Figure 1-9. Second floor diaphragm loading for north-south forces
99 + 126 + 1,653 + 2,028 + 46 = 3,952 lb
V floor = 3,952 lb ≈ 3,950 lb o.k.

G Required edge nailing for north-south shear walls using

10d common nails. Table 23-II-I-1
Table 1-4. North-south shear walls at roof level (second floor to roof)
Ftot
Wall ∑ Fabove ∑ Fx Ftot b v =
(b )1.4 Sheathing Allowable Edge Nail
(lb) (lb) (lb) (ft) 1 or 2 sides Shear (plf) Spacing (in.)
(plf)
1 0 1,179 1,179 18.0 47 One 510 4
2 0 1,493 1,493 10.0 107 One 510 4
3 0 6,112 6,112 15.0 291 One 510 4
5 0 6,016 6,016 26.0 165 One 510 4
Σ 0 14,800 14,800 69.0
Table1-5. North-south shear walls at floor level (first floor to second floor)
Ftot
Wall ∑ Fabove ∑ Fx Ftot b v=
(b )1.4
Sheathing Allowable Edge Nail
(lb) (lb) (lb) (ft) 1 or 2 sides Shear (plf) Spacing (in)
(plf)
2 1,493 99 1,592 10.0 114 One 510 4
3 6,112 1,779 7,891 22.0 256 One 510 4
5 6,016 2,074 8,090 14.0 413 One 510 4
Σ 13,621 3,952 17,573 46.0
Rigidities of shear walls and cantilever columns at garage.
D Estimation of wood shear wall rigidities.
Determination of the rigidities of wood shear walls is often difficult and inexact,
even for design loads. In addition, when walls are loaded substantially beyond their
design limits, as occur under strong earthquake motions, rigidity determination
becomes even more difficult. It is complicated by a number of factors that make
any exact determination, in a general sense, virtually impossible short of full-scale
testing.
There is the well-known expression for shear wall deflection found in UBC
Standard 23-2. This expression, shown below, is used to estimate deflections of
shear walls with fixed bases and free tops for design level forces.
8vh 3 vh h
= + + 0.75hen + d a §23.223, Vol. 3
EAb Gt b

The expression above was developed from static tests of solid wood shear walls,
many typically 8-foot x 8-foot in size. Until recently, there was very little cyclic
testing of wood shear walls (to simulate actual earthquake behavior) or testing of
walls with narrow aspect ratios.
In modern wood frame building construction, shear walls take many forms and
sizes, and these are often penetrated by ducts, windows, and door openings. Also,
many walls in residences are not designed as shear walls, yet have stiffness from
their finish materials (gypsum board, stucco, etc.). In multi-story structures, walls
are stacked on the walls of lower floors, producing indeterminate structural
systems. In general, it is difficult to calculate wall rigidities with the UBC equation
alone. As will be shown in subsequent paragraphs, things like shrinkage can
significantly effect deflection and subsequent stiffness calculations. Further, in
strong earthquake motions, shear walls may see forces and displacements several
times larger than those used in design, and cyclic degradation effects can occur that
significantly change the relative stiffness of shear walls at the same level.
It can be argued that wall rotation of the supporting wall below needs to be
considered when considering shear wall rigidities. However, considering rotation
of the supporting wall below would be similar to measuring the shear wall as the
cumulative height, as opposed to the accepted floor-to-floor clear height. Not
considering rotation of the supporting wall below is appropriate for determining
relative wall rigidities.
At the present time, there are number of ways to estimate shear wall rigidities,
particularly when only relative rigidities are desired (see Blue Book §C805.3).
These include:
1. Rigidity based on estimated nail slip.
2. Rigidity calculated from UBC Standard 23-2 (the four term equation given
above).
3. Rigidity incorporating both UBC Standard 23-2 and shrinkage.
4. Several other procedures.
Only one of these approaches is given in this design example. By using this one
approach, SEAOC does not intend to establish a standard procedure or indicate a
standard of care for calculation of wood shear wall rigidities. It is merely one of the
present-day methods.
At present, CUREe (California Universities for Research in Earthquake

Engineering) is conducting a large testing program to study earthquake effects on
wood structures, including research on shear walls and diaphragms. It is expected
that in the years ahead, new approaches will be developed and/or existing
approaches reaffirmed or refined. Until then, the practicing structural engineer
must use judgment in the method selected to determine wood shear wall rigidities.

It is recommended that the local building official be contacted for determination of

what is acceptable in a particular jurisdiction.
E Discussion of rigidity calculation using the UBC deflection equation.
Since the rigidity, k , of a shear wall or cantilever column is based on its

displacement, ∆ , the displacements will first be computed using the Ftot forces
already determined above in Tables 1-2 and 1-3.
Compute values for k :
F = k∆
or k = F ∆
The basic equation to determine the deflection of a shear wall is the four-term
equation shown below.
8vh 3 vh h
= + + 0.75hen + d a §23.223, Vol. 3
EAb Gt b
The above equation is based on a uniformly nailed, cantilever shear wall with a
horizontal point load at the top, panel edges blocked, and reflects tests conducted
by the American Plywood Association. The deflection is estimated from the
contributions of four distinct parts. The first part of the equation accounts for
cantilever beam action using the moment of inertia of the boundary elements. The
second term accounts for shear deformation of the sheathing. The third term
accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the fourth term accounts for tiedown
assembly displacement (this also should include bolt/nail slip and shrinkage). End
stud elongation due to compression or tension is not considered, nor the end
rotations of the base support. The UBC references this in §2315.1.
Testing on wood shear walls has indicated that the above formula is reasonably
accurate for aspect ratios (h w) lower than or equal to 2:1. For higher aspect ratios,
the wall drift increases significantly, and testing showed that displacements were
not adequately predicted. Use of the new aspect ratio requirement of 2:1 (1997
UBC) makes this formula more accurate for determining shear wall deflection/
stiffness than it was in previous editions of the UBC, subject to the limitations
mentioned above.
Recent testing on wood shear walls has shown that sill plate crushing under the
boundary element can increase the deflection of the shear wall by as much as 20
percent to 30 percent. For a calculation of this crushing effect, see the deflection of
wall frame at line D later in Part 3c.

Fastener slip/nail deformation values (en).

Volume 3 of the UBC has Table 23-2-K for obtaining values for en . However, its
use is somewhat time-consuming, since interpolation and adjustments are
necessary. Footnote 1 to Table 23-2-K requires the values for en to be decreased
50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on nails being
driven into green lumber and the engineer must use one-half of these values for
nails driven in dry lumber. The values in Table 23-2-K are based on tests
conducted by the APA. The 50 percent reduction for dry lumber is a conservative
factor. The actual tested slip values with dry lumber were less than 50 percent of
the green lumber values.
It is recommended that values for en be computed based on fastener slip equations

from Table B-4 of APA Research Report 138. Note that this Research Report is the
basis for the formulas and tables in the UBC. Both the Research Report and the
UBC will produce the same values. Using the fastener slip equations from Table
B-4 of Research Report 138 will save time, and also enable computations to be
made by a computer. For 10d common nails there are two basic equations:
When the nails are driven into green lumber:
en = (Vn / 977 )1.894 APA Table B-4
When the nails are driven into dry lumber:
en = (Vn / 769 )3.276 APA Table B-4
where:
Vn is the fastener load in pounds per fastener.
These values are based on Structural I sheathing and must be increased by 20

percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. The language in footnote a in UBC
Table B-4 states “Fabricated green/tested dry (seasoned)…” is very misleading.
The values in the table are actually green values, since the lumber is fabricated
when green. Don’t be misled by the word “seasoned.”
It is uncertain whether or not the d a factor is intended to include wood shrinkage

and crushing due to shear wall rotation, because the code is not specific. This
design example includes both shrinkage and crushing these in the d a factor.
Many engineers have a concern that if the contractor installs the nails at a different
spacing (too many or too few), then the rigidities will be different than those
calculated. However, nominal changing of the nail spacing in a given wall does not
significantly change the stiffness.

Determination of the design level displacement ∆s. §1630.9.1

For both strength and allowable stress design, the 1997 UBC requires building
drifts to be determined by the load combinations of §1612.2, which covers load
combinations using strength design or load and resistance factor design. Errata for
the second and third printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced §1612.3 for
allowable stress design. The reference to §1612.3 is incorrect and will be changed
back to reference §1612.2 in the fourth and later printings.
Wood design using the 1997 UBC now means that the engineer must use both
strength-level forces and allowable stress forces. This can create some confusion,
since the code requires drift checks to be strength-level forces. However, all of the
design equations and tables in Chapter 23 are based on allowable stress design.
Drift and shear wall forces will be based on strength-level forces. Remember that
the structural system factor R is based on using strength-level forces.
F Estimation of roof level rigidities.
Roof design level displacements.

To determine roof level wall rigidities, roof level displacements must first be
determined. Given below are a series of calculations, done in table form, to
estimate the roof level displacements ∆s in each shear wall connecting to the roof
(Table 1-7). Because there is a wall with openings supported by a GLB on line D,
the ∆s for this wall must also be determined. Finally, roof level wall rigidities are
summarized in Table 1-8 and a drift check is given in Table 1-9.
Table 1-6. Determine tiedown assembly displacements for roof level shear walls1
ASD Strength Design
Wall Uplift/1.4(2) Tiedown(3) Uplift Tiedown(4) Tiedown Assembly Displacement da(8)
(lb) Device (lb) Elongation (in.) Shrink(5) Crush(6) Slip(7) (in.)
A1 5,915 Bolted 8,280 0.13 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.38
A2 5,915 Bolted 8,280 0.13 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.38
B 5,975 Bolted 8,365 0.13 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.38
C 7,430 Bolted 10,400 0.17 0.19 0.04 0.05 0.45
1 0 Not required 0 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.04
2 0 Not required 0 0 0.19 0.02 0 0.21
3 830 Strap 1,160 0.004 0.19 0.02 0.002 0.21
5a 0 Not required 0 0 0.19 0.02 0 0.21
5b 0 Not required 0 0 0.19 0.02 0 0.21
Notes:
1. Tiedown assembly displacement is calculated at the second floor level.
2. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning force (M OT − M OR ) divided by
the distance between the centroid of the tiedown to the end of the shear wall. With 4x
members at the ends of the wall, this equates to the length of the wall minus 1¾ inches
for straps, or the length of wall minus 5½ inches when using a bolted holdown with
2-inch offset from post to anchor bolt. Using allowable stress design, tiedown devices

need only be sized by using the ASD uplift force. The strength design uplift force is used
to determine tiedown assembly displacement in order to determine strength-level
displacements.
3. Continuous tie rod holdown systems can also be used. See Design Example 2 for method
of calculating tiedown assembly displacement.
4. Tiedown elongation is based on actual uplift force divided by tiedown capacity times
tiedown elongation at capacity (from manufacturer’s catalog). Example for tiedown
elongation at A1: tiedown selected has a 15,000 lb allowable load for a 5½-inch-thick
(net) member. From the manufacturer’s ICBO Evaluation Report, the tiedown deflection
at the highest allowable design load (15,000 lb) is 0.12 inches. Since there are two
tiedown devices (one above and one below the floor), the total elongation is twice the
tiedown deflection of one device. Therefore the total tiedown elongation is
(8,280 15,000)0.12 × 2 = 0.13 inches.
5. Wood shrinkage based on a change from 19 percent moisture content (MC) to 13 percent
MC with 19 percent MC being assumed for S-Dry lumber per project specifications. The
MC of 13 percent is the assumed final MC at equilibrium with ambient humidity for the
project location. The final equilibrium value can be higher in coastal areas and lower in
inland or desert areas. This equates to (0.002 ) (d ) (19-13), where d is the dimension of
the lumber (see Figure 1-10).
Shrinkage:
2 × DBL Top Plate + 2 × sill plate = (0.002 ) (3 × 1.5 in.) (19 − 13) = 0.05
2 × 12 Floor Joist = (0.002)(11.25) (19 − 13) = 0.14
= 0.19 in.
The use of pre-manufactured, dimensionally stable, wood I joists are considered not to
shrink, and would thereby reduce the shrinkage to 0.05 inches.
6. Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c⊥ ) is less than
0.73F ’c⊥ crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches. When f c⊥ = F ’c⊥ crushing is
approximately 0.04 inches. The effect of sill plate crushing is the downward effect with
uplift force at the opposite end of the wall and has the same rotational effect as the
tiedown displacement. Short walls that have no uplift forces will still have a wood
crushing effect and contribute to rotation of the wall.
7. Per 91 NDS 7.3.6γ = (270,000)(1)1.5 = 270,000 lb/in. plus 1/16" oversized hole for bolts.
For nails, values for en can be used. Example for slip at tiedown at A1 (tiedown has five
1-inch diameter bolts to post):
Load/bolt = 8,280 / 5 = 1,656 lb/bolt

= (270,000) (1)1.5 = 270,000 lb/in.
slip = (1,656 270,000) = 0.006 in.
Since there are two tiedown devices (one above and one below the floor), the total slip is
twice the bolt slip. Good detailing practice should specify the tiedown bolts to be
re-tightened just prior to closing in. This can accomplish two things: it takes the slack out
of the oversized bolt hole and compensates for some wood shrinkage. This design
example will assume that about one-half of the bolt hole slack is taken out.
 1 1
Therefore, total slip equals (0.006 × 2) +   = 0.04 inches.
 16  2
8. d a is the total tiedown assembly displacement. This also could include mis-cuts
(short-studs) and lack of square cut ends.

Figure 1-10. Second floor diaphragm connection to shear wall
Table 1-7. Deflections of the shear walls at the roof level1,2,6,10

ASD v Strength v Vn en (5) (in.) da ∆ S (7)
Wall h (ft) A(3) (sq in.) E (psi) b (ft) G(4) (psi) t (in.)
(plf) (plf) (lb) (in.) (in.)
A1 681 953 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 5.0 90,000 0.535 159 0.0057 0.38 0.93
A2 681 953 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 5.0 90,000 0.535 159 0.0057 0.38 0.93
B(8) 336 470 10.0 19.25 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 118 0.0022 0.38 0.39
C(8) 380 532 10.0 19.25 1.7E6 8.5 90,000 0.535 133 0.0032 0.45 0.68
1 47 66 15.25 19.25 1.7E6 18.0 90,000 0.535 22 8.8E-6 0.04 0.06
2 107 150 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 10.0 90,000 0.535 50 0.0001 0.21 0.22
3 291 407 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 15.0 90,000 0.535 136 0.0034 0.21 0.23
5a(9) 194 271 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 16.0 90,000 0.535 90 0.0009 0.21 0.18
5b(9) 120 168 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 10.0 90,000 0.535 56 0.0002 0.21 0.23
Notes:
8vh 3 vh h
1. ∆S = + + 0.75he n + d a §23.223, Vol. 3
EAb Gt b
2. h values are from the bottom of the sill plate to the bottom of the framing at diaphragm level (top plates).
3. A values are for 4 × 6 posts for walls A1, A2, B, C, and wall 1. A values are for 4 × 4 posts for walls 2,
3, 5a, and 5b.
4. G values are for Structural I sheathing. Testing of shear walls has indicated that the G values are slightly
higher for oriented strand board (OSB) than plywood, but not enough to warrant the use of different
values.
5. en values for Structural I sheathing with dry lumber = (V n 769 )3.276
6. The use of a computer spreadsheet is recommended. This will not only save time, but also eliminate
possible arithmetic errors with these repetitive calculations.
7. Deflection of walls (∆ S ) is based on strength level forces. The shear wall deflections must be determined
using the strength design forces. The calculated deflection of a shear wall is linear up to about two times

the allowable stress design values. Since there are tiedown assembly displacements, and dead loads that
resist overturning, the factoring up approach of ASD forces is not appropriate.
8. When sheathing is applied to both sides of the wall, the deflection of the shear wall is determined by using
one-half the values from Table 1-2.
9. In-plane shears to walls 5a and 5b are proportioned based on relative lengths (not per §23.223, Volume 3).
( )
Example for wall at line 5a: R = 162 162 + 102 = 72 percent, which is appropriate for two walls in a line,
but not necessarily for three or more walls in line. Attempting to equate deflections is desirable. However,
the calculations are iterative and indeterminate, and the results are very similar.
10. For deflection of shear wall at line D, see the following Part 3c.
Determine deflection of wall frame at line D (with force transfer around openings).
The deflection for the shear wall can be approximated by using an analysis similar
to computing the stiffness for a concrete wall with an opening in it. The deflection
for the solid wall is computed, then a deflection for a horizontal window strip is
subtracted, and the deflection for the wall piers added back in.
Engineering judgment may be used to simplify this approximation. However, the

method shown below is one way to approximate the deflection.
Figure 1-11. Elevation of wall frame on line D

First, determine deflection of the entire wall, without an opening:
Deflection of solid wall:
8vh 3 vh h
= + + 0.75hen + d a §23.223 Vol. 3
EAb Gt b
Sheathing is on both sides of wall with 10d common nails @ 2 inches o. c. Wall
has 2 × 6 studs with 4 × 6 at ends.
V = 5,198 lb
5,198 lb
v= = 260 plf
(2 )10.0 ft
With edge nailing at 2 inches on center:
Vn = load per nail = 260(2 12 ) = 43 lb/nail
e n = (43 769 )3.276 = 0.0001 inch
With a tiedown elongation of 0.05 in., wood shrinkage of 0.13 in., and wood
crushing of .02, it gives a tiedown assembly displacement of 0.20 in.
For crushing: from Part 9e, the strength level overturning moment
M OT = 52,452 ft-lb. Dividing by the distance L = 9.7 ft computes the seismic
downward component of the 4 × 6 post:
P = 52,452 9.7 = 5,407 lb
fc = P A
f c = 5,407 (3.5 × 5.5) = 281 psi < 0.73(625) = 456 psi
∴ crush = 0.02 in
For shrinkage of GLB fabricated to AITC specifications at 17 percent MC:

0.002(17-13) 16.5= 0.13 in.

PL
For strap: + strap nail slip = 0.05 in.
AE
d a = 0.05 + 0.13 + 0.02 = 0.20 in.
8(260 )9.03 260(9.0 ) 9.0 (0.20 )

∆= + + 0.75(9.0) 0.0001 + = 0.23 in.
1.7 E6(19.25) 10.0 (90,000) 0.535 10.0
Second, determine deflection of window strip:
V = 5,198 lb (strength)
With sheathing on both sides:
5,198 lb
v= = 260 plf
(2 )10.0 ft
e n = (43 769 )3.276 = 0.0001 in
Since the boundary elements are connected to continuous posts that extend above
and below the opening, the value of d a equals the sheathing nail deformation
value calculated above (boundary element “chord” elongation is neglected):
d a = 0.0001 in.
8 (260) 4.0 3 260 (4.0) 4.0 (0.0001)

−∆= + + 0.75 (4.0) 0.0001 + = 0.02 in.
1.7Ε6 (19.25)10.0 (90,000) 0.535 10.0
Note that this deflection is negative because it is subtracted from the sum of the
deflections, as shown later.

Third, determine deflection of wall piers:
5,198 lb
V= = 2,599 lb
2
2,599 lb
v = = 433 plf
(2 )3.0 ft
e n = (72 769 )3.276 = 0.0004 in.
Since the boundary elements are connected to continuous posts that extend above
and below the opening, the value of d a equals the sheathing nail deformation
value calculated for the wall piers.
d a = 0.0004 in.
8 (433) 4.0 3 433 (4.0) 4.0 (0.0004 )

∆= + + 0.75 (4.0 ) 0.0004 + = 0.04 in.
1.7 Ε (19.25) 3.0 (90,000) 0.535 3.0
Last, determine the sum of the deflections:
∆ = 0.23 − 0.02 + 0.04 = 0.25 in
Thus the stiffness of the wall is (0.23 0.25) , or 92 percent of that of the solid wall.
Determine deflection of wall due to deflection of GLB (see Figure 1-12).
∆h = Shear wall deflection due to deflection of the support beam
∆V ∆h
tan θ = =
b h
h (∆V )
∴ ∆h =
b

Vh
ROT =
b
5,198 lb(9.0 ft )
ROT = = 4,678 lb (strength)
10.0 ft
For 5.125 × 16.5 GLB 24 FV 4 :
E = 1,800,000 psi
I = 1,918 in.4
ROT a 2 b 2
∆V =
3EIL
4 ,678(8.0 × 12 )2 (10.0 × 12 )2
∆V = = 0.278 in.
3(1.8E6 )1,918(18.0 × 12 )
h (∆ V )
∆h =
b
∆h =
(9.0 × 12 )(0.278 ) = 0.25 in.
(10 .0 × 12 )
Total deflection of shear wall including GLB rotation and tiedown assembly
displacement:
∆h = 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.50 in.

Figure 1-12. Wall elevation at line D
Table 1-8. Wall rigidities at roof level1(walls from second floor to roof)
Ftot Ftot
Wall ∆s(2) (in.) Ftot (lb) k= (k/in.) k= (k/in.)
∆s ∆s
A1 0.93 4,771 5.130
10.26
A2 0.93 4,771 5.130
B 0.39 13,154 33.73
C 0.68 9,044 13.30
D 0.50 5,198 10.40
1 0.06 1,179 19.65
2 0.22 1,493 6.79
3 0.23 6,112 26.57
5a 0.18 4,332 24.07
31.39
5b 0.23 1,684 7.32
Notes:
1. Deflections and forces are based on strength force levels.
2. ∆S is the design level displacement from Table 1-7 and calculations of wall frame.

Determination of ∆M. §1630.9.2

Before checking drift, the maximum inelastic response displacement ∆ M must be
computed. This is done as follows:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S
R = 5.5 for the north-south direction
R = 2.2 for the east-west direction
∆ M = 0.7(5.5)∆ S = 3.85∆ S for the north-south direction
∆ M = 0.7(2.2 )∆ S = 1.54∆ S for the east-west direction
Determination of maximum drift. §1630.10.2

The calculated story drift using ∆ M shall not exceed the maximum ∆ M which is
0.025 times the story height for structures that have a fundamental period less than
0.7 seconds. The building period for this design example was calculated to be 0.21
seconds, which is less than 0.7 seconds, therefore the 0.025 drift limitation applies.
Table 1-9. Drift check at roof level

Max. ∆M (1)
Wall ∆S (in.) h (ft) ∆M (in.) Status
(in.)
A1 0.93 9.0 1.43 2.70 ok
East-West
A2 0.93 9.0 1.43 2.70 ok

B 0.39 10.0 0.60 3.00 ok
C 0.68 10.0 1.05 3.00 ok
D 0.50 9.0 0.77 2.70 ok
1 0.06 15.25 0.23 4.57 ok
North-South
2 0.22 9.0 0.85 2.70 ok

3 0.23 9.0 0.88 2.70 ok
5a 0.18 9.0 0.69 2.70 ok
5b 0.23 9.0 0.88 2.70 ok

G Estimation of second floor level rigidities.
First floor level design displacements.

First floor level rigidities are determined by first calculating tiedown displacements
(Table 1-10) and then deflections of shear walls at the second floor level (Table
1-11). The drift check, discussed in Part 3c, is given in Table 1-12, and wall
rigidities calculated in Table 1-13.
Table 1-10. Tiedown assembly displacements for first floor level walls1
ASD LRFD
Wall Uplift/1.4 (2) Tiedown Tiedown(3) Tiedown Assembly Displacement da
Uplift (lb)
(lb) Device Elongation (in.) Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6) (in.)
A1 13,450 Bolted 18,830 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.25
A2 13,450 Bolted 18,830 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.25
B 12,675 Bolted 17,745 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.24
C1 11,335 Bolted 15,870 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.22
C2 3,890 Bolted 5,445 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.11
2 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.03
3 825 Strap 1,155 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.08
5 400 Strap 560 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.06
Notes:
1. Tiedown assembly displacement is calculated at the foundation.
2. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning force (M OT − M R ) , divided by the
distance to the centroids of the boundary elements assuming 4x members at the ends of the
shear wall. This equates to the length of the wall minus 3½ inches for straps, or the length of
wall minus 7¼ inches when using a bolted holdown, which includes a 2-inch offset from post
to tiedown bolt.
3. Tiedown elongation is based on actual uplift force divided by tiedown capacity multiplied by
the tiedown elongation at capacity from manufacturer’s catalog. Example of tiedown
elongation at A1: Tiedown selected has a 15,000 lb allowable load for a 5½-inch member.
From the manufacturer’s ICBO approval, the tiedown deflection at the highest allowable
design load (15,000 lb) is 0.12 inches, giving a tiedown elongation of
(18,830 15,000 0)0.12 = 0.15 inches. Since the tiedown device has an average ultimate strength
of 55,000 lb, the displacement can be assumed to be linear and therefore extrapolated.
4. Wood shrinkage is based on a change from 15 percent MC to 13 percent MC. This equates to
0.002 × d × (15-13). Where d is 2.5 inches for a 3 × sill plate. Pressure-treated lumber has a
moisture content of less than 15 percent at completion of treatment.
5. Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c ⊥ ) is less than 0.73F ’c ⊥
crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches, when f c ⊥ = F ’c ⊥ crushing is approximately 0.04
inches.
6. ( )
Per 91 NDS 7.3.6 γ = load/slip modulus = (270,000) D1.5 plus 1/16" oversized hole for bolts.
For nails, values for en can be used. Example for slip at tiedown at A1 (Tiedown has five
1-inch diameter bolts to post).
Load/bolt = 18,830 5 = 3,766 lb/bolt

γ = (270,000) (1)1.5 = 270,000 lb/in.

Slip = (3,766 270,000) = 0.014 in.
Good detailing should specify the tiedown bolts to be re-tightened just prior to closing in.
This can accomplish two things: it takes the slack out of the oversized bolt hole, and
compensates for some wood shrinkage. This design example assumes that about one-half of
the bolt hole slack is taken out.
 1 1
Therefore the total slip = (0.014 ) +   = 0.05 in.
 16  2
Table 1-11. Deflections of the shear walls at the second floor level 1,2,3,4 (§23.222 Vol. 3)
ASD v Strength Vn en (in.) da ∆S
Wall h (ft) A (sq in.) E (psi) b (ft) G (psi) t (in.)
(plf) v (plf) (lb) (in.) (in.)
A1 763 1,067 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 5.0 90,000 0.535 178 0.0083 0.25 0.74
A2 763 1,067 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 5.0 90,000 0.535 178 0.0083 0.25 0.74
B 404 566 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 141 0.0039 0.24 0.29
C1(5) 279 391 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 10.0 90,000 0.535 98 0.0012 0.22 0.29
C2(5) 251 351 9.0 19.25 1.7E6 9.0 90,000 0.535 88 0.0008 0.11 0.19
2 114 159 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 10.0 90,000 0.535 53 0.0002 0.03 0.06
3 256 359 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 22.0 90,000 0.535 120 0.0023 0.08 0.12
5 413 578 9.0 12.25 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 192 0.0106 0.06 0.23
Notes:
1. h values are from bottom of sill plate to bottom of framing at diaphragm level (top plates).
8vh 3 vh h
2. ∆S = + + 0.75hen + d a §23.223, Vol. 3
EAb Gt b
3. G values are for Structural I sheathing. Testing of shear walls has indicated that the G
values are slightly higher for OSB than plywood, but not enough to warrant different values.
4. en values for Structural I sheathing with dry lumber = (Vn 769 )3.276
5. Shear distributed to walls C1 and C2 are proportioned based on relative lengths. Attempting
to equate deflections is desirable, however the calculations are iterative and indeterminate,
and the results are very similar. The average ∆ for walls A, B, and C at the second floor
level is 0.42 inches. For deformation compatibility, it has been decided to size the cantilever
column elements at line E for the deflections nearest shear wall at C, where the average is
∆ = 0.24 inches. Another approach would be to use a weighted average that includes the
force in the wall. For example, if 99 percent of the load is carried by a stiff wall with
∆ = 0.10 inches and 1 percent is carried by wall with ∆ = 1.00 inches, then the weighted
average approach is appropriate.
∆ = 0.10 × 0.99 + 1.0 × 0.01 = 0.11 inches, this assumes no rotation and a rigid diaphragm. If
the diaphragm is flexible, then deflection compatibility is not an issue. The engineer should
exercise good engineering judgment in determining deformation compatibility.

Table 1-12. Drift check at second floor level

Max. ∆M (1)
Wall ∆S (in.) h (ft) ∆M (in.) Status
(in.)
A1 0.74 9.0 1.14 2.70 ok
East-West
A2 0.74 9.0 1.14 2.70 ok
B 0.29 9.0 0.44 2.70 ok
C1 0.29 9.0 0.44 2.70 ok
C2 0.19 9.0 0.29 2.70 ok
2 0.06 9.0 0.23 2.70 ok
North-
South
3 0.12 9.0 0.46 2.70 ok

5 0.23 9.0 0.88 2.70 ok
Drift for cantilever columns at line E.

The cantilever column is assumed to be fixed at the base. This can be accomplished
by setting the column on a footing and then casting the grade beam around the
column. With this type of connection, the stresses in the flange of the column
caused by concrete bearing at the top of the grade beam should be checked.
Another approach is to provide a specially detailed base plate with anchor bolts
that are bolted to the top of the grade beam. The bolts and base plate will allow for
some rotation, which should be considered in computing the column deflections.
The grade beam should have a stiffness of at least 10 times greater than that of the
column for the column to be considered fixed at the base. It is common for
columns of this type to have drift control the size of the column rather than
bending.
PL3
∆=
3EI
It should be noted that if the steel columns were not needed to resist lateral forces
(gravity columns only), and all lateral forces were resisted by the wood shear walls,
then only relative rigidities of the wood shear walls would need to be calculated.
From Figure 1-7 at line E, the force to each of the three cantilever columns:
P = (5,655 lb+408 lb)/ 3 = 2 ,021 lb/column
2 ,022 (9 × 12 )3
= = 122 in.4
I req ’d
( )
3 29 × 10 0.24
6
Use TS10 × 5 × 3 8

I x = 128 in. 4
 122 
∆ TS =  0.24 = 0.23 in.
 128 
M = (2,021 / 1.4 ) = 12 ,992 ft - lb (allowable stress design)
M 12 ,992 × 12
fb = = = 6,115 psi < 0.66(46,000 ) o.k.
S 25.5
Table 1-13. Wall rigidities at second floor level

(walls from first to second floor)(1)
Ftot Ftot
Wall ∆S (2) (in.) Ftot (lb) k= (k/in.) k= (k/in.)
∆s ∆s
A1 0.74 5,339 7.215
14.43
A2 0.74 5,339 7.215
B 0.29 15,857 54.68
C1 0.29 7,820 26.96
60.30
C2 0.19 6,334 33.34
E 0.23 6,063 26.36
2 0.06 1,592 26.53
3 0.12 7,891 65.76
5 0.23 8,090 35.17
Notes:
2. ∆S is the design level displacement from Table 1-11.
Determine centers of mass and rigidity of diaphragms.
It has been a common practice for practicing engineers to assume flexible

diaphragms and distribute loads to shear walls based on tributary areas. This has
been done for many years and is a well-established conventional design
assumption. In this design example, the rigid diaphragm assumption will be used.
This is not intended to imply that seismic design of residential construction in the
past should have been necessarily performed in this manner. However, recent
earthquakes and testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that expected
drifts are considerably higher than what was known or assumed in the past. This
knowledge of the increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls has increased the
need for the engineer to consider the relative rigidities of shear walls. This, and the
fact that diaphragms tend to be much more rigid than the shear walls, has
necessitated consideration of diaphragm rigidities. In this Part, the diaphragms are
assumed to be rigid. See Part 7 for later confirmation of this assumption.

Design Example 1 ! Wood Light Frame Residence
4a.
4a For roof diaphragm.
Figure 1-13. Roof diaphragm centers of rigidity and mass
Determine center of mass of roof diaphragm from wall loads.

Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for east-west direction
(Figure 1-6) and summing forces about line D:
 34 
734 plf (34.0 ft ) = 24,956 lb ×  + 6 + (15 − 2 ) ft = 898,416 ft - lb
 2 
6 
632 plf (6.0 ft ) = 3,792 lb ×  + (15 − 2) ft = 60,672 ft - lb
2 
 15 
546 plf (15.0 ft ) = 8,190 lb ×  − 2  = 45,045 ft - lb
2 
36,938 lb 1,004,133 ft - lb

∴ ym =
∑ wx = 1,004,133 ft − lb = 27.2 ft @ roof
∑w 36,938 lb
Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for north-south

direction (Figure 1-8) and summing forces about line 1:
376 plf (32.0 ft ) = 12,032 lb × 25.0 ft = 300,800 ft - lb
274 plf (5.0 ft ) = 1,370 lb × 6.5 ft = 8,905 ft - lb
233 plf (6.0 ft ) = 1,398 lb × 1.0 ft = 1,398 ft - lb
10,800 lb 311,103 ft - lb
∴ xm =
∑ wy = 311,103 ft − lb = 21.0 ft @ roof
∑w 14,800 lb
Determine center of rigidity for roof diaphragm.

Using the rigidity values R from Table 1-8 and the distance y from line D to the
shear wall:
y=
∑ (k xx y ) or y ∑ k xx = ∑ k xx y
∑ k xx
y (10.40 + 13.30 + 33.73 + 10.26) = 10.40(0) + 13.30(15.0) + 33.73(29.0 ) + 10.26(51.0)
1700.9
∴ yr = = 25.1 ft @ roof
67.69
x=
∑ (k yy x ) or x ∑ k yy = ∑ k yy x
∑ k yy
x (19.65 + 6.79 + 26.57 + 31.39 ) = 19.65(0) + 6.79(6.0 ) + 26.57(11.0) + 31.39(39.0)
1557.2
∴ xr = = 18.5 ft @ roof
84.40

4b.
4b For second floor diaphragm.
Figure 1-14. Second floor diaphragm centers of rigidity and mass
Determine center of mass of floor diaphragm from wall loads.

Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for east-west direction
(Figure 1-7) and summing forces about line E:
102 plf (17.0 ft ) = 1,734 lb × 49.5 ft = 85,833 ft - lb
127 plf (5.0 ft ) = 635 lb × 38.5 ft = 24,448 ft - lb
210 plf (14.0 ft ) = 2,940 lb × 29.0 ft = 85,260 ft - lb
178 plf (15.0 ft ) = 2,670 lb × 14.5 ft = 38,715 ft - lb
204 plf (9.0 ft ) = 1,836 lb × 2.5 ft = 4,590 ft - lb
9,815 lb 238,846 ft - lb
238,846 ft − lb
∴ ym = = 24.3 ft @ second floor
9,815 lb

Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for north-south

direction (Figure 1-9) and summing forces about line 2:
23 plf (2.0 ft ) = 46 lb × 34.0 ft = 5,564 ft - lb
154 plf (16.0 ft ) = 2,464 lb × 25.0 ft = 61,600 ft - lb
110 plf (4.0 ft ) = 440 lb × 15.0 ft = 6,600 ft - lb
97.2 plf (8.0 ft ) = 778 lb × 9.0 ft = 7,002 ft - lb
58.9 plf (2.0 ft ) = 118 lb × 4.0 ft = 471ft - lb
35.8 plf (3.0 ft ) = 107 lb × 1.5 ft = 160 ft - lb
3,953 lb 77,397 ft − lb
77,397 ft − lb
∴ xm = = 19.6 ft @ second floor
3,953 lb
Determine center of rigidity for floor diaphragm.

Using the rigidity values k from Table 1-13 and the distance y from line E to the
shear wall:
y r (26.36 + 60.30 + 54.68 + 14.43) = 26.36(0 ) + 60.30(22.0) + 54.68(36.0) + 14.43(58.0)
4132.0
∴ yr = = 26.5 ft @ second floor
155.77
Using the rigidity values k from Table 1-13 and the distance x from line 2 to the
shear wall:
x r (26.53 + 65.76 + 35.17 ) = 26.53(0.0) + 65.76(5.0) + 35.17(33.0)
1489.4
∴ xr = = 11.7 ft @ second floor
127.5

5. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls with rigid diaphragms. §1630.6
Using the rigid diaphragm assumption, the base shear was distributed to the two
levels in Part 1. In this Part, the story forces are distributed to the shear walls that
support each level.
The code requires that the story force at the center of mass to be displaced from the
calculated center of mass a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at that
level perpendicular to the direction of force. This is to account for accidental
torsion. The code requires the most severe load combination to be considered and
also permits the negative torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear.
However, lateral forces must be considered to act in each direction of the two
principal axis. This design example does not consider eccentricities between the
center of masses between levels. In this example, these eccentricities are small and
are therefore considered insignificant. The engineer must exercise good
engineering judgment in determining when these effects need to be considered.
5a. For the roof diaphragm (Figure 1-13).
Forces in the east-west (x) direction:
Distance to the calculated CM : y m = 27.2 ft
Displaced e y = (0.05 × 55 ft ) = 2.7 ft
New y to displace CM = 27.2 ft ± 2.7 ft = 29.9 ft or 24.5 ft
Distance to the calculated CR : y r = 25.1 ft
e y = 29.9 − 25.1 = 4.8 ft or e y = 25.1 − 24.5 = 0.6
Note that displacing the center of mass by 5 percent can result in the CM being on
either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to all walls.
Tx = Fx e y = 36,950 lb (4.8 ft ) = 177,360 ft − lb

or
Tx = Fx e y = 36,950 lb (0.6 ft ) = 22,170 ft − lb

Forces in the north-south (y) direction:
Distance to the calculated CM : x m = 21.0 ft
Displaced e x = (0.05 × 43 ft ) = 2.2 ft
New x to displace CM = 21.0 ft ± 2.2 ft = 23.2 ft or 18.8 ft
Distance to the calculated CR : x r = 18.5 ft
e x = 23.2 − 18.5 = 4.7 ft or e x = 18.8 − 18.5 = 0.3
T y = Fy e x = 14,800 lb (4.7 ft ) = 69,560 ft − lb

or
T y = Fy e x = 14,800 lb (0.3 ft ) = 4,440 ft − lb
Fe-w = 36,950 lb (Table 1 - 1)
Fn-s = 14,800 lb (Table 1 - 1)
Tx = 177,360 ft - lb for walls A and B
Tx = 22,170 ft - lb for walls C and D
Ty = 69,560 ft - lb for wall 5
Ty = 4,440 ft - lb for walls 1, 2, and 3

5b. For roof wall forces.
The direct shear force Fv is determined from:
R
Fv = F
∑R
and the torsional shear force Ft is determined from:
Rd
Ft = T
J
where:
J = ∑ Rd x2 + ∑ Rd y2
R = rigidity of lateral resisting element
d = distance from lateral resisting element to the center of rigidity
T = Fe
Table 1-14. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the roof level
Direct Force Torsional Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Fv Force Ft Fv + Ft
A 10.26 25.9 265.7 6,883 5601 1247 6,848
B 33.73 3.9 131.5 513 18,412 617 19,029
East-West
C 13.30 10.1 134.3 1,357 7,260 79 7,339

D 10.40 25.1 261.0 6,552 5,677 151 5,828
Σ 67.69 15,305 36,950
1 19.65 -18.5 -363.5 6,725 3,446 -42 3,404
2 6.79 -12.5 -84.8 1,061 1,191 -10 1,181
North-South
3 26.57 -7.5 -199.3 1,495 4,659 -24 4,635

5 31.39 20.5 643.5 13,192 5,504 1,185 6,689
Σ 84.40 22,473 14,800
Σ 37,778
For simplicity, many engineers will add 5 percent or 10 percent of the direct force
shears to account for torsional effects. The average torsional force added to the
shears walls in this design example is 11 percent of the direct force. Adding only 5
percent of the wall shears can be unconservative.
Torsional forces are subtracted from direct forces for this design example as now
allowed by code. This only occurs when both of the displaced center of mass is on

the same side of the center of rigidity for a given direction. When the center of
rigidity occurs between the two displaced centers of mass, then torsional forces can
not be subtracted (which occurs at the roof in the east-west direction). Many
engineers still neglect these negative forces.
5c. For the floor diaphragm (Figure 1-14).
Distance to the calculated CM : y m = 24.3 ft

Displaced e y = (0.05 × 60 ft ) = 3.0 ft
New y to displace CM = 24.3 ft ± 3.0 ft = 27.3 ft or 21.3 ft
Distance to the calculated CR : y r = 26.5 ft
e y = 27.3 − 26.5 = 0.8 ft
or
e y = 26.5 − 21.3 = 5.2 ft
Tx = Fx e y = 46,750 lb (0.8 ft ) = 37,400 ft − lb
or
Tx = Fx e y = 46,750 lb (5.2 ft ) = 243,100 ft − lb
Distance to the calculated CM : x m = 19.6 ft

Displaced e x = (0.05 × 35 ft ) = 1.7 ft
New x to displace CM = 19.6 ft ± 1.7 ft = 21.3 ft or 17.9 ft
Distance to the calculated CR : x r = 11.7 ft
e x = 21.3 − 11.7 = 9.6 ft or e x = 17.9 − 11.7 = 6.2 ft
T y = Fy e x = 18,750 lb (9.6 ft ) = 180,000 ft − lb
or
T y = Fy e x = 18,750 lb (6.2 ft ) = 116,250 ft − lb
Fe-w = (36,950 + 9,800) = 46,750 lb (adding forces from roof and floor from Table 1-1)
Tx = 37,400 ft - lb for walls A and B
Tx = 243,100 ft - lb for walls C and E
Fn-s = (14,800 + 3,950) = 18,750 lb (adding forces from roof and floor from Table 1-1)
Ty = 116,250 ft - lb for walls 2 and 3
Ty = 180,000 ft - lb for wall 5

Table 1-15. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the second floor level
Direct Torsional Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Force Fv Force Ft Fv + Ft
A 14.43 31.5 454.5 14,318 4,331 276 4,607
B 54.68 9.5 519.5 4,935 16,410 316 16,726
East-West
C 60.30 4.5 271.3 1,221 18,097 1,072 19,169

E 26.36 26.5 698.5 18,511 7,910 2,760 10,670
Σ 155.77 38,985 46,750
2 26.53 -11.7 -310 3,632 3,903 -585 3,318
North-South
3 65.76 -6.7 -440 2,952 9,674 -831 8,843

5 35.17 21.3 749 15,956 5,173 2,191 7,364
Σ 127.46 22,540 18,750
Σ 61,525
Table 1-16.Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm
analysis and recheck of nailing in walls
Rigid/ Fmax
F flexible Frigid v= Sheathing Allowable Edge Nail
Wall
(lb) (lb)
Flexible b (ft) (b )1.4 1 or 2 sides Shear (plf) Spacing (in.)
Ratio
(plf)
Roof Level
A 9,542 6,848 0.72 10.0 682 One 870 2
B 13,154 19,029 1.44 14.0 970 Two 1330 3
C 9,044 7,339 0.81 8.5 760 Two 1330 3
D 5,198 5,828 1.12 6.0 693 Two 1740 2
1 1,179 3,404 2.89 18.0 135 One 510 4
2 1,493 1,181 0.79 10.0 107 One 510 4
3 6,112 4,635 0.76 15.0 292 One 510 4
5 6,016 6,689 1.11 26.0 184 One 510 4
Floor Level
A 10,678 4,607 0.43 10.0 762 One 870 2
B 15,857 16,726 1.05 14.0 853 Two 1330 3
C 14,154 19,169 1.35 19.0 721 Two 1330 3
E 6,063 10,670 1.76 — — — — —
2 1,592 3,318 2.08 10.0 237 One 510 4
3 7,891 8,843 1.12 22.0 287 One 510 4
5 8,090 7,364 0.91 14.0 413 One 510 4

Shear walls with shears that exceed 350 pounds per lineal foot will require 3x
framing at abutting panel edges with staggered nails. See also notes at bottom of
Table 1-2.
Where rigid diaphragm analysis shows seismic forces to the shear walls are higher
than from flexible diaphragm analysis, the wall stability and anchorage must be re-
evaluated. Engineering judgment should be used to determine if a rigid diaphragm
analysis should be repeated due to changes in wall rigidity.
If rigid diaphragm loads are used, the diaphragm shears should be rechecked for
total load divided by diaphragm length along the individual wall lines.
6. Reliability/redundancy factor ρ. §1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems without

adequate redundancy. In this example (in Part 1), the reliability/redundancy factor
was assumed to be ρ = 1.0 . This will now be checked.
20
ρ = 2− (30-3)
rmax AB
where:
rmax = the maximum element-story shear ratio.
For shear walls, the ratio for the wall with the largest shear per foot at or below
two-thirds the height of the building is calculated. Or in the case of a three-story
building, the lower two levels. The value of rmax is computed from the total lateral
load in the wall multiplied by 10 l w and divided by the story shear.
l w = length of wall in feet
AB = the ground floor area of the structure in square feet.
Vmax (10 l w )
ri =
F
AB = 1,542 sq ft

For east-west direction:
Using strength-level forces for wall C:
16,726(10 14.0 )
rmax = = 0.26
46,750
20
ρ = 2− = 0.04 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.26 1,542
∴ ρ = 1.0
Therefore, there is no increase in base shear required due to lack of

reliability/redundancy. The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence
“The value of the ratio 10 l w need not be taken as greater than 1.0” in the 1999
SEAOC Blue Book—which will not penalize longer walls, but in this design
example has no effect.
Note that the cantilevered column elements are not considered to be a moment
frame and are not subject to the ri and ρ requirements of §1630.1.
For north-south direction:
Using strength-level forces for wall 5:
8,090(10 14.0 )
rmax = = 0.31
18,750
20
ρ = 2− = 0.36 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.31 1,542
∴ ρ = 1.0
Therefore, for both directions there is no increase in base shear required due to lack
of reliability/redundancy.
7. Diaphragm deflections and whether diaphragms are flexible or rigid.
This step is shown only as a reference for how to calculate horizontal diaphragm
deflections. Since the shear wall forces were determined using both flexible and
rigid diaphragm assumptions, there is no requirement to verify that the diaphragm
is actually rigid or flexible.

The design seismic force in the roof and floor diaphragms using Equation 33-1
must first be found. The design seismic force is then divided by the diaphragm area
to determine the horizontal loading in pounds per square foot (refer to Figures 1-13
and 1-14 ). The design seismic force shall not be less than 0.5C a Iw px nor greater
than 1.0C a Iw px .
The basic equation to determine seismic forces on a diaphragm is shown below.

The following will compute the seismic forces in the north-south direction.
n
Ft + ∑ Fi
i= x
F px = n
w px (33-1)
∑ wi
i= x
Ft = 0 in this example because T < 0.7 seconds.
Note that the forces in the east-west direction are higher.
Fp =
(36,950 × 64,000) = 36,950 lb
roof
64,000
36,950 lb
Fp roof = = 17.07 psf
2,164 sq ft
For the uppermost level, the above calculation will always produce the same force
as computed in Eq. (30-15).
Fp =
(36,950 × 9,800)× 39,000 = 17,701 lb (governs)
floor
(39,000 + 64,000)
Fp min = 0.5C a Iw px = 0.5(0.40 )(1.0 )w px = 0.20(39,000 ) = 7,800 lb §1633.2.9
17 ,701 lb
Fp floor = = 11.48 psf
1,542 sq ft
In this example, the roof and floor diaphragms spanning between line A and line B
will be used to illustrate the method. The basic equation to determine the deflection
of a diaphragm is shown below.
∆=
5vL3
+
vL
+ 0.188 Len +
∑ (∆ c X ) §23.222 Vol. 3
8 EAb 4Gt 2b

The above equation is based on a uniformly loaded, uniformly nailed, simple span
diaphragm with blocked panel edges and is based on monotonic tests conducted by
the American Plywood Association (APA). The equation has four separate parts.
The first part of the equation accounts for beam bending, the second accounts for
shear deformation, the third accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the last part
accounts for chord slippage. The UBC references this in §2315.1.
For the purpose of this calculation, assume the diaphragm is a simple span
supported at A and B (refer to Figures 1-13 and 1-14). In reality, with continuity at
B, the actual deflection will be less.
7a. Roof diaphragm.
Check diaphragm shear.
Based on the F p roof = 17.07 psf as computed above, find roof shear to line A for
the east-west direction.
1. Area of roof including over hangs is 22' x 43'.

2. Wall length is 39 ft.
3. Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4.
v=
(17.07 )43.0 (22.0) = 148 plf < 190 plf allowable
1.4 (39.0 )2
From Table 23-II-H, the allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32-inch APA-
rated wood structural panels with unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6 inches
on center at boundaries and panel edges. APA-rated wood structural panels may be
either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
Check diaphragm deflection.
The UBC specifies that the deflection be calculated on a unit load basis. In other
words, the diaphragm deflection should be based on the same load as the load used
for the lateral resisting elements, not F px total force at the level considered. Since
the code now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of
§1612.2 (see Part 3b for additional comments), determine strength loads on
building diaphragm.
36 ,950 lb
fp roof = = 17.07 psf
2,164 sq ft

(17.07 psf ) 43.0 ft (22.0 ft )

v= = 207 plf
2(39.0 ft )
With nails at 6 inches on center, the load per nail is 207(6 / 12 ) = 104 lb/nail = V n
L = 22.0 ft
b = 39.0 ft
G = 90,000 psi Table 23-2-J Vol. 3
E = 1,700,000 psi
A 2×4 chords = 5.25 sq in. × 2 = 10.50 sq in.
Sum of individual chord-splice slip.

Note that the area for 2 − 2 × 4 top plates (chord) has been used. All top plates are
connected with metal straps. If a metal strap is not used, then use of the area for
one top plate is recommended. Also note that the top plates at line 1 are 2 − 2 × 6 .
The deflection calculation will conservatively use the chord area of the 2 2x4s at
line 5.
Fastener slip/nail deformation values (en).
en = 1.20(104 769 )3.276 = 0.0017
t = 0.298 in. (for CDX or Standard Grade) Table 23-2-H
The chord-splice of the diaphragm will be spliced with a 12 gauge metal strap
using 10d nails. Assume a chord splice of the diaphragm at mid-span. The slippage
for both the diaphragm chords is to be included. The nail slip value from APA
Research Report 138 can be used:
e n = (V n 769 )3.276 = (120 769 )3.276 = 0.002 in.
where:
The allowable load is 120 pound per nail (from NDS Table 12.3F for a 10d
nail in a 12-gauge strap).
Vn = 120 lb/nail in the strap. The elongation of the metal strap is assumed to
be 0.03 inches.
Therefore, the chord slip is:
∆ c = 0.002 + 0.03
∆ c = 0.032 in.

∑ (∆ c X ) = (0.032 )11.0 ft (2 ) = 0.70 in. - ft

Where the distance to the nearest support is 11'–0" and to get the sum for both
chords you multiply by 2.
5(207 )22 .0 3 207 (22 .0 )

+ 0.188 (22 .0 )0.0017 +
0.70
∆= + = 0.06 in.
8(1.7 E 6 )10 .50 (39 .0 ) 4 (90 ,000 )0 .298 2 (39 .0 )
This deflection is based on a blocked diaphragm. The UBC does not have a
formula for an unblocked diaphragm. The APA is currently working on a
simplified formula for unblocked diaphragms. Based on diaphragm deflection test
results performed by the APA, an unblocked diaphragm will deflect between 2 to
2½ times more than that of a blocked diaphragm or can be proportioned to
allowable shears. The roof diaphragm is also sloped at 5:12, which is believed to
increase the deflection (but has not been confirmed with tests). This design
example has unblocked panel edges for the floor and roof diaphragms, so a
conversion factor is necessary. It is assumed that the unblocked diaphragm will
deflect:
∆ = 0.06(2.5) = 0.15 in.
Note that at gable ended roofs, when the chord is in the plane of the roof (pitched),
the chord connection at the ridge should be carefully detailed to accommodate the
uplift component of the chord.
7b. Floor diaphragm.
Check diaphragm shear.
Based on the F p floor = 11.48 psf as computed in Part 7 above, find floor shear to
line A for the east-west direction (area of floor is 22 × 16 ).
Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4

where:
v=
(11.48 psf )16.0' (22.0') = 90 plf < 190 plf Table 23-II-H
(1.4)2(16.0)
Allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32-inch APA-rated sheathing with
unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6 inches on center at boundaries and panel
edges supported on framing. APA-rated wood structural panels may be either
plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).

Check diaphragm deflection:
9,800
fp floor = = 6.36 psf
1,542
(6.36 psf )16.0 ft (22.0 ft )

v= = 70 psf
2(16.0 ft )
With nails at 6 inches on center the load per nail is 70(6 12 ) = 35 lb/nail = Vn
L = 22.0 ft
b = 16.0 ft
G = 90,000 psi Table 23-2-J, Vol. 3
E = 1,700,000 psi
A2×4 chords = 5.25 sq in. × 2 = 10.50 sq in.
e = 1.2(35 769 )3.276 = 4.8 E-05

n
t = 0.319 in Table 23-2-H
Using an assumed single chord-splice slip of 0.032-inch at the mid-span of the

diaphragm:
Σ∆ c X = (0.032 )11.0 ft (2 ) = 0.70 in.
5 (70) 22.0 3 70 (22.0)

+ 0.188 (22.0 ) 4.8E − 05 +
0.70
∆= + = 0.04 in.
8 (1.7 E6 )10.50 (16.0) 4 (90,000 )0.319 2(16.0)
Converting to an unblocked diaphragm:
∆ = 0.04(2.5) = 0.10 in.
7c.
7c Flexible versus rigid diaphragms. §1630.6
The maximum diaphragm deflection is 0.15 inches, assuming a simple span for the
diaphragm. The average story drift is on the order of 0.62 inches (see Part 4, Tables
1-9 and 1-12 for the computed deflections of the shear walls). For the diaphragms
to be considered flexible, the maximum diaphragm deflection will have to be more
than two times the average story drift, or 1.25 inches. This would be eight times the
computed “simple span” deflections of the diaphragms. As defined by the UBC,

the diaphragms are considered rigid. Since some amount of diaphragm deformation
will occur, the analysis is highly complex and beyond the scope of what is
normally done for this type of construction.
Diaphragm deflection analysis and testing to date has been performed on level/flat
diaphragms. There has not been any testing of sloped (e.g. roof) and complicated
diaphragms as found in the typical wood-framed single-family residence.
Consequently, some engineers perform their design based on the roof diaphragm
being flexible and the floor diaphragm being rigid.
In this procedure, the engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in

determining if the higher load of the two methodologies is actually required. In
other words, if the load to two walls by rigidity analysis is found to be 5 percent to
line A, 95 percent to line B, but by flexible analysis it is found to be 50 percent to
line A and 50 percent to line B, the engineer should probably design for the larger
of the two loads for the individual walls. Note that the same definition of a flexible
diaphragm has been in the UBC since the 1988 edition. However, it generally has
not been enforced by building officials for Type V construction. The draft of the
IBC 2000 has repeated this same definition in Chapter 23 (wood) definitions. For
further discussion, see the Commentary at end of this example.
8. Does residence meet requirements of conventional construction provisions. §2320
The UBC has had prescriptive provisions for Type V (light frame) construction for
many years. It used to be quite common for building officials to allow developers,
architects, building designers, and homeowners to build structures under these
provisions without any engineering design. The size and style of current single-
family residences now being constructed—with vaulted ceilings and large floor
openings, tile roofs, and larger window sizes—require an engineering design be
done. Due to misuse of the conventional construction requirements, more stringent
limitations on the usage of these provisions were placed in the 1994 UBC.
Following is an analysis of the construction of the residence proposed in this
design example compared with conventional construction requirements and an
explanation of why an engineering design is required for both vertical and lateral
loads. As engineered design code changes continue to get more restrictive, the
“gap” between the double standard (i.e. conventional construction vs. engineered
design) continues to widen.
The structure must be checked against the individual requirements of §2320.1.

Additionally, because this structure is in Seismic Zone 4, it must also be checked
against §2320.5. Results of these checks are shown below.
Roof total loads.

Dead load of roof exceeds the 15 psf limit §2320.1

Unusually shaped buildings.

Exterior braced wall panels at line D over the garage are horizontally offset
from the bracing systems at the floor below and therefore not in one vertical
plane. §2320.5.4.1
Floor opening exceeds 12 feet and 50 percent of the least floor dimension
at line A. §2320.5.4.4
Floor is not laterally supported by braced wall lines on all edges. §2320.5.4.2
Cantilever column bracing at the garage door does not conform to prescribed
methods. §2320.11.3
Stud height exceeds 10'–0" without lateral support at line 1. §2320.11.1
Braced wall lines.

Spacing between braced wall lines 3 and 5 exceeds 25 feet maximum. §2320.5.1
Minimum individual panel length is less than 4'-0" at second floor at line D. §2320.11.3
∴ The residence cannot be designed using the conventional construction

provisions of the code.
9. Design shear wall over garage on line D.
V = 5,828 lb (from Table 1-16)
Converting to allowable stress design for the wall frame:
V = 5,828 1.4 = 4,159 lb (refer to Figures 1-11 and 1-15)
Determine h w aspect ratios for the shear walls:
h w = 9.0 3.0 = 3.0
Maximum h w = 2.0 for Seismic Zones 3 and 4 Table 23-II-G
Therefore, the wall piers need to be designed to transfer forces around

opening. Figure 23-II-1
New h w ratio = 4.0 3.0 = 1.33 < 2.0 o.k.

9a.
9a Design of wall frame (perforated shear wall with force transfer around opening).
It is possible to get the misleading impression from Table 23-II-1 that all a designer
needs to do is add some blocking and straps in order to reduce the h/w ratio. This
design example has a structure with 9'-0" plate heights, which makes using a wall
frame feasible. However, when the plate height is 8'-0", which is a more common
plate height, there are chord development and panel nailing capacity problems.
Most often, the wall shears above and below the opening will be higher than in the
wall piers. This design example analyzes the wall frame and neglects gravity loads,
although from a technically correct standpoint, some engineers will argue that
vertical loads need to be considered when determining wall shears. The standard
practice of neglecting gravity loads when considering wall shears is considered
appropriate. Gravity loads are considered for anchorage of the wall in Part 9b.
Using statistics, determine the shears and forces in each free body panel. This is a
two-step procedure as follows:
First: Find forces acting on upper left corner of wall frame (Figure 1-15).
Second: Break up wall frame into free-body panel sections and balance forces for
each panel starting with upper left corner forces already determined (Figure 1-16).
Figure 1-15. Wall frame elevation at line D

Figure 1-16. Free-body individual panels of wall on line D

Many engineers will arbitrarily add tiedowns at the window jamb members (Figure
1-18). However, with this type of design, the tiedowns at these locations are not
necessary, but shear stresses above and below the window may become higher.
Adding tiedowns at the window jambs would increase the wall frame performance
and help prevent sill plate uplift at the window jambs, which occurs (to some
degree) when they are not provided.
9b.
9b Design horizontal tie straps above and below windows (Figure 1-18).
Determine the tie force for the horizontal strap (from Figure 1-16). Tie force is
maximum at header beam.
Ftie = 1,546 lb
Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for the allowable load capacity of

premanufactured straps.
Check penetration depth factor:
C d : for 10d nail thru-strap and ½" sheathing
penetration = 3.0 − 0.060 − 0.5 = 2.4"
Required penetration for full value = 12 D = 12 × 0.148 = 1.8 < 2.4" o.k.
Allowable load per 10d common nail with 16 ga metal

side plate = 113 lb 91 NDS Table 12.3F
1,546 lb
Number of 10d nails required each end = = 10.3 nails
113 lb/nail × 1.33
(nailing does not control)
Use a continuous 16 gauge x 1¼-inch strap across the opening head and sill to
blocking.
Allowable strap load is (1.25)0.06(0.6 × 33)1.33 = 1,975 lb > 1,546 lb o.k.

9c.
9c Load combinations using allowable stress design. §1612.3
The basic load combinations of §1612.3.1 do not permit stress increases. However,
the alternate basic load combinations of §1612.3.2 do permit stress increases.
E
The Errata to the first printing of the UBC added 0.9 D ± to the alternate basic
1.4
load combinations as Eq. (12-16-1).
Since this exact same load combination is listed in the basic load combinations, the
UBC is in contradiction and is confusing (to say the least). This design example
uses the alternate basic load combinations with the one-third stress increase.
9d.
9d Check shear panel nailing in wall frame.
From Figure 1-16:

Maximum panel shear = 773 plf
2-inch edge nailing with sheathing both sides o.k. Table 23-II-I-1
v allowable = 2 × 870 = 1,740 plf
Note that sheathing on both sides of this wall does not appear to be required by the
code. To eliminate sheathing on one side, a complete design would recheck the
force distribution with the reduced wall rigidity. An inspection of Figure 1-13
would indicate that the center of rigidity would shift to the north and hence add
more torsional force to the wall.
9e.
9e Determine anchorage of wall to the supporting GLB.
The former UBC provision of using 85 percent of the dead loads for consideration
of uplift effects has now been replaced with the basic load combinations in UBC
§1612.3.1 or §1612.3.2
From Figure 1-17:
wDL = 100 plf (triangle loading from hip roof)

PDL = 700 lb
Wall DL = 1,100 lb
E = V = 5,828 lb
h
M OT = 5,828 lb (9.0 ft) = 52,452 ft - lb (strength level)

Figure 1-17. Wall frame elevation at D at second floor
Determine anchorage at A:
M R = 100 plf (10.0 ft 2 )(10.0 × 2 3) + 1,100 (10.0 ft 2 ) + 700 lb (10.0 ft ) = 8,833 ft − lb

3.5 in.
With a 4 × 6 post at each end wall L = 10.0 − = 9.7 ft
12
E
The critical loading condition is: 0.9 D ± (12-10)
1.4
Uplift at A =
(52,452 1.4) − (8,833 × 0.9) = 3,043 lb
9.7 ft
Determine anchorage at B:
M R = 100 plf (10.0 ft 2 )(10.0 3) + 1,100 (10.0 ft 2 ) + 700 lb (10.0 ft ) = 14,167 ft − lb
Uplift at B =
(52,452 1.4 ) − (14,167 × 0.9 ) = 2,548 lb
9.7 ft
Elements supporting discontinuous systems §1630.8.2

Since location A does not continue to the foundation, check special seismic load
combination for elements supporting discontinuous systems.
1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m (12-17)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E m (12-18)

where:
f1 = 0.0 for roof live loads (non-snow) §1612.4
f1 = 0.5 for live loads §1612.4
Em = Ωo Eh (30-2)
Determine the seismic force overstrength factor Ωo §1630.3.1
Ω o = 2.8 for wood structural panel wall Table 16-N
Ω o = 2.0 for cantilevered column building systems Table 16-N
For east-west axis of structure R = 2.2 for cantilevered building systems

Therefore, Ω o = 2.0
Determine anchorage force at A for special seismic load combination:
E m = Ω o E h = 2.0(5,828 lb ) = 11,656 lb
M OT = 11,656 lb(9.0 ft ) = 104,904 ft - lb
Therefore, uplift =
(104,904 1.4) − (8,833 × 0.9) = 6,905 lb
(10.0 ft − 0.3 ft )
Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for the allowable load capacity of
premanufactured straps.
Allowable load per 10d nail common with 14 ga metal

side plate = 115 lb 91 NDS Table 12.3F
From Part 9b, with 3-inch nails penetration factor C d = 1.0 .
For allowable stress design, the allowable stress increase factor is 1.7 for steel. §1630.8.2.1
6,905 lb
Number of 10d common nails required = = 26.5 nails
115 lb/nail (1.7 )(1.33)
Use a continuous 14 gauge x 3-inch strap bent around GLB.

Note that §1630.8.2.1 allows the combination of allowable stress increase of 1.7
with the duration of load increase in Chapter 23.
Note that the adequacy of the GLB to resist the overturning of the wall must be
checked using the special seismic load combinations. As permitted in §1612.4 and
§1630.8.2.1, an allowable stress increase of 1.7 can be used in addition to the
duration of load increase of 1.33 for C D .
Also, the boundary post at the wall corner must be checked for orthogonal effects
with shear wall 5 (and on other locations in the structure with common corners). §1633.1
10.
10 Diaphragm shears at the low roof over garage (Figure 1-20).
From Table 16-M, this has plan irregularity type 4.
The diaphragm between lateral resisting elements C and E is required to transfer

the design seismic force from shear wall D due to the offset between D and E.
UBC §1633.2.9 requires the diaphragm force used in UBC Equation (33-1) to be
used. UBC §1630.8.2 references special seismic load combinations of §1612.4 and
does not allow the one-third increase permitted under §1612.3.2
From Part 7 in this design example:
fp floor = 11.48 psf
From Table 16-P: Ω o for cantilever column type structures is 2.0.
f p Ω o = 11.48 × 2.0 = 22.96 psf
For simplification of analysis, assume the diaphragm over the garage is a simple
span between lateral resisting elements at lines C and E.
Load from wall D above = 5,828 lb
VE = 22.96 (28.0 ft )(22.0 2 ) + 5,828 lb (15.0 ft 22.0 ft ) = 11,045 lb
v E = 11,0451 lb 1.4 (28.0) = 281 plf > 215 plf (for unblocked) n.g. Table 23-II-H
Therefore, panel edges need to be blocked. Since the allowable shear values in
Table 23-II-H already include a increase for short-term loading, (C D ), the duration
of load increase (§1612.3.1 and §1612.3.2) cannot be used concurrently with the
1.7 increase, as prohibited in §2316.2, Item 5.

From Table 23-II-H, the allowable diaphragm shear for 19/32-inch APA sheathing,
with 10d common wire nails spaced at 6-inch centers, with blocked edges, is 320
plf.
320 plf>281 plf o.k.
∴ Use 10d @6 inches o.c. with blocked edges on 19/32-inch sheathing.
11.
11 Detail the wall frame over the GLB.
Wall frame details must be shown on the drawings. Depending on the variations,
when multiple wall frames are on a project, it is necessary at times to have
individual details for each condition. While the detail shown in Figure 1-18 is
somewhat generic, it should be noted that a separate anchorage detail (keynote 10)
may be necessary where the end of the GLB is connected to the supporting post.
Figure 1-18. Details of wall frame on line D at second floor

12.
12 Detail the anchorage of wall frame to the GLB.
Cross-grain shrinkage of the GLB may be a problem when using a connection of

the type shown in Figure 1-19. Also, nails above the neutral axis of the GLB
should be left out from the design to avoid cross-grain tension. In other words, only
the nails below the neutral axis are considered effective for uplift forces. To avoid
confusion in the field, all nail holes are to be filled. It should be noted that a
separate anchorage detail may be necessary where the end of the GLB is connected
to the supporting post (intersection of grids D and 5).
Figure 1-19. Detail of anchorage at point A (see also Figure 1-18)

13.
13 Detail the continuous load path at the low roof above the garage doors.
The low roof above the garage is an important part of the continuous load path.
Historically, this type of detail has been mis-detailed and mis-constructed. This
detail has two load paths: the loads from the roof can either go through the pitched
roof, or down the wall to the GLB and across the horizontal diaphragm to the
exterior wall.
Figure 1-20 shows one way that the shear transfer can be made. Also note that the
chord/drag tie of the top plates will be interrupted by the GLB-to-post connection
and will require detailing at grids D3 and D5.
Figure 1-20. Detail of load path for low roof over garage

Commentary
Following are some issues and topics related to the seismic design of wood frame
residences that can be used to improve design practices and/or understanding of
important aspects of design.
“Calc and sketch” philosophy.

In wood frame construction, particularly for single-family residences, it has been a
common design practice to have an engineer provide only calculations and
sketches for the architect to include on the architectural drawings.” This is done to
provide a cost savings to the owner. This approach has some significant problems
based on reviews of how residential framing is actually being constructed, the “calc
and sketch only” service is a practice which should be discontinued, with a few
exceptions.
Architects and building officials need to be encouraged to adopt the following

standards:
1. Any new building (or remodel requiring the existing building to be brought
into conformance with the current building code) that cannot be clearly
shown to conform with building code conventional construction framing
requirements should require submittal of structural drawings and calculations
signed for by a licensed civil or structural engineer.
2. Structural framing plans and details should be separate from the architectural
drawings.
Most new wood residential building designs are complex and beyond the
scope and intent of the prescriptive conventional construction requirements of
the UBC. Misuse of these conventional requirements has led to structures
with incomplete lateral force systems, resulting in poor performance in
earthquakes. Since the engineer generally is not asked to review the
architect’s final drawings, the use of calculations and sketches lends itself to
poorly coordinated drawings and missing structural information. The
common practice of referring to details on architectural drawings as “similar”
leads to further confusion as to the design intent. The structural observation
requirements of the code, when enforced (many jurisdiction do not require
structural observation for single-family residences), are even less effective,
since the architect did not design the structural system and often can not
identify what is missing or incorrect.
Rigid versus flexible diaphragm.

This design example illustrates seismic design using both flexible and rigid
diaphragms. It also illustrates that most one- and two-family dwellings have rigid

diaphragms as defined by code. This being the case, a design based on flexible
diaphragm assumption would not be required if the design is based on the rigid
diaphragm assumption. Using the common approach of basing wall rigidities on
deflections of shear walls and other vertical elements, the engineer first needs to
know or assume how the shear walls will be constructed (e.g., nail size and
spacing). Without performing a preliminary analysis, the procedure of just doing a
design based on rigid diaphragms may be subject to a trial and error process. One
method (as used in this design example) to avoid this process is to first perform an
analysis based on flexible diaphragms, then use the construction required from the
flexible diaphragms for determining the wall rigidities.
Part 2 of this design example uses flexible diaphragms to determine shear wall
construction. Parts 3, 4, and 5 of this design example use rigid diaphragms per
UBC requirements. The shear wall deflections used in this design example use
UBC equations. This needs to be viewed as one possible approach that is
substantiated by the code. However, other approaches can also be used. Two of
these are given below:
1. The rigidities of the shear walls can be based on the length of the wall times
the allowable shear capacity. This method can be appropriate provided the
tiedown assembly displacements are kept to a minimum. This may involve
using specific types of tiedown devices that limit displacements to less than
1/8".
2. Shear wall rigidities can be based on graphs of the four-term shear wall code
deflection equation (see Part 3b). As shown in Figure 1-21, a chart of these is
included in this section and is also considered appropriate in determining wall
rigidities.
Tiedown location.
When designing shear walls, the engineer needs to consider where the tiedown
posts will actually be located. The tiedown posts occur where shear walls stack
from floor to floor. The lower level wall requires tiedown devices on each side of
the tiedown post. However, the upper shear wall only requires a tiedown device on
one side of the tiedown post. Since the posts must align between story levels, the
upper level tiedown post will need to be offset inward in order to line up with the
post below.
Based on actual tiedown post locations, the upper level shear wall design may have
to be rechecked once the lower level shear wall design is complete. The use of
tiedown devices on each side of the post will improve the shear wall performance,
since eccentricity in the connection, as occurs when there is only a single-sided
tiedown, is avoided. Double-sided tiedowns are generally preferred over single-
sided.

Design comments.
This design example illustrates a detailed analysis for some of the important
seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC. To complete this design, the engineer will
have to check all the major structural elements along the various lateral load paths
of the residence, including the foundations. The seismic calculations and details for
this example residence are approximately 50 percent complete. Normal engineering
design of this type of structure may omit many of the calculations shown in this
example and rely on good engineering judgment. This design example illustrates a
very comprehensive approach to the engineering calculations. This design example
fills a void in the available engineering literature on the subject—many engineers
have stated that there simply are not sufficient reference documents available on
this subject.
In the so called “big one,” it is expected that actual peak earthquake forces may be
2 to 3 times greater than the equivalent static forces required by the UBC and used
in this example. The use of good detailing practices with ductile elements to absorb
energy, clear construction documents with adequate detailing, structural site
observation, and special inspection are considered every bit as important as a
comprehensive set of structural calculations.
80.0
K = stiffness = F/d = (Vb )/d
70.0
d = deflection =(8vh 3)/(EAb ) +(vh )/(Gt ) + 0.75he n + d a
60.0 [A1] h = 8 ft
Where:
E = modulus of elasticity = 1.8x106 psi
G = shear modulus = 90x103 psi [A2] h = 10 [B1] h = 8 ft
50.0
Stiffness K (kips/in.)
h = wall height (ft)

b = wall depth (ft)
[B2] h = 10 ft
t = plywood thickness = 15/32 in.
40.0
A = area of end post = 12.25 in.2 [C1] h = 8 ft
v = shear/foot
d a = slip at hold down = 1/8 in. [C2] h = 10 ft
30.0 e n = nail deformation slip (in.)
F = applied force = Vb (kips) [D1] h = 8 ft
[D2] h = 10
20.0
[A] edge nail spacing at 2” o.c. (v=870 plf, e n =0.024)

[B] edge nail spacing at 3” o.c. (v=665 plf, e n =0.033)
10.0
[C] edge nail spacing at 4” o.c. (v=510 plf, e n =0.033)
[D] edge nail spacing at 6” o.c. (v=340 plf, e n =0.033)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Wall Depth b (ft)
Figure 1-21. Stiffness of one-story ½-inch Structural-I plywood shear walls

References
American Forest and Paper Association, 1996, Wood Construction Manual.

American Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C.
American Plywood Association, 1997, Design/ Construction Guide – Diaphragms

and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma,
Washington.
American Plywood Association, 1997, Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Engineered

Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
American Plywood Association, 1993, revised, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls.
Report 154, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
American Plywood Association, 1994, Northridge, California Earthquake. Report T-

94-5. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
American Plywood Association, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural–

Use Panels [Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3]. Standard PRP–108. Engineered
American Plywood Association, 1988, Plywood Diaphragms, Research Report 138.

American Plywood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
Applied Technology Council, 1995, Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls
ATC R-1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Applied Technology Council, 1981, Guidelines for Design of Horizontal Wood

Diaphragms, ATC-7. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.
Applied Technology Council, 1980, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of

Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC-7-1. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California.
Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction

Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C.
Bugni, David A., 1999, “A Linear Elastic Dynamic Analysis of a Timber Framed
Structure.” Building Standards, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California

Cobeen, K.E., 1996, “Performance Based Design of Wood Structures.” Proceeding:

Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, California.
Coil, J., 1999, “Seismic Retrofit of an Existing Multi-Story Wood Frame Structure,”
Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association
of California, Sacramento, California.
Commins, A. and Gregg, R., 1996, Effect of Hold Downs and Stud-Frame Systems on
the Cyclic Behavior of Wood Shear Walls, Simpson Strong-Tie Co.,
Pleasanton, California.
Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954, 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests.
Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma
Washington.
CUREe, 1999, Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis, and

Design of Wood Frame Construction. California Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering.
Dolan, J.D., 1996, Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear
Walls with Openings. Timber Engineering Report No. TE- 1996-001.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Dolan, J. D. and Heine, C.P., 1997a, Monotonic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls
with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations. Timber
Engineering Report No. TE-1997-001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b, Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of
Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain
Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1997-002, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of Wood
Frame Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1997-
003, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996, “Reconnaissance Report:

Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994,” Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11,
Supplement C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
California.
Faherty, Keith F., and Williamson, Thomas G., 1995, Wood Engineering
Construction Handbook. McGraw Hill, Washington D.C.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
Ficcadenti, S.K., T.A. Castle, D.A. Sandercock, and R.K. Kazanjy, 1996,
“Laboratory Testing to Investigate Pneumatically Driven Box Nails for the
Edge Nailing of 3/8" Plywood Shear Walls,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC
Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
Foliente, Greg C., 1994, Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under
Seismic Loads. University of California Forest Products Laboratory,
Richmond, California.
Foliente, Greg C., 1997, Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures.
Forest Products Society, Madison Wisconsin.
Forest Products Laboratory, 1999, Wood Handbook Publication FPL – GTR- 113.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Goers R. and Associates, 1976, A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction
of Single-Family Dwellings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.
International Code Council, 1999, International Building Code – Final Draft, 2000.
International Code Council, Birmingham, Alabama.
Ju, S. and Lin, M. ,1999, “Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or

Flexible Floors,” Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Mendes, S., 1987, “Rigid versus Flexible: Inappropriate Assumptions Can Cause
Shear Wall Failures!” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
Mendes, S., 1995, “Lessons Learned From Four Earthquake Damaged Multi-Story
Type V Structures,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural
NFPA, 1991a, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. National Forest
Products Association, Washington D.C.
NFPA, 1997b, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Natural Forest

Rose, J. D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under
Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158, APA – Engineered Wood
Association, Tacoma, Washington.
Rose, J.D., and E.L. Keith, 1996, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum
Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3 ]. Research Report
158. APA - The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma Washington.
SEAOC, 1997, Seismic Detailing Examples for Engineered Light Frame Timber
Construction. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
SEAOC, 1999, Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC, 1999, Plan Review – Codes and Practice. Structural Engineers Association
Shipp, J., 1992, Timber Design. Volumes IV and V. Professional Engineering

Development Publications, Inc., Huntington Beach, California.
Steinbrugge, J., 1994, “Standard of Care in Structural Engineering Wood Frame

Multiple Housing,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural


Design Example 2 ! Wood Light Frame Three-Story Structure
Design Example 2
Wood Light Frame Three-Story Structure
Figure 2-1. Wood light frame three-story structure elevation
Foreword
After careful consideration and extensive discussion, SEAOC is recommending

that large wood frame structures, such as the three-story building in this design
example, be designed for seismic forces considering both rigid and flexible
diaphragm assumptions. This method represents a significant change from current
practice. At present, California practice has almost exclusively used the flexible
diaphragm assumption for determining distribution of story shears to shear walls.
There are two principal reasons for considering both rigid and flexible diaphragms.
First, since adoption of the 1988 UBC, there has been a definition of diaphragm
flexibility in the code (§1630.6 of the 1997 UBC). Arguably, when introduced in
1988, this definition may not have been intended to apply to wood framed
diaphragms. After considerable discussion and re-evaluation, it is now the joint
opinion of the SEAOC Code and Seismology Committees that this definition
should be considered in wood framed diaphragms. The application of this
definition in wood construction often requires the use of the rigid diaphragm
assumption, and subsequent calculation of shear wall rigidities, for distribution of
story shears to shear walls. In fact, this definition results in many, if not most,
diaphragms in wood frame construction being considered rigid.
Many engineers feel that exclusive use of the flexible diaphragm assumption
results in underestimation of forces on some shear walls. For example, a rigid

diaphragm analysis is judged more appropriate when the shear walls are more
flexible compared to the diaphragm, particularly where one or more lines of shear
walls (or other vertical resisting elements) are more flexible than the others are.
Second, in some instances, the use of flexible diaphragm assumptions can actually
force the engineer to provide a more favorable lateral force resisting system than
would occur by only using rigid diaphragm assumptions. Flexible diaphragm
assumptions encourage the placement of shear walls around the perimeter of the
floor and roof area, therefore minimizing the need to have wood diaphragms to
resist torsional forces.
In this design example, the floor diaphragms are constructed using screw shank
nails, sheathing is glued to the framing members (to reduce floor squeaks), and
lightweight concrete fill is placed over the floor sheathing (for sound insulation).
Additionally, gyp board is applied to the framing underside for ceiling finish.
These materials in combination provide significantly stiffer diaphragms than those
represented by the diaphragm deflection equation of UBC standard 23-2.
For the part of the analysis that assumes a rigid diaphragm, the engineer must also
select a method to estimate shear wall rigidities (and rigidities of other vertical
resisting elements). This also requires use of judgment because at the present time
there is no consensus method for estimating rigidities. In the commentary of
Design Example 1, several alternatives are discussed.
Prior to starting design of a wood light frame structure, users of this document
should check with the local jurisdiction regarding both the level of analysis
required and acceptable methodologies.
Overview
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a three-story 30-unit hotel
structure. The light frame structure, shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4, has
wood structural panel shear walls, and roof and floor diaphragms. The roofs have
composite shingles and are framed with plated trusses. The floors have a 1½-inch
lightweight concrete topping framed with engineered I joists. The primary
tiedowns for the shear walls use a continuous tiedown system.
This structure cannot be built using conventional construction methods for reasons
shown in Part 6 of this design example. The following sections illustrate a detailed
analysis for some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC. This
design example is not a complete building design, and many aspects of a complete
design, including wind design (see UBC §606 ), are not included. Only selected
items of the seismic design are illustrated.
In general, the UBC recognizes only two diaphragm categories: flexible and rigid.
However, the diaphragms in this design example are considered to be semi-rigid.

Hence, the analysis will use the envelope method, which considers the worst
loading condition from the flexible and rigid diaphragm analyses for each vertical
shear resisting element. It should be noted that the envelope method, although not
explicitly required by code, is deemed necessary and good engineering practice for
this design example.
Initially, the shear wall nailing and tiedown requirements are determined using the
flexible diaphragm assumption. Secondly, use these shear wall forces to determine
shear wall rigidities for the rigid diaphragm analysis. Finally, further iterations may
be required with significant stiffness redistributions.
The method of determining shear wall rigidities used in this design example is by
far more rigorous than normal practice but is not the only method available to
determine shear wall rigidities. The commentary following Design Example 1
illustrates two other simplified approaches that would also be appropriate for this
design example.
Outline
1. Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces.
2. Lateral forces on the shear walls and required nailing assuming flexible
diaphragms.
3. Rigidities of shear walls.
4. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls.
5. Reliability/redundancy factor ρ.
6. Does structure meet requirements of conventional construction

provisions?
7. Diaphragm deflections to determine if the diaphragm is flexible or rigid.
8. Tiedown forces for shear wall on line C.
9. Tiedown connection at the third floor for the shear wall on line C.
10.
10 Tiedown connection at the second floor for the shear wall on line C.
11.
11 Anchor bolt spacing and tiedown anchor embedment for shear wall on
line C.

12.
12 Detail of tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall on line C
(Figure 2-9).
13.
13 Detail of tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall at line C.
(Figure 2-10).
14.
14 Detail of wall intersection at exterior shear walls (Figure 2-11).
15.
15 Detail of tiedown connection at foundation (Figure 2-12).
16.
16 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear wall at roof (Figure 2-13).
17.
17 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear walls at floors (Figure 2-14).
18.
18 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear walls at foundation (Figure 2-15).
19.
19 Detail of sill plate at foundation edge (Figure 2-16).
20.
20 Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at roof (Figure 2-17).
21.
21 Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at floor (Figure 2-18).
Given Information
Roof weights (slope 6:12): Floor weights:

Roofing 3.5 psf Flooring 1.0 psf
½" sheathing 1.5 Lt. wt. concrete 14.0
Trusses 3.5 5/8" sheathing 1.8
Insulation 1.5 Floor framing 5.0
Miscellaneous 0.7 Miscellaneous 0.4
Gyp ceiling 2.8 Gyp ceiling 2.8
DL (along slope) 13.5 psf 25.0 psf
DL (horiz. proj.) = 13.5 (13.41/12) = 15.1 psf

Stair landings do not have lightweight concrete fill
Area of floor plan is 5,288 sq ft
Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including tributary exterior and interior

walls:
Wroof = 135,000 lb
W3rd floor = 2300,000 lb
W2nd floor = 230,000 lb
W = 595,000 lb

Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by taking one-half height of walls

at the third floor to the roof and (with equal story heights) full height of walls for
the third and second floor diaphragms.
Framing lumber is Douglas Fir-Larch (DF-L) grade stamped No. 1 S-Dry.

(Note: The designer must recognize the increased potential for shrinkage problems
when green lumber is used. The shrinkage of lumber can effect the architectural
and mechanical systems as well as the structural system. The potential for wood
shrinkage problems proportionally increases with the number of stories in the
structure.)
Foundation sill plates are pressure-treated Hem-Fir.
APA-rated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32-inch-thick

Structural I, 32/16 panel index span rating, 5-ply with Exposure I glue is specified.
However, 4-ply is also acceptable. Three-ply 15/32-inch sheathing has lower
allowable shears and the inner ply voids can cause nailing problems.
The roof is 15/32-inch-thick APA-rated sheathing (equivalent to C-D in Table

23-II-4), 32/16 span rating with Exposure I glue.
The floor is 19/32-inch-thick APA-rated Sturd-I-Floor 24" o/c rating (or APA-rated
sheathing, 48/24 span rating) with Exposure I glue.
Common wire nails are used for diaphragms, shear walls, and straps.
Sinker nails will be used for design of the shear wall sill plate nailing at the second
and third floor. (Note: Many nailing guns use the smaller diameter box and sinker
nails instead of common nails. Closer nail spacing may be required if the smaller
diameter nails are used).

(Zone 4) Table 16-I
Seismic source Type = B



Figure 2-3. Floor framing plan (second and third floors)
Note: Shear walls on lines 2 and 3 do not extend from the third floor to the roof.


Factors That Influence Design
Before starting the example, four important related aspects of the design will be
discussed. These are the effect of moisture content on lumber, the use of
pre-manufactured roof trusses, proper detailing of shear walls at building pop-outs,
and effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.
Moisture content in lumber connections.

This design example is based on dry lumber. Project specifications typically call
for lumber to be grade-stamped S-Dry (Surfaced Dry). Dry lumber has a moisture
content (MC) less than or equal to 19 percent. Partially seasoned or green lumber
grade stamped S-GRN (surfaced green) has a MC between 19 percent and 30
percent. Wet lumber has a MC greater than 30 percent. Construction of structures
using lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent can produce shrinkage
problems. Note that UBC §2304.7 requires consideration of lumber shrinkage.
Also, many engineers and building officials are not aware of the reduction
requirements or wet service factors related to installation of nails, screws, and bolts
(fasteners) into lumber with moisture content greater than 19 percent. For fasteners
installed in lumber with moisture content greater than 19 percent, the wet service
factor C M = 0.75 for nails and C M = 0.67 for bolts, lags and screws (91 NDS
Table 7.3.3) are used.
For construction using lumber of MC greater than 19 percent, there is a 25 percent

to 33 percent reduction in the strength of connections, diaphragms, and shear walls
that is permanent. The engineer needs to exercise good engineering judgment in
determining whether it is prudent to base the structural design on dry or green
lumber. Other areas of concern are the geographical area and the time of year the
structure is built. It is possible for green lumber (or dry lumber that has been
exposed to rain) to dry out to a moisture content below 19 percent on the
construction site. For 2 × framing, this generally takes about 2 to 3 weeks of
exposure to dry air, 4 × lumber takes even longer. Drying occurs when the surfaces
are exposed to air on all sides, not while stacked on pallets (unless shimmed with
stickers). Moisture content can easily be verified by a hand held “moisture meter.”
Use of pre-manufactured roof trusses to transfer lateral forces.

The structural design in this design example uses the pre-manufactured wood roof
trusses. Under seismic forces, these must transfer the lateral forces from the roof
diaphragm to the tops of the interior shear walls. To accomplish this, special
considerations must be made in the design and detailed on the plans. In particular,
any trusses that are to be used as collectors or lateral drag struts should be clearly
indicated on the structural framing plan. The magnitude of the forces, the means by
which the forces are applied to the trusses and transferred from the trusses to the
shear walls must be shown on the plans. In addition, if the roof sheathing at the hip

ends breaks above the joint between the end jack trusses and the supporting girder
truss, the lateral forces to be resisted by the end jacks should be specified so that an
appropriate connection can be provided to resist these forces. The drawings also
must specify the load combinations and whether or not a stress increase is
permitted. If ridge vents are being used, special detailing for shear transfers must
be included because normal diaphragm continuity is disrupted.
Proper detailing of shear walls at building pop-outs.

The structure for this design example has doubled-framed walls for party walls and
exterior “planted-on” box columns (pop-outs). The designer should not consider
these walls as shear walls unless special detailing and analysis is provided to
substantiate that there is a viable lateral force path to that wall and the wall is
adequately braced.
Effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.

This design example uses common nails for fastening wood structural panels.
Based on cyclic testing of shear walls and performance in past earthquakes, the use
of common nails is preferred. UBC Table 23-II-I-1 lists allowable shears for wood
structural panel shear walls for “common or galvanized box nails.” Footnote
number five of Table 23-II-I-1, states that the galvanized nails shall be “hot-dipped
or tumbled” (these nails are not gun nails). Most contractors use gun nails for
diaphragm and shear wall installations. The UBC does not have a table for
allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls or diaphragms using box
nails.
Box nails have a smaller diameter shank and a smaller head size. Using 10d box
nails would result in a 19 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and
shear walls as compared to 10d common nails. Using 8d box nails would result in a
22 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared
to 8d common nails. This is based on comparing allowable shear values listed in
Tables 12.3A and 12.3B in the 1997 NDS for one-half-inch side member thickness
(t s ) and Douglas Fir-Larch framing. In addition to the reduction of the shear wall
and diaphragm capacities, when box nails are used, the walls will also drift more
than when common nails are used.
A contributor to the problem is that when contractors buy large quantities of nails
(for nail guns), the word “box” or “common” does not appear on the carton label.
Nail length and diameters are the most common listing on the labels. This is why it
is extremely important to list the required nail lengths and diameters on the
structural drawings for all diaphragms and shear walls. Another problem is that
contractors prefer box nails because their use reduces splitting, eases driving, and
they cost less.
Just to illustrate a point, if an engineer designs for “dry” lumber (as discussed
above) and “common” nails, and subsequently “green” lumber and “box” nails are
used in the construction, the result is a compounding of the reductions. For

example, for 10d nails installed into green lumber, the reduction would be 0.81
times 0.75 or a 40 percent reduction in capacity.
1. Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces. §1630.2.2
1a.
1a Design base shear.
Determine period using Method A (see Figure 2-5 for section through structure):
T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(33.63)3 / 4 = 0.28 sec (30-8)
Figure 2-5. Typical cross-section through building

C a = 0.40 N a = 0.40(1.0 ) = 0.40 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.56 N v = 0.56(1.0 ) = 0.56 Table 16-R
Because the stud walls are both wood structural panel shear walls
and bearing walls Table 16-N
R = 5.5
Cv I 0.56 (1.0 )
V= W= W = 0.364W (30-4)
RT 5.5 (0.28)
Note: design base shear is now on a strength design basis.
2.5C a I 2.5 (0.40 )(1.0)

V= W= W = 0.182W (30-5)
R 5.5
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.40)(1.0 )W = 0.044W < 0.182W
Check Equation 30-7:
0.8ZN v I 0.8 × 0.4 × 1.0 × 1.0

V= W= W
R 5.5
V = 0.058W < 0.182W
All of the tables in the UBC for wood diaphragms and shear walls are based on
allowable loads.

It is desirable to use the strength level forces throughout the design of the structure
for two reasons:
1. Errors in calculations can occur and which load is being used—strength

design or allowable stress design—may be confused. This design example
will use the following format:

F px = strength
Fx = force-to-wall (strength)
v = wall shear at element level (ASD)
Fx
v= = ASD
1.4b
2. Future editions of the code will use only strength design.
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h (30-1)
where:
E v is permitted to be taken as zero for allowable stress design, and ρ will be

assumed to be 1.0 (under most cases is 1.0 for Type V construction with
interior shear walls). Since the maximum element story shear is not yet
known, the assumed value for ρ will have to be verified. (This will be shown
in Part 5.)
The basic load combination for allowable stress design for horizontal forces is:
E E E
D+ = 0+ = (12-9)
1.4 1.4 1.4
For vertical downward loads:
 E
or D + 0.75 L + (Lr or S ) +
E
D+ (12-10,12-11)
1.4  1.4 
For vertical uplift:
E
0.9 D ± (12-10)
1.4
V = 0.182W §1612.3.1
∴V = 0.182(595,000 lb ) = 108,290 lb

1b.
1b Vertical distributions of forces.
The base shear must be distributed to each level. This is done as follows:
(V − Ft )wx hx
F px = n
(30-15)
∑ wi hi
i =1
Where h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above
the base.
Since T = 0.28 second < 0.7 second, Ft = 0

Determination of F px is shown in Table 2-1. §1630.5
Note: Although not shown here, designers must also check wind loading. In this
example, wind loading may control the design in the east-west direction.

w x hx F px
Level w x (k) h x (ft) w x h x (k-ft) (%) F px (k) Ftot (k)
∑ wi hi wx
Roof 135.0 33.6 4,536 41.1 44.5 0.330 44.5
3rd Floor 230.0 18.9 4,347 39.4 42.7 0.186 87.2
2nd Floor 230.0 9.4 2,162 19.5 21.1 0.092 108.3
Σ 595.0 11,045 108.3
2. Lateral forces on the shear walls and required nailing assuming flexible
diaphragms.
In this step, forces on shear walls due seismic forces will be determined. As has
been customary practice in the past, this portion of the example assumes flexible
diaphragms. The UBC does not require torsional effects to be considered for
flexible diaphragms. The effects of torsion and wall rigidities will be considered in
Part 4 of this design example.
Under the flexible diaphragm assumptions, loads to shear walls are determined
based on tributary areas with simple spans between supports. Another method of
determining loads to shear walls can assume a continuous beam. This design
example uses the total building weight W applied to each respective direction. The
results shown will be slightly conservative, since the building weight W includes
the wall weights for the direction of load, which can be subtracted out. This
example converts the story forces into seismic forces per square foot of floor or

roof area. This may result in loosing a certain amount of precision, but in turn
results in much simpler calculations. This approach is generally considered
acceptable unless there is seen to be a concentration of dead load in a particular
area (e.g., a mechanical penthouse).
A detailed analysis will include the derivation of these tributary weights, which
includes the tributary exterior and interior wall weights.
Using forces from Table 2-1 and the area of the floor plan = 5,288 sf, calculate
tributary weights.
For roof diaphragm:
Roof area = 5,288 sq ft
44.5 × 1,000
5,288
For third floor diaphragm:
Floor area = 5,288 sq ft
42.7 × 1,000
f p 3rd = = 8.075 psf
5,288
For second floor diaphragm:
Floor area = 5,288 sq ft
21.1 × 1,000
f p 2 nd = = 3.990 psf
5,288

1, 2, 3
Table 2-2. Forces to walls and required panel nailing for east-west direction
Ftot (5) Sheathed Allowable Edge Nail
Wall
Trib Area ∑ FAbove ∑ Fx (lb) Ftot (lb) b (4) (ft) v=
(1.4)b 1 or 2 Shear(6) Spacing
(sq ft) (lb) sides (plf) (in.)
(plf)
Shear Walls at Roof Level (7)
A 170 0 1,430 1,430 12.5 85 1 340 6
B 746 0 6,280 6,280 22.0 205 1 340 6
C 1,344 0 11,310 11,310 43.0 190 1 340 6
E 1,344 0 11,310 11,310 43.0 190 1 340 6
F 960 0 8,080 8,080 43.0 135 1 340 6
G 554 0 4,660 4,660 22.0 155 1 340 6
H 170 0 1,430 1,430 12.5 85 1 340 6
Σ 5,288 0 44,500 44,500 198
Shear Walls at Third Floor Level
A 170 1,430 1,375 2,805 12.5 160 1 340 6
B 746 6,280 6,025 12,305 22.0 400 1 510 4
C 1,344 11,310 10,850 22,160 43.0 370 1 510 4
E 1,344 11,310 10,850 22,160 43.0 370 1 510 4
F 960 8,080 7,750 15,830 43.0 265 1 510 4
G 554 4,660 4,475 9,135 22.0 300 1 510 4
H 170 1,430 1,375 2,805 12.5 160 1 340 6
Σ 5,288 44,500 42,700 87,200 198
Shear Walls at Second Floor Level
A 170 2,805 680 3,485 12.5 200 1 340 6
B 746 12,305 2,975 15,280 22.0 500 1 665 3
C 1,344 22,160 5,365 27,525 43.0 460 1 665 3
E 1,344 22,160 5,365 27,525 43.0 460 1 665 3
F 960 15,830 3,830 19,660 43.0 330 1 665 3
G 554 9,135 2,210 11,345 22.0 370 1 665 3
H 170 2,805 680 3,485 12.5 200 1 340 6
Σ 5,288 87,200 21,100 108,300 198
Notes:
1. Minimum framing thickness: The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3 × nominal thickness
stud framing at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 3 inches on center or closer
(2" on center for 8d) or if sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints.
The 1997 UBC (Table 23-II-I-1 Footnote 2 and 3) requires 3 × nominal thickness stud framing at
abutting panels and at foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values exceed 350 pounds per foot
or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints.
2. Sill bolt washers: Section 1806.6.1 of the 1997 UBC requires that a minimum of 2-inch-square by
3/16-inch-thick plate washers be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values
in the wall). These changes were a result of splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the
Northridge earthquake and in cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist
uplift forces on shear walls. Because of observed vertical displacements of tiedowns, these plate washers
are required even if the wall has tiedowns designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The
washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill plate. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC
(Table 23-II-I-1 Footnote 3) added an exception to the 3 × foundation sill plates by allowing 2 ×
foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less than 600 pounds per foot, provided that
sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values.
3. The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4" on
center.

4. The shear wall length used for wall shears is the “out-to-out” wall length.
5. Note that forces are strength level and that shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress
design.
6. APA Structural I rated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
Allowable shear from UBC Table 23-II-I-1.
7. Shear walls at lines C, E, and F extend to the bottom of the prefabricated wood trusses at the roof level.
Shear transfer is obtained by framing clips from the bottom chord of the trusses to the top plates of the
shear walls. Project plans call for trusses at these lines to be designed for these horizontal forces (see also
comments in Part 8). Roof shear forces are also transferred to lines A, B, G, and H.
1, 2, 3
Table 2-3. Forces to walls and required panel nailing for north-south direction
Sheathed Allowable Edge Nail
Wall
Trib. Area ∑ FAbove ∑ Fx (lb) Ftot (lb) b (4) (ft) v=
Ftot ( 4)
(plf) 1 or 2 Shear Spacing
(sq ft) (lb) (1.4)b sides (plf) (in.)
Shear Walls at Roof Level (5)
1 2,644 0 22,250 22,250 64.5 250 1 340 6
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 2,644 0 22,250 22,250 64.5 250 1 340 6
Σ 5,288 0 44,500 44,500 129.0
Shear Walls at Third Floor Level
1 1,202 22,250 9,705 31,955 64.5 355 1 510 4
2 1,442 0 11,645 11,645 60.0 140 1 340 6
3 1,442 0 11,645 11,645 60.0 140 1 340 6
4 1,202 22,250 9,705 31,955 64.5 355 1 510 4
Σ 5,288 44,500 42,700 87,200 249.0
Shear Walls at Second Floor Level
1 1,202 31,955 4,795 36,750 64.5 410 1 510 4
2 1,442 11,645 5,755 17,400 60.0 210 1 340 6
3 1,442 11,645 5,755 17,400 60.0 210 1 340 6
4 1,202 31,955 4,795 36,750 64.5 410 1 510 4
Σ 5,288 87,200 21,100 108,300 249.0
Notes:
1. Minimum framing thickness: The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3 × nominal thickness stud
framing at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 3 inches on center or closer (2" on center for
8d) or if sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. The 1997 UBC (Table
23-II-I-1 Footnote 2 and 3) requires 3 × nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panels and at foundation sill
plates when the allowable shear values exceed 350 pounds per foot or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of
the studs without staggered panel joints.
2. Sill bolt washers: Section 1806.6.1 of the 1997 UBC requires that a minimum of 2-inch-square by 3/16-inch-thick
plate washers be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values in the wall). These
changes were a result of splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the Northridge earthquake and in
cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist uplift forces on shear walls. Because of
observed vertical displacements of tiedowns, these plate washers are required even if the wall has tiedowns
designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill
plate. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC (Table 23-II-I-1 Footnote 3) added an exception to the 3 ×
foundation sill plates by allowing 2 × foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less than 600
pounds per foot, provided that sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values.
3. The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4" on center.
4. Note that forces are strength level and that shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress design.

5. The interior shear walls at lines 2 and 3 were not used to brace the roof diaphragm. This is because installing wall
sheathing (blocking panels) perpendicular to plated trusses is labor intensive. Often it is not installed correctly,
and occasionally it is not even installed due to contractor error. This approach will increase the third floor
diaphragm transfer (redistribution) forces. With rigid diaphragms, you must carefully follow the load paths.
3a.
3a Rigidity calculation using the UBC deflection equation.
Determination of wood shear wall rigidities is not a simple task. In practice,

approximate methods are often used. The method illustrated in this example is by
far the most rigorous method used in practice. There are other methods that are
more simplified, and use of these other more simplified methods is often
appropriate. The alternate methods are briefly discussed in the Commentary to
Design Example 1.
It must be emphasized, that at the present time every method is approximate,

particularly for multistory structures such as in this example. Until more definite
general procedures are established through further testing and research, the
designer must exercise judgment in selecting an appropriate method to be used for
a given structure. When in doubt, consult with the local building official regarding
methods acceptable to the jurisdiction. At the time of this publication, the type of
seismic design required for a project of this type varies greatly from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
Wall rigidities are approximate. The initial rigidity R of the structure can be
significantly higher due to stucco, drywall, stiffening effects of walls not
considered, and areas over doors and windows. During an earthquake, some
low-stressed walls may maintain their stiffness and others degrade in stiffness.
Some walls and their collectors may attract significantly more lateral load than
anticipated in flexible or rigid diaphragm analysis. It must be understood that the
method of analyzing a structure using rigid diaphragms takes significantly more
engineering effort. However, use of the rigid diaphragm method indicates that
some lateral resisting elements can attract significantly higher seismic demands
than from tributary area (i.e., flexible diaphragm) analysis methods.
In this example, shear wall rigidities (k) are computed using the basic stiffness
equation:
F = k∆
or:
F
k=
∆

The basic equation to determine the shear wall deflections is shown below. This
should be viewed as one possible approach that can be substantiated with code
equations. There are other approaches that can also be used.
8vh 3 vh h
∆= + + 0.75hen + d a §23.223 Vol. 3
EAb Gt b
where:
v = shear in the wall in pounds per lineal foot
h = height from the bottom of the sill plate to the underside of the framing at
diaphragm level above (top plates)
A = area of the boundary element in square inches
At the third floor, the boundary elements consist of 2-2x4s

(see Figure 2-9)
At the second floor, the boundary elements consist of 3-2x4s

(see Figure 2-10)
At the ground floor, the boundary elements consist of 3-3x4s:
b = is the shear wall length in feet
G = shear modulus values from Table 23-2-J, in pounds per square inch
t = equivalent thickness values from Table 23-2-I, in inches
Vn = load per fastener (nail) in pounds
en = nail slip values are for Structural I sheathing with dry lumber = (Vn 769 )3.276
d a = displacement of the tiedown due to anchorage details in inches
The above equation is based on tests conducted by the American Plywood

Association and on a uniformly nailed, cantilever shear wall with fixed base and
free top, a horizontal point load at top, and panel edges blocked, and deflection is
estimated from the contributions of four distinct parts. The first part of the equation
accounts for cantilever beam action using the moment of inertia of the boundary
elements. The second term accounts for shear deformation of the sheathing. The
third term accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the fourth term accounts for
tiedown assembly displacement (this also should include bolt/nail slip and
shrinkage). The UBC references this equation in §2315.1.

The engineer should be cautioned to use the units as listed in §23.223 (and as listed
above). Do not attempt to change the units.
Testing on wood shear walls has indicated that the above deflection formula is
reasonably accurate for wall aspect ratios (h w) lower than or equal to 2:1. For
higher aspect ratios, the wall drift increases significantly, and displacements were
not be adequately predicted by the formula. Using the new aspect ratio requirement
of 2:1 (UBC 1997) makes this formula more accurate for determining shear wall
deflection/stiffness than it was in previous editions of the UBC, subject to the
limitations mentioned above.
Recent testing on wood shear walls has shown that sill plate crushing under the
boundary element can increase the shear wall deflection by as much as 20 to 30
percent. For a calculation of this crushing effect, see the deflection of wall frame at
line D later in this same Part 11c.
Faster slip/nail deformation values (en).

Volume 3 of the UBC has Table 23-2-K for obtaining values for en . However, its
use is somewhat time-consuming since interpolation and adjustments are
necessary. Footnote 1 to Table 23-2-K requires the values for en to be decreased
50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on nails being
driven into green lumber and the engineer must use one-half of these values for
nails driven in dry lumber. The values in Table 23-2-K are based on tests
conducted by the APA. The 50 percent reduction for dry lumber is a conservative
factor. The actual tested slip values with dry lumber were less than 50 percent of
the green lumber values.
It is recommended that values for en be computed based on fastener slip equations

from Table B-4 of APA Research Report 138. This research report is the basis for
the formulas and tables in the UBC. Both the research report and the UBC will
produce the same values. However, using the fastener slip equations from Table
B-4 of Research Report 138 will save time and also enable computations to be
made by a computer.
For 10d common nails used in this example, there are two basic equations:
When nails are driven into green lumber: en = (Vn 977 )1.894 APA Table B-4
When nails are drive into dry lumber: en = (Vn 769 )3.276 APA Table B-4
where:
Vn = fastener load in pounds per fastener

These values from the above formulas are based on Structural I sheathing and must
be increased by 20 percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. The language in
Footnote A in Research Report 138, Table B-4, which states “Fabricated
green/tested dry (seasoned)…” is potentially misleading. The values in the table are
actually green values, since the assembly is fabricated when green. Don’t be misled
by the word “seasoned.”
It is uncertain whether or not the d a factor is intended to include wood shrinkage

and crushing due to shear wall rotation, because the code is not specific. This
design example includes shrinkage and crushing in the d a factor.
Many engineers are concerned that if the contractor installs the nails at a different
spacing (too many or too few), then the rigidities will be different than those
calculated. However, nominal changing of the nail spacing in a given wall does not
significantly change the stiffness.
3b.
3b Calculation of shear wall rigidities.
In this example, shear wall rigidities are calculated using the four-term code
deflection equation in §23.223 of Volume 3. These calculations are facilitated by
the use of a spreadsheet program, which eliminates possible arithmetic errors from
the many repetitive computations that must be made.
The first step is to calculate the displacement (i.e., vertical elongation) of the
tiedown assemblies and the crushing effect of the boundary element. This is the
term d a . The force considered to act on the tiedown assembly is the net uplift
force determined from the flexible diaphragm analyses of Part 2. These forces are
summarized in Tables 2-4, 2-9, and 2-13 for the roof at the third floor and second
floor, respectively.
After the tiedown assembly displacements are determined, the four-term deflection
equation is used to determine the deflection ∆ S of each shear wall. These are
summarized in Tables 2-5 and 2-6 for the roof level, and in Tables 2-10 and 2-11
for the third floor level, and in Table 2-14 and 2-15 for the second floor level.
Finally, the rigidities of the shear walls are summarized in Tables 2-7, 2-12, and
2-16 for the roof, third floor, and second floor, respectively.
For both strength and allowable stress design, the 1997 UBC now requires building
drifts to be determined by the load combinations of §1612.2, which covers load
combinations using strength design or load and resistance factor design. Errata for
the second and third printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced §1612.3 for
allowable stress design. The reference to §1612.3 is incorrect and will be changed
back to reference §1612.2 in the fourth and later printings.

Using strength level forces for wood design using the 1997 UBC now means that
the engineer will use both strength-level forces and allowable stress forces. This
can create some confusion, since the code requires drift checks to be strength-level
forces. However, all of the design equations and tables in Chapter 23 are based on
allowable stress design. Drift and shear wall rigidities should be calculated from
the strength-level forces. Remember that the structural system factor R is based on
using strength-level forces.
3c.
3c Estimation of roof level rigidities.
To determine roof level wall rigidities, roof level displacements must first be
determined. Given below are a series of calculations, done in table form, to
estimate the roof level displacements ∆s in each shear wall. First, the shear wall
tiedown assembly displacements are determined (Table 2-4). These, and the
parameters given in Table 2-5, are used to arrive at the displacements ∆s for each
shear wall at the roof level (Table 2-5 and 2-6). Rigidities are estimated in Table
2-7 for walls in both directions. Once the ∆s displacements are known, a drift check
is performed. This is summarized in Table 2-8.
1
Table 2-4. Determine tiedown assembly displacements at roof level
ASD Strength Design
Wall Uplift/1.4 (2) Tiedown Tiedown(3) TIedown Assembly Displacement d a (7)
Uplift (lb)
(lb) Device Elongation (in.) Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6) (in.)
A 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
B1 840 Strap 1,175 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.11
B2 840 Strap 1,175 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.11
C1 100 Strap 140 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
C2 100 Strap 140 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
E1 100 Strap 140 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
E2 100 Strap 140 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
F1 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
F2 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
G1 500 Strap 700 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
G2 500 Strap 700 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
H 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1a, 4a 120 Strap 170 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
1b, 4b 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1c, 4c 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1d, 4d 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1e, 4e 0 Not required 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1f, 4f 120 Strap 170 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
Notes:
1. Tiedown assembly displacements for the roof level are calculated for the tiedowns at the
third floor level.
2. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning moment (M OT − M OR ) divided by
the distance between the centroids of the boundary elements with 4x members at the ends
of the shear wall. This equates to the length of the wall minus 3½ inches for straps or the

length of wall minus 7¼ inches when using a bolted tiedown with 2-inch offset from post to
anchor bolt. Using allowable stress design, tiedown devices need only be sized by using the
ASD uplift force. The strength design uplift force is used to determine tiedown assembly
displacement in order to determine strength-level displacements.
3. The continuous tiedown (rod) system selected for this structure will have a “shrinkage
compensating” system. Most of these systems have shrinkage compensation by either
pre-tensioning of cables or a “self-ratcheting” hardware connector and are proprietary. The
device selected in this design example has adjusting grooves at 1/10-inch increments,
meaning the most the “system” will have not compensated for in shrinkage and crushing
will be 1/10-inch. If the selected device does not have a shrinkage compensating device
then, shrinkage of floor framing, sill plates, compression bridges, crushing of bridge
support studs, and collector studs will need to be considered. See Design Example 1, Part
3c for an example calculation for a bolted connection. The tiedown rod at line B will
elongate as follows:
= 6,090 lb(4.5)(12 ) 0.31(29 E6 ) = 0.04 in
PL
for 5 8" rod: ∆ =
AE
Note that the rod length is 4.5 feet (Figure 2-12). The elongation for the portion of the rod
at the level below will be considered at the level below.
For level below (Table 2-13) rod length is 9.44 feet (Figure 2-12):
= 12,040 lb(9.44)(12 ) 0.31(29 E6 ) = 0.15 in .
PL
for 5 8" rod: ∆ =
AE
4. Wood shrinkage is based on a change in moisture content (MC) from 19 percent to 15
percent, with 19 percent MC being assumed for S-Dry lumber per project specifications.
The MC of 15 percent is the assumed final MC at equilibrium with ambient humidity for
the project location. The final equilibrium value can be higher in coastal areas and lower in
inland or desert areas. This equates to (0.002 )(d )(19 − 15) , where d is the dimension of the
lumber (see Figure 2-11). Pressure-treated lumber has moisture content of less than 16
percent at treatment completion. Shrinkage of 2 × DBL Top Plate + 2 × DBL sill plate
= (0.002 )(4 × 1.5 in )(19 − 15) = 0.05 in .
5. Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c⊥ ) is less than 0.73F ' c⊥
crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches. When f c⊥ = F 'c⊥ crushing is approximately
0.04 inches. The effect of sill plate crushing is the downward effect at the opposite end of
the wall with uplift force and has the same rotational effect as the tiedown displacement.
Short walls that have no uplift forces will still have a crushing effect and contributes to
rotation of the wall.
6. ( )
Per 91 NDS 7.3.6 load/slip modulus γ = (270,000) D1.5 , plus an additional 1/16" for the
oversized hole for bolts. For nails, values for en can be used.
7. d a is the total tiedown assembly displacement. This also could include mis-cuts (short
studs) and lack of square cut ends.

Table 2-5. Deflections of shear walls at the roof level in east-west direction
Nail
ASD v Strength v A G t Vn en da ∆S
Wall h (ft) E (psi) b (ft) Spacing
(plf) (plf) (in.2) (psi) (in.) (lb) (in.) (in.) (in.)
(in.)
A 85 119 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 60 0.0002 0.07 0.07
B1 205 287 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 6 144 0.0041 0.11 0.16
B2 205 287 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 6 144 0.0041 0.11 0.16
B 22.0
C1 190 266 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 133 0.0032 0.09 0.10
C2 190 266 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 133 0.0032 0.09 0.10
C 43.0
E1 190 266 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 133 0.0032 0.09 0.10
E2 190 266 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 133 0.0032 0.09 0.10
E 43.0
F1 135 189 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 95 0.0011 0.07 0.07
F2 135 189 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 6 95 0.0011 0.07 0.07
F 43.0
G1 155 217 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 6 109 0.0017 0.09 0.12
G2 155 217 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 6 109 0.0017 0.09 0.12
G 22.0
H 85 119 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 60 0.0002 0.07 0.07
Table 2-6. Deflections of shear walls at the roof level in north-south direction
Nail
ASD v Strength v A (2) G t (in.) Vn en da ∆S
Wall h (ft) E (psi) b (ft) Spacing
(plf) (plf) (in.) (psi) (lb) (in.) (in.) (in.)
(in.)
1a, 4a 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.09 0.21
1b, 4b 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.07 0.16
1c, 4c 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.07 0.17
1d, 4d 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.07 0.17
1e, 4e 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.07 0.17
1f, 4f 250 350 8.21 10.5 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 6 175 0.0078 0.09 0.21
1, 4 64.5

1
Table 2-7. Shear wall rigidities at roof level
∆ S (2) ki =
F
(k/in.) k total
Wall F (lb)
(in.) ∆s (k/in.)
A 0.07 1,430 20.43 20.43
B1 0.16 3,140 19.62
B2 0.16 3,140 19.62
B 6,280 39.24 39.24
C1 0.10 5,655 56.55
C2 0.10 5,655 56.55
C 11,310 113.1 113.1
E1 0.10 5,655 56.55
E2 0.10 5,655 56.55
E 11,310 113.1 113.1
F1 0.07 4,040 57.71
F2 0.07 4,040 57.71
F 8,080 115.4 115.4
G1 0.12 2,330 19.42
G2 0.12 2,330 19.42
G 4,660 38.84 38.84
H 0.07 1,430 20.42 20.42
1a, 4a 0.21 2,760 13.14
1b, 4b 0.16 4,830 30.19
1c, 4c 0.17 3,965 23.32
1d, 4d 0.17 3,970 23.35
1e, 4e 0.17 3,965 23.32
1f, 4f 0.21 2,760 13.14
1, 4 22,250 126.5 126.5
Notes:
2. ∆ S are the design level displacements from Tables 2-5 and 2-6.

3d.
3d Drift check at roof level. §1630.10.2
To determine drift, the maximum inelastic response displacement ∆ M must be

determined. This is defined in §1630.9.2 and computed as follows:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆R S (30-17)
R = 5.5 Table 16-N
∆ M = 0.7(5.5)∆ S
Under §1630.10.2, the calculated story drift using ∆ M shall not exceed 0.025
times the story height for structures having a fundamental period less than 0.7
seconds. The building period for this design example was calculated to be 0.28
seconds, which is less than 0.7 seconds, therefore the 0.025 drift limitation applies.
The drift check is summarized in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8. Drift check at roof level

Max. ∆ M
Wall ∆ S (in.) Height (ft.) ∆ M (in.) Status
(in.)
A 0.07 8.21 0.27 2.46 ok
B 0.16 8.21 0.62 2.46 ok
C 0.10 8.21 0.38 2.46 ok
East-West
E 0.10 8.21 0.38 2.46 ok

F 0.07 8.21 0.27 2.46 ok
G 0.12 8.21 0.46 2.46 ok
H 0.07 8.21 0.27 2.46 ok
1a, 4a 0.21 8.21 0.81 2.46 ok
1b, 4b 0.16 8.21 0.62 2.46 ok
North-South
1c, 4c 0.17 8.21 0.65 2.46 ok

1d, 4d 0.17 8.21 0.65 2.46 ok
1e, 4e 0.17 8.21 0.65 2.46 ok
1f, 4f 0.21 8.21 0.81 2.46 ok

3e. Estimation of third floor level rigidities.
Shear wall rigidities at the third floor are estimated in the same manner as those a
the roof. The calculations are summarized in Tables 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, and 2-12. A
drift check is not shown.
1
Table 2-9. Tiedown assembly displacements at third floor level
ASD Strength Design
Wall Uplift/1.4(2) Tiedown Uplift Tiedown Tiedown AssemblyDisplacement da (7)
Elongation (3)
(lb) Device (lb) Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6) (in.)
(in.)
A 135 Strap 190 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
B1 4,350 Rod 6,090 0.04 0 0 0.10 0.14
B2 4,350 Rod 6,090 0.04 0 0 0.10 0.14
C1 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
C2 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
E1 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
E2 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
F1 550 Strap 770 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
F2 550 Strap 770 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
G1 2,800 Rod 3,920 0.02 0 0 0.10 0.12
G2 2,800 Rod 3,920 0.02 0 0 0.10 0.12
H 135 Strap 190 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
1a, 4a 2,275 Strap 3,185 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
1b, 4b 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1c, 4c 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1d, 4d 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1e, 4e 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
1f, 4f 2,275 Strap 3,185 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 0.09
2a, 3a 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
2b, 3b 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
2c, 3c 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 0.07
Notes:
1. Tiedown assembly displacements for the third floor level are calculated for the tiedowns at
the second floor level.
2. Footnotes 2-6, see Table 2-4.

Table 2-10. Deflections of shear walls at third floor level in east-west direction
ASD v Strength v h A E
t (in.) Space Vn en (in.) da ∆S
Wall b (ft) G (psi)
(plf) (plf) (ft) (in.2) (psi) (in) (lb) (in.) (in.)
A 160 224 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 112 0.0018 0.09 0.13
B1 400 560 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 4 187 0.0097 0.14 0.31
B2 400 560 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 4 187 0.0097 0.14 0.31
B 22.0
C1 370 518 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 173 0.0075 0.09 0.20
C2 370 518 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 173 0.0075 0.09 0.20
C 43.0
E1 370 518 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 173 0.0075 0.09 0.20
E2 370 518 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 173 0.0075 0.09 0.20
E 43.0
F1 265 371 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 124 0.0025 0.09 0.13
F2 265 371 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 4 124 0.0025 0.09 0.13
F 43.0
G1 300 420 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 4 140 0.0038 0.12 0.22
G2 300 420 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 4 140 0.0038 0.12 0.22
G 22.0
H 160 224 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 112 0.0018 0.09 0.13
Table 2-11. Deflections of shear walls at the third floor level in north-south direction
ASD v Strength A t Space Vn en (in) da ∆S
Wall h (ft) E (psi) b (ft) G (psi)
(plf) (v) (plf) (in.2) (in.) (in. (lb) (in.) (in.)
1a, 4a 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.09 0.27
1b, 4b 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.07 0.20
1c, 4c 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.07 0.21
1d, 4d 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.07 0.21
1e, 4e 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.07 0.21
1f, 4f 355 497 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 4 166 0.0066 0.09 0.27
1, 4 64.5
2a, 3a 140 196 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 18.0 90,000 0.535 6 98 0.0012 0.07 0.09
2b, 3b 140 196 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 24.0 90,000 0.535 6 98 0.0012 0.07 0.08
2c, 3c 140 196 9.43 15.7 1.7E6 18.0 90,000 0.535 6 98 0.0012 0.07 0.09
2, 3 60.0

1
Table 2-12. Shear wall rigidities at third floor
F
Wall ∆ S (in.) (2) F (lb) ki = (k/in.) k total (k/in.)
∆s
A 0.13 2,805 21.58 21.58
B1 0.31 6,152 19.84
B2 0.31 6,153 19.84
B 12,305 39.68 39.68
C1 0.20 11,080 55.40
C2 0.20 11,080 55.40
C 22,160 110.80 110.80
E1 0.20 11,080 55.40
E2 0.20 11,080 55.40
E 22,160 110.80 110.80
F1 0.13 7,915 60.88
F2 0.13 7,915 60.88
F 15,830 121.70 121.70
G1 0.22 4,568 20.76
G2 0.22 4,567 20.76
G 9,135 41.52 41.52
H 0.13 2,805 21.58 21.58
1a, 4a 0.27 3,965 14.68
1b, 4b 0.20 6,936 34.68
1c, 4c 0.21 5,696 27.12
1d, 4d 0.21 5,696 27.12
1e, 4e 0.21 5,696 27.12
1f, 4f 0.27 3,966 14.68
1, 4 31,955 145.40 145.40
2a, 3a 0.09 3,494 38.82
2b, 3b 0.08 4,657 58.21
2c, 3c 0.09 3,494 38.82
2, 3 11,645 135.80 135.80
Notes:
1. Deflections and forces are based on strength levels.
2. ∆s are the design level displacements form Tables 2-10 and 2-11.

3f.
3f Estimation of second floor level rigidities.
Shear wall rigidities at the second floor level are estimated in the same manner as
those for the roof and third floor. The calculations are summarized in Tables 2-13,
2-14, 2-15, and 2-16. A drift check is not shown.
1
Table 2-13. Tiedown assembly displacements at second floor level
ASD Strength Design
Wall Uplift/1.4(2) Tiedown Tiedown Tiedown Assembly Displacement d a (7)
Uplift (lb) Elongation(3)
(lb) Device Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6) (in.)
(in.)
A 1,090 Strap 1,525 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.05
B1 8,600 Rod 12,040 0.15 0 0 0.10 0.25
B2 8,600 Rod 12,040 0.15 0 0 0.10 0.25
C1 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 0.18
C2 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 0.18
E1 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 0.18
E2 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 0.18
F1 1,565 Rod 2,200 0.03 0 0 0.10 0.13
F2 1,565 Rod 2,200 0.03 0 0 0.10 0.13
G1 5,700 Rod 7,980 0.10 0 0 0.10 0.20
G2 5,700 Rod 7,980 0.10 0 0 0.10 0.20
H 1,090 Strap 1,525 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.05
1a, 4a 5,240 Rod 7,340 0.10 0 0 0.10 0.20
1b, 4b 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.03
1c, 4c 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.05
1d, 4d 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.05
1e, 4e 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.05
1f, 4f 5,240 Rod 7,340 0.10 0 0 0.10 0.20
2a, 3a 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.03
2b, 3b 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.03
2c, 3c 0 Not req’d 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.03
Notes:
1. Tiedown assembly displacements for the second floor level are calculated for the tiedowns
at the first floor level.
2. See Table 2-4 for footnotes 2-6.

Table 2-14. Deflections of shear walls at the second floor level in east-west direction
ASD v Strength v A G t (in.)
Space Vn en (in.) da ∆S
Wall h (ft) E (psi) b (ft)
(plf) (plf) (in.2) (psi) (in.) (lb) (in.) (in.)
A 200 280 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 140 0.0038 0.05 0.12
B1 500 700 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 3 175 0.0078 0.25 0.42
B2 500 700 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 3 175 0.0078 0.25 0.42
B 22.0
C1 460 644 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 161 0.0060 0.18 0.25
C2 460 644 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 161 0.0060 0.18 0.25
C 43.0
E1 460 644 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 161 0.0060 0.18 0.25
E2 460 644 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 161 0.0060 0.18 0.25
E 43.0
F1 330 462 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 115 0.0020 0.13 0.16
F2 330 462 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 21.5 90,000 0.535 3 115 0.0020 0.13 0.16
F 43.0
G1 370 518 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 3 130 0.0030 0.20 0.30
G2 370 518 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.0 90,000 0.535 3 130 0.0030 0.20 0.30
G 22.0
H 200 280 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 12.5 90,000 0.535 6 140 0.0038 0.05 0.12
Table 2-15. Deflections of shear walls at the second floor level in north-south direction
ASD v Strength A
t (in.) Space Vn en da ∆S
Wall h (ft) E (psi) b (ft) G (psi)
(plf) v (plf) (in.2) (in.) (lb) (in.) (in.) (in.)
1a, 4a 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.20 0.43
1b, 4b 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 14.0 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.03 0.21
1c, 4c 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.05 0.23
1d, 4d 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.05 0.23
1e, 4e 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 11.5 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.05 0.23
1f, 4f 410 574 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 8.0 90,000 0.535 4 191 0.0104 0.20 0.43
1, 4 64.5
2a, 3a 210 294 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 18.0 90,000 0.535 6 147 0.0044 0.03 0.10
2b, 3b 210 294 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 24.0 90,000 0.535 6 147 0.0044 0.03 0.10
2c, 3c 210 294 9.43 26.2 1.7E6 18.0 90,000 0.535 6 147 0.0044 0.03 0.10
2, 3 60.0

1
Table 2-16. Wall rigidities at second floor
∆ S (2) ki =
F
(k/in.) k total (k/in.)
Wall F (lb)
(in.) ∆S
A 0.12 3,485 29.04 29.04
B1 0.42 7,640 18.19
B2 0.42 7,640 18.19
B 15,280 36.38 36.38
C1 0.25 13,762 55.05
C2 0.25 13,763 55.05
C 27,525 110.1 110.1
E1 0.25 13,762 55.05
E2 0.25 13,763 55.05
E 27,525 110.1 110.1
F1 0.16 9,830 61.44
F2 0.16 9,830 61.44
F 19,660 122.8 122.8
G1 0.30 5,672 18.91
G2 0.30 5,673 18.91
G 11,345 37.82 37.82
H 0.12 3,485 29.04 29.04
1a, 4a 0.43 4,558 10.60
1b, 4b 0.21 7,978 37.99
1c, 4c 0.23 6,552 28.48
1d, 4d 0.23 6,552 28.48
1e, 4e 0.23 6,552 28.48
1f, 4f 0.43 4,558 10.60
1, 4 36,750 144.6 144.6
2a, 3a 0.10 5,221 52.21
2b, 3b 0.10 6,958 69.58
2c, 3c 0.10 5,221 52.21
2, 3 17,400 174.0 174.0
Notes:
2. ∆s are the design level displacements from Tables 2-14 and 2-15.
4. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls. §1630.6
The base shear was distributed to the three levels in Part 2. In this step, the story
forces are distributed to the shear walls supporting each level using the rigid
diaphragm assumption. See Part 7 for a later confirmation of this assumption.
It has been a common engineering practice to assume flexible diaphragms and

distribute loads to shear walls based on tributary areas. This has been done for
many years and is a well-established conventional design assumption. In this
design example, the rigid diaphragm assumption will be used. This is not intended
to imply that seismic design of wood light frame construction in the past should

have been necessarily performed in this manner. However, recent earthquakes and
testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that drifts can be considerably
higher than what was known or assumed in the past. This knowledge of the
increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls and the fact that the diaphragms
tend to be much more rigid than the shear walls has increased the need for the
engineer to consider the relative rigidities of shear walls.
The code requires that the story force at the center of mass to be displaced from the
calculated center of mass (CM) a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at
that level perpendicular to the direction of force. This is to account for accidental
torsion. The code requires the most severe load combination to be considered and
also permits the negative torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear.
The net effect of this is to add 5 percent accidental eccentricity to the calculated
eccentricity.
However, lateral forces must be considered to act in each direction of the two
principal axis. This design example does not consider eccentricities between the
centers of mass between levels. In this design example, these eccentricities are
small and are therefore considered insignificant. The engineer must exercise good
engineering judgment in determining when those effects need to be considered.
The direct shear force Fv is determined from:
R
Fv = F
∑R
and the torsional shear force Ft is determined from:
Rd
Ft = T
J
where:
J = ΣRd x 2 + ΣRd y 2
R = shear wall rigidity
d = distance from the lateral resisting element (e.g., shear wall) to the center
of rigidity (CR)
T = Fe
F = 44,500 lb (for roof diaphragm)
e = eccentricity

4a.
4a Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, eccentricities for roof diaphragm.
yr =
∑ k xx y or y r ∑ k xx = ∑ k xx y
∑ k xx
Using the rigidity values k from Table 2-7 and the distance y from line H to the
shear wall:
y r (20.43 + 39.24 + 113.1 + 113.1 + 115.4 + 38.84 + 20.42 ) = 20.43(116 ) + 39.24(106)
+ 113.1(82.0) + 113.1(50.0 ) + 115.4(26.0) + 38.84(10.0 ) + 20.42(0)
24,847.3
Distance to calculated CR y r = = 53.9 ft
460.53
The building is symmetrical about the x-axis (Figure 2-6) and the center of mass is
determined as:
116.0
ym = = 58.0 ft
2
The minimum 5 percent accidental eccentricity for east-west forces, e y , is

computed from the length of the structure perpendicular to the applied story force.
e y = (0.05 × 116 ft ) = ±5.8 ft
The new y m to the displaced CM = 58.0 ft ± 5.8 ft = 63.8 ft or 52.2 ft
The total eccentricity is the distance between the displaced center of mass and the
center of rigidity
y r = 53.9 ft
∴ e y = 63.8 − 53.9 = 9.9 ft or 52.2 − 53.9 = − 1.7 f t
Note that displacing the center of mass 5 percent can result in the CM being on
either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to all walls.

Note that the 5 percent may not be conservative. The contents-to-structure weight
ratio can be higher in wood framing than in heavier types of construction. Also, the
location of the calculated center of rigidity is less reliable than in other structural
systems. Use engineering judgment when selecting the eccentricity e .
The building is symmetrical about the y-axis (Figure 2-6). Therefore, the distance
to the CM and CR is:
48.0
xm = = 24.0 ft
2
e' x = (0.05)(48 ft ) = ± 2.4 ft
Because, the CM and CR locations coincide,
e x = e' x
∴ e x = 2.4 ft or − 2.4 ft

Figure 2-6. Center of rigidity and location of displaced centers of mass for
second and third floor diaphragms

4b.
4b Determine total shears on walls at roof level.
The total shears on the walls at the roof level are the direct shears Fv and the
shears due to torsion (combined actual torsion and accidental torsion), Ft .
Torsion on the roof diaphragm is computed as follows:
Tx = Fe y = 44,500 lb(9.9 ft ) = 440,550 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or Tx = 44,500 lb(1.7 ft ) = 75,650 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 44,500 lb(2.4 ft ) = 106,800 ft - lb
Since the building is symmetrical for forces in the north-south direction, the
torsional forces can be subtracted for those walls located on the opposite side from
the displaced center of mass. The critical force will then be used for the design of
these walls. Table 2-17 summarizes the spreadsheet for determining combined
forces on the roof level walls.
4c.
4c Determine the center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the third
and second floor diaphragms.
Since the walls stack with uniform nailing, it can be assumed that the center of
rigidity for the third floor and the second floor diaphragms will coincide with the
center of rigidity of the roof diaphragm.
Torsion on the third floor diaphragms
F = (44,500 + 42,700) = 87,200 lb
Tx = Fe y = 87,200 lb(9.9 ft ) = 863,280 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or 87,200 lb(1.7 ft ) = 148,240 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 87,200 lb(2.4 ft ) = 209,280 ft - lb
Results for the third floor are summarized in Table 2-18.

Torsion on the second floor diaphragms:
F = (44,500 + 42,700 + 21,100) = 108,300 lb
Tx = Fe y = 108,300 lb(9.9 ft ) = 1,072,170 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or 108,300 lb(1.7 ft ) = 184,110 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 108,300 lb(2.4 ft ) = 259,920 ft - lb
Results for the second floor are summarized in Table 2-19.
4d.
4d Comparison of flexible vs. rigid diaphragm results.
Table 2-20 summarizes wall forces determined under the separate flexible and rigid
diaphragm analysis. Since nailing requirements were established in the flexible
diaphragm analysis of Part 2, they must be checked for results of the rigid
diaphragm analysis and adjusted if necessary (also given in Table 2-20).
Direct Force Torsional Force Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Fv Ft Fv + Ft
A 20.43 62.1 1,269 78,786 1,970 +865 2,835
B 39.24 52.1 2,044 106,513 3,791 +1394 5,185
C 113.10 28.1 3,178 89,305 10,932 +2167 13,099
East-West
E 113.10 3.9 441 1,720 10,932 +52 10,984

F 115.40 27.9 3,220 89,829 11,153 +377 11,530
G 38.84 43.9 1,705 74,853 3,752 +200 3,952
H 20.42 53.9 1,101 59,324 1,970 +129 2,099
Σ 460.53 500,330 44,500
1 126.5 24.0 3,036 72,864 22,250 +502 22,752
North-South
4 126.5 -24.0 -3,036 72,864 22,250 -502 21,748

Σ 253.0 145,728 44,500
Σ 646,058

Table 2-18. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the third floor level
Direct Torsional Force Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Force Fv Ft Fv + Ft
A 21.58 62.1 1,340 83,221 4,024 1,685 5,709
B 39.68 52.1 2,067 107,708 7,399 2,559 9,998
C 110.8 28.1 3,113 87,489 20,660 3,914 24,574
East-West
E 110.8 3.9 432 1,685 20,660 93 20,693

F 121.7 27.9 3,395 94,732 22,692 733 23,425
G 41.52 43.9 1,823 80,018 7,741 393 8,134
H 21.58 53.9 1,163 62,694 4,024 251 4,275
Σ 467.66 517,547 87,200
1 145.4 24.0 3,490 83,750 22,544 1,064 23,608
2 135.8 2.5 340 849 21,056 259 21,315
North-South
3 135.8 -2.5 -340 849 21,056 -259 20,797

4 145.4 -24.0 -3,490 83,750 22,544 -1,064 21,480
Σ 562.4 169,198 87,200
Σ 686,745
Table 2-19. Distribution of forces to shear walls below second floor level
Direct Torsional Force Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Force Fv Ft Fv + Ft
A 29.04 62.1 1,803 111,990 6,617 2,682 9,299
B 36.38 52.1 1,911 98,750 8,290 2,843 11,133
C 110.1 28.1 3,094 86,936 25,088 4,602 29,690
East-West
E 110.1 3.9 429 1,675 25,088 109 25,197

F 122.8 27.9 3,426 95,589 27,982 875 28,857
G 37.82 43.9 1,660 72,887 8,618 424 9,042
H 29.04 53.9 1,565 84,367 6,617 400 7,017
Σ 475.28 552,194 108,300
1 144.6 24.0 3470 83,290 24,576 1,251 25,827
2 174.0 2.5 435 1,088 29,574 157 29,731
North-South
3 174.0 -2.5 -435 1,088 29,574 -157 29,417

4 144.6 -24.0 -3470 83,290 24,576 -1,251 23,325
Σ 637.2 168,756 108,300
Σ 720,950

Table 2-20. Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm analysis and
recheck of nailing in walls
Fmax Plywood Allowable Edge Nail
F flexible Frigid Rigid/ v=
Wall
(lb) (lb) Flexible ratio
b
(ft) (b )1.4 1 or 2 Shear Spacing
sides (plf) (1)(2) (in.)
(plf)
Roof Level
A 1,430 2,835 +98% 12.5 165 1 340 6
B 6,280 5,185 -17% 22.0 205 1 340 6
C 11,310 13,099 +15% 43.0 220 1 340 6
E 11,310 10,984 -3% 43.0 190 1 340 6
F 8,080 11,530 +43% 43.0 195 1 340 6
G 4,660 3,952 -15% 22.0 155 1 340 6
H 1,430 2,099 +46% 12.5 120 1 340 6
1 22,250 22,752 +2% 64.5 255 1 340 6
4 22,250 22,752(3) +2% 64.5 255 1 340 6
Third Floor
A 2,805 5,709 +103% 12.5 330 1 340 6
B 12,305 9,998 -18% 22.0 400 1 510 4(2)
C 22,160 24,574 +11% 43.0 415 1 510 4
E 22,160 20,693 -7% 43.0 370 1 510 4
F 15,830 23,425 +48% 43.0 390 1 510 4
G 9,135 8,134 -11% 22.0 300 1 510 4
H 2,805 4,275 +52% 12.5 245 1 340 6
1 31,955 23,608 -26% 64.5 355 1 510 4
2 11,645 21,315 +83% 60.0 255 1 340 6
3 11,645 21,315(3) +83% 60.0 255 1 340 6
4 31,955 23,608(3) -26% 64.5 355 1 510 4
Second Floor
A 3,485 9,299 +167% 12.5 535 1 510 4
B 15,280 11,133 -27% 22.0 500 1 665 3
C 27,525 29,690 +7% 43.0 495 1 665 3
E 27,525 25,197 -9% 43.0 460 1 665 3
F 19,660 28,857 +47% 43.0 480 1 665 3
G 11,345 9,042 -20% 22.0 370 1 665 3
H 3,485 7,017 +100% 12.5 400 1 510 4
1 36,750 25,827 -30% 64.5 410 1 510 4
2 17,400 29,731 +70% 60.0 355 1 340 6(5)
3 17,400 29,731(3) +70% 60.0 355 1 340 6(5)
4 36,750 25,827(3) -30% 64.5 410 1 510 4
Notes:
1. Allowable shears from UBC Table 23-II-I-1
2. Shear walls with shears that exceeds 350 pounds per lineal foot will require 3 × framing at abutting
panel edges with staggered nails. See also notes at bottom of Table 1-3.
3. Designates the force used was the higher force for the same wall at the opposite side of the structure.
4. The shear of 535 plf exceeds allowable of 510 plf therefore the nail spacing will need to be decreased to
3 inch spacing. A redesign will not be necessary.
5. The shear of 355 plf exceeds allowable of 340 plf, therefore the nail spacing will need to be decreased
to 4-inch spacing. A redesign will not be necessary.

Where forces from rigid diaphragm analysis are higher than those from the flexible
diaphragm analysis, wall stability and anchorage must be re-evaluated. However,
engineering judgment may be used to determine if a complete rigid diaphragm
analysis should be repeated due to changes in wall rigidity.
If rigid diaphragm loads are used, the diaphragm shears should be rechecked for
total load divided by diaphragm length along the individual wall lines.
5. Determine reliability/redundancy factor ρ. §1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems that do

not have adequate redundancy. In Part 1 of this example, the reliability/redundancy
factor was previously assumed to be ρ = 1.0 . This will now be checked.
20
ρ = 2− (30-3)
rmax AB
where:
rmax = the maximum element-story shear ratio.
For shear walls, the ratio for the wall with the largest shear per foot at or below
two-thirds the height of the building is calculated. Or in the case of a three-story
building, the ground level and the second level are calculated (see the SEAOC Blue
Book Commentary §C105.1.1.1). The total lateral load in the wall is multiplied by
10 l w and divided by the story shear.
AB = the ground floor area of the structure in square feet
Vmax (10 l w )
ri =
F
AB = 5,288 sq ft

For ground level.
Using strength-level forces for wall A:
(9,299)(10 12.5)
rmax = = 0.068
108,300
20
ρ = 2− = −2.0 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.068 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
Therefore, there is no increase in base shear due to lack of reliability/redundancy.
Using strength-level forces for walls 1 and 4:
Load to wall:
36,750 × 11.5 64.5 = 6,552 lb
(6,552 )(10 11.5)

ri = = 0.053
108,300
Note that this is the same as using the whole wall.
(36,750)(10 64.5)
rmax = = 0.053
108,300
20
ρ = 2− = −3.2 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.053 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
Therefore, for both directions there is no increase in base shear required due to lack
of reliability/redundancy.

For second level.
Using strength-level forces for wall B:
(24,574 × 5)(10 21.5)

rmax = = 0.065
87,200
20
ρ = 2− = −2.2 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.065 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
(31,955)(10 64.5)
rmax = = 0.057
87,200
20
ρ = 2− = −2.8 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.057 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence “The value of the ratio of
10/lw need not be taken as greater than 1.0” in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book—
which will not penalize longer walls, but in this design example has no effect.

6. Determine if structure meets requirements of conventional construction

provisions.
While SEAOC is not encouraging the use of conventional construction methods,
this step is included because conventional construction is allowed by the UBC
(however, it is often misused) and can lead to poor performing structures.
The structure must be checked against the individual requirements of §2320, and
because it is in Seismic Zone 4, it must also be checked against §2320.5.2. Results
of these checks are shown below.
6a.
6a Floor total loads. §1230.5.2
The dead load weight of the floor exceeds the limit of 20 psf limit, and therefore
the structure requires an engineering design for vertical and lateral forces.
6b.
6b Braced wall lines. §2320.5.2
The spacing of braced wall lines exceeds 25 feet on center, and therefore the entire
lateral system requires an engineering design.
Therefore, the hotel structure requires an engineering design for both vertical and
lateral loads. If all walls were drywall and the floor weight was less than 20 psf,
then use of conventional construction provisions would be permitted by the UBC.
However, conventional construction is not recommended for this type of structure.
7. Diaphragm deflections to determine if the diaphragm is flexible or rigid.
This step is shown only as a reference for how to calculate horizontal diaphragm
deflections. Since the shear wall forces were determined using both flexible and
rigid diaphragm assumptions, there is no requirement to verify that the diaphragm
is actually rigid or flexible.
The roof diaphragm has been selected to illustrate the methodology. The design
seismic force in the roof diaphragm using Eq (33-1) must first be determined. The
design seismic force is then divided by the diaphragm area to determine the
horizontal loading in pounds per square foot. These values are used for determining
diaphragm shears (and also collector forces). The design seismic force shall not be
less than 0.5C a IW px nor greater than 1.0C a IW px .

7a.
7a Roof diaphragm check.
The roof diaphragm will be checked in two steps. First, the shear in the diaphragm
will be determined and compared to allowables. Next, the diaphragm deflection
will be calculated. In Part 7b, the diaphragm deflection is used to determine
whether the diaphragm is flexible or rigid.
Check diaphragm shear:
The roof diaphragm consists of 15/32"-thick sheathing with 10d @ 6" o/c and
panel edges are unblocked. Loading on the segment between C and E, where:
v=
(8.41)48.0' (32.0') = 96 plf
1.4(48.0')2
Diaphragm span = 32.0 ft
Diaphragm depth = 48.0 ft
Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4
From Table 23-II-H, the allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32-inch
APA-rated wood structural panels with unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6
inches on center at boundaries and supported panel edges. APA-rated wood
structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
Check diaphragm deflection:
The code specifies that the deflection is calculated on a unit load basis. In other
words, the diaphragm deflection should be based on the same load as the load used
for the lateral resisting elements, not F px total force at the level considered. Since
the UBC now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of
§1612.2 (see Step 4 for additional comments), strength loads on building
diaphragm must be determined.
The basic equation to determine seismic forces on a diaphragm is shown below.
n
Ft + ∑ Ft
i= x
F px = n
w px (33-1)
∑ wi
i=x

where Ft = 0 in this example because T < 0.7 seconds
f p roof =
(44.5 × 135.0) = 44.5 k
135.0
For the uppermost level, the above calculation will always produce the same force
as computed in Eq (30-15). Then divide by the area of the diaphragm to find the
equivalent uniform force.
44.5 × 1,000
5,288
In this example, the roof and floor diaphragms spanning between C and E will be
used to illustrate the method. The basic code equation to determine the deflection
of a diaphragm is shown below.
∆=
5vL3
+
vL
+ 0.188 Le n +
∑ (∆ C X ) §23.222, Vol. 3
8 EAb 4Gt 2b
The above equation is based on a uniformly nailed, simple span diaphragm with
panel edges blocked and is based on monotonic tests conducted by the American
Plywood Association (APA). The equation has four parts. The first part accounts
for beam bending, the second accounts for shear deformation, the third accounts for
nail slippage/bending, and the last part accounts for chord slippage. The UBC
references this in §2315.1.
For the purpose of this design example, the diaphragm is assumed to be a simple
span supported at C and E (refer to Figure 2-4). In reality, with continuity, the
actual deflection will be less.
With nails at 6 inches on center the strength load per nail is

96 × 1.4(6 12 ) = 67 lb/nail = Vn . Other terms in the deflection equation are:
L = 32.0 ft
b = 48.0 ft
G = 50,000 psi Table 23-2-J Vol. 3
E = 1,700,000 psi
A2×4 chords = 5.25 sq in × 2 = 10.50 sq in.

Fastener slip/nail deformation values (en ) are obtained as follows:
Volume 3 of the UBC uses Table 23-2-K for obtaining nail slip values en ,
however, its use is somewhat time-consuming, since interpolation and adjustments
are necessary. Footnote 1 in Table 23-2-K requires the nail slip values en be
decreased 50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on
nails being driven into green lumber and the engineer must use half of these values
for nails driven in dry (seasoned) lumber. The values in Table 23-2-K are based on
tests conducted by the APA. The 50 percent nail slip reduction for dry lumber is a
conservative factor. The actual tested slips with dry lumber were less than 50
percent of the green lumber slips.
Values for en can be computed based on fastener slip equations from Table B-4 of
APA Research Report 138. This will save time, be more accurate, and also enable
computations to be made by a computer. Using the values of en from Volume 3 of
UBC requires interpolation and is very time-consuming. For 10d common nails,
there are 2 basic equations:
When the nails are driven into green lumber: en = (Vn 977 )1.894 APA Table B-4
When the nails are driven into dry lumber: en = (Vn 769 )3.276 APA Table B-4
where:
Vn is the fastener load in pounds per fastener
These values are based on Structural I sheathing and must be increased by 20

percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. Footnote a in UBC Table B-4 states
“Fabricated green/tested dry (seasoned)…” is very misleading. The values in the
table are actually green values, since the lumber is fabricated when green. Again,
don’t be misled by the word “seasoned.”
en = 1.20(67 769)3.276 = 0.0004
t = 0.298 in. (for CDX or Standard Grade) Table 23-2-H
Assume chord-splice at the mid-span of the diaphragm that will be nailed. The
allowable loads for fasteners are based on limit state design. In other words, the
deformation is set at a limit rather than the strength of the fastener. The
deformation limit is 0.05 diameters of the fastener. For a 16d nail, a conservative
slippage of 0.01 inch will be used.

Using strength level diaphragm shear:
∑ (∆ C X ) = (0.01)16.0 ft (2 ) = 0.32 in. - ft

5 (96 × 1.4 )32.0 3 96 × 1.4 (32.0 )
+ 0.188 (32.0 )0.0004 +
0.32
∆= + = 0.08 in.
8(1.7 E 6)10.50 (48.0) 4 (50,000 )0.298 2 (48.0)
This deflection is based on a blocked diaphragm. The UBC does not have a
formula for an unblocked diaphragm. The APA is currently working on a
simplified formula for unblocked diaphragms. Based on diaphragm deflection test
results (performed by the APA), an unblocked diaphragm will deflect between 2 to
2½ times that of a blocked diaphragm or can be proportioned to the allowable
shears of a blocked diaphragm divided by the unblocked diaphragm. The roof
diaphragm is also sloped at 6:12, which is believed to increase the deflection (but
this has not been confirmed with tests). This design example has unblocked panel
edges for the floor and roof diaphragms, so a conversion factor is necessary. This
conversion is for the roof diaphragm. The floors will similarly neglect the
stiffening effects of lightweight concrete fill and gluing of sheathing. It is assumed
that the unblocked diaphragm will deflect:
∴ ∆ = 0.08(2.5) = 0.20 in.
7b.
7b Flexible versus rigid diaphragms. §1630.6
In this example, the maximum diaphragm deflection was estimated as 0.20 inches.
This assumes a simple span for the diaphragm, and the actual deflection would
probably be less. The average story drift is on the order of 0.10 inches at the roof
(see Step 3c for the computed deflections of the shear walls). For the diaphragms to
be considered flexible, the maximum diaphragm deflection will have to be more
than two times the average story drift. This is right at the limit of a definition of a
flexible diaphragm. The other diaphragm spans would easily qualify as “rigid”
diaphragms. As defined by the code, the diaphragms in this design example are
considered rigid.
In reality, some amount of diaphragm deformation will occur, and the true analysis
is highly complex and beyond the scope of what is normally done for this type of
construction. Diaphragm deflection analysis and testing has been performed on
level/flat diaphragms. There has not been any testing of sloped and complicated
diaphragms, as found in the typical wood framed structure. Therefore, some
engineers perform their design based on the roof diaphragm as flexible and the
floor diaphragms as rigid.
In using this procedure, the engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in
determining if the higher load of the two methodologies is actually required. For
example, if the load to two walls by rigidity analysis is found to be 5 percent to line

A and 95 percent to line B, but by flexible analysis it is found to be 50 percent to

line A and 50 percent to line B, the engineer should probably design for the larger
of the two loads for the individual walls. Note that though the same definition of a
flexible diaphragm has been in the UBC since the 1988 edition, it has not been
enforced by building officials for Type V construction. The draft of the IBC 2000
has repeated this same definition into Chapter 23 (wood) definitions.
8. Tiedown forces for the shear wall on line C.
Tiedowns are required to resist the uplift tendency on shear walls caused by
overturning moments. In this step, tiedown forces for the three-story shear wall on
line C are determined. The design chosen uses continuous tiedowns below the third
floor. At the third floor, conventional premanufactured straps are used.
Not included in this design example, but it should be noted: the code has two new
provisions for one-hour wall assemblies—Footnotes 17 and 18 of Table 7-B in
Volume 1. Footnote 17 requires longer fasteners for gypsum sheathing when the
sheathing is applied over wood structural panels. Footnote 18 requires values for
F ' c to be reduced to 78 percent of allowable in one-hour walls.
8a.
8a Discussion on continuous tiedown systems.
The continuous tiedown system is a relatively new method for resisting shear wall
overturning. Similar to the many metal connectors used for wood framing
connections, most are proprietary and have ICBO approvals. All of the systems
have some type of rod and hardware connector system that goes from the
foundation to the top of the structure. A common misconception that engineers
have with these types of systems is that the elongation of the rod will produce large
displacements in the shear walls. Contrary to that perception, these systems are in
many instances superior to the one-sided bolted tiedowns.
Investigations after the Northridge earthquake as well as independent testing of the

conventional one-sided bolted tiedowns, have concluded that there can be large
displacements associated with this type of connection. The large displacements are
a result of eccentricity with the boundary element, deflection of the tiedown, wood
shrinkage, wood crushing, and oversized holes for the through-bolts.
Some of the proprietary systems compensate for shrinkage either by pre-tensioning

of the rod or by a self-ratcheting connector device. Shrinkage-compensating
devices are desirable in multi-level wood frame construction. These devices will
also compensate for other slack in the tiedown system caused by crushing of plates,
seating of posts, studs, etc.

8b.
8b Determine strength shear wall forces.
The shear wall on line C is shown on Figure 2-7. Forces at each story are
determined as follows (from Table 2-20):
Froof = 13,099 2 = 6,550 lb
Fthird = (24,574 − 13,099 ) 2 = 5,738 lb
Fsecond = (29,690 − 24,574 ) 2 = 2,558 lb
Figure 2-7. Shear wall C elevation

The distance between the centroid of the boundary forces that represent the
overturning moment at each level must be estimated. This is shown below.
e = the distance to the center of tiedown rod and boundary studs or collectors studs (Figure 2-12)
e = 2 × 2.5 in. + (13 2 ) = 11.5 in. = 0.958 in.
Use e = 1.0 ft
d= the distance between centroids of the tiedown and the boundary studs,
in feet. (Note that it is also considered acceptable to use the distance
from the end of the shear wall to the centroid of the tiedown.)
d = 21.5 ft − 2(1.0 ft ) = 19.5 ft at second floor for third level (Figure 2-12)
d = 21.5 ft − (2 × 0.125) = 21.25 ft at third floor for roof level (Figure 2-11)
The resisting moment M R is determined from the following loads:
Wroof = 13.5 psf (2.0 ft ) = 27.0 plf
W floor = 25.0 psf (2.0 ft ) = 50.0 plf
Wwall = 10.0 plf
Table 2-21. Tiedown forces for shear wall C

Uplift Differential
M OT MR M R × 0.9 (1) (M OT 1.4 ) − 0.9 M R
Level Load (2)
(ft-lb) (ft-lb) (ft-lb) (lb)
d (lb)
Roof 53,775 25,216 22,694 740 740
Third 169,774 58,590 52,731 3,515 2,775
Second 309,920 91,965 82,769 7,110 3,595
Notes:
1. The UBC no longer has the 0.85 DL provision for stability, this has been replaced with the
basic load combinations of §1612.3.1.
2. The differential is the load difference between the uplift force at level x and the level
above.

9. Design tiedown connection at the third floor for the shear wall on line C.
Figure 2-11 illustrates the typical tiedown connection for the shear wall on line C at
the third floor. This is the conventional pre-manufactured strap and is fastened to
the framing with nails.
The total uplift force at this level is 740 lb.
P 1= 740 lb
The tiedowns will be designed using allowable stress design. §1612.3
The basic load combinations of §1612.2.1 do not permit stress increases.

The alternate basic load combinations of §1612.2.2, however, do permit stress
increases.
E
The Errata to the first printing of the code added 09 D ± , Eq. (12-16-1), to the
1.4
alternate basic load combinations. This exact same load combination is listed in the
basic load combinations. This is confusing to many engineers on this topic, because
the basic load combinations are based on duration factors (see 1999 SEAOC Blue
Book Commentary, §C101.7.3 for further explanation). This design example will
use the one-third stress increase of the alternate basic load combination method.
With a 16-gauge × 1.25 -in strap and 10d common nails.
Allowable load per nail is ZC D = 113(1.33) = 150 lb/nail NDS Table 12.3F
Number of nails required = 740 150 = 4.9 ∴use 5
With nails at 1.5 inches on center the length of strap required is

2(0.75 in. + 5 × 1.5 in.) + 6 in. = 22.5 in.
∴use 24-inch-strap
10.
10 Design tiedown connection at the second floor for the shear wall on line C.
As previously mentioned, the second floor tiedown will be part of the continuous
tiedown system used below the third level. Refer to Figure 2-12 for illustration of
this system and the location of forces P1 , P2 , and P3 .
The total uplift force at the second floor is 3,515 lb (Table 2-21).
P1 = P2 = total uplift force from above = 740 lb

P3 = uplift force for the collector studs = differential load/2 = 2,775 lb/2 = 1,388 lb
Since the strap from above is only connected to one pair of collector studs, the total
uplift force for the outside set of collectors is equal to the uplift force plus the uplift
force on the second floor shear wall from the third floor.
Taking a free-body diagram of the system, the tension in the tiedown rod is
increased due to cantilever action between the centroids of the forces. A downward
component is actually applied to the interior-most support stud (Figure 2-8):
Figure 2-8. Free-body force diagram of compression bridge
Next, the tension in the tiedown rod between the second floor and the compression
bridge is the differential load plus the tension load, as computed above. This will
produce the total force P2 on support stud (Figure 2-9):
Figure 2-9. Free-body force diagram of compression bridge

Determine spacing for the flat nailing:
Pmax = 2,028 lb
The allowable lateral load for a 16d common nail in a 1½-inch side member is:
ZC D = 141(1.33) = 187 lb NDS Table 12.3B
With 2 rows of 16d nails, the number of nails per row is

2,028 lb 2 × 187 = 5.4 nails
∴use 6 nails
Maximum spacing = 48 in (6 + 1) = 6.8 in.
∴Use 6-inch o.c. for the flat nailing
Check compression perpendicular to grain for the bridge support studs to

compression bridge:
Critical at P2
f c max = 2,028 lb (1.5 × 3.5) = 386 psi < Fc ⊥ = 625 psi o.k. NDS Supp. Table 4A
Check the bearing perpendicular to grain on bearing plate:
F = T1 = 4,255 lb
f c ⊥ = 4,255 lb 3.25 × 5.0 = 262 psi < Fc ⊥ = 625 psi o.k.
Check bearing perpendicular to grain on the top plate from the collector studs from
below:
First floor is framed with 3 × 4 studs
Force at P3 = 1,388 lb
f c ⊥ = P A = 1,388 lb (2.5 × 3.5) = 160 psi < Fc ⊥ = 625 psi o.k.
Check shear on 4 × 8 compression bridge (assume tiedown is at center of wall and

not at party wall, see Figure 2-12):
T1 = 4,255 lb

Assuming compression bridge to take all shear:
T1 4,255
V = = = 2,130 lb
2 2
2,130 × 1.5
fV = = 126 psi
3.5 × 7.25
For Douglas Fir-Larch No. 1:
FV ' = FV C D = 95 × 1.33 = 126 psi o.k.
Check bending on 4 × 8 compression bridge:
T1 = 4,255 lb
T1 × L 4,255 × (10 + 1.5)

M= = = 12,235 in. - lb
4 4
S x for 4 × 8 with hole for 5 8" rod = (3.5 − 0.69)7.25 2 6 = 24.6 in 3
M 12,235
fb = = = 497 psi
S 24.6
For Douglas Fir Larch No. 1:
Fb ' = Fb C D C F = 1,000(1.33)(1.3) = 1,729 psi o.k.
Check shear on plates at floor:
Tiedown connector reaction is the differential load, which is 3,595 lb.
T = 3,595 lb
Assuming 2 sill plates and 2 top plates to take all shear:
T 3,595
V = = = 1,800 lb
2 2
1,800 × 1.5
fV = = 130 psi
4(1.5 × 3.5)

Since plate have no spits C H = 2.0 (plates rarely check on the edges)
FV ' = FV C H C D = 95(2.0 )(1.33) = 252 psi o.k.
Therefore, the tiedown connection shown on Figure 2-12 meets the requirements of
code.
11.
11 Design tiedown connection and anchor bolt spacing for shear wall on line C.
11a.
11a Design anchor bolt spacing of sill plate on Line C.
See discussion about fasteners for pressure-preservative treated wood and in

Step 19.
From Table 2-20:
V = 29,690 lb
V 29,690 lb
v= = = 690 lb/ft
L 43 ft
The 1997 UBC references the 1991 NDS, which specifies in §8.2.3 that the
allowable bolt design value, Z , is equal to t m = Z ts = twice the thickness of wood
member. The problem is, there aren’t any tables for 6x to 6x members, leaving
only the Z formulas. In lieu of using the complex Z formulas, an easier method
would be to use the new tables in the 1997 NDS, which are specifically for ledgers
and sill plates.
For a side member, thickness = 2.5 inch in Hem-Fir wood (note that designing for
Hem-Fir will require a tighter nail and bolt spacing):
Z11 = 1,350 lb/bolt Table 8.2E 97 NDS
Z C (1,350)(1.33)(1.4 )
Required spacing = 11 D = = 3.6 ft = 43 in.
v 690
where
1.4 is the strength conversion factor
∴Use ¾" diameter bolts at 32 inches on center.

11b.
11b Determine tiedown anchor embedment.
In this calculation, the tiedown anchor will be assumed to occur at the center of the
exterior wall. This will produce a lower capacity than if the rod were located at the
double-framed wall shown in Figure 2-13.
From Table 2-21:
T = 7,110 lb
T y = 7,110 × 1.4 × 1.3 = 13,000 lb
where 1.4 is the strength conversion factor and 1.3 is for special inspection per
§1923.2. Neglecting the area of bolt head bearing surface, the effective area A p ( )
of the projected (Figure 2-10), assumed concrete failure surface is:
(A p ) = πl2e
2
+ 1.75(l e )2
For l e = 15 in.
A p = 406 in. 2
ΦPC = Φλ 4 A p f ' c = 0.65 × 1.0 × 4 × 406 3,000 = 57.8 k
PSS = 0.9 × 0.307 × 60,000 = 16,580 lb > 13,000 lb (critical)
Provide an oversized hole for the tiedown rod in the foundation sill plate. The rod
has no nut or washer to the sill plate, therefore, assume V = 0 lb in the rod.
Tiedown bolts resist vertical loads only, anchor bolts are designed to resist the
lateral loads.
11c.
11c Check the bearing perpendicular to grain on sill plates.
Assuming all compressive force for overturning will be resisted by end boundary
elements, the critical load combination is:
 E 
D+ L+  (12-13)
 1.4 

From Table 2-21, the strength level overturning moment is:
M OT = 309,920 ft - lb
The seismic compressive force is obtained by dividing by the distance d.
Conversion to allowable stress design is obtained by dividing by 1.4.
M OT 309,920
Pseismic = = = 11,350 lb
d (1.4) 19.5(1.4 )
[ ( )
PDL = Wroof + W floor + Wwall (27 ft ) ]
 16"+8" 
PDL = [27.0 + 2 (50.0 ) + 10.0(27' )]  = 795 lb
 12" 
 16"+8" 
PLL = (40 psf × 2'×2 )  = 320 lb
 12" 
∑ P = 11,350 + 795 + 320 = 12,465 lb
with full width bearing studs bearing on both sill plates (Figure 2-13), the bearing
area is equal to six 3x4 studs.
12,465
fc max = = 240 psi < Fc'⊥ = 626 psi o.k.
6(8.75)
where the area of a 3 × 4 is 8.75 square inches. Note that if a Hem-Fir sill plate is
used the allowable compression perpendicular to grain Fc'⊥ = 405 psi .
f c < 0.73Fc'⊥ = 0.73(405) = 295 psi NDS Supp. Table 4A
Therefore, the assumed crushing effect of 0.02 inches (Table 2-13) is correct.
This crushing will be compensated by the ratcheting effect of the continuous

tiedown system as discussed in the notes for Table 2-4.

Figure 2-10. Tiedown bolt

12.
12 Detail of tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall on line C.
Note that since the boundary element is a double stud and the wall panel edge
nailing is nailed to the end stud, the 16d at 12 inches o.c. internailing of the two
tiedown studs should have the capacity to transfer one-half the force to the interior
stud (Figure 2-11). These nails may be installed from either side (normally nailed
from the outside). See Figure 2-16 for the location of the top plates and
commentary about plate locations.
Figure 2-11. Tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall C.

13.
13 Detail of tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall on line C.
This tiedown rod system (Figure 2-12) may also be extended to the third floor
instead of using the conventional metal strap shown in Figure 2-11. See Figure
2-16 for the location of the top plates and commentary about plate locations.
Figure 2-12. Tiedown connection at second floor for shear wall C

14.
14 Detail of wall intersection at exterior walls.
The detail shows full-width studs at tiedown (Figure 2-13). This is desirable when
sheathing is applied to both stud walls. It is also desirable for bearing perpendicular
to grain because the bearing area is doubled. When full-width studs are used for
bearing, both sill plates will need to be 3x thickness (not as shown in Figure 2-17).
Tiedowns may be located at the center of the stud wall that is also sheathed. It is
good practice to tie the wall together. In this case, there is no design requirement or
minimum shear wall to shear wall connection requirement other than that required
by the UBC standard nailing schedule.
Figure 2-13. Wall intersection at shear wall (plan view)

15.
15 Detail of tiedown connection at foundation.
The manufacturer of the tiedown system usually requires the engineer of record to
specify the tiedown forces at each level of the structure. This can easily be done in
a schedule (Figure 2-14).
Figure 2-14. Tiedown connection at foundation

16.
16 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear wall at roof.
Note: Edge nailing from roof sheathing to collector truss may need to be closer
than the roof sheathing edge nailing due to shears being collected from each side of
the truss. It is also common to use a double collector truss at these locations. The
2 × 4 braces at the top of the shear wall need to be designed for compression or
provide tension bracing on each side of the wall (Figure 2-15).
Figure 2-15. Shear transfer at interior shear wall at roof

17.
17 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear wall at floors.
This detail uses the double top plates at the underside of the floor sheathing (Figure
2-16). This is advantageous for shear transfer. Another detail that is often used is to
bear the floor joists directly on the top plates. However, when the floor joist is on
top of the top plates, shear transfer is required through the glue joint in the webs
and heavy nailing from the joist chord to the top plate.
Figure 2-16. Shear transfer at interior shear wall at floor
Note: The nailers for the drywall ceiling need to be installed after the wall
sheathing and wall drywall have been installed.

18.
18 Detail of shear transfer at interior shear wall at foundation.
Figure 2-17. Shear transfer at foundation
19.
19 Detail of sill plate at foundation edge.
Fasteners for pressure- or preservative-treated wood.

Sections 2304.3 and 1811.3 of the 1997 UBC added a new requirement for
corrosion-resistant fasteners. Although it does not appear to be the intent of the
provision, a literal interpretation of the section would require hot-dipped
zinc-coated galvanized nails and anchor bolts. The code change was proposed by
the wood industry, and §2304.3 is from a report in the wood handbook by the
Forest Products Lab, where fasteners were found to react with the preservative
treatment when “… in the presence of moisture….” However, it is uncertain
whether a sill plate in a finished “dried-in” building is “in the presence of
moisture.” This can create a construction problem because hot-dipped zinc coated
nails have to be hand-driven, requiring the framer to put down his nail gun and
change nailing procedures.

An additional caution for sill plates is the type of wood used. The most common
species used on the west coast for pressure treatment is Hem-Fir, which has lower
fastener values for nails and bolts than for Douglas-Fir-Larch. A tighter nail
spacing to the sill plate is necessary, or a double stagger row can be used. Figure
2-18 shows two rows of edge nailing to the sill plate as a method of compensating
for a Hem-Fir sill plate.
Gap at bottom of sheathing.

Investigations into wood-framed construction have found that plywood or oriented
strand board sheathing that bear on concrete at perimeter exterior edges can “wick”
moisture up from the concrete and cause corrosion of the fasteners and rotting in
the sheathing. To help prevent this problem, the sheathing can be placed with a gap
above the concrete surface. A ¼-inch gap is recommended for a 3x sill plate and an
1/8-inch gap is recommended for a 2x sill plate (Figure 2-18).
Figure 2-18. Sill plate at foundation edge
Note: The UBC only requires a minimum edge distance of 3/8-inch for nails in
sheathing. Tests have shown that sheathing with greater edge distances have
performed better.

20.
20 Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at roof.
Figure 2-19. Shear transfer at exterior wall at roof
Note: The roof truss directly above the exterior wall is also a “collector” truss.
Roof edge nailing to this truss and the 16d nails to the blocking need to be checked
for the “collector” load. Double top plates are also a chord and collector.

21.
21 Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at floor.
Figure 2-20. Shear transfer at exterior wall at floor
Note: This detail uses double top plates at the underside of the floor sheathing.
Another detail that is often used is bearing the floor joists on the double top plates.
See Figure 2-16 for additional commentary.

References
American Forest and Paper Association, 1996, Wood Construction Manual.

American Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C.
American Plywood Association, 1997, Design/ Construction Guide – Diaphragms

Washington.
American Plywood Association, 1997, Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Engineered

American Plywood Association, 1993, revised, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls.
American Plywood Association, 1994, Northridge, California Earthquake. Report

T-94-5. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
American Plywood Association, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural–

Use Panels [Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3]. Standard PRP–108. Engineered
American Plywood Association, 1988, Plywood Diaphragms, Research Report 138.

American Plywood Association, Tacoma, Washington.
Applied Technology Council, 1995, Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls
Applied Technology Council, 1981, Guidelines for Design of Horizontal Wood

Diaphragms, ATC-7. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.
Applied Technology Council, 1980, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of

Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC-7-1. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California.
Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction

Bugni, David A., 1999, “A Linear Elastic Dynamic Analysis of a Timber Framed
Structure.” Building Standards, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California

Cobeen, K.E., 1996, “Performance Based Design of Wood Structures.” Proceeding:

Coil, J., 1999, “Seismic Retrofit of an Existing Multi-Story Wood Frame Structure,”
Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association
Commins, A. and Gregg, R., 1996, Effect of Hold Downs and Stud-Frame Systems on
the Cyclic Behavior of Wood Shear Walls, Simpson Strong-Tie Co.,
Pleasanton, California.
Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954, 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests.
Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma
Washington.
CUREe, 1999, Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis, and

Design of Wood Frame Construction. California University for Research in
Earthquake Engineering.
Dolan, J.D., 1996, Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear
Dolan, J. D. and Heine , C.P., 1997a, Monotonic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls
Engineering Report No. TE-1997-001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b, Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of
Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain
Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1997-002, Virginia
Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of Wood
Frame Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No.
TE-1997-003, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996, “Northridge Earthquake of January

17, 1994,” Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11, Supplement
C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Faherty, Keith F., and Williamson, Thomas G., 1995, Wood Engineering
Construction Handbook. McGraw Hill, Washington D.C.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
Ficcadenti, S.K., T.A. Castle, D.A. Sandercock, and R.K. Kazanjy, 1996,
“Laboratory Testing to Investigate Pneumatically Driven Box Nails for the
Edge Nailing of 3/8" Plywood Shear Walls,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC
Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
Foliente, Greg C., 1994, Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under
Foliente, Greg C., 1997, Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures.
Forest Products Laboratory, 1999, Wood Handbook Publication FPL – GTR- 113.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Goers R. and Associates, 1976, A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction
California.
International Code Council, 1999, International Building Code – Final Draft, 2000.
Ju, S. and Lin, M. ,1999, “Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or

Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Mendes, S., 1987, “Rigid versus Flexible: Inappropriate Assumptions Can Cause
Shear Wall Failures!” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural
Mendes, S., 1995, “Lessons Learned From Four Earthquake Damaged Multi-Story
Type V Structures,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural
NFPA, 1991a, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. National Forest
NFPA, 1997b, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Natural Forest

Rose, J. D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under
Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158, APA – Engineered Wood
Association, Tacoma, Washington.
Rose, J. .D., and E.L. Keith, P. E., 1996, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with
Gypsum Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3 ]. Research
Report 158. APA - The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma Washington.
SEAOC, 1997, Seismic Detailing Examples for Engineered Light Frame Timber
Construction. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
SEAOC, 1999, Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC, 1999, Plan Review – Codes and Practice. Structural Engineers Association
Shipp, J., 1992, Timber Design. Volumes IV and V. Professional Engineering

Development Publications, Inc., Huntington Beach, California.
Steinbrugge, J., 1994, “Standard of Care in Structural Engineering Wood Frame

Multiple Housing,” Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural


Design Example 3 ! Cold-Formed Steel Light Frame Three-Story Structure
Design Example 3
Cold-Formed Steel Light Frame Three-Story Structure
Figure 3-1. Cold-formed light frame three-story structure elevation
Foreword
The building in this example has cold-formed light-gauge steel framing, and shear
walls and diaphragms that are sheathed with wood structural panels. This example
presents a new approach to the seismic design of this type of building. This is
because the past and present California design practice in seismic design of light
framed structures has almost exclusively considered flexible diaphragms
assumptions when determining shear distribution to shear walls. However, since
the 1988 UBC, there has been a definition in the code (§1630.6 of the 1997 UBC)
that defines diaphragm flexibility. The application of this definition often requires
the use of the rigid diaphragm assumption, and calculation of shear wall rigidities
for distribution to shear walls. While the latter is rigorous and complies with the
letter of the code, it does not reflect present-day practice. In actual practice, for
reasons of simplicity and precedence, many structural engineers routinely use the
flexible diaphragm assumption.

A rigid diaphragm analysis is recommended where the shear walls can be judged
by observation to be flexible compared to the diaphragm, and particularly where
one or more lines of either shear walls, moment frames, or cantilever columns are
more flexible than the rest of the shear walls.
This design example has floor diaphragms with lightweight concrete fill over the
floor sheathing (for sound insulation), making the diaphragms significantly stiffer
than that determined using the standard UBC diaphragm deflection equations.
Before beginning design, users of this Manual should check with the local
jurisdiction regarding the level of analysis required for cold-formed light framed
structures.
Overview
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a three-story cold-formed

(i.e., light-gauge) steel structure. The structure is shown in Figures 3-2, 3-3 and
3-4. The building in this example is the same as in Design Example 2, with the
exception that light-gauge metal framing is used in lieu of wood. The structure has
wood structural panel shear walls, and roof and floor diaphragms. The roofs have
composite shingles over the wood panel sheathing that is supported by light-gauge
metal trusses. The floors have 1½ inches of lightweight concrete fill and are framed
with metal joists.
The following steps illustrate a detailed analysis of some of the important seismic
requirements of the 1997 UBC. As stated in the introduction of the manual, this
example is not a complete building design. Many aspects have not been included,
and only selected steps of the seismic design have been illustrated. As is common
for Type V construction (see UBC §606), a complete wind design is also
necessary, but is not given here.
Although code requirements recognize only two diaphragm categories, flexible and
rigid, the diaphragms in this example are judged to be semi-rigid due to the fact
that the diaphragms do deflect. The code also requires only one type of analysis,
flexible or rigid. The analysis in this design example will use the envelope method.
The envelope method considers the worst loading condition from both flexible and
rigid diaphragm analyses to determine the design load on each shear-resisting
element. It should be noted that the envelope method is not a code requirement, but
is deemed appropriate for this design example, because neither flexible nor rigid
diaphragm analysis may accurately model the structure.

Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process.
1. Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces.
3. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls.
5. Tiedown forces for shear wall on line C.
6. Allowable shear and nominal strength of No. 10 screws.
7. Tiedown connection at third floor for wall on line C.
8. Tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall on line C.
9. Boundary studs for first floor wall on line C.
10.
10 Shear transfer at second floor on line C.
11.
11 Shear transfer at foundation for walls on line C.
12.
12 Shear transfer at roof at line C.
Given Information
Roof weights ( slope 6:12 ): Floor weights:

½" sheathing 1.5 Lt. wt. concrete 14.0
Trusses 3.5 5/8" sheathing 1.8
Insulation 1.5 Floor Framing 5.0
Miscellaneous 0.7 Miscellaneous 0.4
Gyp ceiling 2.8 Gyp ceiling 2.8
DL (along slope ) 13.5 psf 25.0 psf
DL (horiz. proj.) = 13.5 (3.41/12) = 15.1 psf

Stair landings do not have lightweight concrete fill
Area of floor plan is 5,288 sq ft

Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including tributary exterior and interior

walls:
Wroof = 135,000 lb
W3rd floor = 230,000 lb
W2 nd floor = 230,000 lb
= 595,000 lb
The same roof, floor, and wall weights used in Design Example 2 are also used in
this example. This has been done to better illustrate a side-by-side comparison of
cold-formed light-gauge steel construction with the more traditional wood frame
construction used in Design Example 2. This side-by-side comparison has been
done so that the engineer can have a better “feel” for the similarities and
differences between structures with wood studs and structures with cold-formed
metal studs. It should be noted that roof, floor, and wall weights for light-gauge
steel framed structures are typically lighter than similar structures constructed of
wood framing. Because of light-gauge steel framed structures being lighter, a more
accurate estimate of building weight for this structure would be about 560 kips
instead of the 595 kips used in this example. Consequently, wall shears and
overturning forces would be reduced accordingly.
Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by taking one-half height of walls

at the third floor to the roof and full height of walls for the third and second floors
diaphragms.
Wall framing is ASTM A653, grade 33'-4" × 18-gauge metal studs at 16 inches on
center. These have a 1-5/8-inch flange with a 3/8-inch return lip. The ratio of
tensile strength to yield point is at least 1.08. Studs are painted with primer. ASTM
A653 steel is one of three ASTM steel specifications used in light frame steel
construction. The others are A792 and A875. The difference between the
specifications are primarily the coatings which are galvanized, 55 percent
aluminum-zinc (A792), and zinc-5 percent aluminum (A875) respectively. The
recommended minimum coating classifications are G60, AZ50 and GF60
respectively. It should be noted that the studs do not require painting with primer.
It should be noted that the changing stud sizes or thickness of studs at various story
heights is common (as is done in wood construction). The thickness of studs and
tracks should be identified by visible means such as coloring or metal stamping of
gauges/sizes on studs and tracks.
APA-rated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32-inch-thick

Structural I, 32/16-span rating, 5-ply with Exposure I glue is specified, however
4-ply is also acceptable.

Framing screws are No. 8 by 5/8-inch wafer head self-drilling with a minimum
head diameter of 0.292-inch, as required by footnote 2 of Table 22-VIII-C of the
UBC.
The roof is 15/32-inch thick APA-rated sheathing, 32/16-span rating with

Exposure I glue.
The floor is 19/32-inch thick APA-rated Sturd-I-Floor 24" o/c rating (or APA-rated
sheathing, 48/24-span rating) with Exposure I glue.

Z = 0.4 (Zone 4) Table 16-I



Note: Shear walls on lines 2 and 3 do not extend from the third floor to the roof.
Figure 3-3. Floor framing plan (second and third floors)


Factors That Influence Design
Requirements for seismic design of cold-formed steel stud wall systems are
specified in Division VIII of the UBC. Division VIII is a new addition to the UBC
and it contains information previously found in §2211.11 of the 1994 UBC relating
to seismic design. Division VIII has provisions for both wind and seismic forces
for shear walls with wood structural panels framed with cold-formed steel studs.
The tables for shear walls (Tables 22-VIII-A, 22-VIII-B and 22-VIII-C) are
primarily based on static and cyclic tests conducted by the Light-gauge Steel
Research Group at the Santa Clara University Engineering Center for the American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI).
Before starting the example, several important aspects of cold-formed construction

will be discussed. These are:
Stud thickness
Screw type
Material strength
Use of pre-manufactured roof trusses to transfer lateral forces
Proper detailing of shear walls at building “pop-outs”
AISI Specification for design of cold-formed steel
Stud thickness.
Section 2220.3 of Division VIII states that the uncoated base metal thickness for
the studs used with wood structural panels shall not be greater than 0.043-inch.
Since an 18-gauge stud has 0.0451-inch thickness, this implies that the heaviest
gauge studs that can be used are 20-gauge studs, which can not support a
significant bearing or out-of-plane loading. At the time the code change proposal
by AISI was submitted to ICBO for inclusion in the 1997 UBC, testing had been
performed on only 33 mil (0.033-inch) studs. The SEAOC Seismology Committee
felt, and AISI agreed, that there should be a cap on the maximum thickness
permitted until testing could be performed on thicker studs. It was felt at the time
that limiting the system to 20- and 18-gauge studs would be acceptable for
attaching sheathing with #8 screws. Since the UBC is no longer referencing gauge,
the 0.043-inch thickness was intended to be a nominal thickness. Subsequent to the
code change proposal, AISI has modified this limitation by taking the average
thickness between the old 18- and 16-gauges and placed a limitation of 0.043-inch
in the AISI code. The 0.043-inch thickness represents 95 percent of the design
thickness and is the minimum acceptable thickness delivered to the job site for
18-gauge material based on Section A3.4 of the 1996 AISI Code. Thus, 18-gauge
studs can be used, and are used in this example (Table 3-1).
The industry has gone away from the use of the gauge designation and is, for the
purposes of framing applications, switching to a mil (thousandths of an inch)

designation. In the future, studs, joists, and track will have their thickness
expressed in mils.
Table 3-1. Stud thicknesses

Mils Min. Delivered Thickness Min. Design Thickness Gauge Reference
33 0.033 inch 0.0346 inch 20
43 0.043 inch 0.0451 inch 18
54 0.054 inch 0.0566 inch 16
The reason for the limitation on maximum stud thickness of 43 mils (18-gauge) is
for ductility. At the time of this publication (March 2000), the cyclic tests to date of
wood structural panels fastened to 16- and 14-gauge studs with screws have shown
nonductile (brittle) failures with the screws shearing off at the face of the stud
flange. Cyclic tests for the 20- and 18-gauge studs resulted in ductile behavior
with the screw fasteners rocking (tilting) about the plane of the stud flange. Tests
are still being conducted by AISI and other organizations on wall systems using the
thicker 16- and 14-gauge studs in an attempt to come up with a fastening system
that will be ductile.
The failure mode of the tests with 33-mil studs for screw spacings of 3 inches and 2
inches on center was end stud compression failure. Subsequent to the code change
proposal included in the 1997 UBC, the assemblies have been retested using 43 mil
end studs, and higher capacities have been proposed for such assemblies.
The values in Table 22-VIII-C are for seismic forces and are nominal shear values.
Values are to be modified for both allowable stress design (ASD) and load and
resistance factor design (LRFD or strength design). For ASD, the allowable shear
values are determined by dividing the nominal shear values by a factor of safety
(Ω) of 2.5. For LRFD the design shear values are determined by multiplying the
nominal shear values by a resistance factor (φ) of 0.55. Comparing the difference to
the two designs: 2.5(0.55)=1.375. In other words, design shears for LRFD (or
strength design) are 1.375 times higher than shears for ASD or working stress
design. This is consistent with the ASD conversion factor of 1.4 in §1612.3.
The values in Table 22-VIII-C for 15/32-inch Structural I sheathing using No. 8
screws are almost identical to the values for the same sheathing applied to Douglas
Fir with 8d common nails at the same spacing.
Screw type.
Footnote 2 of UBC Table 22-VIII-C requires the framing screws to be self-drilling.
The reason for the self-drilling screws (or drill point screws) is to be able to
penetrate 43-mil steel and thicker steel. Self-piercing screws can also be used in

33-mil steel, but with some difficulty. Both self-drilling and self-piercing screws
have performed equally well in the shear tests.
There is a significant concern in screw installation when there is a gap between the
stud flange and the sheathing after installation (e.g., jacking). When jacking occurs,
the stiffness of the shear wall is significantly reduced. The drill point alone will not
prevent jacking. Jacking occurs when the drill point spins for a rotation or two
before the drill point pierces the metal. Only a blank shaft (i.e. smooth with no
threads) for the depth of the sheathing will remove the jacking created by the drill
point spin prior to piercing. A detailed drawing or explicit specifications should be
included in the design drawings and should specify that the distance from the screw
head to the beginning of the thread portion be equal to or less than the thickness of
the plywood or OSB (oriented strand board). The “unused portion” of the screw
protruding from the connection of sheathing and metal stud can be used as a simple
inspection gauge to see if jacking has occurred.
Material strength.
Common practice is for material 16-gauge and heavier to have a yield strength of
50,000 psi; for 18-gauge and lighter, 33,000 psi. This practice holds true for studs
and track, but not for manufactured hardware (straps, clips and tiedown devices).
Use of pre-manufactured roof trusses to transfer lateral forces.

The structural design in this design example utilizes pre-manufactured roof trusses
to transfer the lateral forces from the roof diaphragm to the tops of the interior
shear walls. Special considerations need to be included in the design and detailed
on the plans for this including:
1. Provision that any trusses used as collectors (i.e., drag struts) should be
clearly indicated on the structural framing plan.
2. The magnitude of the forces, the means by which the forces are applied to the
trusses, and how the forces are transferred from the trusses to the shear walls
should be shown.
3. If the roof sheathing at the hip ends breaks above the joint between the end
jack trusses and the supporting girder truss, the lateral forces to be resisted by
the end jacks should be specified so that an appropriate connection can be
provided to resist these forces.
4. The drawings should also specify the load combinations and whether or not a
stress increase is permitted.
5. If ridge vents are being used, special detailing for shear transfers need to be
indicated in the details.

Proper detailing of shear walls at building “pop-outs. ”

The structure for this design example has double framed walls for party walls,
exterior “planted-on” box columns (pop-outs). The designer should not consider
these walls as shear walls unless special detailing and analysis is provided to
substantiate that there is a viable lateral force path to that wall and the wall is
adequately braced.
AISI Specification for design of cold-formed steel.

The code uses the 1986 version of AISC Specification for Design of Cold-Formed
Steel Structural Members as an adopted “Standard” by reference (UBC §2217).
Section 2218 amends the 1986 manual. These for the most part are from the 1996
version of the manual. Some sections of the 1996 sections have been used for the
solution of this design example.
1. Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces. §1630.2.2
1a.
1a Design base shear.
Period using Method A (See Figure 3-5 for section through structure):
T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(33.63)3 / 4 = 0.28 sec (30-8)

Figure 3-5. Typical cross section through building
C a = 0.40 N a = 0.40(1.0 ) = 0.40 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.56 N v = 0.56(1.0 ) = 0.56 Table 16-R
Since the stud walls are both wood structural panel shear walls and bearing walls:
R = 5.5 Table 16-N
Cv I 0.56(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.364W (30-4)
RT 5.5(0.28)

Note that design base shear is now on a strength design basis,

2.5C a I 2.5 (0.40 )(1.0)

V= W= W = 0.182W
R 5.5
(30-5)
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.40 )(1.0)W = 0.044W < 0.182W
Check Equation 30-7:
0.8ZN v I 0.8 × 0.4 × 1.0 × 1.0

V= W= W = 0.058W < 0.182W
R 5.5
V = 0.182W §1612.3.1
∴V = 0.182 (595,000 lbs ) = 108,290 lb
In this Design Example, the designer may choose either allowable stress design or
strength design. In Design Example 2, however, allowable strength design must be
used.
It is desirable to use the strength level forces throughout the design of the structure
for two reasons:
1. Errors in calculations can occur and confusion on which load is

being used, strength or allowable stress design. This Design
Example uses the following format:

F px = strength
Fx = force-to-wall strength
v = wall shear at element level - ASD
F
v = x = ASD
1.4b
2. This design example is not paving the way for the future, when the
code will be all strength design.
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h (30-1)

where:
E v is permitted to be taken as zero for allowable stress design and initially ρ will
be assumed to be 1.0, and in most cases ρ = 1.0 for Type V construction with
interior shear walls. Since the maximum element story shear is not yet known, the
assumed value for ρ will have to be verified. This is done later in Part 4.
The basic load combination for allowable stress design for horizontal forces is:
E E E
D+ = 0+ = (12-9)
1.4 1.4 1.4
For vertical downward:
 E
or D + 0.75 L + (Lr or S ) +
E
D+ (12-10, 12-11)
1.4  1.4 
For vertical uplift:
E
0.9 D ± (12-10)
1.4
1b.
1b Vertical distribution of forces.
The design base shear must be distributed to each level, as follows:
(V − Ft )wx hx
F px = n
(30-15)
∑ wi hi
i =1
Where h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above
the base.
Since T = 0.28 seconds < 0.7 seconds, Ft = 0
Determination of F px is shown in Table 3-2.


wx hx w x hx F px Ftot
Level w x (k) h x (ft) (%) F px (k)
(k-ft) ∑ wi hi wx (k)
Roof 135 33.6 4,536 41.1 44.5 0.330 44.5
3rd Floor 230 18.9 4,347 39.4 42.7 0.186 87.2
2nd Floor 230 9.4 2,162 19.5 21.1 0.092 108.3
Σ 595 11,045 108.3
Note: Although not shown here, designers must also check wind loading. In this example,
wind load may control the design in the east-west direction.
2a.
2a Deflection of panel assemblies with metal studs.
At the time of this publication, there is not a UBC formula, nor any accepted
guideline, for determining the deflection for a diaphragm or shear wall framed with
metal studs and structural wood panels. This does not mean that the deflections,
drifts, and shear wall rigidities need not be considered (though some engineers may
argue otherwise).
The formula in UBC Standard §23.223, Vol. 3, can be used with somewhat
reasonable results. Given below is a comparison of results from shear panel tests
conducted by the Light-gauge Steel Research Group and those determined using
the UBC formula.
For an 8 ft × 8 ft test panel with 15/32-inch APA-rated sheathing and #8 screw

fasteners at 6-inch spacing to 3½-inch x 20-gauge studs and 485 pounds per foot
shear, the measured deflection was 0.5 inch.
In this Design Example 3, 4-inch × 18-gauge studs are used. Tests have indicated
that measured deflections are partially dependent on the stiffness of the studs used.
The shear panel test results should not be compared to the nominal shear values
from UBC Table 22-VIII-C. Using this table would give an allowable shear of
780 2.5 = 312 plf . This panel test is used only to show the relationship of the
measured deflection with results using the UBC formula.
Deflection using the formula of UBC standard §23.223, Vol. 3 is shown below:
8vh 3 vh h
∆= + + 0.75hen + d a = 0.40 in. ≈ 0.50 in. as tested §23.223, Vol. 3
EAb Gt b

where:
v = 485 plf
h = 8 ft
E = 29 × 10 6 psi
A = 0.250 in.2 for 3 1 2 - inch × 20 gauge stud
G = 90,000 psi Table 23-2-J, Vol. 3
t = 0 . 298 in. Table 23-2-H, Vol. 3
Vn = load per screw = (485)6 12 = 242 lb/screw
en = 1.2(242 769 )3.276 = 0.0272 in.
b = 8 ft
d a = 0.0625 in (assumed at 1 16 in.)
2b.
2b Calculation of shear wall rigidities.
In this Design Example 3, shear wall rigidities (k) are computed using the basic
stiffness equation.
F = k∆
or
F
k=
∆
To simplify the calculations compared to the more rigorous approach used in

Design Example 2, this example uses wall rigidities based on the chart in Figure
3-6. This chart is based on the shear wall deflection equation given in UBC
Standard §23.223. It should be noted that Design Example 2 considered wood
shrinkage and tiedown displacements. With metal framing, shrinkage is zero. This
Design Example also assumes a fixed base and pinned top for all shear walls. The
chart in Figure 3-6 uses a tiedown displacement (e.g., elongation) of 1/8 inch,
which is based on judgment and considered appropriate for this structure.
Actual determinations of shear wall rigidities at the roof, third floor, and second
floor are shown in Figures 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5, respectively.

80.0
K = stiffness = F/d = (Vb )/d
70.0
d = deflection =(8vh 3)/(EAb ) +(vh )/(Gt ) + 0.75he n + d a
60.0 [A1] h = 8 ft
Where:
E = modulus of elasticity = 1.8x106 psi
G = shear modulus = 90x103 psi [A2] h = 10 [B1] h = 8 ft
50.0
Stiffness K (kips/in.)
h = wall height (ft)

b = wall depth (ft)
[B2] h = 10 ft
t = plywood thickness = 15/32 in.
40.0
A = area of end post = 12.25 in.2 [C1] h = 8 ft
v = shear/foot
d a = slip at hold down = 1/8 in. [C2] h = 10 ft
30.0 e n = nail deformation slip (in.)
F = applied force = Vb (kips) [D1] h = 8 ft
[D2] h = 10
20.0
[A] edge nail spacing at 2” o.c. (v=870 plf, e n =0.024)

[B] edge nail spacing at 3” o.c. (v=665 plf, e n =0.033)
10.0
[C] edge nail spacing at 4” o.c. (v=510 plf, e n =0.033)
[D] edge nail spacing at 6” o.c. (v=340 plf, e n =0.033)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Wall Depth b (ft)
Figure 3-6. Stiffness of one-story Structural-I 15/32-inch plywood shear walls

Table 3-3. Shear wall rigidities at roof level

Wall Depth Edge Fastener k (From Fig. 3— k total
Wall
b (ft) Spacing (in.) 6) (k/in.) (k/in.)
A 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
B1 11.0 6 7.5 —
B2 11.0 6 7.5 —
B — — 15.0 15.0
C1 21.5 6 15.0 —
C2 21.5 6 15.0 —
C — — 30.0 30.0
E1 21.5 6 15.0 —
E2 21.5 6 15.0 —
E — — 30.0 30.0
F1 21.5 6 15.0 —
F2 21.5 6 15.0 —
F — — 30.0 30.0
G1 11.0 6 7.5 —
G2 11.0 6 7.5 —
G — — 15.0 15.0
H 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
1a, 4a 8.0 6 6.0 —
1b, 4b 14.0 6 10.0 —
1c, 4c 11.5 6 8.0 —
1d, 4d 11.5 6 8.0 —
1e, 4e 11.5 6 8.0 —
1f, 4f 8.0 6 6.0 —
1, 4 — — 46.0 46.0

Table 3-4. Shear wall rigidities at third floor

Edge Fastener k (From Fig. 3-6)
Wall Wall Depth b (ft) k total (k/in.)
Spacing (in.) (k/in.)
A 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
B1 11.0 4 10.0 —
B2 11.0 4 10.0 —
B — — 20.0 20.0
C1 21.5 4 19.0 —
C2 21.5 4 19.0 —
C — — 38.0 38.0
E1 21.5 4 19.0 —
E2 21.5 4 19.0 —
E — — 38.0 38.0
F1 21.5 4 19.0 —
F2 21.5 4 19.0 —
F — — 38.0 38.0
G1 11.0 4 10.0 —
G2 11.0 4 10.0 —
G — — 20.0 20.0
H 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
1a, 4a 8.0 4 7.0 —
1b, 4b 14.0 4 12.0 —
1c, 4c 11.5 4 10.0 —
1d, 4d 11.5 4 10.0 —
1e, 4e 11.5 4 10.0 —
1f, 4f 8.0 4 7.0 —
1, 4 — — 56.0 56.0
2a, 3a 18.0 6 12.0 —
2b, 3b 24.0 6 15.0 —
2c, 3c 18.0 6 12.0 —
2, 3 — — 39.0 39.0

Table 3-5. Shear wall rigidities at second floor

Wall Depth b Edge Fastener k (From Fig. 3-6)
Wall k total (k/in.)
(ft) Spacing (in.) (k/in.)
A 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
B1 11.0 3 11.0 —
B2 11.0 3 11.0 —
B — — 22.0 22.0
C1 21.5 3 22.5 —
C2 21.5 3 22.5 —
C — — 45.0 45.0
E1 21.5 3 22.5 —
E2 21.5 3 22.5 —
E — — 45.0 45.0
F1 21.5 3 22.5 —
F2 21.5 3 22.5 —
F — — 45.0 45.0
G1 11.0 3 11.0 —
G2 11.0 3 11.0 —
G — — 22.0 22.0
H 12.5 6 8.0 8.0
1a, 4a 8.0 4 7.0 —
1b, 4b 14.0 4 12.0 —
1c, 4c 11.5 4 10.0 —
1d, 4d 11.5 4 10.0 —
1e, 4e 11.5 4 10.0 —
1f, 4f 8.0 4 7.0 —
1, 4 — — 56.0 56.0
2a, 3a 18.0 6 12.0 —
2b, 3b 24.0 6 15.0 —
2c, 3c 18.0 6 12.0 —
2, 3 — — 39.0 39.0
2c.
2c Determination of the design level displacement ∆s. §1630.9.1
For both strength and allowable stress design, the UBC now requires building drifts
to be determined by the load combinations of §1612.2, these being the load
combinations that use strength design, or LRFD. An errata for the second and third
printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced §1612.3 for allowable stress design.
The reference to §1612.3 (Allowable Stress Design) is incorrect and will be
changed back to reference §1612.2 (Strength Design) in the fourth and later
printings.
Shear wall displacements for a structures of this type (generally) are well below the
maximum allowed by code and the computation of these displacements is

considered not necessary. Refer to Design Example 2 for an illustration of this

procedure.
3. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls. §1630.6
In this part, story shears are distributed to shear walls with the diaphragms assumed
to be rigid. (Refer to Design Example 2 for a code confirmation of the applicability
of this assumption).
It has been common practice for engineers to assume flexible diaphragms and
distribute loads to shear walls based upon tributary areas. The procedures used in
this Design Example 3 are not intended to imply that seismic design of light frame
construction in the past should have been performed in this manner. Recent
earthquakes and testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that drifts can be
considerably higher than what was known or assumed in the past. Knowledge of
the increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls has increased the need for the
engineer to consider relative rigidities of shear walls.
Section 1630.6 requires the center of mass (CM) to be displaced from the
calculated center of mass a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at that
level perpendicular to the direction of force. Section 1630.7 requires the most
severe load combination to be considered and also permits the negative torsional
shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear. The net effect of this is to add 5
percent accidental eccentricity to the actual eccentricity.
The direct shear force Fvi in wall i is determined from:
R
Fvi = F
∑R
and the torsional shear force Fti in wall i is determined from:
Ri d i
Fti = T
J
where:
i = wall number
J = ΣRd x 2 + ΣRd y 2
R = shear wall rigidity
d = distance from the lateral resisting element (e.g., shear wall) to the center
of rigidity (CR).
T = Fe
F = story shear
e = eccentricity

3a.
3a Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, eccentricities for roof
diaphragm.
yr =
∑ k xx y or y r = ∑ k xx = ∑ k xx y
∑ k xx
Using the rigidity values k from Table 3-3 and the distance y from line H to the
shear wall:
y (8.0 + 15.0 + 30.0 + 30.0 + 30.0 + 15.0 + 8.0 ) = 8.0 (116) +

15.0 (106) + 30.0 (82.0) + 30.0 (50.0) + 30.0 (26.0 ) + 15.0 (10.0 ) + 8.0 (0 )
7,408
∴ yr = = 54.5 ft
136.0
The building is symmetrical about the x-axis and the center of mass is determined
as:
116.0
ym = = 58.0 ft
2
The minimum 5 percent accidental eccentricity for east-west forces, e' y , is

computed from the length of the structure perpendicular to the applied story force.
e' y = (0.05)(116 ft ) = ±5.8 ft
The y m to the displaced CM = 58.0 ft ± 5.8 ft = 63.8 ft or 52.2 ft
The total eccentricity is the distance between the displaced center of mass and the
center of rigidity y r = 54.5 ft
∴ e y = 63.8 − 54.5 = 9.3 ft or 52.2 − 54.5 = − 2.3 ft
Note that the distance is slightly different than in Design Example 2.
Note that in this Design Example, displacing the center of mass 5 percent can result
in the CM being on either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to
all walls.

Note that the 5 percent may not be conservative. The contents-to-structure weight
ratio can be higher in light framed structures than in heavier types of construction.
Also, the location of the calculated center of rigidity is less reliable for light framed
structures than for other structural systems. Use engineering judgment when
selecting the eccentricity e .
The building is symmetrical about the y-axis. Therefore, the distance to the CM
and CR is
48.0
xm = = 24.0 ft
2
min. e' x = (0.05)(48 ft ) = ±2.4 ft
Because the CM and CR locations coincide,
e x = e ′x
∴ e x = 2.4 ft or − 2.4 ft

Figure 3-7. Center of rigidity and location of displaced centers of mass for diaphragms

3b.
3b Determine total shears on walls at roof level.
The total shears on the walls at the roof level are the direct shears Fv and the
shears due to torsion (combined actual and accidental torsion) Fti .
Torsion on the roof diaphragm is computed as follows:
T x = Fe y = 44,500 lb (9.3 ft ) = 413,850 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or T x = 44,500 lb (2.3 ft ) = 102,350 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 44,500 lb (2.4 ft ) = 106,800 ft - lb
Since the building is symmetrical for forces in the north-south direction, the
torsional forces can be subtracted for those walls located on the opposite side from
the displaced center of mass. However, when the forces are reversed then the
torsional forces will be additive. As required by the UBC, the larger values are
used in this Design Example. The critical force is then used for the design of these
walls. Table 3-6 summarizes the spreadsheet for determining combined forces on
the roof level walls.
Direct
Torsional Total Force
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd 2 Force
Rd Force Ft Fv + Ft
Fv
A 8.0 61.5 492.0 30,258 2,617 +908 3,525
B 15.0 51.5 772.5 39,784 4,910 +1,426 6,336
C 30.0 27.5 825.0 22,688 9,815 +1,523 11,338
East-West
E 30.0 4.5 135.0 608 9,815 +62 9,877

F 30.0 28.5 855.0 24,368 9,815 +390 10,205
G 15.0 44.5 667.5 29,704 4,910 +305 5,215
H 8.0 54.5 436.0 23,762 2,618 +199 2,817
Σ 136.0 171,172 44,500
1 46.0 24.0 1,104 26,496 22,250 +526 22,776
North-South
4 46.0 -24.0 -1,104 26,496 22,250 -526 21,724

Σ 92.0 52,992 44,500
Σ 224,164

3c.
3c Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the
third floor diaphragm.
Since the walls stack with uniform fasteners, it can be assumed that the center of
rigidity for the third floor and the second floor diaphragms will coincide with the
center of rigidity of the roof diaphragm.
Torsion on the third floor diaphragm is:
F = (44,500 + 42,700) = 87,200 lb
T x = Fe y = 87,200 lb (9.3 ft ) = 810,960 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or 87,200 lb (2.3 ft ) = 200,560 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 87,200 lb (2.4 ft ) = 209,280 ft - lb
Results for the third floor are summarized in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the third floor level
Wall Rx Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Force F
v Force Ft Fv + Ft
A 8.0 61.5 492 30,258 4,104 +1,467 5,571
B 20.0 51.5 1030 53,045 10,258 +3,071 13,329
C 38.0 27.5 1045 28,738 19,492 +3,116 22,608
East-West
E 38.0 4.5 171 770 19,492 +126 19,618

F 38.0 28.5 1083 30,865 19,492 +798 20,290
G 20.0 44.5 890 39,605 10,258 +656 10,914
H 8.0 54.5 436 23,762 4,104 +329 4,433
Σ 170.0 207,043 87,200
1 56.0 24 1,344 32,256 25,700 +1,034 26,734
2 39.0 2.5 97.5 244 17,900 +76 17,976
North-South
3 39.0 -2.5 -97.5 244 17,900 -76 17,824

4 56.0 -24 -1,344 32,256 25,700 -1,034 24,666
Σ 190.0 65,000 87,200
Σ 272,043

3d.
3d Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the
second floor diaphragm.
Torsion on the second floor diaphragm is.
F = (44,500 + 42,700 + 21,100) = 108,300 lb
T x = Fe y = 108,300 lb (9.3 ft ) = 1,007,190 ft - lb for walls A, B, and C
or 108,300 lb (2.3 ft ) = 249,090 ft - lb for walls E, F, G, and H
T y = Fe x = 108,300 lb (2.4 ft ) = 259,920 ft - lb
Results for the second floor are summarized in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8. Distribution of forces to shear walls below second floor level
Wall R x Ry dx dy Rd Rd 2 Force Fv Force Ft Fv + Ft
A 8 61.5 492 30,258 4,444 +1,695 6,139
B 22 51.5 1,133 58,350 12,218 +3,901 16,119
C 45 27.5 1,238 34,031 24,992 +4,263 29,255
East-West
E 45 4.5 203 911 24,992 +172 25,164

F 45 28.5 1,283 36,551 24,992 +1,093 26,085
G 22 44.5 979 43,565 12,218 +834 13,052
H 8 54.5 436 23,762 4,444 +371 4,815
Σ 195 227,428 108,300
1 56.0 +24.0 1,344 32,256 31,920 +1,195 33,115
2 39.0 +2.5 97.5 244 22,230 +87 22,317
North-South
3 39.0 -2.5 -97.5 244 22,230 -87 22,143

4 56.0 -24.0 -1,344 32,256 31,920 -1,195 30,725
Σ 190.0 65,000 108,300
Σ 292,428

3e.
3e Comparison of flexible vs. rigid diaphragm results.
Table 3-9 summarizes wall forces determined under the separate flexible and rigid
diaphragm analysis. Fastener requirements were established in Part 2 in Design Example 2.
These determinations should be checked for results of the rigid diaphragm analysis and
adjusted if necessary (also shown in Table 3-9).
Table 3-9. Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm
results
and recheck of wall fastening
Rigid/ Fmax Plywood Allowable Edge Nail

F flexible (3) Frigid v=
Wall
(lbs) (lbs)
Flexible b (ft) (b )1.4 1 or 2 Shear(1) Spacing
ratio sides (plf) (in.)
(plf)
Roof Level
A 1,430 3,525 +147% 12.5 205 1 310 6
B 6,280 6,336 +1% 22.0 205 1 310 6
C 11,310 11,338 0% 43.0 190 1 310 6
E 11,310 9,877 -13% 43.0 190 1 310 6
F 8,080 10,205 +26% 43.0 170 1 310 6
G 4,660 5,215 +11% 22.0 170 1 310 6
H 1,430 2,817 +97% 12.5 165 1 310 6
1 22,250 22,776 +2% 64.5 255 1 310 6
4 22,250 22,776(4) -2% 64.5 255 1 310 6
Third Floor
A 2,805 5,571 +99% 12.5 320 1 310 6(2)
B 12,305 13,329 +8% 22.0 435 1 400 4(2)
C 22,160 22,608 +2% 43.0 375 1 400 4
E 22,160 19,618 -11% 43.0 370 1 400 4
F 15,830 20,290 +28% 43.0 340 1 400 4
G 9,135 10,914 +19% 22.0 355 1 400 4
H 2,805 4,433 +58% 12.5 255 1 310 6
1 31,955 26,734 -16% 64.5 355 1 400 4
2 11,645 17,976 +54% 60.0 215 1 310 6
3 11,645 17,976(4) +54% 60.0 215 1 310 6
4 31,955 26,734(4) -16% 64.5 355 1 400 4
Second Floor
A 3,485 6,139 +77% 12.5 350 1 310 6(2)
B 15,280 16,119 +5% 22.0 525 1 585 3
C 27,525 29,255 +6% 43.0 485 1 585 3
E 27,525 25,164 -9% 43.0 460 1 585 3
F 19,660 26,085 +33% 43.0 435 1 585 3
G 11,345 13,052 +15% 22.0 425 1 585 3
H 3,485 4,815 +38% 12.5 275 1 310 6
1 36,750 33,115 -10% 64.5 410 1 400 4(2)
2 17,400 22,317 +28% 60.0 265 1 310 6
3 17,400 22,317(4) +28% 60.0 265 1 310 6
4 36,750 33,115(4) -10% 64.5 410 1 400 4(2)
Notes:

1. Allowable shears are determined from UBC Table 22-VIII-C for 15/32-inch Structural I
sheathing using nominal shear values divided by factor of safety (Ω ) of 2.5. Sheathing
may by either plywood or oriented stand board (OSB).
2. Screw spacing needs to be decreased from that required for Design Example 2 forces.
See also discussion about building weight for the two example problems.
3. Forces taken from Design Example 2.
4. Designates the force used was the higher force for the same wall at the opposite side
of the structure.
Comment: Wall rigidities used in this analysis are approximate. The initial rigidity
R can be significantly higher than estimated due to the stiffening effects of stucco,
drywall walls not considered, and areas over doors and windows. During an
earthquake, some low stressed walls may maintain their stiffness and others may
degrade in stiffness. Some walls and their collectors may attract significantly more
lateral load than anticipated in either a flexible or rigid diaphragm analysis. It must
be understood that the method of analyzing a structure using rigid diaphragms
takes significantly more engineering effort. This rigid diaphragm analysis method
indicates that some lateral resisting elements can attract significantly higher
seismic demands than those determined under tributary area analysis methods.
The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems without
adequate redundancy. In this Design Example, Part 1, the reliability/redundancy
factor was previously assumed to be ρ = 1.0. This will now be checked:
20
ρ = 2− (30-3)
rmax AB
where:
rmax = the maximum element-story shear ratio. For shear walls, the wall with
the largest shear per foot at or below two-thirds the height of the building; or
in the case of a three-story building, the ground level and the second level.
See the SEAOC Blue Book Commentary §C105.1.1.1. The total lateral load
in the wall is multiplied by 10 l w and divided by the story shear.
AB is the ground floor area of the structure.
Vmax (10 l w )
ri =
F
AB = 5,288 sq ft

For ground level.

Using strength level forces for wall B:
Vmax = 16,119 lb applied to 2 walls.
(16,119 × 0.5)(10 11.0)

ri = = 0.068
108,300
20
ρ = 2− = −2.0 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.068 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
Using strength level forces for walls 1 and 4:
Load to wall: 36,750 × 11.5 64.5 = 6,550 lbs
(6,550)(10 11.5)
ri = = 0.053
108,300
Note that this is the same as using the whole wall.
(36,750)(10 64.5)
ri = = 0.053
108,300
20
ρ = 2− = −3.2 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.053 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0

For second level.
Using strength-level forces for wall B:
(13,329 )(10 11.0)

rmax = = 0.069
87,200
20
ρ = 2− = −1.9 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.069 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
(31,955)(10 64.5)
rmax = = 0.057
87,200
20
ρ = 2− = −2.8 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
0.057 5,288
∴ ρ = 1.0
Therefore, for both directions, there is no increase in base shear required due to
lack of reliability/redundancy.
The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence “The value of the ratio of
10 l w need not be taken as greater than 1.0” in the 1999 Blue Book—which will
not penalize longer walls, but in this Design Example has no effect.

5. Tiedown forces for the shear wall at line C. §2220.2
5a.
5a Determination of tiedown forces.
Tiedowns are required to resist the uplift tendency of shear walls caused by
overturning moments. In this step, tiedown forces for the three-story shear wall on
line C (Figure 3-8) are determined.
Since there are two identical shear walls on line C, forces from Table 3-7 must be
divided by two. Computation of story forces for one of the two walls is shown
below. Note that forces are on strength design basis.
Froof = 11,338 2 = 5,669 lb/wall (two walls on line C)
Fthird = (22,608 − 11,338) 2 = 5,635 lb
Fsec ond = (29,255 − 22,608) 2 = 3,324 lb
Ω o = 2.8 bearing wall system Table 16-N
Figure 3-8. Typical shear wall C elevation

The distance between the centroid of the boundary forces that represent the
overturning moment at each level must be estimated. This is shown below.
e = the distance to the center of tiedown and boundary studs or collectors

studs (Figure 3-10)
e = 3 in. = 0.25 ft
d = the distance between centroids of the tiedowns and the boundary studs.
Note that it is also considered acceptable to use the distance from the end
of the shear wall to the centroid of the tiedown.
d = 21.5 ft − 2(0.25 ft ) = 21.0 ft
The resisting moment M R is determined from the following dead loads:
wroof = 13.5 psf (1.33 ft ) = 18.0 plf
w floor = 25.0 psf (1.33 ft ) = 33.0 plf
wwall = 10.0 plf
Overturning resisting moments are determined from simple statics. Calculations are
facilitated by use of a spreadsheet. Table 3-10 summarizes the tiedown (i.e., uplift)
forces for the shear walls on line C.
Table 3-10. Tiedown forces for shear wall C

Strength Uplift ASD Uplift
Level
M OT Ω o M OT M (ft-lb) 0.85M R (1) Ω o M OT − 0.85M R Ω o M OT − 0.85M R
d (1.4 )
R
(ft-lb) (ft-lb) (ft-lb) d
(lbs) (lbs)
Roof 46,545 130,330 23,135 19,665 5,275 3,770
Third 153,255 429,115 52,580 44,695 18,315 13,080
Second 291,340 815,755 82,025 69,720 35,525 25,375
Notes:
1. The 0.85 dead load factor of §2213.5.1 is different from the 0.9 factor of §1612.4.

5b.
5b Load combinations using allowable stress design.
The UBC has two special sections for shear walls with light framing in Seismic
Zones 3 and 4. For metal framing, §2220 is used, and for wood framing, Section
2315.5.1. Section 2220.2 specifies requirements for steel stud wall boundary
members and anchorage and refers to §2213.5.1 for load combinations. Section
2315.5.1 deals with wood stud walls and does not have any such special
requirements. In the case of identical building types (as in Design Example 2 and
Design Example 3 of this manual) this would give an apparent advantage to wood
framing.
The basic load combinations of §1612.3.1 do not permit stress increases.
The alternate basic load combinations if §1612.3.2 permit stress increases.
Errata to the First Printing added Equation (12-16-1):
E
0.9 D ± to the alternate basic load combinations (12-16-1)
1.4
Since this exact same load combination is listed in the basic load combinations the
code is in contradiction and confusing (to say at least). This Design Example will
use one-third stress increase of §1612.3.2.
6. Allowable shear and nominal shear strength of No. 10 screws.
Tiedown connections for the line C shear wall will utilized 12-gauge straps at the
third floor. This part shows determination of the shear strength of the No. 10
screws that will be used to connect the tiedown straps to the 18-gauge boundary
studs.
There are two basic ways of determining the shear strength of the screws. The first
is to use the values established in an ICBO Evaluation Report with appropriate
conversion to strength design. The second is to compute the shear strength of a
screw using the ’96 AISI specification. Both methods are shown below.

6a.
6a Nominal shear strength determined from ICBO Evaluation Report.
The Metal Stud Manufacturers’ Association provides ICBO ER No. 4943. Shear
values on an ASD basis are provided for various gauge studs having a minimum
yield strength of 33 ksi and a minimum ultimate strength of 45 ksi.
For No. 10 screws in an 18-gauge stud, the allowable shear is given as 258 lbs per
screw. This must be increased as shown below to convert to the strength design
basis used in this example.
Pns = ΩPas
where:
Pns = nominal shear strength per screw
Pas = allowable shear strength per screw
Ω = 3.0 96AISI E4
Pns = 3.0(258 lb ) = 774 lb per screw
Note that ER No. 4943 also specifies a minimum edge distance and a minimum on
center spacing of 9/16 inch for No. 10 screws.
6b.
6b Calculation of nominal shear strength using strength design.
The nominal shear strength is the screw capacity without the appropriate reduction
factors for allowable stress design (Ω) or load and resistance factor design (φ).
d = 0.190 in.
Fu1 = 45,000 psi
Note: some connector straps and hardware have an Fu = 65,000 psi , which will
give higher screw capacities.
Fu 2 = 45,000 psi

Case I: Strap applied to stud flange (Figure 3-9).
Assume 12-gauge galvanized strap:
t1 = 0.1017 in.
With 18-gauge studs:
t 2 = 0.0451in.
t 2 t1 = 0.0451 0.1017 = 0.44 < 1.0
(
Pns = 4.2 t 2 3 d ) 12
Fu 2 = 789 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-1)
Pns = 2.7t1dFu1 = 2,348 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-2)
Pns = 2.7t 2 dFu 2 = 1,041 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-3)
Using the smallest value of Pns :
Pns = 789 lb per screw
Note how this value is almost equal to the 774 lb determined from Part 6a, above.
Case 2: Strap applied to double stud webs (Figure 3-10).
Assume 10-gauge galvanized strap:
t1 = 0.138 in.
With 18-gauge studs:
Since there are two stud webs, thickness t 2 is doubled.
t 2 = 0.0451 × 2 = 0.0902 in.
t 2 t1 = 0.0902 0.138 = 0.65 < 1.0
(
Pns = 4.2 t 2 3 d ) 12
Fu 2 = 2,232 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-1)
Pns = 2.7t1 dFu1 = 3,186 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-2)
Pns = 2.7t 2 dFu 2 = 2,082 lb 96 AISI (E4.3.1-3)

Using the smallest value of Pns :
Pns = 2,082 lb
6c.
6c Calculation of allowable shear using ASD.
Case I: Strap applied to stud flange (Figure 3-9):
From Part 6b, above:
Pns = 789 lb
Pas = Pns Ω = 789 3.0 = 263 lb per screw
Case II: Strap applied to double stud webs (Figure 3-10):
From Part 6b, above:
Pns = 2,082 lb
Pas = Pns Ω = 2,082 3.0 = 694 lb per screw
7. Tiedown connection at third floor for wall on line C.
Shown below is the strength design of the tiedown strap to be used for the shear
walls on line C at the third floor. The configuration at the tiedown is shown on
Figure 3-9.
Uplift = 3,770 lb
Try a 12-gauge × 3 inch strap and No. 10 screws:
Pns = 789 lb per screw
LRFD design strength = ϕPns 96 AISI (3.1)

where:
ϕ = 0.50
ϕPns = 0.5(789) = 395 lb
Number of screws required:
3,770 395 = 9.5
∴ Use 12 minimum
With 2 rows of #10 screws @ 3½ inches on center the length of strap required:
Strap is pre-manufactured, use half spacing for end distance or 1¾ inch. Net
spacing is screws is 1.75 inches on center. Need to add in thickness of 1½ inch
lightweight concrete and ¾-inch sheathing, plus the 12-inch depth for the floor
joist:
(1.75 + (1 + 12 )1.75 + 1.75)2 + (1.5 + 0.75 + 12) = 65.0
∴Use 72-inch-long strap
Check capacity of strap for tension:
Strap to be used will be a pre-manufactured strap for which there is an ICBO

Evaluation Report. The rated capacity, including 33 percent increase for wind or
seismic loading, is given as 9,640 lb.
9,640 lb > 3,770 lb o.k.
If the strap does not have an ICBO rated capacity, the manufacturer should be
contacted to determine the strength of the steel used. It is probable that the steel
used in the strap will have strengths that differ from the steel used in the studs.
Generally, strengths differ from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Checking capacity of strap:
Tn = An F y 96 AISI (C2-1)
b = 3.0 in. (strap width)
t = 0.1046 in. (strap thickness)
d = 0.171in. (diameter of holes)

An = 0.2987 in.2 (net area of strap)
F y = 45,000 psi (yield strength of particular manufacturer)
Tn = 0.2987(45,000 ) = 13,443 lb (nominal strength of strap)
For ASD:
Tie force = 3,770 lb (Table 3-10)
Tn 13,443
= allowable tension = = 8,050 lb > 3,770 lb o.k.
Ωt 1.67
For LRFD:
Tie force = 5,275 lb (Table 3-10)
ϕTn = tension strength = 0.95(13,443) = 12,770 lb => 5,275 lb o.k.
Use 12-gauge × 3 in. × 72 in. strap with 12 #10 screws @ 3½ inches o.c. each end.
Figure 3-9. Typical tiedown connection at the third floor on line C.

8. Tiedown connection at second floor for wall on line C.
Design of the pre-manufactured tiedowns for the second floor shear walls on line C
is shown below. Figure 3-10 shows the configuration of the tiedown.
Uplift = 13,080 lb from Table 3-10
The connector is an ICBO approved, pre-manufactured holdown device. The rated

capacity including the 33 percent increase for wind or seismic loading is 9,900 lb.
Using two holdowns, one on each boundary stud, the capacity is:
2 × 9,900 = 19,800 lb > 13,080 lb o.k.
In general, when using pre-manufactured tiedowns, consult with ICBO Evaluation

Service or the manufacturer for the necessary approvals for hardware selection.

9. Boundary studs for first floor wall on line C.
The studs at each end of the shear walls on line C must be designed to resist
overturning forces. In this example, double studs as shown in Figure 3-10 will be
used at each end. The critical aspect of design is checking the studs for axial
compression. This is shown below.
Figure 3-10. Typical tiedown connection at the second floor on line C
Note that §2220.2 of Division VII (Lateral Resistance of Steel Stud Wall Systems)
requires use of the requirements of §2315.5.1. This includes use of the seismic
force amplification factor Ω o to account for structural overstrength. This
requirement does not apply for boundary elements of wood stud shear walls.

For axial compression, the load combination to be used is:
1.0 PDL + 0.7 PLL + Ω o PE §2213.5.1
PLL = [40 psf + (16 12 )(16 12 ) ]2 = 145 lb
PDL = [13.5 psf + (25.0)2](16 12 ) + [10 psf (8 ft )(16 12 )(3) ] = 405 lb
From Table 3-10:
Ω o M OT = 815,696 ft - lb
Ω o PE = 815,755 ft - lb (21.0 ft )(1.4 ) = 27,745 lb
Thus, the design load to boundary studs using the equation of §2213.5.1 is:
1.0 (405) + 0.7 (145) + 27,745 = 28,250 lb
With a computer program using 1996 AISI Specifications, the allowable axial load
for a 4"× 18-gauge stud with 2-inch flanges is 4,042 lb with the flanges braced at
mid-height.
28,250
No. of studs required = = 4.1
4,042 × 1.7
where:
1.7 is the allowable stress increase
Therefore, use 5 studs at ends of wall as follows:
Use two back-to-back studs, plus two back-to-back studs with additional stud
(Figure 3-10).

10.
10 Shear transfer at second floor on line C.
Shear forces in the second floor diaphragm are transferred to the shear walls below
as shown in Figure 3-11.
From Table 3-9, the ASD shears in the wall are:
v = 485 lb/ft
Try using #8 screws, 18-gauge metal side plates and Douglas Fir plywood:
Z = 119 lb/screws 91NDS Table II.3B
C D = 1.33 §1612.3.2
ZC D 119(1.33)12
Maximum spacing = = = 3.9 in.
v 485
∴Use # 8 screws at 3 inches on center.
Capacity of the #8 screws in the 18-gauge tracks and runner channels are O.K. by
inspection.
Figure 3-11. Typical detail for shear transfer through floor on line C

11.
11 Shear transfer at foundation for walls on line C.
Shown below is the design of the connection to transfer the shear force in the walls
on line C to the foundation. This detail is shown in Figure 3-12.
From Table 3-9:
v = 485 lb/ft
Allowable load based on bolt bearing on track: 96 AISI (E3.3)
For 5/8" bolts and 18-gauge track:
Pn = 2.22 Fu d 96 AISI, Table E3.3-2
where:
Pn = nominal resistance
Fu = 45 ksi (minimum value)
d = 0.625 in.
t = 0.0451in.
Pn = 2.22 (45)(0.625)(0.0451) = 282

k
bolt

Figure 3-12. Detail for shear transfer at foundation on line C.
Allowable service load on embedded bolts in concrete is determined as follows.
For 5/8" bolts and 3000 psi concrete:
lb
Allowable shear = 2,750 Table 19-D
bolt
Therefore the bolt in concrete governs the required spacing:
2,750
Maximum spacing = 5.67 ft o.c.
485
∴Use 5/8" diameter bolts at 4'−0" o.c. spacing

12.
12 Shear transfer at roof on line C.
Shear forces in the roof diaphragm are transferred to the shear walls below as
shown in Figure 3-13. From Table 3-9 are the ASD shears in the wall.
v = 190 lb/ft
From manufacturer’s catalog, allowable load for the 6-3/8-inch-long framing clip is
915 pounds.
With framing clips at 4.0 ft centers, the design ASD force is:
(190)(4) = 760 lb < 915 lb o.k.
Figure 3-13. Shear transfer at roof at line C
Note that double studs are used for sound control, but that only one stud is
considered in shear wall calculations.

Commentary
The code does not have conventional construction provisions for cold-formed steel
similar to the conventional light frame construction provisions for wood. The 2000
International Residential Code (IRC) has included prescriptive provisions for
cold-formed steel for one- and two-family dwellings. It should be noted that the
structure shown in example could not use the IRC prescriptive provisions.
Inasmuch as there is no one standard for the manufacturing of the studs, the
process to design gravity load members is a tedious method and should not be done
by prescriptive means.
The AISI Specification for Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members has
complex equations and is considered by most engineers too difficult to be readily
used in design.
Due to the complex nature of the equations, in the AISI code it is recommended
that engineers designing in cold-formed steel utilize computer software for design.
References
American Iron and Steel Institute, 1996. Cold Formed Steel Design Manual, 1996
Edition. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
American Iron and Steel Institute, 1986. Cold Formed Steel Design Manual, 1986
Edition. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
American Plywood Association, 1997. Design/Construction Guide – Diaphragms

Washington.
American Plywood Association, 1993. Revised. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls.
Applied Technology Council, 1995. Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls,
BSSC, 1997. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, 1997. Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction

Cobeen, K.E., 1996. “Performance Based Design of Wood Structures,” Proceedings,

Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954. 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests.
Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma,
Washington.
Dolan, J.D., 1996. Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear
Dolan, J. D. and Heine , C.P., 1997a. Monotonic Tests of Wood-frame Shear Walls
Engineering Report No. TE-1997-001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b. Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of
Wood frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain
Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE-1997-001. Virginia
Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of
Wood-frame Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No.
TE-1997-003. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996. “Northridge Earthquake of January

17, 1994, Reconnaissance Report,” Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11, Supplement
C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Foliente, Greg C., 1994. Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under
Foliente, Greg C., 1997. Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures.
Forest Products Lab, 1999. Wood Handbook Publication FPL – GTR – 113. Madison,
Wisconsin.

Goers R. and Associates, 1976. A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction
California.
International Code Council, International Building Code – Final Draft, 2000.

Ju, S., and Lin M., 1999. “Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or
Civil Engineers, Washington D.C.
Light-gauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 558b-1. Lateral Load Resisting
Elements: Diaphragm Design Values. Light-gauge Steel Engineers
Association., 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215.
Light-gauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 556a-6, Vertical Lateral Force
Resisting System Boundary Elements. Light-gauge Steel Engineers
Association, 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215.
Light-gauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 556a-4. Shear Transfer at Top
Plate: Drag Strut Design. Light-gauge Steel Engineers Association, 2400
Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215.
Light-gauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 565c. Screw Fastener Selection
for Light-gauge Steel Frame Construction. Light-gauge Steel Engineers
Association. 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215, February
1997.
Metal Stud Manufacturer’s Association, 1993. ICBO Evaluation Report No. 4943.
Metal Stud Manufacturer’s Association, P.O. Box 1211, Corvallis,
Oregon97339, revised December 1993.
National Forest Products Association, 1991. National Design Specification for Wood
Construction. National Forest Products Association, Washington D.C.
Performance Standards and Policies for Structural-Use Panels [Sheathing Standard,

Sec. 2.3.3]. APA Standard PRP-108. APA-The Engineered Wood
Association. Tacoma, Washington 98411.
Rose, J.D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under
Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158. APA – The Engineered
Rose, J.D., and E.L. Keith, 1996. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum
Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3].Research Report
158. APA - The Engineered Association, Tacoma Washington.

Structural Engineers Association of California, 1999. “Recommended Lateral Force

Requirements and Commentary,” Structural Engineers Association of
California, Sacramento, California.
Serrette, R. 1996. Final Report: Shear Wall Values for Lightweight Steel Framing.
Santa Clara University Engineering Center, Santa Clara, California 95053.
Yu, Wei-wen, 1991. Cold-Formed Steel Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
New York.


Design Example 4 ! Masonry Shear Wall Building
Design Example 4
Masonry Shear Wall Building
Figure 4-1. Schematic CMU building elevation
Overview
Reinforced concrete block masonry is frequently used in one-story and lowrise

construction, particularly for residential, retail, light commercial, and institutional
buildings. This type of construction has generally had a good earthquake
performance record. However, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, some
one-story buildings with concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and panelized wood
roofs experienced wall-roof separations similar to that experienced by many tilt-up
buildings.
This building in this Design Example 4 is typical of one-story masonry buildings

with wood framed roofs. The building is characterized as a heavy wall and flexible
roof diaphragm “box building.” The masonry building for this example is shown
schematically in Figure 4-1. Floor and roof plans are given in Figure 4-2 and 4-3,
respectively. The building is a one-story bearing wall building with CMU shear
walls. Roof construction consists of a plywood diaphragm over wood framing. An

elevation of the building on line A is shown in Figure 4-4. A CMU wall section is
shown in Figure 4-5, and a plan view of an 8'-0" CMU wall/pier is shown in
Figure 4-6.
The design example illustrates the strength design approach to CMU wall design
for both in-plane and out-of-plane seismic forces.
Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process.
1. Design base shear coefficient.
2. Base shear in the transverse direction.
3. Shear in wall on line A.
4. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for out-of-plane seismic forces.
5. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for in-plane seismic forces.
6. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for axial and in-plane bending forces.
7. Deflection of shear wall on line A.
8. Requirements for shear wall boundary elements.
9. Wall-roof out-of-plane anchorage for lines 1 and 3.
10.
10 Chord design.

Given Information
Roof weights: Exterior 8-inch CMU walls:

Roofing+ one re-roof 7.5 psf 75 psf (fully grouted,
½" plywood 1.5 light-weight masonry)
Roof framing 4.5 f ' m = 2,500 psi
Mech./elec. 1.5 f y = 60,000 psi
Insulation 1.5
Total dead load 17.0 psf
Roof live load 20.0 psf

Z = 0.4 (Seismic Zone 4) Table 16-I
Seismic source type = A
Soil profile type = S D
Figure 4-2. Floor plan

Figure 4-3. Roof plan
Figure 4-4. Elevation of wall on line A

Figure 4-5. Section through CMU wall along lines 1 and 3
Figure 4-6. Reinforcement in 8’-0” CMU shear walls on lines A and D

Calculations and Discussion

Discussion Code Reference
1. Design base shear coefficient. §1630.2.2
Period using Method A (see Figure 4-5 for section through structure):
T = C t (h n )3 / 4 = .020 (16 ft )3 / 4 = 0.16 sec (30-8)
Near source factors for seismic source type A and distance to source = 5 km
Seismic coefficients for Zone 4 and soil profile type S D are:
C a = 0.44 N a = 0.53 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.6 4 N v = 1.02 Table 16-R
The R coefficient for a masonry bearing wall building with masonry shear walls
is:
R = 4.5 Table 16-N
Calculation of design base shear:
Cv I 1.02 (1.0 )
V= W= W = 1.417W (30-4)
RT 4.5 (0.16 )
2.5C a I 2.5 (0.53)(1.0 )

V= W= W = 0.294W (30-5)
R 4.5
The total design shear shall not be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.53)(1.0 )W = 0.058 (30-6)

In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than:
0.8ZN v I 0.8 (0.4 )(1.60)(1.0 )

V= W= W = 0.114W (30-7)
R 4.5
Therefore, Equation (30-5) controls the base shear calculation and the seismic
coefficient is thus:
V = 0.294W
2. Base shear in transverse direction.
This building has a flexible roof diaphragm and heavy CMU walls (see Figure 4-3).
The diaphragm spans as a simple beam between resisting perimeter walls in both
directions and will transfer 50 percent of the diaphragm shear to each resisting
wall. However, in a building that is not symmetric or does not have symmetric wall
layouts, the wall lines could have slightly different wall shears on opposing wall
lines 1 and 3 and also on A and D.
The building weight (mass) calculation is separated into three portions: the roof,
longitudinal walls, and transverse walls for ease of application at a later stage in the
calculations. The reason to separate the CMU wall masses is because masonry
walls that resist ground motions parallel to their in-plane directions resist their own
seismic inertia without transferring seismic forces into the roof diaphragm. This
concept will be demonstrated in this example for the transverse (north-south)
direction.
For the transverse direction, the roof diaphragm resists seismic inertia forces
originating from the roof diaphragm and the longitudinal masonry walls
(out-of-plane walls oriented east-west) on lines 1 and 3, which are oriented
perpendicular to the direction of seismic ground motion. The roof diaphragm then
transfers its seismic forces to the transverse masonry walls (in-plane walls oriented
north-south) located on lines A and D. The transverse walls resist seismic forces
transferred from the roof diaphragm and seismic forces generated from their own
weight. Thus, seismic forces are generated from three sources: the roof diaphragm;
in-plane walls at lines 1 and 3; and out-of-plane walls at lines A and D.
The design in the orthogonal direction is similar and the base shear is the same.
However, the proportion of diaphragm and in-plane seismic forces is different. The
orthogonal analysis is similar in concept, and thus is not shown in this example.
Roof weight:
Wroof = 17 psf (5,400 sf ) = 92 kips

For longitudinal wall weight (out-of-plane walls), note that the upper half of the
wall weight is tributary to the roof diaphragm. This example neglects openings in
the top half of the walls.
 19 ft   1  (19 ft )2
W walls, long = 75 psf (2 walls)(90 ft )(19 )    = 75 psf (180 ft ) = 152 kips
 2   16 ft  2(16 ft )
For forces in the transverse direction, seismic inertial forces from the transverse
walls (lines A and D) do not transfer through the roof diaphragm. Therefore, the
effective diaphragm weight in the north-south direction is:
Wtrans. diaph = Wroof + W walls, long = 92 k + 152 k = 244 kips
The transverse seismic inertial force (shear force), which is generated in the roof
diaphragm is calculated as follows:
Vtrans. diaph = 0.294Wtrans. diaph = 0.294(244 kips ) = 72 kips
The seismic inertial force (shear force) generated in the transverse walls (in-plane
walls) is calculated using the full weight (and height) of the walls (with openings
ignored for simplicity).
Vtrans. walls = 0.294 (75 psf )(19 ft )(60 ft )(2 walls) = 50 kips
The design base shear in the transverse direction is the sum of the shears from the
roof diaphragm shear and the masonry walls in-plane shear forces.
∴Vtrans. = Vtrans. diaph + Vtrans. walls = 72 k + 50 k = 122 kips
3. Shear wall on line A.
The seismic shear tributary to the wall on line A comes from the roof diaphragm
(transferred at the top of the wall) and the in-plane wall inertia force:
Vtrans. diaph Vtrans. walls 72 kips 50 kips

VA = + = + = 61 kips
2 2 2 2
4. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for out-of-plane seismic forces.
In this part, the 8'-0" shear wall on line A (Figure 4-4) will be designed for
out-of-plane seismic forces. This wall is a bearing wall and must support gravity
loads. It must be capable of supporting both gravity and out-of-plane seismic
forces, and gravity plus in-plane seismic forces at different instants in time

depending on the direction of seismic ground motion. In this Part, the first of these
two analyses will be performed.
The analysis will be done using the “slender wall” design provisions of §2108.2.4.
The analysis incorporates static plus P∆ deflections caused by combined gravity
loads and out-of-plane seismic forces and calculates an axial plus bending capacity
for the wall under the defined loading.
4a.
4a Vertical loads.
Gravity loads from roof framing tributary to the 8'-0" shear wall at line A:
 60 ft   30 ft 
PDL = (17 psf )   = 7,650 lb
 2  2 
Live load reduction for gravity loads:
R = r ( A − 150) ≤ 40 percent §1607.5
A = (30 ft )(15 ft ) = 450 sq ft
R = 0.8 (450 sq ft − 150 sq ft ) = 24 percent
 DL   17 
Rmax = 23.11 +  = 23.11 +  = 42.7 percent
 LL   20 
∴ R = 24 percent
The reduced live load is:
 60 ft   30 ft 
PRLL = (20 psf )  (100 percent − 24 percent ) = 6,840 lb
 2  2 
Under §2106.2.7, the glulam beam reaction load may be supported by the bearing
width plus four times the nominal wall thickness. Assuming a 12-inch bearing
width from a beam hanger, the vertical load is assumed to be carried by a width of
wall 12 in. + 4 (8 in.) = 44 in.
(7,650 lb + 6,840 lb)

PbeamD +L = = 3,952 plf
(44 in. 12 in.)
7,650 lb
PbeamD = = 2,086 plf
(44 in. 12 in.)

Wall load on 8-foot wall (at wall mid-height):
 16 ft 
Pwall DL = (75 psf )(8 ft ) + 3 ft  = 6,600 lb
 2 
6,600 lb
w wall DL = = 825 plf
8 ft
Dead load from wall lintels:
 20 ft 
PL intel D = (75 psf )(9 ft )  = 6,750 lb
 2 
l = (96 in. − 44 in.) 2 = 26 in.
6,750 lb
w L int elD = = 3,115 plf
26 in. 12 in.
Since the lintel loads are heavier than the beam load, and since dead load
combinations will control, the loads over the wall/pier length will be averaged.
The gravity loads on the 8'-0" wall from the weight of the wall, the roof beam, and
two lintels are:
∑ PDL = (6,600 lb + 7 ,650 lb + 6,750 lb + 6,750 lb) = 27,750 lb
∑ PRLL = 6,840 lb
4b.
4b Seismic forces.
Out-of-plane seismic forces are calculated as the average of the wall element
seismic coefficients at the base of the wall and the top of the wall. The coefficients
are determined under the provisions of §1632.2 using Equation (32-2) and the
limits of Equation (32-3).
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
0.7C a I pW p ≤ F p ≤ 4.0C a I pW p (32-3)

At the base of the wall:
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p
Rp  hr 
(1.0)C a I p  0 ft 
= 1 + 3 W p
Rp  16 ft 
= 0.133C a I pW p ≤ 0.7C a I pW p
∴Use 0.7C a I pW p
F p = 0.7 (.53)(1.0 )W p = 0.37W p
= 0.37(75 psf ) = 27.8 psf
At roof:
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p
Rp  hr 
(1.0)C a I p  0' 
= 1 + 3 W p
Rp  16' 
= 1.33C a I pW p ≤ 4.0C a I pW p
∴Use 1.33C a I pW p
F p = 1.33(.53)(1.0 )W p = 0.37W p
= 0.70(75 psf ) = 52.5 psf
Thus, use the average value of F p = (1 2 )(27.8 psf + 52.5 psf ) = 40.2 psf
Calculation of wall moments due to out-of-plane forces is done using the standard
beam formula for a propped cantilever. See Figure 4-7 for wall out-of-plane
loading diagram and Figure 4-8 for tributary widths of wall used to determine the
loading diagram.

R2 3'
W1
16'
W2 10'
R1
Figure 4-7. Propped cantilever loading diagram
Tributary width of wall considered

18'-0"
W1
9'-0"
Lintel beam
resists W2 10'-0"
out-of-plane “h”
forces
10'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0"
Figure 4-8. Tributary width of wall for out-of-plane seismic inertial force calculations

W1 = (10 ft + 8 ft + 10 ft )(40.2 psf ) = 1,125 plf
W2 = 8 ft (40.2 psf ) = 322 plf
Using simple beam theory to calculate moment M oop for out-of-plane forces, the
location of maximum moment is at h = 9.8 feet:
M oop = 15,530 lb - ft = 186,360 lb - in.
Comparison of seismic out-of-plane forces with wind (approximately 25 psf)

indicate that seismic forces control the design.
4c.
4c Design for out-of-plane forces. §1612.2.1
The wall section shown in Figure 4-6 will be designed. The controlling load
combinations for masonry are:
1.2 D + 1.6 Lr (12-3)
1.1(1.2 D + 1.0 E ) = 1.32 D + 1.1( E h + E v ) (12-5)
1.1E v = 1.1(0.5)C a ID = 0.55(0.53)(1.0) D = 0.30 D
Note: Exception 2 of §1612.2.1 requires that a 1.1 factor be applied to the load
combinations for strength design of masonry elements including seismic forces.
The SEAOC Seismology Committee has recommended that this factor be deleted.
However; this example shows use of the factor because it is a present requirement
of the code, thus:
PD + RLL = 1.2 (27 ,750 lb ) + 1.6 (6840 lb ) = 44 ,244 lb (12-3)
Pu = PD + L + E = PD + 1.1E v
= 1.32(27 ,750 lb ) + (0.30 )(27 ,750 lb ) = 44 ,955 lb (12-5)
The controlling load case by examination is Equation (12-5) for gravity plus
seismic out-of-plane forces.
Slender wall design of masonry walls with an axial load of 0.04 f m' or less are
designed under the requirements of §2108.2.4.4.

Check axial load vs. 0.04 f m' using unfactored loads:
Pw + Pf
≤ 0.04 f m
Ag
27,750 lb
= 38 psi ≤ 0.04 (2500 psi ) = 100 psi
(7.625 ft )(8 ft )(12 in.)
∴ o.k.
Calculate equivalent steel area Ase :
As f y + Pu
Ase =
fy
(0.31 in. )(6 bars)(60,000 psi) + 44,955 lb = 2.61 in.
(8-24)
2
= 2
60,000 psi
Calculate I cr :
a=
(Pu + As f y )
=
( )
44 ,955 lb + 1.86 in. 2 (60 ,000 psi )
= 0.77 in. (8-25)
.85 f ' m b .85 (2500 psi )(96 in.)
a
c= = 0.86 in.
.85
E s 29 ,000 ,000 psi

n= = = 15.46 §2106.2.12.1
Em 1,875,000 psi
bc3
I cr = + nAse (d − c )2
3
96 in.(0.90 in.)3
=
3
( )
+ (15.46) 2.62 in. 2 (3.81 in. − 0.90 in )2 = 365.0 in. 4
Calculate M cr using the value for f r from §2108.2.4.6, Equation (8-31):
 96 in.(7.625 in.)2 
M cr = S g f r =   (4.0 )(2,500 )1 2 = 186,050 lb - in. (8-30)
 6 
 

Calculate I g :
(96 in.) (7.625 in.) 3

Ig = = 3546.6 in. 4
12
Calculate M u based on Equation (8-20) of §2108.2.4.4:
First iteration for moment and deflection (note that eccentric moment at mid-height
of wall is one-half of the maximum moment):
M u = M out −of − plane + M eccentric = 1.1E + 1.1(1.2 D ) + 1.1(1.6)(L = 0 )
M u = M out −of − plane + M eccentric = 1.1 (186,360 lb - in.)

(8-20)
+ 1.32 (7,650 lb )(6 in.) 2 = 235,960 lb - in.
5M cr h 2 5 (M u − M cr )h 2
∆u = + (8-28)
48 E m I g 48 E m I cr
5 (186,050 lb - in.)(192 in.)2

∆u =
(
48 (1,875,000 psi ) 3,546.6 in. 4 )
5 (235,290 lb - in. − 186,050 lb - in.)(192 in.)2
+ = 0.11 in. + 0.28 in. = 0.38 in.
(
48 (1,875,000 psi ) 365.0 in. 4 )
Note: The deflection equation used is for uniform lateral loading, maximum
moment at mid-height, and pinned-pinned boundary conditions. For other support
and fixity conditions, moments and deflections should be calculated using
established principals of mechanics. Beam deflection equations can be found in the
AITC or AISC manuals or accurate methods can be derived.
Second iteration for moment and deflection:
M u = 235,290 lb - in. + 44,955 lb (0.38 in.) = 252,540 lb - in.
5(252,540 lb - in. − 186,050 lb - in.)(192 in.)2

∆ u = 0.11 in. +
(
48 (1,875,000 psi ) 365.0 in. 4 )
= 0.11 in. + 0.37 in. = 0.48 in.

Third iteration for moment and deflection:
M u = 235,290 lb - in. + 44,955 lb - in.(0.48 in.) = 256,891 lb - in.
5 (256,891 lb - in. − 186,050 lb - in.)(192 in.)2

∆ u = 0.11 in. +
(
48 (1,875,000 psi ) 365.0 in. 4 )
= 0.11 in. + 0.40 in. = 0.51 in.
Final moment (successive iterations are producing moments within 3 percent,

therefore convergence can be determined):
M u = 235,290 lb - in. + 44,955 lb (0.51 in.) = 258,217 lb - in.
Calculation of wall out-of-plane strength:
 a
φM u = φAse f y  d − 
 2
( ) 
= 0.80 2.47 in. 2 (60,000 psi ) 3.81 in. −
0.73 in. 

 2 
= 408,439 lb - in. ≥ 258,217 lb - in.
Since the wall strength is greater than the demand, the wall section shown in Figure
4-4 is okay.
Note that out-of-plane deflections need to be checked using same iteration process,
but with service loads per §2108.2.4.6, (i.e., PD = 27,750 lbs). Since ultimate
deflections are within allowable, there is no need to check service deflections in
this example. The limiting deflection is 0.007 h per §2108.2.4.6 is
0.007(16'×12") = 1.34". The deflection from this analysis is 0.50 inches. Thus the
deflection is within allowable limits.
Check that the wall reinforcement is less than 50 percent of balanced reinforcement
per §2108.2.4.2:
.85β1 f ' m 87,000

ρb = + = 0.0178
fy 87,000 + f y
(6)(0.31 in. 2 )
ρ= = 0.0051 ≤ 0.0089
(3.81 in.)(96 in.)
∴ o.k.
Check the unbraced parapet moment:

a p = 2.5 Table 16-0
R p = 3.0
a pCa I p  h
1 + 3 x

 W p =
(2.5)(.53)(1.0)   16 ft  
  W p
Fp = 1 + 3
Rp  hr  (3 . 0 ) 
  16 ft 
= 1.76W p = 1.76 (75 psf ) = 132.5 psf
M u (132.5 psf )(3 ft )2 8 = 596 lb - ft = 7,155 lb - in. ≤ 408,439 lb - in.
∴ Wall section is okay at parapet.
5. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for in-plane seismic forces.
5a.
5a Shear force distribution.
The shear force on line A must be distributed to three shear wall piers (6', 8', and 6'
in width, respectively) in proportion to their relative rigidities. This can be
accomplished by assuming that the walls are fixed at the tops by the 9-foot-deep
lintel. Reference deflection equations are given below for CMU or concrete walls
with boundary conditions fixed top or pinned top. For this Design Example, the
fixed/fixed equations are used because the deep lintel at the wall/pier tops will act
to fix the tops of wall piers.
Vi h 3 1.2Vi h
∆i = + for walls/piers fixed top and bottom
12 E m I AG
Vi h 3 1.2Vi h
∆i = + for walls/piers pinned top and fixed at bottom
3E m I AG
G = 0.4 E m for concrete masonry under §2106.2.12.13 (6-6)
1
Relative rigidity is thus where ∆ is the deflection under load Vi . Using the
∆
fixed/fixed equation, the percentage shears to each wall are shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Distribution of line A shear to three shear walls.

Wall Moment Shear Deflection Total Deflection Distribution to
Rigidity (1/in.) Wall Shear (k)
Length (ft) Deflection (in.) (in.) (in.) Piers (%)
6 1.17E-05 3.50E-07 1.20E-05 83,28 26.6% 16.2
8 6.56E-06 2.62E-07 6.82E-06 146,635 46.8% 28.6
6 1.17E-05 3.50E-07 1.20E-05 83,28 26.6% 16.2
Totals 313,200 100% 61.0
The seismic shear force E h to the 8-foot pier is (0.468)61 k = 28.6 k.
Calculation of reliability/redundancy factor ρ is shown below. For shear walls the

maximum element story shear ratio ri is determined as: §1630.1.1
ri8 = (28.6 k )(10 ) / 8 ft / 122 k = 0.29 for 8 ft segment
ri 6 = (16.2 k )(10) / 6 ft / 122 k = 0.22 for 6 ft segment
∴ rmax = 0.29
20 20
ρ=2− =2− (30-3)
rmax AB (0.29 ) 5,400 ft 2
∴ ρ = 1.06
The strength design shear for the 8'-0" wall is:
∴V8' wall = 1.06(28.6 k ) = 30.3 k
5b.
5b Determination of shear strength.
The in-plane shear strength of the wall must be determined and compared to
demand. The strength of the wall is determined as follows. Vertical reinforcement
is #5@16 inches o.c. Try #4@16 inches o.c. horizontally. Note that concrete
masonry cells are spaced at 8-inch centers, thus reinforcement arrangements must
have spacings in increments of 8 inches (such as 8 inches, 16 inches, 24 inches, 32
inches, 40 inches, and 48 inches). Typical reinforcement spacings are 16 inches
and 24 inches for horizontal and vertical reinforcement.

Calculate M Vd :
M 151.5 k - ft
= = 0.625
V d (30.3 k )(8 ft )
From Table 21-K and by iteration, the nominal shear strength coefficient C d = 1.8
Vn = Vm + V s (8-36)
Vm = C d Amv f m = (1.80)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) 2,500 psi = 65.9 k (8-37)
Vs = Amv ρ n f y (8-38)
for φ = 0.80, with #4 @16" o.c. horizontally:

φV s = φAmv ρ n f y = (0.80)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) 
(0.20 in. 2) 
 (60,000 psi ) = 57.6 k
 (7.625 in.)(16 in.)
for φ = 0.60, with #4 @16" o.c. horizontally:

φV s = φAmv ρ n f y = (0.60)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) 
(0.20 in. 2 ) 
 (60,000 psi ) = 43.2 k
 (7.625 in.)(16 in.)
Thus, conservatively, using φ = 0.60
φV n = 0.6 (65.9 k ) + 43.2 k = 82.7 k
The designer should check the failure mode. If failure mode is in bending,
φ = 0.80. If failure mode is in shear, φ = 0.60. For this example, we will
conservatively use φ = 0.60. The method of checking the failure mode is to check
how much moment M u is generated when the shear force is equal to shear
strength Vn with φ = 1.0. Then that moment is compared with the wall Pn and M n
with a φ = 1.0. If there is reserve moment capacity, there will be a shear failure. If
not, there will be a bending failure. Later in the example this will be checked.
The reason the failure mode should be checked is to understand whether a brittle
shear failure will occur or a ductile bending failure. Since the bending failure is
more desirable and safer, the φ factor is allowed to be higher.
Vu = 1.1(30.3 k ) = 33.3 k ≤ φVn = 82.7 k , for 0.60,∴ o.k.
∴ Use #4 @16" horizontal reinforcement in the wall/pier.

6. Design 8'-0" shear wall on line A for combined axial and in-plane bending
actions.
Part 5 illustrated the design of the wall for shear strength. This Part illustrates
design for wall overturning moments combined with gravity loads. A free body
diagram of the wall/pier is needed to understand the imposed forces on the wall.
The load combinations to be considered are specified in §1612.2.1. These are as

follows (with the 1.1 factor of Exception 2 applied):
1.1(1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.0 E ) (floor live load, L = 0) (12-5)
1.1 (0.9 D − 1.0 E ) (12-6)
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.5 (0.53)(1.0) D = 0.27 D §1630.1.1
The resulting Equation (12-5) is:
1.1(1.2 D + 0.27 D + 1.0 E h ) = 1.61D − 1.1E h
The resulting Equation (12-6) is:
1.1 (0.9 D + 0.27 D + 1.0 E h ) = 0.63D − 1.1E h
E h = V8' −0" wall = 1.1 (30.3 k ) = 33.3 k
Axial loads Pu are calculated as Pu1 and Pu 2 for load combinations of Equations
(12-5) and (12-6):
Pu1 = 1.61(27,750 lb ) = 44.7 kips
Pu 2 = 0.63(27,750 lb ) = 17.5 kips

By performing a sum of moments about the bottom corner at point A (Figure 4-9):
Pu
Mu, top
Vu
10'-0"
A
Vu
Mu,bottom
8'-0"
Figure 4-9. Free body diagram of 8’-0” shear wall
∑ M A = 0 = 2 M u − Vu (10 ft )
(33.3 k )(10 ft )
M u , top ≈ M u , bottom = = 166.5 k - ft
2
The reader is referred to an excellent book for the strength design of masonry
Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures, by Brandow, Hart, Verdee, published by
Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, Sacramento, CA, Second
Edition, 1997. This book describes the calculation of masonry wall/pier strength
design in detail.
The axial load vs. bending moment capacity (P-M) diagram for the wall must be
calculated. For this, the designer must understand the controlling strain levels that
define yielding and ultimate strength. At yield moment, the steel strain is the
yielding strain (0.00207 in./in. strain) and the masonry strain must be below 0.002
in./in. (for under-reinforced sections). At ultimate strength, the masonry has
reached maximum permissible strain (0.003 in./in.) and the steel strain is
considered to have gone beyond yield strain level (see§2108.2.1.2 for a list of
design assumptions). See Figure 4-10 for concrete masonry stress-strain behavior.
A representation of these strain states is shown in Figures 4-11 and 4-12 (the pier
width is defined as h ).

Compressive stress f 'm

fm (psi)
0.5 f ' m
Figure 4-10. Assumed

masonry compressive stress
versus strain curve
0.002 0.003
Strain, em
Figure 4-11. Strain

diagram at yield moment;
steel strain =0.00207 in./in.; ε m ≤ 0.002
masonry strain is less than
yield for under-reinforced
sections
ε s3
ε s2
ε s1 = 0.00207 c
Figure 4-12. Strain

diagram at ultimate moment; ε m ≥ 0.003
masonry strain =0.003 in./in.;
steel strain has exceeded
0.00207 in./in.; the
Whitney stress block ε s3
ε s2
analysis procedure can
be used to simplify ε s1 ≥ 0.00207 c
calculations

Note that masonry strain may continue to increase with a decrease in stress beyond
strains of 0.002 in./in. at which time stresses are at f ' m . At strains of 0.003,
masonry stresses are 0.5 f ' m . With boundary element confinement, masonry
strains can be as large as 0.006 in./in.
By performing a summation of axial forces F , the axial load in the pier is

calculated as:
∑ F = P = C1 = T1 = T2 = T3
The corresponding yield moment is calculated as follows:
 h  h  h h c
M y = T1  d 1 −  + T2  d 2 −  + T3  d 3 −  + C  − 
 2  2  2  2 3
The ultimate moment is calculated as:
 h  h  h h a
M u = T1  d 1 −  + T2  d 2 −  + T3  d 3 −  + C  − 
 2  2  2 2 2
Strength reduction factors, φ , for in-plane flexure are determined by Equation

(8-1) of §2108.1.4.1.1
Pu
φ = 0.80 − , 0.6 ≤ φ ≤ 0.8 (8-1)
(Ae f ' m )
Strength reduction factors for axial load, φ = 0.65. For axial loads, φPn , less than
0.10 f ' m Ae , the value of φ may be increased linearly to 0.85 as axial load, φPn ,
decreases to zero.
The balanced axial load, Pb , is determined by Equations (8-2) and (8-3).
Pb = 0.85 f ' m ba b (8-2)
 
 
 em 
a b = 0.85d   (8-3)
f
 em + y 
 
 Es 

Pb = 0.85 (2,500)(7.625 in.)(0.85)(92 in.)(0.003 0.00507 ) = 750 kips
φPb = 0.65(750 kips ) = 487 kips
A P-M diagram can thus be developed. The P-M diagrams were calculated and
plotted using a spreadsheet program. By observation, the design values Pu and
M u (Pu = 43 k, M u = 167 k - ft ) are within the nominal strength limits of φPn ,
φM n values shown in Figure 4-13. Plots for Pn vs. M n can be seen in Figure 4-13
and for φPn vs. φM n in Figure 4-14.
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
Pn (kips)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Mn (k-ft)
Figure 4-13. The Pn-Mn nominal strength curve with masonry strain at 0.003 in./in.

2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
φPn (kips)
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
φMn (k-ft)
Figure 4-14. The φPn-φMn design strength curve with masonry strain at 0.003 in./in.
Check for type of wall failure by calculating wall moment at shear Vn :
 82.7 k 
 (10')
Vn (10')  0.60 
Mu = = = 689 k - ft
2 2
Pu = 43.7 k
By looking at the Pn − M n curve, this Pu − M u load is just outside the Pn , M n

curve. The shear wall failure will likely be a bending failure. However, the
designer might still consider a φ = 0.60 for shear design to be conservative.
7. Deflection of shear wall on line A. §1630.10
In this part, the deflection of the shear wall on line A will be determined. This is
done to check actual deflections against the drift limits of §1630.10.
Deflections based on gross properties are computed as:
Vi h 3 1.2Vi h
∆s = + for wall/piers fixed top and bottom
12 E m I AG

(28.6 k )(120 in.)3 1.2 (28.6 k )(120 in.)

∆s = + = 0.011 in.
12 (1,875 ksi ) (562,176 in ) (732 in 2 ) (750 ksi )
3
Assume cracked section properties and I cr = 0.3I g (approximately):
(28.6 k )(120 in.)3 1.2 (28.6 k )(120 in.)

∆s = + = 0.021 in.
12 (1,875 ksi ) (168,652 in ) ( 732 in 2 ) (750 ksi )
3
∆ m = 0.7 R∆ s = 0.7 (4.5)(0.021 in.) = 0.066 in. (30-17)
Thus, deflections are less than 0.025h = 3.0 in.
∴ o.k.
8. Requirements for shear wall boundary elements. §2108.2.5.6
Section §2108.2.5.6 requires boundary elements for CMU shear walls with strains
exceeding 0.0015 in./in. from a wall analysis with R = 1.5 . The intent of masonry
boundary elements is to help the masonry achieve greater compressive strains (up
to 0.006 in./in.) without experiencing a crushing failure.
The axial load and moment associated with this case is:
Pu = 44.7 kips
4.5 (166.5 k - ft )
Mu = = = 619 k - ft
1.1 1.1
This P-M point is not within the P-M curve using a limiting masonry strain of
0.0015 in./in. (see Figure 4-15). From an analysis it can be determined that the
maximum c distance to the neutral axis is approximately 22 inches. For this
example, boundary ties are required. Note that narrow shear wall performance is
greatly increased with the use of boundary ties.
The code requires boundary elements to have a minimum dimension of 3 × wall

thickness, which is 24 inches due to yield moments. After yield moment capacity is
exceeded, the c distance is reduced. Thus, if boundary element ties are provided at
each end of the wall/pier extending 24 inches inward, the regions experiencing
strain greater than 0.0015 in./in. are confined. Space boundary ties at 8-inch
centers. The purpose of masonry boundary ties is not to confine the masonry for
compression, but to support the reinforcement in compression to prevent buckling.
Tests have been performed to show that masonry walls can achieve 0.006 in./in.
compressive strains when boundary ties are present.

1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
P (kips)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
M (k-ft)
Figure 4-15. P-M curve for boundary element requirements;

masonry strain is limited to 0.0015 in./in.
The P-M curve shown in Figure 4-15 is derived by setting masonry strain at the
compression edge at 0.0015 in./in. and by increasing the steel tension strain at the
opposite wall reinforcement bars. Moments are calculated about the center of the
wall pier and axial forces are calculated about the cross-section. P-M points located
at the outside of the denoted P-M boundary element curve will have masonry
strains exceeding the allowable, and thus will require boundary element
reinforcement or devices.
It can be seen that boundary reinforcement is required for the point

(Pu = 45 k, M u = 619 k ) . Boundary element confinement ties may consist of #3 or
#4 closed reinforcement in 10-inch and 12-inch CMU walls. At 8-inch CMU walls
pre-fabricated products such as the “masonry comb” are the best choice for
boundary reinforcement because these walls are too narrow for reinforcement ties
(even #3 and #4 bars). The boundary reinforcement should extend around three
vertical #4 bars at the ends of the wall.

9. Wall-roof out-of-plane anchorage for lines 1 and 3.
CMU walls should be adequately connected to the roof diaphragm around the
perimeter of the building. In earthquakes, including the 1994 Northridge event, a
common failure mode has been separation of heavy walls and roofs leading to
partial collapse of roofs. A recommended spacing is 8’-0" maximum. However,
6'-0" or 4'-0" might be more appropriate and should be considered for many
buildings. This anchorage should also be provided on lines A and D, which will
require similar but different details at the roof framing perpendicular to wall tie
condition. UBC §1633.2.9 requires that diaphragm struts or ties crossing the
building from chord to chord be provided that transfer the out-of-plane anchorage
forces through the roof diaphragm. Diaphragm design is presented in Design
Example 5, and is not presented in this example.
Per §1633.2.8.1, elements of the wall out-of-plane anchorage system shall be

designed for the forces specified in §1632 where R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.5 .
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
1.5(.53)(1.0 )  16' 
Fp = 1 + 3 × W p = 1.06W p
3.0  16' 
or:
f p = 1.06w p , where w p is the panel weight of 75 psf (see Figure 4-16)

loading.
a
qroof fp
Figure 4-16. Wall-roof connection loading diagram

Calculation of the reaction at the roof level is:
w p (h + a )2 (1.06)(75 psf )(16 ft + 3 ft )2

q roof = = = 897 plf
2h 2 (16 ft )
Section 1633.2.8.1 requires a minimum wall-roof anchorage of q roof = 420 plf
q roof = 897 plf ≥ 420 plf
∴ use q roof = 897 plf
The design anchorage reaction at different anchor spacings is thus:
at 4'-0" centers, q roof = 3,588 lb
Therefore, choose wall-roof anchors that will develop the required force at the
chosen spacing. The roof diaphragm must also be designed to resist the required
force with the use of subdiaphragms (or other means). The subject of diaphragm
design is discussed in Design Example 5.
For this example, a double holdown connection spaced at 8'-0" centers will be used
(see Figure 4-19). This type of connection must be secured into a solid roof
framing member capable of developing the anchorage force.
First check anchor capacity in concrete block of Tables 21-E-1 and 21-E-2 of
Chapter 21. Alternately, the strength provisions of §2108.1.5.2 can be used.
The required tension, T, for bolt embedment is T = E 1.4 = 7,175 lbs 1.4 = 5,125 lb .
For ¾-inch diameter bolts embedded 6 inches, T = 2,830 lb per Table 21-E-1 and
3,180 lb per Table 21-E-2. These values are for use with allowable stress design
(ASD).

Figure 4-17. Intersection of anchor bolt tension failure cones
The anchor bolts are spaced at 6-5/8 inches center to center (considering purlin and
hardware dimensions) and have 12-inch diameter pull-out failure cones. Thus, the
failure surfaces will overlap (Figure 4-17). In accordance with §2108.1.5.2, the
maximum tension of this bolt group may be determined as follows:
Calculate Bt n per bolt using the strength provisions of Equation (8-5):
Btn = 1.04 A p ( )
f ' m = 1.04 113 in. 2 (50 psi ) = 5,876 lb (8-5)
Calculate one-half the area of intersection of failure surfaces from two circles with
radius 6 inches and centers (2-1/16" + 2½" + 2-1/16") 6 5/8" apart. A p = 37.8 in.2
from Equations (8-7) and (8-8). Thus the bolt group tension can be calculated as:
(1.0) (2 × 113 in. 2 − 2 × 37.8 in. 2 )

2 (50 psi ) = 9,410 lb
φ Btn ≥ Btu ∴ 0.8(9,410 lb ) = 7,528 lb ≥ 7,175 lb
∴ o.k.
By choosing a pair of pre-fabricated holdown brackets with adequate capacity for a

double shear connection into a 2½-inch glued-laminated framing member, the
brackets are good for 2 × 3,685 lb = 7 ,307 lb (ASD) > 7,175 lb × 1.4 steel element
factor/1.4 ASD factor = 7,175 lb. Thus, the brackets are okay.

Also check bolt adequacy in the double shear holdown connection with metal side
plates (2½-inch main member, 7/8-inch bolts) per NDS Table 8.3B.
T = 2 × 3,060 lb × 1.33 = 8,140 lb > 7 ,175 lb, if the failure is yielding of bolt (Mode
IIIs or IV failure). If the failure is in crushing of wood (Mode I m failure), the
required force is 0.85 × 5,125 lb = 4 ,356 lb. Therefore, the double shear bolts and
pre-fabricated holdown brackets can be used.
Thus, use two holdown brackets on each side of a solid framing member
connecting the masonry wall to the framing member with connections spaced at
8'-0" centers.
Verify that the CMU wall can span laterally 8'-0" between anchors. Assume a
beam width of 6'-0" (3' high parapet plus an additional three feet of wall below
roof) spanning horizontally between wall-roof ties.
w = q roof = 897 plf
wl 2 (897 plf )(8 ft )

2
Mu = = = 7,176 lb - ft
8 8
The wall typically has #4@16-inch horizontal reinforcement, therefore a minimum

4-#4 bars in 6'-0" wall section.
a=
As f y
=
( )
4 .20 in. 2 (60,000 psi )
= 0.314 in.
.85 f ' m b .85 (2,500 psi )(72 in.)
 a
φM n = φAs f y  d − 
 2
( ) 
φM n = 0.8 (4 ) .20 in. 2 (60,000 psi ) 3.81 in. −
.314 in.   1 
  = 11,689 lb - ft ≤ 7,176 lb - ft
2   12 in. 

∴ o.k.
Per §1633.2.8.1, item 5, the wall-roof connections must be made with 2½-inch
minimum net width roof framing members (2½-inch GLB members or similar) and
developed into the roof diaphragm with diaphragm nailing and subdiaphragm
design.

Anchor bolt embedment and edge distances are controlled by §2106.2.14.1 and
§2106.2.14.2. Section 2106.2.14.1 requires that the shell of the masonry unit wall
next to the wood ledger have a hole cored or drilled that allows for 1-inch grout all
around the anchor bolt. Thus, for a 7/8-inch diameter anchor bolt, the core hole is
2-7/8-inch in diameter at the inside face masonry unit wall. Section 2106.2.14.2
requires that the anchor bolt end must have 1½ inches clearance to the outside face
of masonry. The face shell thickness for 8-inch masonry is 1¼ inches, thus the
anchor bolt end distance to the inside face of the exterior shell is 7-5/8"-1¼"-6" =
3/8". It is recommended that the minimum clear dimension is ¼-inch if fine grout
is used and ½-inch if coarse pea gravel grout is used (Figure 4-18).
Figure 4-18. Embedment of anchor bolts in CMU walls (MIA, 1998)

10.
10 Chord design.
Analysis of transverse roof diaphragm chords is determined by calculation of the

( )
diaphragm simple span moment wl 2 8 divided by the diaphragm depth.
wdiaph, trans. =
(72 k + 50 k ) = 1,356 plf
90'
Modify w for R = 4.0 by factor (4.5/4.0) = 1.125 §1633.2.9, Item 3
M diaph. = wl 2 8 = 1.125 (1,356 plf )(90 ft )2 8 = 1,545 k - ft
Tu = C u = 1,545 k - ft 60 ft = 25.7 kips
Using reinforcement in the CMU wall for chord forces:
Tu 25.7 k
As , required = = = 0.54 in. 2
φf y (0.80 )(60 ksi )
( )
Thus 2-#5 chord bars As = 0.62 in.2 are adequate to resist the chord forces. Place
chord bars close to the roof diaphragm level. Since roof framing often is sloped to
drainage, the chord placement is a matter of judgment.
Figure 4-19. CMU wall section at wall-roof ties

References
ACI 530-99 / ASCE 6-99 / TMS 402-99, 1999, Building Code Requirements for
Masonry Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, The
Masonry Society, Boulder, Colorado.
Amrhein, J.E., 1996, Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition.

Masonry Institute of America, Los Angeles, California.
Brandow, G E., Hart, G., and Virdee, A., 1997, Design of Reinforced Masonry
Structures. Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada
(CMACH), Sacramento, California.
MIA, 1998, Reinforced Concrete Masonry Construction Inspector’s Handbook:

Conforming to the 1997 UBC. Masonry Institute of America, 2550 Beverly
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057.
Paulay, T. and Priestly, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Robinson, A. and Uzarski, J., 1999, CMD97, Concrete Masonry Design to the 1997
UBC. Computer Aided Design of Reinforced Concrete and Clay Masonry
Elements in Accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Concrete
Masonry Association of California and Nevada (CMACH), Sacramento,
California.

Design Example 5 ! Tilt-Up Building
Design Example 5
Tilt-Up Building
Figure 5-1. Tilt-up building of Design Example 5
Overview
In this example, the seismic design of major components of a tilt-up building are
presented. Many tilt-up buildings have suffered severe structural damage in
earthquakes, particularly during the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge
events. The most common problem is wall-roof separation, with subsequent partial
collapse of the roof. In the 1997 UBC, substantial improvements, including higher
wall-roof anchorage forces, have been added to help prevent the problems that
appeared in tilt-up buildings built to codes as recent as the 1994 UBC.
The example building is the warehouse shown in Figure 5-1. This building has
tilt-up concrete walls and a panelized plywood roof system. The building’s roof
framing plan is shown in Figure 5-2, and a typical section through the building is
given in Figure 5-3. The emphasis in this Design Example 5 is the seismic design
of the roof diaphragm, wall-roof anchorage, and a major collector.

Outline
2. Design the roof diaphragm.
3. Design typical north-south subdiaphragm.
4. Design wall-roof ties for north-south subdiaphragm.
5. Design continuity ties for north-south direction.
6. Design of collector along line 3 between lines B and C.
7. Required diaphragm chord for east-west seismic forces.
8. Required wall panel reinforcing for out-of-plane forces.
9. Deflection of east-west diaphragm.
10.
10 Design shear force for east-west panel on line 1.
Given Information
Roof: Seismic and site data:

dead load = 14.0 psf Z = 0.4 (Zone 4)
I = 1.0 (Standard occupancy)
Walls: seismic source type = B
thickness = 7.25" distance to seismic source = 13km
height = 23' soil profile type = S D
normal weight concrete = 150 pcf ρ N/S = 1.0
f ' c = 4,000 psi ρ E/W = 1.5 (due to short wall on line 3)
(
A615, Grade 60 rebar f y = 60 ksi )
Roof sheathing:
Structural I plywood

Figure 5-2. Roof framing plan of tilt-up building
Figure 5-3. Typical cross-section

1. Design base shear coefficient. §1630.2.2
Using Method A, the period is calculated as:
T = Ct (hn ) 4 = .020(21)
3 3
4 = .20 sec (30-8)
Comment: The building’s lateral force-resisting system has relatively rigid walls
and a flexible roof diaphragm. The code formula for period does not take into
consideration that the real period of the building is highly dependent on the roof
diaphragm construction. Consequently, the period computed above using Equation
(30-8) is not a good estimate of the real fundamental period of the building,
however it is acceptable for determining design base shear.
For soil profile type SD and Z = .4
C a = .44 N a = .44(1.0 ) = .44 Table 16-Q
C v = .64 N v = .64(1.0 ) = .64 Table 16-R
Since tilt-up concrete walls are both shear walls and bearing walls:
R = 4.5 Table 16-N
Design base shear is calculated from:
Cv I .64(1.0 )
V = W = W = .677W (30-4)
RT 4.5(.21)
but base shear need not exceed:
2.5C a I 2.5(.44 )(1.0 )

V = W = W = .244W (30-5)
R 4.5

A check of Equations (30-6) and (30-7) indicate these do not control, therefore the
base shear in both directions is
V = .244W
Note that the base shear is greater than that required under the 1994 UBC. The
principal reason for this is that base shear under the 1997 UBC is determined on a
strength design basis. If allowable stress design (ASD) is used, the base shear is
divided by 1.4 according to §1612.3.
2. Design the roof diaphragm.
2a.
2a Roof diaphragm weight.
Seismic forces for the roof are computed from the weight of the roof and the
tributary weights of the walls oriented perpendicular to the direction of the seismic
forces. This calculation is shown below:
roof area = 110 ft (64 ft ) + 140.67 ft (224 ft ) = 38,550 sq ft
roof weight = 38,550 sq ft (14 psf ) = 539.7 kips
7.25
wall weight = × 150 = 90.6 psf
12
north-south walls = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(140.67 ft )(2 ) = 318.6 kips
east-west walls = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(288 ft )(2 ) = 652.3 kips
In this example, the effect of any wall openings has been neglected. This is
considered an acceptable simplification because the openings usually occur in the
bottom half of the wall.
2b.
2b Roof diaphragm shear.
The roof diaphragm must be designed to resist seismic forces in both directions.
The following formula is used to determine the total seismic force, Fpx , on the
diaphragm at a given level of a building.
In general, separate forces are computed for each direction.

n
Ft + ∑ Fi
i= x
F px = n
W px (33-1)
∑ Wi
i= x
Base shear for this building is V = .244W . This was determined using R = 4.5 as
shown in Part 1 above. For diaphragm design, however, §1633.2.9 requires that R
not exceed 4. Since this is a one-story building with Ft = 0 , and using R = 4 ,
Equation (33-1) becomes the following:
4.5  V  4.5
F px =   W px = (.244) W px = 0.275W px
4 W  4
Fpx need not exceed 1.0C a IW px = 1.0 (.44 )(1.0 )W px = .44W px §1633.2.9
but cannot be less than 0.5C a IW px = 0.5 (.44 )(1.0 )W px = .22W px §1633.2.9
Therefore, for diaphragm design use F px = .275W px
Note: The reliability/redundancy factor ρ is not applied to horizontal diaphragms,

except transfer diaphragms. (Refer to Examples 15 and 16 in Volume I of the
Seismic Design Manual for a discussion of the ρ factor.)
W px = 539.7 k + 318.6 k = 858.3 kips
F px = .275 (858.3) = 236.0 kips
The equivalent uniform load on the diaphragm can be computed as:
236.0 kips
w= = 1,678 plf
140.67'
In this calculation, an approximation has been made that the uniform load between
lines A and B is the same as that between B and E. The actual load on the A-B
segment is less, and the load on the B-E segment is slightly greater than that
shown. This has been done to simplify the computations.
Because the panelized wood roof diaphragm in this building is considered flexible
(see §1630.6 for definition of flexible diaphragm), lines A, B and E are considered
lines of resistance for the north-south seismic forces. A collector is needed along
line B to drag the tributary north-south diaphragm forces into the shear wall on line
B. The shear diagram is shown below.

A 25.7 k
30'-8"
B 25.7 k 92.3 k
w = 1,678 plf
110'-0"
E 92.3 k
Loading Shear
Figure 5-4. Seismic loading and shear diagram for north-south diaphragm
1 3 10
64'-0" 224'-0"
Diaphragm shear at line A and on the east side of line B is:
25,700lbs
= 115 plf
224'
Diaphragm shear at the west side of line B and at line E is:
92,300 lb
= 320 plf w = 1,138 plf
288 ft
Loading
East-west direction: 127.5 k
Diaphragm forces for the east-west direction are

computed using the same procedure and assumptions as 36.4 k
the north-south direction. The actual load on segment
1-3 is less than that shown, and the load on 3-10
slightly greater.
36.4 k
W px = 539.7 k + 652.3 k = 1,192. 0 kips
F px = .275 (1,192.0 k ) = 327.8 kips

127.5 k
Shear
327.8 k
Equiv. w = = 1,138 plf Figure 5-5. Seismic loading and
288 ft
shear diagram for east-west
diaphragm

Diaphragm shear at line 1 and the north side of line 3 is:
36,400 lb
= 331 plf
110 ft
Diaphragm shear at the south side of line 3 and at line 10 is:
127,500 lb
= 906 plf
140.67 ft
2c.
2c Design of east-west diaphragm.
The east-west diaphragm has been selected to illustrate the design of a plywood
roof diaphragm. Allowable stress design (ASD) will be used. The basic earthquake
loading combination is given by Equation (30-1). When ASD is used, vertical
effects need not be considered, and in this example of the diaphragm design, they
would not come into use even if strength design was being used. As discussed
earlier, the reliability/redundancy factor does not apply to the diaphragm, and ρ=1
in Equation (30-1).
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h (30-1)
For ASD, the basic load combination to be used to combine earthquake and dead
load is Equation (12-9). This simplifies to the following:
D+ E = 0+ E = E (12-9)
1.4 1.4 1.4
Assume the diaphragm is to be constructed with ½-inch Structural I plywood with

all edges supported. Refer to use UBC Table 23-II-H for nailing requirements.
Sheathing arrangement (shown in Figure 5-2) for east-west seismic forces is Case
4. Diaphragm shear forces must be divided by 1.4 to convert to ASD. Because
open web truss purlins with double 2x4 chords are used in this direction, the
framing width in the east-west direction is 3½ inches. However, in the north-south
direction, the framing consists of 2 × subpurlins, and strength is therefore limited
by the 2-inch nominal width. Required nailing for panel edges for various zones of
the roof (for east-west seismic only) is given in Table 5-1 below. Minimum field
nailing is 10d @ 12 inches. A similar calculation (not shown) must be done for
north-south seismic forces.

Table 5-1. Diaphragm nailing for east-west seismic forces

Boundary and
East-West Edge North-South
Zone Nailing (1) Edge Nailing (2) Allowable Shear ASD Shear Status
A 10d @ 2½" 4" 640 plf 906/1.4 = 647 plf say o.k.
B 10d @ 4" 6" 425 plf 583/1.4 = 416 plf o.k.
C 10d @ 6" 6" 320 plf 331/1.4 = 236 plf o.k.
Notes:
1. The east-west running sheet edges are the “continuous panel edges parallel to load”
mentioned in Table 23-II-H.
2. The north-south sheet edges are the “other panel edges” in Table 23-II-H. Note that the
nailing for north-south running diaphragm boundaries is 10d @ 2½ inches.
The demarcation between nailing zones A and B is determined as follows. It was

decided to use 10d at 2½-inch spacing in A and 4-inch spacing in B. The limiting
shear for 10d at 4 inches (from Table 23-II-H) is 425 plf. Shear reduces from a
maximum of 906 plf at lines 3 and 10 to 595 plf (i.e., 425 plf × 1.4 = 595 plf) at
38.4 feet from lines 3 and 10. Rounding to the nearest 8-foot increment because
purlins are spaced at 8 feet o.c., zone A extends a distance of 40 feet from lines 3
and 10 as shown below.
1 3 10
40'-0" 40'-0"
64'-0" 144'-0"
A B A
C
Figure 5-6. Nailing zones for east-west roof diaphragm
The above illustrates design of the east-west diaphragm for shear. Design of the
chord for the east-west diaphragm is shown in Part 7 of this example. Design of
ledger bolts, required to transfer the diaphragm shear to the wall panels, is not
shown.

3. Design typical north-south subdiaphragm.
Subdiaphragms are used to transfer out-of-plane seismic forces from the tilt-up
wall panels to the main diaphragm. Consequently, subdiaphragms are considered to
be part of the wall anchorage system as defined in §1627. In the example below,
design of a typical subdiaphragm for north-south seismic forces is shown. Design
of subdiaphragm for east-west seismic forces is similar but not shown.
3a.
3a Check subdiaphragm aspect ratio.
Maximum allowable subdiaphragm ratio is 2.5 to 1 §1633.2.9
110 ft
From Figure 5-2, the maximum north-south subdiaphragm span = = 36.67 ft
3
36.67 ft
Minimum subdiaphragm depth = = 14.67 ft
2.5
Typical roof purlin spacing = 8 ′ − 0 ′′
Minimum subdiaphragm depth = 16 ′ − 0 ′′
∴ Must use subdiaphragm at least = 16 ′ − 0 ′′ deep
3b.
3b Forces on subdiaphragm.
Because subdiaphragms are part of the out-of-plane wall anchorage system, they
are designed under the requirements of §1633.2.8.1. Seismic forces on a typical
north-south subdiaphragm are determined from Equation (32-2) with R p = 3.0
and a p = 1.5.
w p = 90.6 psf
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
The value of F p to be used in wall-roof anchorage design is determined from

Equation (32-2) using h x = hr , and W p is the tributary weight.
The tributary wall weight is one-half of the weight between the roof and base plus
all of the weight above the roof.

W p = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(1 ft ) = 1,133 lb/ft
1.5 (.44 )1.0  21 

Fp = 1 + 3 ×  W p = .88W p
3.0  21 
Solving for the uniform force per foot, q , at the roof level
q = .88W p = .88 (1,133)= 997 plf
2'-0"
q
.88Wp
10'-6"
10'-6"
Figure 5-7. Loading diagram for wall-roof anchorage design
Check minimum wall-roof anchorage force
997 plf > 420 plf o.k. §1633.2.8.1(1)
∴ q = 997 plf
3c.
3c Check subdiaphragm shear.
Assume a 32-foot deep subdiaphragm as shown below. This is done for two
reasons. First, the GLB along Line 9 can be used as a chord. Second, the deeper
than required subdiaphragm depth (32 feet vs. 16 feet) makes the subdiaphragm
displacement more compatible with that of the main north-south diaphragm.

Figure 5-8. Typical north-south subdiaphragm
Shear reaction to glulam beams along lines C and D:
997 plf (36.67 ft )

R= = 18,280 lb
2
18,280 lb
Maximum shear = = 571 plf
32
From Table 5-1, the minimum nailing in Zone A (Figure 5-6) is 10d @ 4 in. along
north-south edges, except at boundaries.
Load on an ASD basis with the 0.85 load factor of §1633.2.8.1(5) applied is
0.85
(571 plf ) = 347 plf
1.4
Check 10d @ 4 in. for Case 2, capacity = 640 plf > 347 plf o.k. Table 23-II-H
∴Use of Zone A nailing for subdiaphragm okay

3d.
3d Check GLB as subdiaphragm chord.
Glulam beams (GLB) along lines 2 and 9, and the continuous horizontal
reinforcement in panels along lines 1 and 10, act as chords for the subdiaphragms.
Check to see if the GLB can carry additional seismic force within incremental
one-third allowable tension increase using ASD. Note that 0.85 load factor of
§1633.2.8.1(5) is applied to the chord force when checking the tension stress in the
GLB.
997 plf (36.67 )2

Chord force = = 5,237 lb
8(32 )
Assume GLB 6 3 4 × 24 with 24F-V4 DF/DF
A = 162 in.2
Ft = 1,150 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS
0.85 (5,237 lb) 1

ft = 2
= 20 psi < × 1,150 psi = 383 psi o.k.
1.4 × 162 in. 3
Comment: In reality, the GLB along line 9 may not act in tension as a
subdiaphragm chord as shown above. It will be loaded in tension only when
compressive wall anchorage forces act on the diaphragm. Under this loading, the
seismic forces probably do not follow only the subdiaphragm path shown above
but are also transmitted through the wood framing to other parts of the diaphragm.
Even if subdiaphragm action does occur, the subdiaphragm may effectively be
much deeper than shown. However, because it is necessary to demonstrate that
there is a system to resist the out-of-plane forces on the diaphragm edge, the
subdiaphragm system shown above is provided.
3e.
3e Determine minimum chord reinforcement at exterior concrete walls.
This Design Example 5 assumes that there is continuous horizontal reinforcement

in the walls at the roof level that acts as a chord for both the main diaphragm and
the subdiaphragms. The 1.4 load factor of §1633.2.8.1(4) must be applied to the
reinforcement.
Subdiaphragm chord force = P = 5,237 lb
P 1.4 (5,237 )
As = = = 0.14 in.2
φf y 0.9 (60,000 )

This is a relatively small amount of reinforcement. Generally, the main diaphragm

chord reinforcement exceeds this amount. In present California practice, the
subdiaphragm chord steel requirement is not added to the chord steel requirement
for the main diaphragm. Determination of the main chord reinforcement is shown
in Part 7.
4. Design wall-roof ties for north-south subdiaphragm. §1633.2.8.1
The key elements in the wall anchorage system, defined in §1627, are the wall-roof
ties. Wall-roof ties are used to transfer out-of-plane seismic forces on the tilt-up
wall panels to the subdiaphragms. Requirements for connection of out-of-plane
wall anchorages to flexible diaphragms are specified in §1633.2.8.1.
4a.
4a Seismic force on wall-roof tie.
Seismic forces are determined using Equations (32-1) or (32-2). Values of R p and
a p are:
R p = 3.0 a p = 1.5 §1633.2.8.1(1)
Forces on the anchorage were computed above in Part 3, using the same values of
R p and a p , and are q = 997 plf .
4b.
4b Design typical wall-roof tie.
Minimum required thickness of a subpurlin used as wall-roof tie = 2½ inches §1633.2.8.1(5)
Try ties at 8 ft-0 in. spacing, and determine F p
F p = 8 ft × 997 plf = 7,976 lb
Comment: When tie spacing exceeds 4 feet, the SEAOC Blue Book (§108.2.6)
recommends that walls be designed to resist bending between anchors.
Try prefabricated metal holdowns with two ¾-inch bolts in subpurlin and two
¾-inch bolts connecting the subpurlin to the wall panel. This connection (Figure
5-9) is designed to take both tension and compression as recommended by the
SEAOSC/COLA Northridge Tilt-up Building Task Force and the SEAOC Blue
Book (§C108.2.8.1). Design of the holdown hardware not shown. Consult ICBO
Evaluation Reports for allowable load capacity of pre-manufactured holdowns.
Note that if a one-sided holdown is used, eccentricities in the subpurlin must be
considered, as specified in §1633.2.8.1(2). Generally, one-sided wall-roof
anchorage is not recommended.

precast wall panel
plywood sheathing
6"
¾"anchor bolt
(2 total)
holdown each
side of subpurlin
w/ 2-¾" M.B.
3x subpurlin
5" nut and washer, typical
ledger
7¼"
Figure 5-9. Typical subpurlin wall-roof tie
Check capacity of the two ¾-inch bolts in DF-L subpurlin using ASD: Table 8.3B, 91 NDS
(2,630)(2 bolts)(1.33) = 6,996 lb > 0.85 (7 ,976 lb) = 4,843 lb o.k.

1.4
Note that the .85 load factor of §1633.2.8.1(5) is used to reduce the seismic force.
This applies to forces on nails and bolts connecting brackets or strips to the wood
framing because these are considered “wood elements” under the code (see
SEAOC Blue Book §C108.2.8.1).
Comment: The Blue Book (§C108.2.8.1) makes a recommendation for the

minimum length to diameter ratio of the through-bolts connecting the holdowns to
the subpurlin. In this case, the l/d ratio is 2.5/0.75 = 3.3. The minimum
recommended value is 4.5. This ratio is necessary to maintain a ductile failure
mode (e.g., bending of the through-bolts). To satisfy the Blue Book
recommendation, a 4x subpurlin would be required in this situation.
Minimum required end distance = 7 D = 7 (.75) = 5.25 in. Table 8.5.4, 91 NDS
A distance of 6 inches from the through-bolt in the holdown to the ledger will be
used. Often, there is a gap of 1/8-inch or more between the end of the subpurlin and
the side of the ledger due to panelized roof erection methods, and the use of a
6-inch edge distance will ensure compliance with the 7D requirement. A larger

distance can be used to ensure that through-bolt tear out does not occur in the 3 ×
subpurlin.
Check tension capacity of two ¾-inch A307 anchor bolts using ASD:
Ft = 20.0 ksi Table 1-A, AISC-ASD
P = Ft AB (2 bolts)(1.33)
(
P = (20.0 ksi ) 0.4418 in. 2 ) (2 bolts)(1.33) = 23.5 k > 1.4 (17.,4976) lb = 8.0 kips o.k.
As specified in §1633.2.8.1(4), the 1.4 steel factor has been used to increase the
seismic force.
Check compression capacity of two ¾-inch A307 anchor bolts using ASD:
Radius of gyration of ¾-inch rod = 0.75-inch/4 = 0.1875-inch
Assume L = 4½-inch
L 4.5"
= = 24, Fa = 20.35 ksi Table C-36, AISC-ASD
r 0.1875"
P = Fa AB (2 rods )(1.33)
(
P = (20.35 ksi ) 0.4418 in. 2 ) (2 rods)(1.33) = 23.9 k > 8.0 kips o.k.
Check tension capacity of anchor bolts in wall panel for concrete strength:
The tilt-up panels are exterior wall elements, but the requirements of §1633.2.4.2
do not apply. This is because the tilt-up panels are both bearing walls and shear
walls. The requirements of §1633.2.8 are the appropriate design rules in this
situation. This section requires that wall anchorage using straps be attached or
hooked so as to transfer the forces to the reinforcing steel. In this case, we are using
cast-in-place bolts instead of straps, and the bolts are not required to be “hooked”
around the wall reinforcement. In fact, headed anchor bolts have been shown to be
more effective than L-bolts in resisting pull-out forces [Shipp and Haninger, 1982].
Try anchor bolts with a 5-inch embedment. Although this embedment is considered
shallow anchorage under §1632.2, Rp is 3.0 regardless of whether the anchorage
has shallow embedment because §1633.2.8.1 is applicable. The material specific
load factors of §1633.2.8.1 (1.4 for steel and 0.85 for wood) are intended to
provide the nominal overstrength necessary to resist brittle failure of the wall
anchorage system when subjected to the maximum anticipated roof accelerations of
flexible diaphragms. Section 1633.2.8.1 is intended as a stand-alone section, and

the more restrictive requirements on R p of §1632.2 do not apply (see Blue Book
§C108.2.8.1).
F p = 7,976 lb
Actual bolt spacing is:
2½ in. (width of 3 × subpurlin)

+4¼ in. (2 times bolt edge distance of holdown flange)
6¾ in.
From Table 19-D, required spacing for full capacity is 9 inches. Minimum spacing
is 50 percent of this, or 4½ in. Interpolation for 6¾ in. spacing is shown below with
f 'c = 4,000 psi and assuming Special Inspection. Alternately, using strength
design, the requirements of §1923.2 could be used with computation for
overlapping pull-out cones. If §1923.2 is used, a load multiplier of 1.3 and a
strength reduction factor of 0.65 would be used:
Tension Capacity (w/Special Inspection) Bolt Spacing

6,400 lb/bolt 9 in.
4,800 6¾ in.
3,200 4½ in.
Fp 7 ,976
= = 3,988 lb/bolt
2 2
3,988
Allowable = 4,800 lb (1.33) = 6 ,384 lb > = 2,849 o.k.
1.4
Comment: The code in §1633.2.8.1 requires that material-specific load factors be

applied in the design of elements of the wall anchorage system. These factors are
1.4 for steel, 1.0 for concrete, and 0.85 for wood. They are applied to the anchorage
force determined from Equation (32-2). A background discussion on this is given
in the Blue Book Commentary §C108.2.8.1, where the load factors are shown to
provide a connection having nominal overstrength of approximately 2.0. This is
required to meet the maximum expected roof acceleration of four times the peak
ground acceleration. The latter is also discussed in §C108.2.8.1 and is shown to be
equivalent to doubling the design anchorage force F p . Thus, an anchorage
connection designed under §1633.2.8.1 should have the overstrength that just
meets the maximum expected demand of 2 F p . This overstrength approach was
selected, in lieu of a ductility approach, after wall anchorage failures were observed
in steel strap connectors with limited yield and deformation range.
Because anchor bolt pull-out is a critical and brittle failure mode, it must be
prevented by having sufficient embedment strength. The nominal factor of two

overstrength for concrete anchorage just meets the expected maximum demand.
This is based on dividing the 1.3 load factor by a φ-factor of 0.65 as discussed in
§C108.2.8.1 of the Blue Book. Shown below is the calculation of the strength of
the anchorage shown in Figure 5-9 using the method of §1923.3.2 (an alternate
method is given in Cook, 1999). In this calculation, a φ-factor of 0.65 is used to
provide an additional margin of safety beyond the code minimum. If the
overstrength desired was only 2.0, then φ=1.0 would be used. Note that the
capacity φPc is greater than 2 F p .
φPc = φλ 4 A p f c' §1923.3.2
For ¾ in. bolts with hex heads, the width across the flats is 1 18 in. , and A p is
computed as follows.
A p = 0.785 (10 + 1.125)2 + 6.75(10 + 1.125) = 172 in. 2 < 2(0.785)(11.125)2 = 194 in. 2
φ = 0.65 §1923.3.2
λ =1.0 §1923.3.2
φPc = (0.65)(1.0)4 172 in.2( ) 4,000 = 28.3 kips > 2 F p = 16.0 kips o.k.
Therefore, the anchorage in Figure 5-9 is strong enough to resist the expected
pull-out forces for code-level ground motions. In general, it is recommended that
the concrete pull-out strength exceed the bolt yield strength. If this is not possible,
it is recommended that the concrete pull-out strength exceed the code minimum by
a substantial margin (as shown above).
An alternate wall-roof tie connection is in Figure 5-10. However, this connection,

which utilizes a heavy-gauge strap, does not offer the same compression resistance
as the bolt scheme (Figure 5-9). Compression forces in the subpurlin generally
must be carried by the strap and/or plywood sheathing because subpurlins are
typically not installed snugly against the ledgers. Often there is a 1/8-inch to 1/4-inch
gap at each end. Providing both tension and compression capability in wall-roof
ties protects the diaphragm edge nailing under the reversible seismic forces. In this
case, the strap is hooked around a reinforcing bar to meet the requirements of
§1633.2.8.
The code requires that different loads be applied to the various materials involved
in the wall anchorage system. However, most hardware manufacturer’s catalogs
provide only a single allowable stress capacity for the component, which often
includes concrete, steel, and wood elements. To properly apply code requirements,
the design engineer must compute the capacity of each element separately.

pre-manufactured 12-gauge strap
plywood sheathing
#5 bar
3x subpurlin
4"
7¼" ledger
Figure 5-10. Alternate wall-roof tie
4c.
4c Design connection to transfer seismic force across first roof truss purlin.
Under §1627, continuity ties in the subdiaphragms are considered part of the wall
anchorage system. Consequently, the forces used to design the wall-roof ties must
also be used to design the continuity ties within the subdiaphragm.
F p = wall-roof tie load = 7,976 lb
If the subdiaphragm is 32-foot deep and roof truss purlins are spaced at 8 feet, then
the connection at the first roof truss purlin must carry three-quarters of the
wall-roof tie force.
Comment: Some engineers use the full, unreduced force, but this is not required
by rational analysis.
(32 − 8) × F =
3
× 7 ,976 = 5,982 lb
p
32 4
At the second and third roof truss purlins, the force to be transferred is one-half and
one-fourth, respectively, of the wall-roof tie force.
1
× 7 ,976 = 3,988 lb
2

1
× 7 ,976 = 1,994 lb
4
Try 12-gauge metal strap with 10d common nails. Design of strap not shown.
Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for allowable load capacity of pre-manufactured
straps. Note that the 1.4 load factor of §1633.2.8.1(4) applies to the strap design
and that the 0.85 load factor of §1633.2.8.1(5) applies to the nails. Tension on the
gross and net areas of the strap must be checked separately. The tensile capacity of
the strap, which is generally not indicated in the ICBO Evaluation Report, is
usually controlled by the nails. Consult with the strap manufacturer for appropriate
values of F y and Fu .
The following calculation shows determination of the number of 10d common nails
required at the first connection:
0.85 (5,982 lb ) Table 23-III-C-2

= 22.8
120 lb (1.4 )(1.33) Table 12-3F, 91 ND
∴ Use 12-gauge metal strap with 24-10d nails each side
12-gauge strap with 24-10d nails

each side of roof purlin
subpurlin
open web
roof truss purlin
Figure 5-11. Subpurlin continuity tie at first purlin

Note that both subpurlins in Figure 5-11 would be 3 × members because of the
heavy strap nailing.
Design of the second and third connections is similar to that shown above.
5. Design continuity ties for north-south direction
In a tilt-up building, continuity ties have two functions. The first is to transmit the
subdiaphragm reactions (from out-of-plane seismic forces on the wall panels) and
distribute these into the main roof diaphragm. The second function is that of
“tying” the interior portions of the roof together. In this example, the continuity ties
on lines C and D will be designed.
5a.
5a Seismic forces on continuity ties on lines C and D.
Force in the continuity tie at line 10 is the wall-roof tie force:
P10 = (997 plf )(8 ft ) = 7 ,976 lb
Force in continuity tie at the glulam beam splice north of line 9 is the sum of both
subdiaphragm reactions.
997 plf (36.67 ft )

P9 = (2 subdiaph.) = 36,560 lb
2
The splice near line 9 must also be checked for the minimum horizontal tie force of
§1633.2.5. Assume the splice is at fifth point of span as shown on the roof plan of
Figure 5-2. This requirement imposes a minimum tie force on the GLB connections
and is based only on the dead and live loads carried by the beams.
F p = 0.5C a IWD + L §1633.2.5
W DL = 14 psf , W LL = 12 psf
 32 ft 32 ft 
W D + L = (14 psf + 12 psf )(36.67 ft ) 32 ft − −  = 18,306 lb
 5 5 
F p = 0.5 (.44)(1.0 )(18,306 lb ) = 4 ,027 lb < 36,560 lb
∴ Subdiaphragm reaction controls

5b.
5b Design glulam beam (continuity tie) connection to wall panel.
In this example, walls are bearing walls, and pilasters are not used to vertically
support the GLBs. Consequently, the kind of detail shown in Figure 5-12 must be
used. This detail provides both vertical support for the GLB and the necessary
wall-roof tie force capacity. The tie force is the same as that for wall-roof tie of
Part 5a (P10 = 7,976 lb ) . The detail has the capacity to take both tension and
compression forces. Details of the design are not given. The horizontal force design
is similar to that shown in Part 4.
ledger
plywood sheathing
Stud (typical)
GLB
bracket
5"
7¼"
Figure 5-12. Bracket for wall-roof anchorage at GLB
It should be noted that the alternate wall-roof tie of Figure 5-10 is not acceptable in
this situation because the strap cannot resist compression.
Comment: Although not required by code, some designers design the wall-GLB
tie to take all of the tributary wall-roof forces (assuming the subpurlin wall ties
carry none) and carry this force all across the building as the design force in the
continuity ties. In this example, this force is P9 = 36,560 lb . This provides for a
much stronger “tie” between the wall and the GLB for buildings without pilasters
(the usual practice today) to help prevent loss of support for the GLB and
subsequent local collapse of the roof under severe seismic motions.

5c.
5c Design continuity tie across glulam splice.
P9 = 36,560 lb at splice near line 9
The ASD design force for the continuity tie is computed below. Note that the 0.85
wood load factor of §1633.2.8.1(5) is used for bolts in wood (see discussion in
Blue Book §C108.2.8.1).
0.85 (36 ,560 lb )

P= = 22,197 lb
1.4
6-3/4” glulam beam
22.2 k 22.2 k
vertical slotted holes hinge connector
Figure 5-13. Typical continuity tie splice
Try four 7/8-inch bolts in vertical slotted holes at center of hinge connector. Design
of hinge connector hardware not shown. Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for
allowable load capacity of pre-manufactured hinge connectors. Note that the bolt
capacity is based on the species of the inner laminations (in this case DF-L).
4 (4 ,260 lb )(1.33) = 22 ,663 lb > 22 ,197 lb o.k. Table 8.3D, 91 NDS
5d.
5d Check GLB for continuity tie force.
The glulam beams along lines C and D must be checked for the continuity tie axial
force. See Part 6 for an example of this calculation. Note that use of the amplified
force check of §1633.2.6 is not required for continuity ties that are not collectors.

6. Design collector along line 3 between lines B and C.
The collector and shear wall ledger along line 3 carry one-half of the east-west roof
diaphragm seismic force. The force in the collector is “collected” from the tributary
area between lines B and E and transmitted to the shear wall on line 3.
6a.
6a Determine seismic forces on collector.
From diaphragm shear diagram for east-west seismic forces, the maximum
collector load on at line 3 is:
 110.0 ft 
R = 36.4 k +  127.5 k = 136.1 kips tension or compresion
 140.67 ft 
Uniform axial load in collector can be approximated as the total collector load on
line 3 divided by the length of the collector (110'-0") in this direction.
R 136,100 lb
q= = = 1,237 plf
L 110.00 ft
6b.
6b Determine the collector force in GLB between lines B and C.
Assume the collector is a GLB 6 3 4 × 21 with 24F-V4 DF/DF and it is adequate to

support dead and live loads. A = 141.8 in.2 , S = 496 in.2 , and w = 34.5 plf.
Calculate seismic force at mid-span. Tributary length for collecting axial forces is
36.67 ft
l = 110.00 ft − = 91.67 ft
2
P = ql = 1.237 klf (91.67 ft ) = 113.4 kips tension or compression in beam
6c.
6c Check GLB for combined dead and seismic load as required by §1612.3.2.
E
D+L+S + (12-16)
1.4
w DL = 8 ft (14 psf ) + 34.5 plf = 146.5 plf
0.147 k / ft (36.67 ft )2
M DL = = 24.7 kip −ft
8

Fb * = 2,088 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS
24.7 k −ft (12,000)

fb = = 598 psi
496 in.3
113.4
P= = 81.0 kips tension or compression on ASD basis
1.4
Ft = 1,150 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS
Fc = 1,650 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS
81,000 lb
ft = fc = = 571 psi
141.8
Because there is a re-entrant corner at the intersection of lines B and 3, a check for
Type 2 plan irregularity must be made. Requirements for irregular structures are
given in §1629.5.3.
North-south direction check:
.15 × (288) = 43.2 ft < 64 ′ − 0 ′′ Table 16-M
East-west direction check:
.15 × (110.0 + 30.67 ) = 21.1' < 30'−8" Table 16-M
Since both projections are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension in the
direction considered, a Type 2 plan irregularity exists. The requirements of Item 6
of §1633.2.9 apply, and the one-third allowable stress increase cannot be used.
Checking combined bending and axial tension using Equation (3.9-1) of NDS:
fb f
+ t ≤ 1.00 3.9.1, 91 NDS
Fb * Ft '
598 571
+ = 0.29 + 0.50 = 0.79 < 1.00 o.k.
2,088 1,150
Equation (3.9-2) of NDS o.k. by inspection.

Checking combined bending and axial compression using Equation (3.9-3) of NDS
and considering the weak axis of the GLB laterally braced by the roof:
2
 fc  fb
 ′ + ≤ 1.0 3.92, 91 NDS
 Fc   f 
Fb′ 1 − c 
 FcE 
Find Fc ' by first calculating the column stability factor C p .
l e = k e l = 1.0 (36.67) = 36.67 ft 3.7.1.2, 91 NDS
K cE E' 0.418(1,600,000 )
FcE = = = 1,523 psi 3.7.1.5, 91 NDS
(le /d )
2
(36.67 × 12 / 21)2
Fc * = Fc = 1650 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS Supplement
1 + (FcE /Fc* ) 1 + (FcE /Fc* )

2
F /F *
Cp = −   − cE c Eq. 3.7-1, 91 NDS
2c  2c  c
1 + (1,523 / 1,650 ) 1 + (1,523 / 1,650 )

2
1,523 / 1,650
Cp = −   −
2(0.9 )  2(0.9 )  0.9
C p = 0.73
( )
Fc′ = Fc C p = 1,650 (0.73) = 1,205 psi Table 2.3.1, 91 NDS
2
 571  598
1,205  +  571 
= 0.22 + 0.46 = 0.68 < 1.0 o.k .
  2,0881 − 
 1,523 
6d.
6d Check GLB collector for amplified force requirements.
The GLB must also be checked for the special collector requirements of §1633.2.6.
Using ASD, an allowable stress increase of 1.7 may be used for this check. The
relevant equations are:
1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 Em (12-17)
0.9 D ± 1.0 E m (12-18)
Em = Ω o Eh (30-2)

Em is an estimate of the maximum force transmitted by the collector elements in

the seismic event. Unless a more refined analysis is done and the maximum force
that the diaphragm, or the shear wall, can transmit to the collector determined, the
seismic force Eh is scaled by the amplification factor Ω o for estimating Em .
Ω o = 2.8 Table 16-N
E h = 113.4 kips from Part 6b, above
E m = 2.8 (113.4 ) = 317.5 kips tension or compression in beam
Comment: The axial force E m = 317.5 kips in the above calculations is 1.4 times
greater than that which would be obtained using the 3R w / 8 factor applied to
collector forces obtained under the 1994 UBC provisions. This is because forces in
the 1997 UBC are strength based and were established to be 1.4 times greater than
those of the 1994 UBC. Unfortunately, the 1997 UBC does not first reduce the
forces by the 1.4 ASD factor when increasing the axial force by the Ω o = 2.8
factor. This appears to result in an unnecessarily conservative design for elements
like the GLB collector in this example.
Under both §1612.2.1 and §1612.4, roof live load is not included in the seismic
design load combinations. Generally, Equation (12-17) controls over Equation
(12-18). Because the 6 3 4 × 21 GLB will not work, a 6 3 4 × 27 beam will be tried.
A = 182 in. 2 , S = 820 in. 3 , and w = 44.3 plf .
Dead load bending stress at mid-span is (neglecting small increase in beam

weight):
M DL = 24.7 kip −ft
24,700 lb −ft (12)

fb = = 361 psi
820
Fb = 0.85 (2,400 psi ) = 2,040 psi Table 5A, 91 NDS
317,500 lb
ft = fc = = 1,745 psi
182
Check combined dead plus tension and compression seismic stresses using
Equation (12-17). The load factors are 1.2 on dead load and 1.0 on seismic forces,
and the allowable stress increase is 1.7.
Check tension using NDS Equation (3.9-1):

 1.2 f b   1.0 f t 
  +   ≤ 1.0
 1.7 Fb*   1.7 Ft' 
 1.2 (361)   1,745 

  +   = 0.12 + 0.89 = 1.01 ≈ 1.0 say o.k.
 1.7 (2 ,040 )   1.7 (1,150) 
NDS Equation (3.9-2) is o.k. by inspection.
Check compression using NDS Equation (3.9-3) as modified below:
2
 1.0 f c  1.2 f b
 '
+ ≤1.0
1.7 Fc   1.0 f c 
1.7 Fb' 1 − 
 FcE 
K cE E' 0.418 (1,600 ,000 )

FcE = = = 2,518 psi 3.7.1.5, 91 NDS
(le /d )
2
(36.67 × 12 / 27 )2
C p = 0.88
( )
Fc' = Fc C p = 1,650 (0.88) = 1,452 psi Table 2.3.1, 91 NDS
1.2 (361)
2
 1,745 
  + = 0.50 + 0.41 = 0.91 < 1.0 o.k.
1.7 (1,452 )  1,745 
1.7 (2 ,040)1 − 
 2 ,518 
∴Use GLB 6 3 4 × 27
Note that the special collector requirement of §1633.2.6 has necessitated that the
size of the GLB be increased from 6 3 4 × 21 to 6 3 4 × 27 .
6e.
6e Collector connection to shear wall.
The design of the connection of the GLB to the shear wall on line 3 is not given.
This is an important connection because it transfers the large “collected” seismic
force into the shear wall. The connection must be designed to carry the same
seismic forces as the beam, including the amplified collector force of §1633.2.6.
Because there is also a collector along line B, there is similarly an important
connection of the GLB between lines 3 and 4 to the shear wall on line B. Having to
carry two large tension (or compression) forces through the intersection of lines B
and 3 (but not simultaneously) requires careful design consideration.

7. Required diaphragm chord reinforcement for east-west seismic forces.
Chords are required to carry the tension and compression forces developed by the
moments in the diaphragm. In this building, the chords are continuous
reinforcement located in the wall panels at the roof level as shown in Figure 5-14.
(These must be properly spliced between panels.)
A
E
precast wall panel
plywood sheathing
ledger
chord reinforcement
Figure 5-14. Diaphragm chord
The east-west diaphragm spans between lines 1 and 3 and lines 3 and 10. The
plywood diaphragm is considered flexible, and the moments in segments 1-3 and
3-10 can be computed independently assuming a simple span for each segment. In
this example, the chord reinforcement between lines 3 and 10 will be determined.
This reinforcement is for the panels on lines A and E.
Equiv. w = 1,138 plf from Part 2
wl 2 1.14 klf (224 )

2
M= = = 7,150 kip −ft
8 8

The chord forces are computed from
7,150 k −ft
T =C= = 50.8 kips
140.67 ft
The chord will be designed using strength design with Grade 60 reinforcement.
The load factor of Equations (12-5) and (12-6) is 1.0 for seismic forces.
T 50.8 k
As = = = 0.94 in.2
φ f y 0.9 (60 ksi )
∴Use minimum 2-#7 bars, As = 1.20 in 2 > 0.94 o.k.
Comment: The chord shown above consists of two #7 bars. These must be spliced
at the joint between adjacent panels, typically using details that are highly
dependent on the accuracy in placing the bars and the quality of the field welding.
Alternately, chords can also be combined with the ledger such as when steel
channels or bent steel plates are used, and good quality splices can be easier to
make.
8. Required wall panel reinforcing for out-of-plane forces.
In this part, design of a typical solid panel (no door or window openings) is shown.
The panel selected is for lines 1 and 10, and includes the reaction from a large
GLB. The wall spans from floor to roof, and has no pilaster under the GLB. There
are no recesses or reveals in the wall.
8a.
8a Out-of-plane seismic forces.
Requirements for out-of-plane seismic forces are specified in §1632.2. Equation

(32-2) is used to determine forces on the wall.
Fp = 1 + 3 x  W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 
F p min = 0.7C a I pW p (32-3)
F p max = 4.0C a I pW p (32-3)
R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.0 Table 16-0, Item 1.A.(2)
C a = 0.44

F p can be determined by calculating the equivalent seismic coefficient at the

ground and roof levels. The average of the two values is used to determine the
uniform out-of-plane seismic force applied over the height of the wall.
At the ground level, hx = 0, and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation
(32-2) is:
aa Ca I p  h  1.0 (.44)(1.0 )  0
1 + 3 x  = 1 + 3  = 0.147
Rp  hr  3.0  21 
Check minimum value from Equation (32-3):
0.7C a I p = 0.7 (.44 )(1.0 ) = 0.308 > 0.147
∴ Use 0.308
At the roof level, hx = hr , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation
(32-2) is:
aa Ca I p  h  1.0 (.44)(1.0 )  21 
1 + 3 x  = 1 + 3  = 0.587
Rp  hr  3.0  21 
Check maximum value from Equation (32-3):
4.0C a I p = 4.0 (.44 )(1.0) = 1.76 > 0.587
∴ Use 0.587
The average force over the height of the wall is:
F p = 12 (0.308 + 0.587 )W p = 0.448W p
Design of the wall for moments from out-of-plane seismic forces is done by
assuming the force Fp to be uniformly distributed over the height of the wall as
shown in Figure 5-15.
Solving for the uniform force per foot f p :
f p = .448 (90.6 psf ) = 40.6 psf

2'-0"
q
fp = 40.6 psf
21'-0"
Figure 5-15. Loading diagram for out-of-plane wall design
8b.
8b Check applicability of alternate slender wall design criteria.
The panel to be designed is shown in Figure 5-16. The section at mid-height carries
the maximum moment from out-of-plane seismic forces. At the same time, this
section also carries axial load, from the weight of the panel and the GLB, as well as
bending moments due to the eccentricity of the GLB reaction on the wall and P∆
effects.
The tributary width of wall for support of the vertical loads of the GLB was
determined as follows. The GLB is supported on the wall as shown in Figure 5-12.
The vertical reaction on the wall is assumed to be at the bottom of the GLB, and
the wall is assumed to span from finished floor to roof in resisting out-of-plane
forces. These are conservative assumptions made for the convenience of the
analysis. Other assumptions can be made. For example, the center of the stud group
(see Figure 5-12) can be assumed to be the location of the GLB reaction on the
wall. This assumption would result in a wider effective width of wall to carry
vertical loads. The mid-depth of the beam could be assumed to be the point to
which the wall spans for out-of-plane forces. This assumption would result in a
lower moment in the wall due to the out-of-plane forces.
Assume 6 3 4 × 25 1 2 GLB bearing on wall

 6.75   21.0   25.5 
Tributary width = t GLB + H 2 − d GLB =  + −  = 8.94 ft §1914.8.2(4)
 12   2   12 

2.13 ft
GLB
roof
H/2
8.37 ft
2
1
H = 21.0 ft
A B
H/2
fin. floor
8.94 ft
Figure 5-16. Typical panel supporting a GLB; line A-B

denotes the tributary width of wall to be checked for the vertical load
of the GLB and the moment due to out-of-plane seismic forces
Generally, it is advantageous to use the alternate design slender wall criteria of

§1914.8. This will be shown below. As a first step, check the limitations on the use
of this criteria. These are indicated in §1914.8.2.
1. Check that vertical service load is less than 0.04 f c ' Ag : §1914.8.2(1)
14 psf (36.7 )(32 / 2 )

Proof = = 0.92 kip / ft
8.94
 21.0 
Pwall = 90.6 psf  + 2.0  = 1.13 kip / ft
 2 
P = Proof + Pwall = 0.92 + 1.13 = 2.05 kip / ft
0.04 f ' Ag = 0.04 (4 ,000 )(12 )(7.25) = 13.9 kip / ft > 2.05 kip / ft
∴ Vertical service load is less than 0.04 f c ' Ag

2. Check that the reinforcement does not exceed 0.6ρ b . §1914.8.2(2)
Assume vertical #4 @ 12 inches o.c. in center panel:
As 0.20
ρ= = = 0.00459
bd (12 )(3.63)
0.85β1 f c '  87,000 


ρb = (8-1)
fy  87,000 + f y 
 
0.85 (0.85)(4 ,000)  87 ,000 

ρb =   = 0.0285
60 ,000  87 ,000 + 60 ,000 
0.6ρ b = 0.6(0.0285) = 0.0171 > 0.00459 o.k.
∴ Reinforcement does not exceed 0.6ρ b
3. Check that φM n > M cr : §1914.8.2(3)
Before φM n is calculated, φ must be determined. Calculate φ based on

requirements of §1909.3.2.2. The axial load considered to determine M n is
the factored vertical load, and this is also used in determining φ .
Because strength design is being used, the load effect of vertical motion, E v ,
must be added to the vertical load.
E v = 0.5 C a ID = 0.5 (0.44 )(1.0 ) D = 0.22 D §1630.1.1
Ev has the effect of increasing the dead load by 0.22 D to a total of 1.42 D.
The load factors of Equation (12-5) must be multiplied by 1.1 for concrete as
required by Exception 2 of §1612.2.1. The net effect of this is shown below.
Pu = 1.1 (1.2 D + 0.22 D ) = 1.56 D §1612.2.1
( )
Pu = 1.56 Proof + Pwall = 1.56 (2.05) = 3.20 kip / ft
Section 1909.3.2.2 states that φ may be increased up to 0.9 as φPn decreases

from the smaller of φPb and 0.1 f c ' Ag to zero. Calculate φPb and 0.1 f c ' Ag :
Pb = b f y bd − As f y = (0.0285)(60 )(12 )(3.63) − (0.20)(60 ) = 62.4 kip / ft §1910.3.2
φPb = (0.7 )62.4 = 43.7 kip / ft

0.1 f ' c Ag = 0.1 (4.0 )(12 )(7.25) = 34.8 kip / ft < φPb
∴ Use 0.1 f c ' Ag in calculating φ
0.2 ( Pu ) 0.2 (3.20)

φ = 0.9 − = 0.9 − = 0.882 §1909.3.2.2
0.1 f 'c Ag 34.8
Calculate M n for the given axial load of 2.05 kip / ft . Note that values of Ase and
a are taken from Part 8c below.
 a  0.372 
M n = Ase f y  d −  = 0 .253 (60) 3.63 −  = 52.3 kip − in.
 2  2 
φM n = 0.882 (52.3) = 46.1 kip − in.
Calculate the cracking moment M cr .
bh 3 12 (7.25)
3
Ig = = = 381in.4
12 12
( )
5 f c′ I g 5 4000 (381)
M cr = = = 33.2 kip − in. §1914.0
yt 3.63
M cr < φM n o.k.
4. A 2:1 slope may be used for the distribution of the concentrated load
throughout the height of the panel (Figure 5-16). §1914.8.2(4)
∴ Slender wall criteria may be used

8c.
8c Check wall strength.
Combine factored moment due to out-of-plane seismic forces with moment due to
roof vertical load eccentricity and the moment due to P∆ effects. Calculate P∆
moment using the maximum potential deflection, ∆ n .
E c = 57,000 f c ' = 3,605 ksi §1908.5.1
E s = 29,000 ksi §1908.5.2
E s 29,000
n= = = 8.04
Ec 3,605
Pu + As f y 3.20 + 0.20 (60 )

Ase = = = 0.253 in. §1914.8.4
Fy 60
Ase f y 0.253 (60 )

a= = = 0.372 in.
0.85 f ' c b 0.85 (4.0)12
a 0.372
c= = = 0.438 in.
β1 0.85
d = 3.63 in.
bc 3
I cr = n Ase (d − c )2 +
3
§1914.8.4
12 (0.438)3
= 8.04 (0.253)(3.63 − 0.438)2 + = 21.1 in. 4
3
Maximum potential deflection is:
5 M n l c2 5 (52.3)(21 × 12)2
∆n = = = 4.55 in.
48 E c I cr 48 (3,605)(21.1)
Assuming the GLB reaction is 2 in. from the face of wall
t wall 7.25
e = 2.0 + = 2.0 + = 5.63 in.
2 2
Pu, roof = 1.56 Proof = 1.56 (0.92 ) = 1.44 kip / ft

Pu, wall = 1.56 Pwall = 1.56 (1.13) = 1.76 kip / ft
Required factored moment at mid-height of the wall is:
f p l c2 Pu,roof (e )
Mu = + + Pu ∆ n
8 2
40.6 (21.0)2 1.44 (5.63) 3.20 (4.55)

Mu = + +
8 (1,000) (2)(12) 12
M u = 2.24 + 0.34 + 1.21
M u = 3.79 kip - ft = 45.5 kip − in.
φM n = 46.1 kip − in. > M u o.k. §1914.8.3
Required factored shear is:
f p lc Pu,roof (e ) 40.6 (21.0 ) 1.44 (5.63)

Vu ≈ + = + = 0.458 kip / ft
2 h 2 (1,000) 12 (21.0 )
φV c = 0.85 (2.0) ( ) ( )
f c' bd = 0.85 (2.0) 4 ,000 (12 )(3.63) = 4.68kips/ft. >> Vu o.k.
∴ Wall strength is o.k.
8d.
8d Check service load deflection. §1914.8.4
The mid-height deflection under service lateral and vertical loads cannot exceed
the following:
lc 21.0 (12)
∆s = = = 1.68 in. (14-3)
150 150
The service level moment M s is determined as follows:
f p l c2 Proof (e ) 40.6 (21.0 )2 0.92 (5.63) 2.05 (1.68)

Ms = + + P∆ s = + +
(1.4)8 2 (1.4)(8)(1,000) 2 (12) 12
M s = 2.10 kip − ft = 25.2 kip − in.
Note M s < M cr

5M s l c2 5 (25.2 )(21 × 12 )2
∆s = = = 0.12 in. < 1.68 in.
48 E c I g 48 (3,605)(381)
∴ Use #4 @ 12 in. o.c. vertical reinforcing in wall.
8e.
8e Additional comments.
1. The parapet must be checked as a separate structural element for

seismic forces determined from Equation (32-2) with R p = 3.0 and
a p = 2.5. This check is not shown.
2. Attention must be given to the location of panel joints and wall

openings. These can change the tributary width of wall available to
resist combined axial loads and moments.
3. An iterative approach to the calculation of M u and M s may allow
for a less conservative analysis.
4. The effective depth of the wall must be modified for architectural
reveals, if these are used.
9. Deflection of east-west diaphragm.
Diaphragm deflections are estimated primarily to determine the displacements

imposed on attached structural and nonstructural elements. Columns and walls
connected to the diaphragm must satisfy the deformation compatibility
requirements of §1633.2.4.
An acceptable method of determining the horizontal deflection of a plywood

diaphragm under lateral forces is given in §23.222 of 1997 UBC Standard 23-2.
The following equation is used:
5vL3 vL Σ(∆ c X )
∆= + + 0.188 Len +
8 EAb 4Gt 2b
The deflection of the diaphragm spanning between lines 3 and 10 will be

computed. Values for each of the parameters in the above equation are given
below:
wl (1,138 plf )(224 ft )

v= = = 906 plf
2b 2 (140.67 ft )
L = 224'−0"

E = 29 × 10 6 psi
A = 2 #7 bars = 2 × .60 = 1.20 in.2
b = 140.67 ft
G = 90,000 psi Table 23-2-J
t = 0.54 Table 23-2-I
en = see Table 5-2, below. Table 23-2-K
∆ c = 0 (Assume no slip in steel chord.)
Table 5-2. Determination of en

Zone L Nails s Shear per nail en
A 80'-0" 10d 2½" 906(2.5/12) = 189 lb .042
B 144'-0" 10d 4" 583(4.0/12) = 194 lb .044
Substituting the above parameters into the deflection equation, the deflection (in
inches) at mid-span of the diaphragm is determined.
5 (906)(224 )3 (906)(224 )
∆= + + 0.188 (80)(0.042 ) + 0.188 (144 )(0.044 ) + 0
8 (29 × 10 6 ) (1.20 )(140.67 ) 4 (90,000)(0.54 )
∆ = 1.30 + 1.04 + 0.63 + 1.19 = 4.16 in.
Under §1633.2.4, all structural framing elements and their connections that are part
of the lateral force-resisting system and are connected to the roof must be capable of
resisting the “expected” horizontal displacements. The “expected” displacements are
amplified displacements taken as the greater of ∆ M or a story drift of 0.0025 times
the story height. In this example, the “expected” displacement is:
∆ M = 0.7 R∆ S = 0.7 (4 )(4.16 in ) = 11.6 in. (30-17)
Note that the R value used above is R = 4 . This is the R value used to determine
the shear in the diaphragm in Part 2b under the requirements of §1633.2.9(3).

Comment: The diaphragm deflection calculation shown above is based on

strength design seismic forces. Under the 1994 UBC, seismic forces are based on
ASD loads, and a smaller deflection would be calculated.
10.
10 Design shear force for east-west panel on line 1.
In this part, determination of the in-plane shear force on a typical wall panel on line
1 is shown. There are a total of five panels on line 1 (Figure 5-1). The panel with
the large opening is assumed not effective in resisting in-plane forces, and four
panels are assumed to carry the total shear.
From Part 2, the total shear on line 1 is 36.4 kips . This force is on a strength basis
and was determined using R = 4 for the diaphragm. Except for the diaphragm, the
building is designed for R = 4.5 , and an adjustment should be made to determine
in-plane wall forces.
Earthquake loads on the shear walls must also be modified by the

reliability/redundancy factor ρ . This factor varies between a minimum of 1.0 and a
maximum of 1.5. Because the shear wall on line 3 (not shown) has large openings
for a truck dock, the maximum element-story shear ratio, rmax of §1630.1.1, is large
and the resulting reliability/redundancy factor for the east-west direction is the
maximum value of 1.5. This requires that shear forces in individual east-west
panels, determined from the analysis shown in Part 2, be increased by a factor of
1.5 as shown below.
Finally, seismic forces due to panel weight must also be included. These are
determined using the base shear coefficient (.244) from Part 1. The panel seismic
force is determined as follows:
Panel weight:
110 ft
width = = 22 ft
5
 7.25 
W p = 0.15   (23 ft )(22 ft ) = 45.9 kips
 12 
Seismic force due to panel weight:
F p = 0.244W p = 0.244 (45.9 k ) = 11.2 kips

The total seismic force on the panel, E , is the horizontal shear transferred from the
diaphragm and the horizontal seismic force due to the panel weight, both adjusted
for the reliability/redundancy factor. This calculation is shown below:
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
1 4 
Eh =   (36.4 k ) + (11.2 k ) = 19.3 kips
4  4.5 
Ev = 0
∴ V panel = ρE h + E v = 1.5 (19.3) + (0 ) = 29.0 kips per panel
Comment: The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of the reliability/redundancy

factor. The intent of this provision is to penalize those lateral force resisting
systems without adequate redundancy by requiring that they be more
conservatively designed. A redundancy factor is computed for each principal
direction. In general, they are not applied to diaphragms, except transfer
diaphragms.
References
ACI, 1996. Practitioner’s Guide to Tilt-Up Construction. American Concrete

Institute, P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48333.
Breyer, D.E., Fridley, K.J., and Cobeen, K.E., 1999. Design of Wood Structures
Allowable Stress Design, Fourth edition. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
Brooks, Hugh, 1997. The Tilt-up Design and Construction Manual, Fourth edition.
HBA Publications, 2027 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, California 92660.
City of Los Angeles Division 91. Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Tilt-up
Concrete Wall Buildings, Los Angeles Dept. of Building and Safety, 200 N.
Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
Cook, R.A., 1999. Strength Design of Anchorage to Concrete, Portland Cement

Association, Skokie, Illinois.
Hamburger, R., and McCormick, D., 1994. “Implications of the January 17, 1994
Northridge Earthquake on Tilt-up and Masonry Buildings with Wood Roofs,”

1994 Fall Seminar Notes. Structural Engineers Association of Northern

California (SEAONC), 74 New Montgomery Street, Suite 230, San
Francisco, California 94105-3411.
SEAOSC/COLA, 1994. 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Structural Engineers

Association of Southern California/City of Los Angeles) Special Investigation
Task Force, Tilt-up Subcommittee. Final report dated September 25, 1994.
Shipp, J.G., and Haninger, E.R., 1982. “Design of Headed Anchor Bolts,”
Proceedings of 51st Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of
California, September 30-October 2, 1982.

Design Example 6 ! Tilt-Up Wall Panel with Openings
Design Example 6
Tilt-Up Wall Panel With Openings
32'-0"
28'-0"
12' × 14' opening 3' × 7' door
3'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0" 3'-0"
Figure 6-1. Wall elevation and section
Overview
Walls designed under the alternative slender wall method of UBC §1914.8, are
typically tilt-up concrete panels that are site-cast, cured, and tilted into place. They
are designed to withstand out-of-plane forces and carry vertical loads at the same
time. These slender walls differ from concrete walls designed under the empirical
design method (UBC §1914.5) in that there are greater restrictions on axial loads
and reinforcement ratios. In addition, secondary effects of eccentricities and p-delta
moments play an important role in analysis and design of these slender tilt-up
panels.
In this example, the out-of-plane lateral design forces for a one-story tilt-up
concrete slender wall panel with openings are determined, and the adequacy of
a proposed reinforced concrete section is checked. The example is a
single-story tilt-up concrete wall panel with two openings, site-cast, and tilted
up into place. The pier between the two openings is analyzed using the slender

wall design method (UBC §1914.8). Analysis of the wall panel for lifting
stresses or other erection loads is not a part of this example.
Outline
1. Out-of-plane lateral design forces.
2. Basic moment from the out-of-plane forces.
3. Vertical design forces acting on the pier.
4. Nominal moment strength φMn.
5. Factored moment including eccentricity and p-delta effects.
6. Service load out-of-plane deflection.
7. Special horizontal reinforcing.
Given Information
Wall material: f’c = 3000 psi normal weight concrete

Reinforcing steel material: fy = 60,000 psi
Wall thickness = 9¼ inches with periodic ¾-inch narrow reveals.
Reinforcing steel area = 7 #5 each face at wall section between openings.
Reinforcing depth based on 1-inch minimum cover per UBC §1907.7.1 item 4.
Loading data:
Roof loading to wall = uniform loading; 40-foot span of 12 psf dead load; no
snow load.
Roof loading eccentricity = 4 inches from interior face of panel.
Seismic Zone = Zone 4
Near-source influence = more than 10 km to any significant seismic source (Na = 1).
Soil profile = SD
Seismic importance factor = 1.0
Wind does not govern this wall panel design.


1. Out-of-plane lateral design forces.
The wall panel is subdivided into a design strip. Typically, a solid panel is
subdivided into one-foot-wide design strips for out-of-plane design. However,
where wall openings are involved, the entire pier width between openings is
generally used as the design strip for simplicity. The distributed loading accounts
for the strip’s self-weight, as well as the tributary loading from above each
opening.
W3 W1 W2
tributary load area
W3 W2 W1 parapet
roof
design strip
3' × 7'
12' × 14' opening door
4'-0" floor
4'-0"
Figure 6-2. Design strip and distributed out-of-plane loading

1a. Seismic coefficient of wall element.
The wall panel is considered an element of a structure, thus §1632.2 applies in

determining the lateral seismic force. UBC Equations 32-2 and 32-3 are used to
determine forces for design.
ap Ca Ip  hx 
Fp = 1 + 3 Wp (32-2)
Rp  hr 
Except : FP is limited by 0.7CaIpWp ≤ Fp ≤ 4CaIpWp (32-3)
ap = 1.0 Table 16-O
Rp = 3.0 Table 16-O
Ca = 0.44 Table 16-Q
Ip = 1.0 Table 16-K
Therefore, the limits on Fp are: 0.308Wp ≤ Fp ≤ 1.76Wp
hx is defined as the attachment height above grade level. Since the wall panel is
connected at two different heights, an equivalent lateral force will be obtained
using the average of the roof Fp and the at-grade Fp [ref. 1999 SEAOC Blue Book
Commentary §C107.2.3].
(1.0)(0.44)(1.0)  hr 
Fp roof = 1 + 3 Wp = 0.587Wp
3.0  hr 
(1.0)(0.44)(1.0)  0
Fp grade = 1 + 3 Wp = 0.147Wp ,
3.0  hr 
but Fp min = 0.308Wp governs.
Fp grade + Fp roof 0.587 + 0.308

Fp wall = = = 0.448Wp
2 2
Note: The seismic coefficient 0.448 is virtually the same as the 1994 UBC
coefficient 0.30 when adjusted for strength design and the different seismic zone
coefficient Ca defaults:
0.448Wp  0.40 
Fp (1994 UBC equivalent) =   = 0.291 ≈ 0.30
1.4  0.44 

1b.
1b Load combinations for strength design.
For this example, the use of load combination (12-5) of §1612.2.1 is applicable,
and governs for concrete strength design under seismic loading.
1.2D + 1.0E + (f1L + f2S) (12-5)
where:
D = self weight of wall and dead load of roof
L = 0 (floor live load)
S = 0 (snow load)
E = ρEh + Ev where ρ = 1.0 (§1632.2) and Ev = 0.5CaID (30-1)
Load combination (12-5) reduces to:
(1.2 + 0.5CaI)D + 1.0Eh or (1.2 + 0.22)D + 1.0Eh
or 1.42D + 1.0Eh
Note: Exception 2 under §1612.2.1, which multiplies strength design load

combinations by 1.1, has been determined to be inappropriate by SEAOC and
others, and has not been included in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book, Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. For the purposes of this example,
the 1.1 multiplier has been included in order to conform to the 1997 UBC as
originally published. For additional information, see “Design of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC,” by S.K. Ghosh, published in Building
Standards, May-June 1998, ICBO.
Load combination (12-5) increases to:
1.1(1.42D + 1.0Eh) = 1.56D + 1.1Eh
1c.
1c Lateral out-of-plane wall forces.
The lateral wall forces Eh are determined by multiplying the wall’s tributary weight
by the lateral force coefficient. Three different distributed loads are determined due
to the presence of two door openings of differing heights. See Figure 6-2.
9.25
Wall weight = 150 pcf = 116 lb/ft2
12
( )
Fp wall = 0.448 116 lb/ft 2 = 52lb/ft 2
W1 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 4 ft = 208 plf
W2 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 3/2 ft = 78 plf
W3 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 12/2 ft = 312 plf

2. Basic moment from out-of-plane forces.
W3 W2 W1 7,212 lbs
W 3=312 plf 14' x

maximum moment
W 2=78 plf 7'
W 1=208 plf 7'
4,618 lbs
Loading Shear Moment
Figure 6-3. Corresponding loading, shear, and moment diagrams
Locate the point of zero shear for maximum moment. Ignore the parapet’s negative
moment benefits in reducing the positive moment for simplicity of analysis. If the
designer decides to use the parapet’s negative moment to reduce the positive
moment, special care should be taken to use the shortest occurring parapet height.
For this analysis, the seismic coefficient for the parapet shall be the same as that for
the wall below (ap = 1.0, not 2.5). The parapet should be checked separately later,
but is not a part of this example.
This example conservatively assumes the maximum moment occurs at a critical

section width of 4'-0". In cases where the maximum moment occurs well above the
doors, a more comprehensive analysis could consider several critical design
sections, which would account for a wider design section at the location of
maximum moment and for a narrower design section with reduced moments near
the top of the doors.

2a.
2a Determine the shear reactions at each support.
Rgrade = shear reaction at grade level for design strip
Rroof = shear reaction at roof level for design strip

Rgrade = 208
(28)2
+ 78
(21)2
+ 312
(14 )2  1
= 4,618 lbs

 2 2 2  28
Rroof = [208( 28) + 78( 21) + 312(14)] − 4618 = 7,212 lbs
Determine the distance of the maximum moment from the roof elevation
downward (Figure 6-3):
7212
X = =12.1 feet to point of zero shear (maximum moment)
(208 + 78 + 312)
2b.
2b Determine Mu basic
This is the primary strength design moment, excluding p-delta effects and vertical
load eccentricity effects, but including the 1.1 load factor (see the earlier discussion
of this load factor in Step 1b, above):

Mu basic = 1.17212(12.1) − (208 + 78 + 312 )
(12.1)2 
 = 47,837 lb-ft
 2 
Mu basic = 47.8 k-ft
3. Vertical design forces acting on the center pier.
The pier’s vertical loads are comprised of a roof component Proof and a wall
component Pwall. The applicable portion of the wall component is the top portion
Pwall top above the design section.
Proof = gravity loads from the roof acting on the design strip
The appropriate load combinations using strength or allowable stress design do not
include roof live load in combination with seismic loads. However, strength
designs considering wind loads must include a portion of roof live loads per
§1612.2.1.

Proof = (roof dead load) x (tributary width of pier) x (tributary width of roof)
 3 12  40
Proof = (12 psf ) 4 + +  = 2,760 lb
 2 2 2
Note: When concentrated gravity loads, such as from a girder, are applied to
slender walls, the loads are assumed to be distributed over an increasing width at a
slope of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal down to the flexural design section height
(§1914.8.2.4).
Pwall top = the portion of the wall’s self weight above the flexural design
section. It is acceptable to assume the design section is located midway
between the floor and roof levels
 3 12   28 
Pwall top = (116 psf ) 4 + +   + 4  = 24,012 lbs
 2 2  2 
Ptotal = Proof + Pwall top = 2760 + 24012 = 26,772 lbs
Check the vertical service load stress for applicability of the slender wall design
method (UBC §1914.8.2 item 1). Use the net concrete section considering the
reveal depth:
Ptotal 26772
stress = = = 66 psi < 0.04 f c′ = 0.04(3000) = 120 psi o.k.
Aconc 48 (9.25 − 0.75)
The compressive stress is low enough to use the alternative slender wall method;
otherwise a different method, such as the empirical design method (§1914.5),
would be required along with its restrictions on wall height.
4. Nominal moment strength φMn.
The nominal moment strength φMn is given by the following equation:

 a
φMn = φAsefy d − 
 2
where:
0.2 Pu 0.2 (1.56) ( 26772)
φ = 0.9 − = 0.9 − = 0.83 §1909.3.2.2
0.10 f c′ Aconc 0.10 ( 3000) ( 48) (9.25 − 0.75)
Pu + Asfy 1.56 ( 26772) + 7 (0.31) (60000)

Ase = = = 2.87 in. 2
fy 60000
Pu + Asfy 1.56 ( 26772) + 7 (0.31) (60000)

a= = = 1.40 in.
0.85 f c′b 0.85 (3000) ( 48)

Reinforcing depth is based on new tilt-up cover provision §1907.7.1 item 4.
d = thickness − reveal − cover − tie diameter − 1 2 bar diameter
d = 9 1 4 − 3 4 − 1 − 3 8 − (1 2 )(5 8 ) = 6.8 in.
3/4" reveal
#3 ties
9 1/4"
thick
d = depth
Figure 6-4. Design section
Thus:
 1.40 
Mn = 2.87 (60000)  6.8 −  = 1050 k − in = 87.5 k − ft
 2 
φMn = 0.83 (87.5) = 72.6 k − ft
Verify that Mcr < φMn to determine the applicability of the slender wall design
method (UBC §1914.8.2 item 3). Mcr is defined uniquely for slender walls in
UBC §1914.0.
(9.25) 3
Ig 5 3000 ( 48)
M cr = 5 f c′ = 12 = 187,458 lb − in. = 15.6 k − ft §1914.0
yt 9.25
2
M cr = 15.6 k − ft < φ M n = 72.6 k − ft o.k.
Sufficient reinforcing is provided to use the alternative slender wall method,

otherwise the empirical design method of UBC §1914.5 would be necessary.
Note: For the purposes of §1914.8.2 item 3, Ig and yt are conservatively based on
the gross thickness without consideration for reveal depth. This approach creates a
worst-case comparison of Mcr to φMn. In addition, the exclusion of the reveal depth
in the Mcr calculation produces more accurate deflection values when reveals are
narrow.

Verify the reinforcement ratio ρ ≤ 0 .6ρ b to determine the applicability of the

slender wall design method (§1914.8.2 item 2):
0.85β1 f c′ 87000 0.85(0.85)3000 87000

0.6ρ b = 0.6 = 0.6 = 0.0128 (8-1)
fy 87000 + f y 60000 (87000 + 60000)
As 7(0.31)
ρ= = = 0.0066 < 0.0128 o.k.
bd 48(6.8)
Therefore, the slender wall method is applicable.
5. Factored moment, including eccentricity and p-delta effects.
Determine the design moment including the effects from the vertical load
eccentricity and p-delta (P∆):
Mu = Mu basic + Mu eccentricity + Mu P∆
Use the figures below to determine Mu eccentricity and Mu P∆:
eccentricity "e" eccentricity "e"

H H
Proof Proof
Pwall top lc
2 Pwall top
lc
deflected shape
M
Pwall bottom
2 ∆n ∆n
3 3
Figure 6-6. Freebody of upper half
2∆n ∆n
3 3
Figure 6-5. Vertical loading

5a.
5a Determine force component H from statics (moment about base of wall).
From Figure 6-5, assuming a parabolic deflected shape:
2∆ n
( Pwall top + Pwall bottom ) − Proof e
H= 3
lc
Since the panel’s openings are not positioned symmetrically with the panel’s
mid-height, Pwall bottom will be less than Pwall top. For ease of calculation,
conservatively assume Pwall bottom = Pwall top, as is similar to panels without openings.
4 Pwall top ∆ n Proof e

H = −
3l c lc
5b.
5b Determine moment component M from statics using Figure 6-6 to account for
∆ effects:
eccentricity and P∆
∆n l
M = Proof (∆ n + e) + Pwall top +H c
3 2
e
M = Proof + ( Pwall top + Proof )∆ n
2
5c.
5c Determine the wall's deflection at full moment capacity ∆n.
5M n l c2
∆n = §1914.8.4
48E c I cr
where:
Mn is from Step 4.
E c = 57 f c′ = 3122 ksi §1908.5.1

bc 3 a 1.40
I cr = nAse ( d − c ) 2 + ; where c =
= = 1.65 in.
3 0.85 0.85
29,000 48(1.65) 3
I cr = 2.87(6.8 − 1.65) 2 + = 779 in. 4
3,122 3

5 (87.5) ( 28) 2 (12) 3

∆n = = 5.1 in.
48 (3122) (779)
Section 1914.8.3 requires the maximum potential deflection ∆n be assumed in the

calculation of the P∆ moment, unless a more comprehensive analysis is used. An
iterative approach or use of a moment magnifier are examples of acceptable “more
comprehensive” analyses, but are beyond the scope of this example.
5d.
5d Determine and check the total design moment Mu.
Mu = Mu basic + Mu eccentricity + Mu P∆
e
(
Mu = 47.8 + Pu roof + Pu wall top + Pu roof ∆ n
2
)
1 9.25 − 0.75  1 1
Mu = 47.8 + 1.56( 2.76)  4 +  + 1.56( 24.0 + 2.76)(5.1)
2 2  12 12
Mu = 47.8 + 1.5 + 17.7
Mu = 67.0k − ft < φM n = 72.6k − ft o.k. (14-2)
Therefore, the design section’s strength is acceptable.
6. Service load out-of-plane deflection.
6a.
6a Determine if the wall’s cross-section is cracked.
The service load moment Ms is determined with the following formula where the
denominators are load factors to convert from load combination (12-5) to load
combination (12-13):
M u basic M u eccentricity
Ms = + + M s P∆
1.1 (1.4) 1.56
lc
Assume the service load deflection is the maximum allowed :
150
lc 28 (12)
∆s Maximum = = = 2.24 in. (14-3)
150 150
( )
M s P∆ = Pwall + Proof ∆ s = (24.0 + 2.76 ) 2.24 = 59.9 k − in. = 5.00 k − ft
M u basic M u eccentricity
Ms = + + M s P∆
1.1(1.4) 1.56

47.8 1.5
Ms = + + 5.00 = 37.0 k − ft
1.1(1.4) 1.56
M cr = 15.6k − ft < M s
Therefore, section is cracked and Equation (14-4) is applicable for determining ∆s.
If the section is uncracked, Equation (14-5) is applicable.
6b.
6b Determine the deflection at initiation of cracking ∆cr.
5M cr l c 2 5 (15.6) ( 28) 2 (12) 3

∆ cr = = = 0.22 in. §1914.8.4
48E c I g ( 48) (9.25) 3
48 (3122)
12
Ig is based on gross thickness, without consideration for the architectural reveal

depth, since this produces more accurate results when the reveals are narrow.
6c.
6c Determine and check the service load deflection ∆s.
 M − M cr 
∆ s = ∆ cr +  s (∆ n − ∆ cr ) (14-4)
 M n − M cr 
 37.0 − 15.6 
∆ s = 0.22 +   (5.1 − 0.22 ) = 1.67 in.
 87.5 − 15.6 
lc
∆ s = 1.67 in. < = 2.24 in. o.k. §1914.8.4
150
Therefore, the proposed slender wall section is acceptable using the alternative
slender wall method.

7. Special horizontal reinforcing.
7a.
7a Determine the horizontal reinforcing required above the largest wall opening for
out-of-plane loads.
The portion of wall above the twelve-foot-wide door opening spans horizontally to
the vertical design strips on each side of the opening. This wall portion will be
designed as a one-foot unit horizontal design strip and subject to the out-of-plane
loads computed in this example earlier.
Fp wall = 0.448(116 lbs/ft2) = 52 lb/ft2
The moment is based on a simply supported horizontal beam with the 1.1
multiplier per Exception 2 under §1612.2.1:

M u = 1.1 F p
(opening width )2  
 = 1.1 52 12
2 

 8   8 
   
= 1030 lb − ft = 1.03 k − ft
Try using #5 bars at 18-inch spacing to match the same bar size as being used
vertically at the maximum allowed spacing for wall reinforcing.
 a
φMn = φAsfy  d − 
 2
where:
 12 
φ = 0.9 and As = 0.31   = 0.21 in. 2
 18 
Asfy (0.21) ( 60000)

a= = = 0.41 in.
0.85 f c′b 0.85 (3000) (12)
Assume the reinforcing above the opening is a single curtain with the vertical steel
located at the center of the wall’s net section. The horizontal reinforcing in
concrete tilt-up construction is typically place over the vertical reinforcing when
assembled on the ground.
d= 1
2 (thickness − reveal ) − bar diameter
d= 1
2 (9 1 4 − 3 4 ) − 5 8 = 3.63 in.

 0.41 
φMn = 0.9 (.21) (60)  3.63 −  = 38.8 k − in.
 2 
= 3.24 k − ft ≥ 1.03 k − ft o.k.
φMn ≥ M u o.k.
Therefore, the horizontal reinforcing is acceptable.
7b.
7b Typical reinforcing around openings.
Two #5 bars are required around all window and door openings per §1914.3.7. The
vertical reinforcing on each face between the openings provides two bars along
each jamb of the openings, and thus satisfies this requirement along vertical edges.
Horizontally, two bars above and below the openings are required to be provided.
In addition, it is common to add diagonal bars at the opening corners to assist in
limiting the cracking that often occurs due to shrinkage stresses (Figure 6-7).
7c.
7c Required horizontal (transverse) reinforcing between the wall openings.
The style and quantity of horizontal (transverse) reinforcing between the wall
openings is dependent on several factors relating to the in-plane shear wall design
of §1921.6. Sections conforming to “wall piers,” as defined in §1921.1, shall be
reinforced per §1921.6.13. Wall pier reinforcing has special spacing limitations and
is often provided in the form of closed ties. In narrow piers, these ties are often
preferred so as to assist in supporting both layers of reinforcing during
construction, even if not required by the special wall pier analysis (Figure 6-7).
Configurations not defined as wall piers, but which have high in-plane shears, also
have special transverse reinforcing requirements per §1921.6.2.2. In these
situations, the transverse reinforcing is required to be terminated with a hook or
“U” stirrup.

typical horizontal
reinforcing #5 at 18" o.c.
vertical reinforcing (7)

#5 each face
reinforcing around
openings (2) #5
transverse
reinforcing
design section
(see Figure 6-4)
Figure 6-7. Typical wall reinforcing
Commentary
The UBC section on the alternative slender wall method made its debut in the 1988 edition.
It is largely based on the equations, concepts, and full-scale testing developed by the
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California and published in the Report of the
Task Committee on Slender Walls in 1982. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) has
incorporated similar provisions for slender wall design in their publication ACI 318-99.
Tilt-up wall construction has become very popular due to its versatility and its
erection speed. However, wall anchorage failures at the roofline have occurred
during past earthquakes. In response to these failures, the 1997 UBC anchorage
design forces and detailing requirements are significantly more stringent than
they have been under past codes (see Design Example 5).

References
Recommended Tilt-up Wall Design, Structural Engineers Association of Southern

California, 1979. 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 (562)
908-6131.
Report of the Task Committee on Slender Walls, Southern California Chapter

American Concrete Institute and the Structural Engineers Association of
Southern California, 1982.
Brooks, Hugh, The Tilt-up Design and Construction Manual, HBA Publications,
Fourth Edition, 1990. 2027 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Tilt-Up Concrete Structures Reported by ACI Committee 551, American Concrete

Institute, 1997. P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI 48333 (248) 848-3700.
“Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC,” Building

Standards. S.K. Ghosh, ICBO, May-June 1998. 5360 Workman Mill Road,
Whittier, CA 90601


Vertical Irregularity Type 1 Example 1 ! §1629.4.2
Example 1
Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factor §1629.4.2
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of near-source factors. Structures built
within close proximity to an active fault are to be designed for an increased base
shear over similar structures located at greater distances. This example illustrates
the determination of the near-source factors N a and N v . These are used to
determine the seismic coefficients Ca and Cv used in §1630.2.1 to calculate design
base shear.
1. Determine the near-source factors N a and N v for a site near Lancaster, California.
1. Determine N a and N v .
First locate the City of Lancaster in the book Maps of Known Active Fault Near-
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. This is published by
the International Conference of Building Officials and is intended to be used with
the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Lancaster is shown on map M-30. Locate the site
on this map (see figure), and then determine the following:
The shaded area on map M-30 indicates the source is a type A fault. Therefore
Seismic source type: A
The distance from the site to the beginning of the fault zone is 6 km. Another 2 km
must be added to reach the source (this is discussed on page vii of the UBC fault
book). Thus, the distance from the site to the source is 6 km + 2 km = 8 km.
Distance from site to fault zone: 8 km.
Values of N a and N v are given in Tables 16-S and 16-T for distances of 2, 5, 10,
and 15 km. For other distances, interpolation must be done. N a and N v have been
plotted below. For this site, N a and N v can be determined by entering the figures
at a distance 8 km. and using the source type A curves. From this
N a = 1.08
N v = 1.36
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual 1

§1629.4.2 ! Example 1 Vertical Irregularity Type 1
Commentary
The values of N a and N v given above are for the site irrespective of the type of
structure to be built on the site. Had N a exceeded 1.1, it would have been possible
to use a value of 1.1 when determining Ca , provided that all of the conditions
listed in §1629.4.2 were met.
2 SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

2.0
Source Type A
a 1.0 Source Type B
0.0
0 5 10 15
2.0
Source Type A
N
1.0 Source Type B
0.0
0 5 10 15


Introduction to Vertical Irregularities §1629.5.3
Introduction to
Vertical Irregularities
Vertical irregularities are identified in Table 16-L. These can be divided into two
categories. The first are dynamic force distribution irregularities. These are
irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3. The second category are irregularities in load path or
force transfer, and these are Types 4 and 5. The five vertical irregularities are as
follows:
1. Stiffness irregularity—soft story
2. Weight (mass) irregularity
3. Vertical geometric irregularity
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral-force resisting element
5. Discontinuity in capacity—weak story
The first category, dynamic force distribution irregularities, requires that the
distribution of lateral forces be determined by combined dynamic modes of
vibration. For regular structures without abrupt changes in stiffness or mass (i.e.,
structures without “vertical structural irregularities”), this shape can be assumed to
be linearly-varying or a triangular shape as represented by the code force
distribution pattern. However, for irregular structures, the pattern can be
significantly different and must be determined by the combined mode shapes from
the dynamic analysis procedure of §1631. The designer may opt to go directly to
the dynamic analysis procedure and thereby bypass the checks for vertical
irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3.
Regular structures are assumed to have a reasonably uniform distribution of

inelastic behavior in elements throughout the lateral force resisting system. When
vertical irregularity Types 4 and 5 exist, there is the possibility of having localized
concentrations of excessive inelastic deformations due to the irregular load path or
weak story. In this case, the code prescribes additional strengthening to correct the
deficiencies.

Example 2
Vertical Irregularity Type 1 §1629.5.3
For example: A five-story concrete special moment-resisting frame is shown

below. The specified lateral forces Fx from Equations (30-14) and (30-15) have
been applied and the corresponding floor level displacements ∆x at the floor center
of mass have been found and are shown below.
F t + F5
∆S5 = 2.02"
10'
F4
∆S4 = 1.75"
10' Triangula
F3
r shape
∆S3 = 1.45"
10'
F2
∆S2 = 1.08"
10'
F1
∆S1 = 0.71"
12'
1. Determine if a Type 1 vertical irregularity—stiffness irregularity-soft story—exists

in the first story.
Calculations and Discussion Code

Code Reference
1. To determine if this is a Type 1 vertical irregularity, stiffness irregularity—soft

story, there are two tests:
1. The story stiffness is less than 70-percent of that of the story above.
2. The story stiffness is less than 80-percent of the average stiffness of
the three stories above.
If the stiffness of the story meets at least one of these two criteria, the structure is
considered to have a soft story, and a dynamic analysis is generally required under
§1629.8.4 Item 2, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65-
feet in height (see §1629.8.3 Item 3).
The definition of soft story in the code compares values of the lateral stiffness of
individual stories. Generally, it is not practical to use stiffness properties unless
these can be easily determined. There are many structural configurations where the
evaluation of story stiffness is complex and is often not an available output from
computer programs. Recognizing that the basic intent of this irregularity check is to
determine if the lateral force distribution will differ significantly from the linear
pattern prescribed by Equation (30-15), which assumes a triangular shape for the

first dynamic mode of response, this type of irregularity can also be determined by
comparing values of lateral story displacements or drift ratios due to the prescribed
lateral forces. This deformation comparison may even be more effective than the
stiffness comparison because the shape of the first mode shape is often closely
approximated by the structure displacements due to the specified triangular load
pattern. Floor level displacements and corresponding story drift ratios are directly
available from the computer programs. To compare displacements rather than
stiffness, it is necessary to use the reciprocal of the limiting percentage ratios of 70
and 80 percent as they apply to story stiffness or reverse their applicability to the
story or stories above. The following example shows this equivalent use of the
displacement properties.
From the given displacements, story drifts and the story drift ratio values are
determined. The story drift ratio is the story drift divided by the story height. These
will be used for the required comparisons since these better represent the changes
in the slope of the mode shape when there are significant differences in inter-story
heights. (Note: story displacements can be used if the story heights are nearly
equal.)
In terms of the calculated story drift ratios, the soft story occurs when one of the
following conditions exists:
∆S 1 ∆ − ∆S 1
1. When 70 percent of exceeds S 2 ., or
h1 h2
∆S 1
h1
1  (∆S 2 − ∆S 1 ) ( ∆S 3 − ∆S 2 ) (∆S 4 − ∆S 3 ) 
 + + 
3 h2 h3 h4 
The story drift ratios are determined as follows:
∆S1 (0.71 − 0)
= = 0.00493
h1 144
∆S 2 − ∆S1
=
(1 .08 − 0 .71 ) = 0 .00308
h2 120
∆S 3 − ∆S 2
=
(1 . 45 − 1 . 08 ) = 0 . 00308
h3 120
∆S 4 − ∆S 3
=
(1 .75 − 1 .45 ) = 0 .00250
h4 120

1
(0.00308 + 0.00308 + 0.00250 ) = 0.00289
3
∆ 
0.70  S 1  = 0.70 (0.00493 ) = 0.00345 > 0.00308
 h1 
∴ Soft story exists
∆ 
0 .80  S 1  = 0 .80 (0 .00493 ) = 0 .00394 > 0 .00289
 h1 
∴ Soft story exists
Commentary
Section §1630.10.1 requires that story drifts be computed using the maximum
inelastic response displacements ∆M . However, for the purpose of the story drift,
or story drift ratio, comparisons needed for soft story determination, the
displacements ∆S due to the design seismic forces can be used as done in this
example. In the example above, only the first story was checked for possible soft
story vertical irregularity. In practice, all stories must be checked, unless a dynamic
analysis is performed. It is often convenient to create a table as shown below to
facilitate this exercise.
Story Story Drift .7x (Story .8x (Story Avg. of Story Drift Ratio Soft Story
Level Displacement Story Drift Ratio Drift Ratio) Drift Ratio) of Next 3 Stories Status
5 2.02 in. 0.27 in. 0.00225 0.00158 0.00180 ---- No
4 1.75 0.30 0.00250 0.00175 0.00200 ---- No
3 1.45 0.37 0.00308 0.00216 0.00246 ---- No
2 1.08 0.37 0.00308 0.00216 0.00246 0.00261 No
1 0.71 0.71 0.00493 0.00345 0.00394 0.00289 Yes

Vertical Irregularity Type 2 Example 3 ! 1629.5.3
Example 3
Vertical Irregularities Type 2 §1629.5.3
The five-story special moment frame office building has a heavy utility equipment
installation at Level 2. This results in the floor weight distribution shown below:
5 W 5 = 90k
4 W 4 = 110k
3 W 3 = 110k
2 W 2 = 170k
1 W 1 = 100k
A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective

mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent
story. However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter
than the floor below.
At Level 1
1.5 × W1 = 1.5(100k ) = 150k
At Level 3
1.5 × W3 = 1.5(110k ) = 165k
W2 = 170k > 150k
∴ Weight irregularity exists
Commentary
As in the case of irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a

primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape
and lateral load distribution given by Equation (30-15). Consequently, the
appropriate load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis

procedure of §1631, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or
65-feet in height (see §1629.8.3 Item 3)

Example 4
1. Determine if there is a Type 2 vertical weight (mass) irregularity.
A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective

mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent
story. However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter
than the floor below.
At Level 1
1.5 × W1 = 1.5(100k ) = 150k
At Level 3
1.5 × W3 = 1.5(110k ) = 165k
W2 = 170k > 150k
∴ Weight irregularity exists
Commentary
As in the case of irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a

primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape
and lateral load distribution given by Equation (30-15). Consequently, the
appropriate load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis
procedure of §1631, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or
65-feet in height (see §1629.8.3 Item 3).
The lateral force-resisting system of the five-story special moment frame building
shown below has a 25 foot setback at the third, fourth and fifth stories.

1 2 3 4 5
4 @ 25' =
1. Determine if a Type 3 vertical irregularity, vertical geometric irregularity, exists.
A vertical geometric irregularity is considered to exist where the horizontal

dimension of the lateral force-resisting system in any story is more than 130
percent of that in the adjacent story. One-story penthouses are not subject to this
requirement.
In this example, the set-back of Level 3 must be checked. The ratios of the two
levels is

= = 1.33
133 percent > 130 percent
∴ Vertical geometric irregularity exists
Commentary
The more than 130-percent change in width of the lateral force-resisting system
between adjacent stories could result in a primary mode shape that is substantially
different from the triangular shape assumed for Equation (30-15). If the change is a
decrease in width of the upper adjacent story (the usual situation), the mode shape

difference can be mitigated by designing for an increased stiffness in the story with
a reduced width.
Similarly, if the width decrease is in the lower adjacent story (the unusual
situation), the Type 1 soft story irregularity can be avoided by a proportional
increase in the stiffness of the lower story. However, when the width decrease is in
the lower story, there could be an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity
that would require the application of §1630.8.2.
When there is a large decrease in the width of the structure above the first story
along with a corresponding large change in story stiffness that creates a flexible
tower, then §1629.8.3, Item 4 and §1630.4.2, Item 2 may apply.
Note that if the frame elements in the bay between lines 4 and 5 were not included
as a part of the designated lateral force resisting system, then the vertical geometric
irregularity would not exist. However, the effects of this adjoining frame would
have to be considered under the adjoining rigid elements requirements of
§1633.2.4.1.

§1629.5.3 ! Example 5 ! Vertical Irregularity Type 4
Example 5
A concrete building has the building frame system shown below. The shear wall
between Lines A and B has an in-plane offset from the shear wall between Lines C
and D.
1. Determine if there is a Type 4 vertical irregularity, in-plane discontinuity in the

vertical lateral force-resisting element.
A B C D
3 @ 25' = 75’
5
12'
Shear wall
4
12'
3
12' 25'
2
50' Shear wall
12'
1
12'
A Type 4 vertical irregularity exists when there is an in-plane offset of the lateral
load resisting elements greater than the length of those elements. In this example,
the left side of the upper shear wall (between lines A and B) is offset 50-feet from
the left side of the lower shear wall (between lines C and D). This 50-foot offset is
greater than the 25-foot length of the offset wall elements.
∴ In-plane discontinuity exists
Commentary
The intent of this irregularity check is to provide correction of force transfer or load
path deficiencies. It should be noted that any in-plane offset, even those less or
equal to the length or bay width of the resisting element, can result in an
overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that requires the application of
§1630.8.2. When the offset exceeds the length of the resisting element, there is also
a shear transfer discontinuity that requires application of §1633.2.6 for the strength

of collector elements along the offset. In this example, the columns under wall A-B
are subject to the provisions of §1630.8.2 and §1921.4.4.5, and the collector
element between Lines B and C at Level 2 is subject to the provisions of §1633.2.6.

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume III
Steel, Concrete and Cladding
November 2000
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This
publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written
permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publisher

Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 443-8065
E-mail: info@seaoc.org; Web address: http://www.seaoc.org/
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association

of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern California, San
Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural engineering community
in California. This document is published in keeping with SEAOC’s stated mission: “to
advance the structural engineering profession, to provide the public with structures of
dependable performance through the application of state-of-the-art structural engineering
principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to
promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage
research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to
improve their practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.”
Editor: Gail Hynes Shea, Albany, California. Cover photos, clockwise from upper right:
900 E. Hamilton Ave. Office Complex, Campbell, Calif.—Joe Maffei, Rutherford &
Chekene; Clark Pacific; SCBF connection—Buehler & Buehler; UBC; RBS “Dog Bone”
connection—Buehler & Buehler.
Disclaimer
Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California

(SEAOC), and all narrative texts, drawings, calculations, and other information herein,
are published as part of SEAOC’s educational program. The material presented in this
publication is intended for educational purposes only; it should not be used or relied on
for any specific application without the competent examination and verification of its
accuracy, suitability, and applicability to a specific project by a qualified structural
engineer. While the information presented in this publication is believed to be correct,
neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers, editors, individuals,
or entities which have in any way contributed to it make any warranty, express or
implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of and/or
reference to the text, drawings, calculations, samples, references, opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication. Users of this publication
and its contents assume all liability arising from such use.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................vi
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
How to Use This Document ................................................................................................ 3
Notation ............................................................................................................................... 4
Design Example 1
1A Special Concentric Braced Frame ....................................................................... 19
1B Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame ..................................................................... 67
1C Chevron Braced Frame........................................................................................ 77
Design Example 2
Eccentric Braced Frame ............................................................................................. 89
Design Example 3
3A Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame............................................................. 143
3B Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame........................................................... 189
Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Wall......................................................................................... 209
Design Example 5
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams...................................................... 237
Design Example 6
Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame............................................................. 271
Design Example 7
Precast Concrete Cladding....................................................................................... 313
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC) iii

iv SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
Preface
Preface
This document is the third volume of the three-volume SEAOC Seismic Design Manual.
The first volume, Code Application Examples, was published in April 1999. The second
volume, Building Design Examples: Light Frame, Masonry and Tilt-up was published in
April 2000. These documents have been developed by the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Their purpose is
to provide guidance on the interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building
Officials (ICBO), and in SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary (also called the Blue Book).
The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the
Commentary of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic provisions,
and everyday structural engineering design practice. While the Seismic Design Manual
illustrates how the provisions of the code are used, the examples shown do not
necessarily illustrate the only appropriate methods of seismic design, and the document
is not intended to establish a minimum standard of care. Engineering judgment must be
exercised when applying these Design Examples to real projects.
Volume I: Code Application Examples, provides step-by-step examples of how to use

individual code provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period.
Volumes II and III: Design Examples furnish examples of the seismic design of common
types of buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are
designed to show, calculation-by-calculation, how the various seismic requirements of
the code are implemented in a realistic design.
Volume III contains ten examples. These illustrate the seismic design of the following
structures:
1. Three steel braced frames (special, ordinary, and chevron)

2. Eccentric braced frame
3. Two steel moment-resisting frames (special and ordinary)
4. Concrete shear wall
5. Concrete shear wall with coupling beams
6. Concrete special moment-resisting frame
7. Precast concrete cladding
It is SEAOC’s present intention to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition
of the building code used in California. Work is presently underway on an 2000
International Building Code version.
Ronald P. Gallagher
Project Manager
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997UBC) v

Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Authors
engineers. These individuals are California registered civil and structural engineers
and SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set up by the
SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and experience
with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The Consultants for
Volumes I, II and III are:

Robert Clark
David A. Hutchinson
Jon P. Kiland
John W. Lawson
Joseph R. Maffei
Douglas S. Thompson
Theodore C. Zsutty
Volume III was written principally by David A. Hutchinson (Design Examples 1A,
1B and 1C, and 3A and 3B), Jon P. Kiland (Design Examples 2 and 6), Joseph R.
Maffei (Design Examples 4 and 5), and Robert Clark (Design Example 7). Many
useful ideas and helpful suggestions were offered by the other consultants.
Steering Committee
Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was
made up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural
engineers and have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering
Committee attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the
document. The Steering Committee consisted of:

Stephen K. Harris
Martin W. Johnson
Scott A. Stedman
vi SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Reviewers
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members, and other structural engineers, helped check the
examples in Volume III. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent
to these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as
following individuals is gratefully acknowledged:
Vin Balachandran S. K. Ghosh Harry (Hank) Martin, (AISC)

Raymond Bligh Jeff Guh James O’Donnell
Dirk Bondy Ronald Hamburger Richard Phillips
David Bonowitz Douglas Hohbach Paul Pina
Robert Chittenden Dominic Kelly Mehran Pourzanjani
Michael Cochran Edward Knowles Rafael Sabelli
Anthony Court Kenneth Lutrell C. Mark Saunders
Juan Carlos Esquival Robert Lyons David Sheppard
Brent Forslin Peter Maranian Constantine Shuhaibar
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained

during the development of the document. The 1999-2000 Committee reviewed the
document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their assistance
is gratefully acknowledged.
1999-2000
Martin W. Johnson, Chair H. John Khadivi
Saif Hussain, Past Chair Jaiteeerth B. Kinhal
David Bonowitz Robert Lyons
Robert N. Chittenden Simin Naaseh
Tom H. Hale Chris V. Tokas
Stephen K. Harris Michael Riley, Assistant to the Chair
Douglas C. Hohbach
Y. Henry Huang
Saiful Islam
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC) vii

In keeping with two of its Mission Statements: (1) “to advance the structural
engineering profession” and (2) “to provide structural engineers with the most
current information and tools to improve their practice”, SEAOC plans to update
this document as seismic requirements change and new research and better
understanding of building performance in earthquakes becomes available.
Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to
the following:

Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 443-8065
E-mail: info@seaoc.org; Web address: http://www.seaoc.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this
document is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed,
these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaoc.org or on the
ICBO website at http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not
issue written errata.
viii SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Seismic Design
Manual
Volume III
Steel, Concrete and Cladding

Introduction
Introduction
Seismic design of new steel and concrete buildings, and precast cladding, for the
requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) is illustrated in this
document. Ten examples are shown:
1A Steel special concentric braced frame

1B Steel ordinary concentric braced frame
1C Steel chevron braced frame
2 Eccentric braced frame
3A Steel special moment-resisting frame
3B Steel ordinary moment-resisting frame
4 Concrete shear wall
5 Concrete shear wall with coupling beams
6 Concrete special moment-resisting frame
7 Precast concrete cladding
The buildings selected are for the most part representative of construction types
found in Zones 3 and 4, particularly California and the western states. Designs
have been largely taken from real world buildings, although some simplifications
were necessary for purposes of illustrating significant points and not presenting
repetitive or unnecessarily complicated aspects of a design.
The Design Examples are not complete building designs, or even complete
seismic designs, but rather they are examples of the significant seismic design
aspects of a particular type of building.
In developing these Design Examples, SEAOC has endeavored to illustrate

correct use of the minimum provisions of the code. The document is intended to
help the reader understand and correctly use the design provisions of UBC
Chapter 16 (Design Requirements), Chapter 19 (Concrete), and Chapter 22
(Steel). Design practices of an individual structural engineer or office, which may
result in a more seismic-resistant design than required by the minimum
requirements of UBC, are not given. When appropriate, however, these
considerations are discussed as alternatives.
In some examples, the performance characteristics of the structural system are

discussed. This typically includes a brief review of the past earthquake behavior
and mention of design improvements added to recent codes. SEAOC believes it is
essential that structural engineers not only know how to correctly interpret and
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC) 1

Introduction
apply the provisions of the code, but that they also understand their basis. For this
reason, many examples have commentary included on past earthquake
performance.
While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, references are made
to the provisions of SEAOC’s 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Provisions and
Commentary (Blue Book). When differences between the UBC and Blue Book are
significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader.
2 SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)

Each Design Example is presented in the following format. First, there is an

“Overview” of the example. This is a description of the building and the seismic
aspects to be designed. This is followed by an “Outline” indicating the tasks or
steps to be illustrated in each example. Next, “Given Information” provides the
basic design information, including plans and sketches given as the starting point
for the design. This is followed by “Calculations and Discussion,” which provides
the solution to the example. Some Design Examples have a subsequent section
designated “Commentary.” The commentary is intended to provide a better
understanding of aspects of the example and/or to offer guidance to the reader on
use of the information generated. Finally, references and suggested reading are
given at the end of the example. Some Design Examples have a section entitled
“Factors that Influence Design” that provides remarks on salient design points.
Because the document is based on the UBC, UBC notation is used throughout.
However, notation from other codes is also used. In general, reference to UBC
sections and formulas is abbreviated. For example, “1997 UBC Section 1630.2.2”
is given as §1630.2.2 with 1997 UBC (Volume 2) being understood.
“Formula (32-2)” is designated Equation (32-2) or just (32-2) in the right-hand
margins of the Design Examples. Similarly, the phrase “Table 16-O” is understood
to be 1997 UBC Table 16-O. Throughout the document, reference to specific code
provisions, tables, and equations (the UBC calls the latter formulas) is given in the
right-hand margin under the heading Code Reference.
When the document makes reference to other codes and standards, this is generally
done in abbreviated form. Generally, reference documents are identified in the
right-hand margin. Some examples of abbreviated references are shown below.
Right-Hand
Margin Notation More Complete Description
Table 1-A AISC-ASD Table 1-A of Ninth Edition, American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction,
Allowable Stress Design, 1989.
AISC-Seismic §15.3b Section 15.3b of the American Institute of Steel

Construction, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 1997.
SEAOC C402.8 Section C402.8 of Commentary of SEAOC

Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary (Blue Book), 1999.

Notation
Notation
with that used in the UBC and other codes such as ACI and AISC. Some additional
notations have also been added. The reader is cautioned that the same notation may
be used more than once and may carry entirely different meaning in different
situations. For example, E can mean the tabulated elastic modulus under the AISC
definition (steel) or it can mean the earthquake load under §1630.1 of the UBC
(loads). When the same notation is used in two or more definitions, each definition
is prefaced with a brief description in parentheses (e.g., steel or loads) before the
definition is given.

covered by all overhangs and projections
ABM = cross-sectional area of the base material
Ab = area of anchor, in square inches
Ac = the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls

in the first story of the structure
Ach = cross-sectional area of a structural member measured out-to-

out of transverse reinforcement
Acv = net area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and

length of section in the direction of shear force considered

the first story of a shear wall, in square feet
Af = flange area
Ag = gross area of section
Ap = the effective area of the projection of an assumed concrete

failure surface upon the surface from which the anchor
protrudes, in square inches
As = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement

Notation
Ash = total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement

(including crossties) within spacing s and perpendicular to
dimension hc
Ask = area of skin reinforcement per unit height on one side face
As,min = minimum amount of flexural reinforcement
Ast = area of link stiffener
Av = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, or area of

shear reinforcement perpendicular to flexural tension
reinforcement within a distance s for deep flexural members
Avd = total area of reinforcement in each group of diagonal bars in a

diagonally reinforced coupling beam
Avf = area of shear-friction reinforcement
Aw = (web) link web area
Aw = (weld) effective cross-sectional area of the weld
Ax = the torsional amplification factor at Level x
a = (concrete) depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
a = (concrete spandrel) shear span, distance between concentrated

load and face of supports
ac = coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete

strength to wall strength
ap = in-structure component amplification factor, given in §1632

and Table 16-O of UBC
b = (concrete) width of compression face of member
bf = flange width
bw = web width
b/t = member width-thickness ratio
Ca = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-Q of UBC

Notation
Ce = combined height, exposure, and gust factor coefficient as

given in Table 16-G of UBC
Cq = pressure coefficient for the structure or portion of structure

under consideration as given in Table 16-H
Ct = numerical coefficient as given in §1630.2.2
Cv = seismic coefficient as set forth in Table 16-R
Cm = coefficient defined in Section H1 of AISC-ASD
c = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis
D = dead load on a structural element
De = length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the direction

parallel to the applied forces
d = effective depth of section (distance from extreme compression

fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement)
db = (anchor bolt) anchor shank diameter
db = (concrete) bar diameter
dz = column panel zone depth
E = (steel) modulus of elasticity
EI = flexural stiffness of compression member
E, Eh, Em, Ev, Fi, Fn= (loads) earthquake loads set forth in §1630.1
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, in psi
Es = (concrete) modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
e = EBF link length
Fa = axial compressive stress that would be permitted if axial force

alone existed
Fb = bending stress that would be permitted if bending moment

alone existed
FBM = nominal strength of the base material to be welded

Notation
FEXX = classification number of weld metal (minimum specified

strength)
Fp = design seismic force on a part of the structure
Fu = specified minimum tensile strength, ksi
Fw = (steel LRFD) nominal strength of the weld electrode material
Fw = (steel ASD) allowable weld stress
Fy = specified yield strength of structural steel
Fyb = Fy of a beam
Fyc = Fy of a column
Fye = expected yield strength of steel to be used
Fyf = Fy of column flange
Fyh = (steel) specified minimum yield strength of transverse

reinforcement
Fyw = Fy of the panel-zone steel
fa = computed axial stress
fb = bending stress in frame member
f c' = specified compressive strength of concrete
fct = average splitting tensile strength of lightweight aggregate

concrete
fut = minimum specified tensile strength of the anchor
12 π 2 E
F' e =
23(Kλb / rb )2
fi = lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (30-10)
fm' = specified compressive strength of masonry
fp = equivalent uniform load

Notation
fr = modulus of rupture of concrete
Ftt = through-thickness weld stresses at the beam-column interface
fy = (concrete) specified yield strength of reinforcing steel
f x, f y, f r = (steel) weld stresses at connection interface
g = acceleration due to gravity
h = overall dimensions of member in direction of action

considered
hc = (concrete) cross-sectional dimension of column core, or shear

wall boundary zone, measured center to center of confining
reinforcement
hc = (steel) assumed web depth for stability
he = assumed web depth for stability
hi, hn,hx = height in feet above the base to Level i, n, or x, respectively
hr = height in feet of the roof above the base
hw = height of entire wall or of the segment of wall considered
I = (loads) importance factor given in Table 16-K
I = (concrete) moment of inertia of section resisting externally

applied factored loads
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete
Ig = (concrete, neglecting reinforcement) moment of inertia of

gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting
reinforcement
Ig = (concrete, transformed section) moment of inertia of cracked

section transformed to concrete.
Ip = importance factor specified in Table 16-K
Ise = moment of inertia of reinforcement about centroidal axis of

member cross section

Notation
It = moment of inertia of structural steel shape, pipe or tubing

about centroidal axis of composite member cross section
Iw = importance factor as set forth in Table 16-K of UBC
K = (steel) effective length factor for prismatic member
k = effective length factor for compression member
L = (loads) live load due to occupancy and moveable equipment, or

related internal moments and forces
L = (steel) unbraced beam length for determining allowable bending

stress
Lp = limiting laterally unbraced length for full plastic flexural

strength, uniform moment case
lc = (steel RBS) length of radius cut in beam flange for reduced

beam section (RBS) design
lc = length of a compression member in a frame, measured from

center to center of the joints in the frame
lh = distance from column centerline to centerline of hinge for

reduced bending strength (RBS) connection design
ln = clear span measured face to face of supports
lu = unsupported length of compression member
lw = length of entire wall, or of segment of wall considered, in

direction of shear force.
Level i = level of the structure referred to by the subscript i; i = 1

designates the first level above the base
Level n = the level that is uppermost in the main portion of the structure
Level x = the level that is under design consideration; x = 1 designates

the first level above the base
M = (steel) maximum factored moment
Mc = factored moment to be used for design of compression

member

Notation
Mcl = moment at centerline of column
Mcr = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to externally

applied loads (see §1911.4.2.1)
MDL, MLL, Mseis = unfactored moment in frame member
Mf = moment at face of column
Mm = (concrete) modified moment
Mm = (steel) maximum moment that can be resisted by the member

in the absence of axial load
Mn = nominal moment strength at section
Mp = (concrete) required plastic moment strength of shearhead

cross-section
Mp = (steel) nominal plastic flexural strength, Fy Z
Mpa = nominal plastic flexural strength modified by axial load
Mpe = nominal plastic flexural strength using expected yield

strength of steel
Mpr = (concrete) probable moment strength determined using a

tensile strength in the longitudinal bars of at least 1.25 fy and a
strength reduction factor φ of 1.0
Mpr = (steel RBS) probable plastic moment at the reduced beam

section (RBS)
Ms = (concrete) moment due to loads causing appreciable sway
Ms = (steel) flexural strength; member bending strength at plastic

capacity ZFy
Mu = (concrete) factored moment at section
Mu = (steel) required flexural strength on a member or joint
My = moment corresponding to onset of yielding at the extreme

fiber from an elastic stress distribution

Notation
M1 = smaller factored end moment on a compression member,

positive if member is bent in single curvature, negative if bent
in double curvature
M2 = larger factored end moment on compression member, always

positive
Na = near-source factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic

forth in Tables 16-S and 16-U
Nv = near-source factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic

structure to known faults with magnitudes and to slip rates as
set forth in Tables 16-T and 16-U
P = (steel) factored axial load
P = (wind) design wind pressure
PDL, PLL, Pseis = unfactored axial load in frame member
Pb = nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions (see

§1910.3.2)
Pbf = connection force for design of column continuity plates
Pc = (concrete) critical load
Pc = (concrete anchorage) design tensile strength
Pe = (23/12)F'e A, where F'e is as defined in Section H1 of

AISC-ASD
Pn = nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity, or nominal

axial strength of a column
Po = nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity
Psc = 1.7 Fa A
Psc,Pst = strength level axial number force for connection design or

axial strength check (see §2213.5)
Psi = Fy A

Notation
Pu = (concrete) factored axial load, or factored axial load at given

eccentricity
Pu = (steel) nominal axial strength of a column, or required axial

strength on a column or a link
Pu = (concrete anchorage) required tensile strength from loads
Py = nominal axial yield strength of a member, which is equal to

Fy Ag
PDL = axial dead load
PE = axial load on member due to earthquake
PLL = axial live load
qs = wind stagnation pressure at the standard height of 33 feet, as

set forth in Table 16-F

overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral force
resisting systems, as set forth in Table 16-N or 16-P
Rn = nominal strength
Rnw = nominal weld strength
Rp = component response modification factor, given in §1632.2

and Table 16-0
Ru = required strength
Ry = ratio of expected yield strength Fye to the minimum specified

yield strength Fy
r = (loads) a ratio used in determining ρ (see §1630.1)
r = (steel) radius of gyration of cross section of a compression

member
ry = radius of gyration about y axis
s = spacing of shear or torsion reinforcement in direction parallel to

longitudinal reinforcement, or spacing of transverse reinforcement
measured along the longitudinal axis

Notation
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S F = soil profile types as set forth in Table 16-J
SRBS = section modulus at the reduced beam section (RBS)

structure in the direction under consideration
tf = thickness of flange
tw = thickness of web
tz = column panel zone thickness
U = required strength to resist factored loads or related internal

moments and forces
V = the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by

Formula (30-5), (30-6), (30-7) or (30-11)
Vc = (concrete) nominal shear strength provided by concrete
Vc = (concrete anchorage) design shear strength
VDL, VLL, Vseis = unfactored shear in frame member
Vn = (concrete) nominal shear strength at section
Vn = (steel) nominal shear strength of a member
Vp = (steel) shear strength of an active link
Vpa = nominal shear strength of an active link modified by the axial

load magnitude
Vs = (concrete) nominal shear strength provided by shear

reinforcement
Vs = (steel) shear strength of member, 0.55 Fy dt
Vu = (concrete anchorage) required shear strength from factored

loads
Vu = (concrete) factored shear force at section, including shear

magnification factors for overstrength and inelastic dynamic
effects
Vu = (loads) factored horizontal shear in a story

Notation
Vu = (steel) required shear strength on a member
Vu * = factored shear force at section, including shear magnification

factors for overstrength and inelastic dynamic effects
Vx = the design story shear in story x
W = (seismic) the total seismic dead load defined in §1620.1.1
W = (wind) load due to wind pressure
Wp = the weight of an element of component
wc = weights of concrete, in pcf

respectively
wpx = the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary thereto
at Level x, including applicable portions of other loads
defined in §1630.1.1
wz = column panel zone width
Z = (loads) seismic zone factor as given in Table 16-I
Z = (steel) plastic section modulus
ZRBS = plastic section modulus at the reduced beam section (RBS)
∆ = design story drift
∆M = maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the total

drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is
subjected to the design basis ground motion, including
deformation, as defined in §1630.9
∆O = relative lateral deflection between the top and bottom of a

story due to Vu, computed using a first-order elastic frame
analysis and stiffness values satisfying §1910.11.1
∆S = design level response displacement, which is the total drift or

total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to
the design seismic forces

Notation
δί = horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due to

applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (30-10)
φ = (concrete) capacity reduction or strength reduction factor (see

§1909.3)
φb = (steel) resistance factor for flexure
φc = (steel) resistance factor for compression
φv = resistance factor for shear strength of panel zone of beam-to-

column connections
∝ = (concrete) angle between the diagonal reinforcement and the

longitudinal axis of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam
∝, β = (steel) centroid locations of gusset connection for braced

frame diagonal
∝c = coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete

strength to wall strength
βc = ratio of long side to short side of concentrated load or reaction

area
β1 = factor defined in §1910.2.7.3
ρ = (loads) redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (30-3)
ρ = (concrete) ratio of nonprestressed tension reinforcement (As/bd)
ρb = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions (see

§1910.3.2)
ρn = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement parallel to the plane of Acv

to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement.
ρs = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of core (out-

to-out of spirals) of a spirally reinforced compression member
ρv = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement perpendicular to the plane

of Acv to gross concrete area Acv
λ = lightweight aggregate concrete factor; 1.0 for normal weight

concrete, 0.75 for “all lightweight” concrete, and 0.85 for “sand-
lightweight” concrete

Notation
λp = limiting slenderness parameter for compact element
la = length of radius cut in beam flange for reduced beam section (RBS)
connection design
lh = distance from column centerline to centerline of hinge for RBS

connection design
ln = clear span measured face to face of supports
lu = unsupported length of compression member
lw = length of entire wall or of segment of wall considered in

direction of shear force
Ωo = (loads) seismic force amplification factor, which is required to

account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table 16-N
Ωo = (steel) horizontal seismic overstrength factor
µ = coefficient of friction

References
References
ACI-318, 1995. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Regulations for

Reinforced Concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
AISC-ASD, 1989. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel

Construction, Allowable Stress Design, Chicago, Illinois, 9th Edition.
AISC-LRFD, 1994. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel

Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, Illinois, 2nd
Edition.
AISC-Seismic. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute

of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, April 15, 1997 and Supplement No. 1,
February 15, 1999.
SEAOC Blue Book, 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and

Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
UBC, 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code,

Whittier, California.

Design Example 1A ! Special Concentric Braced Frame
Design Example 1A
Special Concentric Braced Frame
Figure 1A-1. Four-story steel frame office building with special concentric braced frames (SCBF)
Foreword
Design Examples 1A, 1B and 1C show the seismic design of essentially the same
four-story steel frame building using three different concentric bracing systems.
" Design Example 1A illustrates a special concentric braced frame (SCBF).
" Design Example 1B illustrates an ordinary concentric braced frame (OCBF).
" Design Example 1C illustrates a chevron braced frame design.
These Design Examples have been selected to aid the reader in understanding
design of different types of concentric braced frame systems. Design of eccentric
braced frames (EBFs) is illustrated in Design Example 2.

Overview
The 4-story steel frame office structure shown in Figure 1A-1 is to have special
concentric bracing as its lateral force resisting system. The typical floor plan is
shown on Figure 1A-2, and a building section is shown in Figure 1A-3.
Figure 1A-4 depicts a two-story x-brace configuration and elevations. Design of
the major lateral force resisting structural steel elements and connections uses
AISC Allowable Stress Design (ASD).
The 1997 UBC design provisions for special concentric braced frames (SCBFs) are
attributed to research performed at the University of Michigan. The basis for SCBF
bracing is the proportioning of members such that the compression diagonals
buckle in a well behaved manner, without local buckling or kinking that would
result in a permanent plastic deformation of the brace. Research performed has
demonstrated that systems with this ductile buckling behavior perform well under
cyclic loading. Several references are listed at the end of this Design Example.
Figure 1A-2. Typical floor framing plan

Figure 1A-3. Typical building section
Elevation A Elevation B
Figure 1A-4. Braced frame elevations

Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process:
1. Design base shear.
2. Distribution of lateral forces.
3. Interstory drifts.
4. Typical diaphragm design.
5. Braced frame member design.
6. Bracing connection design.
Given Information
Roof weights: Floor weights:

Insulation 3.0 Concrete fill on metal deck 44.0
Concrete fill on metal 44.0 Ceiling 3.0
deck
Ceiling 3.0 Mechanical/electrical 5.0
Mechanical/electrical 5.0 Steel framing 9.0
Steel framing 7.0 Partitions 10.0
66.0 psf 72.0 psf
Live load: 20.0 psf Live load: 80.0 psf
Exterior wall system weight:

steel studs, gypsum board, metal panels 15 psf
Structural materials:
Wide flange shapes ASTM A36 (Fy = 36 ksi)
Tube sections ASTM A500 grade B (Fy = 46 ksi)
Weld electrodes E70XX
Bolts ASTM A490 SC
Shear Plates ASTM A572 grade 50 (Fy = 50 ksi)
Gusset plates ASTM A36 (Fy = 36 ksi)

Site seismic and geotechnical data:

Occupancy category: Standard Occupancy Structure §1629.2
Seismic Importance Factor: I=1.0 Table 16-K
Soil Profile Type “Stiff Soil”: Type S D (default §1629.3, Table 16-J
profile)
Seismic zone: Zone 4, Z = 0.4 §1629.4.1, Table 16-I
Seismic Zone 4 near-source factors:
Seismic source type: Type B §1629.4.2
Distance to seismic source: 8 km Table 16-U
Near source factors: N a = 1.0, N v = 1.08 Tables 16-S, 16-T
The geotechnical report for the project site should include the seismologic criteria
noted above. If no geotechnical report is forthcoming, ICBO has published Maps of
Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of
Nevada [ICBO, 1998]. These maps (prepared by the California Department of
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, in cooperation with the Structural
Engineers Association of California) provide a means for easily determining the
seismic source type and distance to the seismic source.
Factors that Influence Design
Requirements for design of steel braced frames are given in the 1997 UBC. These
cover special concentric braced frames (SCBF), ordinary concentric braced frames
(OCBF), and chevron (or V) braced frames. After the adoption of the 1997 UBC
provisions by ICBO, the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings (AISC-Seimsic) became available. Although not adopted into the code,
these represent the state-of-the-art and are recommended by SEAOC, particularly
for design of SCBF connections.
The following paragraphs discuss some important aspects of braced frame design.
This discussion is based on SEAONC seminar notes prepared by Michael
Cochran, SE.
Permissible types of concentric braced frames.

Shown in Figure 1A-5 are various types of concentric braced frames permitted by
the code. Each of these can be design as either an ordinary concentric braced frame
(OCBF) or a special concentric braced frame (SCBF). It should be noted that the
only difference between an SCBF and an OCBF is the connection detailing and
some prescriptive code requirements.

a. Zipper b. 2-story-X c. X-bracing d. Inverted V e. V-bracing

(or chevron)
Figure 1A-5. Permissible types of braced frames
All of the frames shown in Figure 1A-5 are essentialy variations on the chevron
brace, except for the one-story X-brace (Figure 1A-5c). Single diagonal braced
frames are also permissible by the code, but these are heavily penalized since they
must take 100 percent of the force in compression unless multiple single diagonal
braces are provided along the same brace frame line.
Grades of steel used in SCBFs.

SCBF members are typical wide flange sections (ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi, or
A572, grade 50, Fy = 50 ksi), tube sections (ASTM A500, grade B, Fy = 46 ksi),
or pipes (ASTM A53, grade B, Fy = 35 ksi).
When designing brace connections, the actual yield strength of the steel needs
to be considered. The AISC-Seismic provisions address this overstrength issue
using the R y factor, which is not addressed by the UBC or considered in this
Design Example. The gusset plate material used in SCBF connections should be of
equal yield strength to the brace member. Since the actual expected yield strength
of most structural sections used as brace members is in excess of 50 ksi, the
strength of the gusset plate material should be at least 50 ksi. High strength steel is
required in order to keep the gusset plate thickness and dimensions to a minimum.
Use of A36 material (as shown in this Design Example) will generally result in
larger connections.
Brace behavior.
Concentric braced frames are classified by the UBC as either ordinary or special.
The title “special” is given to braced frames meeting certain detailing and design
parameters that enable them to respond to seismic forces with greater ductility. The
Blue Book Commentary is an excellent reference for comparison and discussion of
these two systems.

Both inverted V-frames and V-frames have shown poor performance during
past earthquakes due to buckling of the brace and flexure of the beam at the
midspan connection instead of truss action, therefore the zipper, 2-story-X and
X-bracing schemes are the preferred configurations.
Figure 1A-6. Chevron brace post-buckling

stage and potential hinging of columns
The SEAOC Blue Book (in Section C704) has gone as far to recommend that
chevron bracing should not be used unless it is in the Zipper or 2 story x
configuration in high seismic zones. The reader is referred to the SEAOC Blue
Book for a further discussion on chevron braces.
Generally, the preferred behavior of bracing is in-plane buckling when fixity is

developed at the end connections and three hinges are required to form prior to
failure of the brace. The problem is that it is difficult to develop this type of fixity
when you are using gusset plate connections which tend to lend themselves to out-
of-plane buckling of the brace and behave more like a pin connection.
There are limited structural shapes availble that can be oriented such that the
brace will buckle in-plane. The following is a list of such shapes:
1. Hollow structural sections about their weak axis, for example, a TS

6x3x1/2 arranged as shown in Figure 1A-7a (Note: there can be a problem
with shear lag in HSS sections).
2. Double angles with short legs back to back (Figure 1A-7b).
3. Wide flange shapes buckling about their weak axis (Figure 1A-7c).

y y
x x x x x
y y y
a. Flat tube (HSS) b. Double angles (SLV) c. Wide flange (weak axis)
Figure 1A-7. Various brace shapes oriented for in-plane buckling
When designing a brace to buckle in-plane, it is recommended that the ratio of

rx ry not exceed 0.65 to ensure that the brace will buckle in-plane.
Two architectural restrictions typically occur that inhibit in-plane buckling.

First, the architect may not want to reduce the floor space by putting the brace
in the flat position, and second, often there are infill steel studs above and
below the brace, which may prevent the brace from buckling in-plane and force
it to buckle out-of-plane.
Both AISC and UBC steel provisions provide an exception that when met,
allow for the brace to buckle out-of-plane. With the predominate use of gusset
plates, this exception is probably used 95 percent of the time in brace design.
The brace connection using a vertical gusset plate has a tendancy to buckle out-
of-plane due to the lack of stiffness in this direction.
As can be seen in the Figure 1A-8, the gusset plate has significantly less stiffness in
the out-of-plane direction. If the brace is symmetrical, you have a 50-50 chance as
to whether it will buckle in-plane or out-of-plane, and the end connections then
have a great influence as to how the brace will actually buckle. Since there is
significantly less stiffness in the out-of-plane direction, the brace will buckle out-
of-plane.
When a brace buckles out-of-plane relative to the gusset plate, it attempts to form a
hinge line in the gusset plate. In order for the brace to rotate and yield about this
hinge line (act as a pin connection), the yield lines at each end of the brace must be
parallel. This is illustrated in Figure 1A-9 and Figure 1A-10.

buckling perpendicular to
gusset plate (least resistance)
x
yield line
(hinge)
x
gusset plate
x
Figure 1A-8. In-plane vs out-of-plane buckling of braces;

gusset plate stiffness can influence brace buckling direction
Plan view
force
yield line
C
T
Isometric view
Figure 1A-9. Out-of-plane buckling of the brace; gusset plates resist axial loads
without buckling, but can rotate about the yield line to accommodate the brace buckling

yield line 90 degrees to

slope of brace
Figure 1A-10. Yield line in gusset plate must be

perpendicular to the brace axis
To ensure that rotation can occur at each end of the brace without creating restraint,
the axis of the yield line must be perpendicular to the axis of the brace.
Another requirement to allow for rotation about the yield line to occur, is a
minimum offset from the end of the brace to the yield line, as shown in
Figure 1A-11. If this distance is too short, there physically is insufficent distance to
accomodate yielding of the gusset plate without fracture. Figure 1A-11 depicts the
minimum offset requirement of the building codes. Due to erection tolerances and
other variables, it is recommended that this design offset not be less than three
times the gusset plate thickness (3t).
2t (min) 4t plastic hinge forms

(max offset at yield line
brace
gusset plate (t)
yield line 90 degrees

to slope of brace
Beam
Figure 1A-11. Yield line offset requirements; in practice 3t is

often used to allow for erection tolerances

There has been a misconception in some previous interpetations of the yield

line offset, that all that was necessary was shape the end of the brace relative to
the yield line so that they both were parallel to each other. Inherently, what
happens is that the yield lines at the opposite ends of the brace are not parallel
(see Figure 1A-10 for parallel yield line illustration) to each other and restraint
builds up in the gusset plate as it attempts to buckle out-of-plane. The only way
to relieve the stress is for the gusset plate to tear at one end of the brace, until
the yield lines at each end of the brace are again parallel to each other.
possible yield line 90 degrees to axis of brace

2t offset
(from brace
tip)
brace
detailed 2t
offset from
yield line
gusset plate
theoretical curved yield 2t offset

line as gusset attempts (clamp force)
to bend around tip
Beam
Note: This detail is not recommended.
Figure 1A-12. Shaping end of brace creates restraint
Figure 1A-12 (not recommended) depicts what happens when you try to shape the
end of the brace to match the yield line slope. Due to the offset in the end of the
brace, the yield line will attempt to bend around corner of the brace. This creates
several problems, in that it is impossible to bend the plate about a longer curved
line, since the curve creates more stiffness than a shorter straight line between two
points that wants to be the hinge. The end tip of the brace along the upper edge is
generally not stiff enough to cause a straight yield line to bend perpendicular to the
brace axis about the tip end of the brace since there is only one side wall at this
location to apply force to the gusset plate.

Detailing considerations.
Floor slabs, typically metal deck and concrete topping slab in steel frame buildings,
can cause additional restraint to buckling out-of-plane and must be taken into
account during design.
If the yield line crosses the edge of the gusset plate below the concrete surface,
more restraint occurs, the gusset plate will likely tear along the top of the concrete
surface.
The SCBF connections design details in Design Example 1A have been simplified,
but need to consider the potential restraint that occurs due to the floor deck since it
will impact the gusset plate design. To keep the gusset plate size as small as
possible, the gusset plate should be isolated from the concrete slab so the yield line
can extend below the concrete surface. Figure 1A-13 shows how the gusset plate
could be isolated from restraint caused by the slab. Note that the entire gusset plate
does not have to be isolated, just that area where the yield line occurs. The
compressible material which can be used would be a fire caulk that has the same
required fire rating as the floor system.
compressible material
gusset plate
2t (min) 4t 1" ±
(max) offset
Plan
brace
gusset plate
yield line 90 degrees concrete slab
to slope of brace
compressible
material each side
of gusset plate .
2" min Beam
Figure 1A-13. For the yield line to develop in the gusset plate,
the gusset plate must be isolated from the slab

A recent development in the design of gusset plate connections is the need to

consider the length of the unstiffened edge of the gusset plate and the possibility of
a premature buckling. For additional information about this subject, as well as
additonal gusset plate design and sizing criteria such as the “Critical Angle
Concept” and other practical design information, the reader is referred to the recent
SEAONC (May, 2000) and SEAOSC (November, 1999) seminar notes on the
design and detailing of SCBF steel connections.
Field inspection of SCBFs.

Because of the critical importance of the connections, the actual field erection of
SCBFs must be carefully inspected. Shop drawings often show erection aids such
as clip angles and erection bolts. These are used to properly center the brace on the
gusset plate. In the case of tube bracing, it is very common to have an erection bolt
hole placed at each end of the brace. Occasionally, erector crews ignore these
erection aids while placing the bracing over the gusset plates and making the
weldments without verifying that the required 2t to 4t offset from the yield line has
been maintained.
The design engineer needs to remember that structural steel is erected using the
shop drawings and that the structural drawings are often not checked, even though
it is common practice to provide some form of general note that states “shop
drawings are an erection aid, and structural drawings shall take precedent over the
shop drawings…”.
The following is a list of items that should be included in the checklist given to the
Special Inspector:
1. Verify that the 2t minimum, 4t maximum offset from the yield line to brace
end is maintained at each end of the brace.
2. Verify that the 1-inch minimum offset from the brace to the edge of the
gusset plate is maintained and that the gusset plate edge slopes are the same
slopes as shown on shop drawings and structural drawings.
3. Verify that the gusset plate yield line has been isolated from the concrete
slab and that is is away from an edge stiffener plates.

Calculations
1. Design base shear. §1630.1
1a. Check configuration requirements. §1629.5, Table 16-L
The structure is L-shaped in plan and must be checked for vertical and horizontal
irregularities.
Vertical irregularities. Review Table 16-L.
By observation, the structure has no vertical irregularities; the bracing is consistent

in all stories with no discontinuities or offsets, and the mass is similar at all floor
levels.
Plan irregularities. Review Table 16-M. §1633.2.9, Table 16-M, Items 6 & 7
The building plan has a re-entrant corner with both projections exceeding 15
percent of the plan dimension, and therefore is designated as having Plan
Irregularity Type 2. Given the shape of the floor plan, the structure is likely to have
Torsional Irregularity Type 1. This condition will be investigated with the
computer model used for structural analysis later in this Design Example.
Plan Irregularity Type 2 triggers special consideration for diaphragm and collector
design, as delineated in §1633.2.9, Items 6 and 7.
1b. Classify structural system and determine seismic factors. §1629.6
The structure is a building frame system with lateral resistance provided by special
concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) (System Type 2.5.a per Table 16-N). The
seismic factors are:
R = 6.4
Ω o = 2.2
hmax = 240 ft §1630.3, Table 16-N

1c. Select lateral force procedure. §1629.8
The static lateral force procedure is permitted for irregular structures not more than
five stories or 65 feet in height (§1629.8.3). Although the structure has a plan
irregularity, it is less than 65 feet in height. A dynamic analysis is not required, so
static lateral procedures will be used.
1d. Determine seismic response coefficients Ca and Cv. §1629.4.3
For Zone 4 and Soil Profile Type S D :
C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.08) = 0.69 Table 16-R
1e. Evaluate structure period T. §1630.2.2
Per Method A:
T A = C t (hn ) 4 C t = 0.020
3
(30-8)
T A = 0.02(62 )
3
4 = 0.44 sec
Per Method B:
From three-dimensional computer model, the periods are:
TB = 0.66 sec
East-west direction:
TB = 0.66 sec
Maximum value for TB = 1.3 T A = 1.3(0.44) = 0.57 sec
Therefore, upper bound on period governs use T = 0.57 sec §1630.2.2

1f. Determine design base shear.
The total design base shear for a given direction is determined from Equation
(30-4). Since the period is the same for both directions, the design base shear for
either direction is:
Cv I 0.69(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.189W (30-4)
RT 6.4(0.57 )
Base shear need not exceed:
2.5Ca I 2.5(0.44)(1.0 )
V = W = = 0.172W (30-5)
R 6.4
For Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than:
0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4 )(1.08)(1.0)

V = W = = 0.054W (30-7)
R 6.4
Equation (30-5) governs base shear.
∴ V = 0.172W
1g. Determine earthquake load combinations. §1630.1
Section 1630.1.1 specifies earthquake loads. These are E and E m as set forth in
Equations (30-1) and (30-2).
E = ρE H + E v (30-1)
Em = Ω o E H (30-2)
The normal earthquake design load is E . The load E m is the estimated maximum
earthquake force that can be developed in the structure. It is used only when
specifically required, as will be shown later in this Design Example.
Before determining the earthquake forces for design, the reliability/redundancy

factor must be determined.
20
Reliability/redundancy factor ρ = 2 − (30-3)
rmax Ab

Ab = (180)2 + 180(132 + 192 ) = 90,720 ft 2
To estimate an initial value for ρ , for purposes of preliminary design, an

assumption for the value of rmax is made. For rmax , assume that the highest force in
any brace member is 10 percent greater than average for the 18 total braces.
1.10
∴ rmax = = 0.061 §1630.1.1
18
and:
20
ρ = 2− = 0.91
0.061(90,720 )1 / 2
and:
1.0 ≤ ρ ≤ 1.5
∴ Use ρ = 1.0
The value for ρ should be confirmed upon completion of the computer analysis for
the brace forces.
For load combinations of §1612, E and E m are as follows:
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0(V ) (30-1)
( E v = 0 since allowable stress design is used in this Design Example)
Em = Ω o Eh = 2.2(V ) (30-2)
Note that seismic forces may be assumed to act non-concurrently in each principal
direction of the structure, except as per §1633.1.
2a. Calculate building weights and mass distribution.
Calculated building weights and centers of gravity at each level are given in
Table 1A-1. Included is an additional 450 kips (5.0 psf) at the roof level for
mechanical equipment. Building mass properties are summarized in Table 1A-2.
Braced frame locations are noted in Figure 1A-14 below.

A denotes two braced bays

B denotes one braced bay
Figure 1A-14. Braced frame location plan
Table 1A-1. Building weight

Roof Weight (1)
Mark2
w DL Area Wi X cg Ycg ( )
W X cg ( )
W Ycg
(psf) (sf) (kips) (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs)
I 71 23,760 1,687 90 66 151,826 111,339
II 71 32,400 2,300 90 222 207,036 510,689
III 71 34,560 2,454 276 222 677,238 544,735
Walls 15 16,416 246 168 175 41,368 43,092
Totals 6,687 1,077,468 1,209,855
∴ X cg = 1,077,468 6,687 = 161.1 ; Ycg = 1,209,885 6,687 = 180.9
4th, 3rd, & 2nd Floor Weights (2)
Mark2
w DL Area Wi X cg Ycg ( )
W X cg ( )
W Ycg
(psf) (sf) (kips) (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs)
I 72 23,760 1,711 90 66 153,965 112,908
II 72 32,400 2,333 90 222 209,952 517,882
III 72 34,560 2,488 276 222 686,776 552,407
Walls 15 20,520 308 168 175 51,710 53,865
Totals 6,840 1,102,404 1,237,061
∴ X cg = 1,102,404 6,840 = 161.1 ; Ycg = 1,237,061 6,840 = 180.9
Note:
1. Roof weight: wDL = 66.0 + 5.0add'l mech = 71.0 psf ; exterior walls: wwall = 15 psf ;
wall area = (7.5 + 4.5)(1,368 ft ) = 16,416 ft 2

2. wDL = 72.0 psf ; exterior walls: wwall = 15 psf ; wall area = (15)(1,368 ft ) = 20,520 ft 2

(1)
Table 1A-2. Mass properties summary
WDL X cg Ycg
Level M (2) MMI (3)
(kips) (ft) (ft)
Roof 6,687 161.1 180.9 17.3 316,931
4th 6,840 161.1 180.9 17.7 324,183
3rd 6,840 161.1 180.9 17.7 324,183
2nd 6,840 161.1 180.9 17.7 324,183
Total 27,207 70.4
Notes:
1. Mass (M) and mass moment of inertia (MMI) are used in analysis for
determination of fundamental period (T).
2. M = (W 3.86.4 )(kip ⋅ sec in.)
( )(
3. MMI = (M A) I x + I y kip ⋅ sec 2 ⋅ in )
2b. Determine design base shear.
As noted above, Equation (30-5) governs, and design base shear is:
V = 0.172W = 0.172(27207) = 4,680 kips
2c. Determine vertical distribution of force. §1630.5
For the static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each
level is applied as follows:
V = Ft + ∑ Fi (30-13)
where:
Ft = 0.07T (V )
Except Ft = 0 where T ≤ 0.7 sec (30-14)
For this structure Ft = 0 , and the force at each level is
(V − Ft )W x hx  W h 
Fx = = V  x x 
 (30-15)
∑ Wi hi  ∑ Wi hi 

The vertical distribution of force to each level is given in Table 1A-3 below.
Table 1A-3. Distribution of base shear

wx hx w x hx w x hx Fx ΣV
Level
(kips) (ft) (k-ft) Σw x hx (kips) (kips)
Roof 6,687 62 414,594 0.39 1,811.3
4th 6,840 47 321,480 0.30 1,404.5 1,811.3
3rd 6,840 32 218,880 0.20 956.2 3,215.8
2nd 6,840 17 116,280 0.11 508.0 4,172.0
Total 27,207 1,071,234 1.00 4,680.0 4,680.0
2d. Determine horizontal distribution of force. §1630.6
Structures with concrete fill floor decks are generally assumed to have rigid
diaphragms. Forces are distributed to the braced frames per their relative rigidities.
In this Design Example, a three-dimensional computer model is used to determine
the distribution of seismic forces to each frame.
For rigid diaphragms, an accidental torsion must be applied (in addition to any
natural torsional moment), as specified in §1630.6. The accidental torsion is equal
to that caused by displacing the center of mass 5 percent of the building dimension
perpendicular to the direction of the applied lateral force.
For our structural computer model, this can be achieved by combining the direct
seismic force applied at the center of mass at each level with the accidental
torsional moment (M z ) at that level.
North-south seismic:
M t = 0.05(372 ft )Fx = (18.6)Fx
East-west seismic:
M t = 0.05(312 ft )Fx = (15.6 )Fx
Using the direct seismic forces and accidental torsional moments given in
Table 1A-4, the distribution of forces to the frames is generated by computer
analysis. (For the computer model, member sizes are initially proportioned by
preliminary hand calculations and then optimized by subsequent iterations.)

Table 1A-4. Accidental torsional moments

Fx N-S M t E-W M t
Level
(kips) (k-ft) (k-ft)
Roof 1,811.3 33,690 28,256
4th 1,404.5 26,124 21,910
3rd 956.2 17,785 14,917
2nd 508.0 9,449 7,925
From the computer analysis, forces in each bracing member are totaled to obtain
the seismic force resisted by each frame. The frame forces are then summed and
compare to the seismic base shear for a global equilibrium check. Forces at the
base of each frame are summarized in Table 1A-5 below:
Table 1A-5. Distribution of forces to frames

Direct Seismic Torsional Force Direct + Torsion
Frame
(kips) (kips) (kips)
East-West Direction
A1 1,023 61 1,084
A2 1,067 65 1,132
A3 1,063 26 1,089
A4 1,018 87 1,105
B1 509 12 521
Total 4,680 4,931
A5 977 77 1,054
North-South Direction
A6 937 76 1,013
A7 1,005 13 1,018
A8 1,280 134 1,414
B2 481 6 487
Total 4,680 4,986
Note that the torsional seismic component is always additive to the direct seismic
force. Sections 1630.6 and 1630.7 require that the 5 percent center-of-mass
displacement be taken from the calculated center-of-mass, and that the most severe
combination be used for design.
2e. Determine horizontal torsional moments. §1630.7
As shown above, the accidental torsional moment has been accounted for as
required by §1630.6. However, we must check for a torsional irregularity (per
Table 16-M, Type 1) to determine if a torsional amplification factor (Ax ) is
required under the provisions of §1630.7.

Torsional irregularity exists when the drift at one end of the structure exceeds
1.2 times the average drifts at both ends, considering both direct seismic forces
plus accidental torsion. For this evaluation, total seismic displacements at the roof
level are compared. The displacements in Table 1A-6 below are taken from the
computer model for points at the extreme corners of the structure.
Table 1A-6. Roof displacements

North-South @ Line A @ Line N Average Ratio (max/avg)
Direction 0.95 in 1.3 in 1.125 1.16 o.k.
East-West @ Line 1 @ Line 11 Average Ratio (max/avg)
Direction 1.05 in 1.22 in 1.135 1.07 o.k.
Because the maximum drift is less than 1.2 times the average drift, no torsional
irregularity exists. The relative displacements at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors are
similar to those at the roof; no torsional irregularities were found to exist at those
levels.
3. Interstory drift.
3a. Determine ∆s and ∆m. §1630.9
The design level response displacement (∆ S ) is obtained from a static elastic

analysis using the seismic forces derived from the design base shear. When
determining displacements, §1630.10.3 eliminates the upper limit on TB , allowing
for a reduction in seismic forces calculated using Equation (30-4). For this
example, the base shear could be reduced about 5 percent using TB with Equation
(30-4), with a proportional reduction in calculated drifts.
The maximum inelastic response displacement (∆ M ) includes both elastic and

estimated inelastic drifts resulting from the design basis ground motion:
∆ M = 0.7(R )∆ S = 0.7(6.4 )∆ S = 4.48∆ S (30-17)
The greatest calculated values for ∆ S and ∆ M are to be used, including torsional
effects. For determination of ∆ M , P∆ effects must be included. Story drift ratios
are calculated from lateral displacements at each level for both the north-south and
east-west directions (as generated by the computer analysis), and are presented in
the Table 1A-7.

Table 1A-7. Story displacements and drift ratios

Story Height (in.) ∆S (in.) ∆M (in.) Drift Ratio (1) (2)
4th 180 (1.30-1.04) = 0.26 1.16 0.0064
Displacements
North-South 3rd 180 (1.04-0.70) = 0.34 1.52 0.0084
2nd 180 (0.70-0.34) = 0.36 1.61 0.0089
1st 204 (0.34-0.0) = 0.34 1.52 0.0075
4th 180 (1.22-0.98) = 0.24 1.08 0.0060

Displacements
East-West
3rd 180 (0.98-0.67) = 0.31 1.39 0.0077
2nd 180 (0.67-0.34) = 0.33 1.48 0.0082
1st 204 (0.34-0.0) = 0.34 1.52 0.0075
Notes:
1. Interstory drift ratio = ∆ M /story height.
2. Maximum drift occurs at Line N for north-south direction and Line 11 for
east-west direction.
3b. Determine story drift limitation. §1630.10
Story drift limits are based on the maximum inelastic response displacements,
∆ M . For structures with T < 0.7 the maximum allowable drift is 0.025 times the
story height. A review of drift ratios tabulated in Table 1A-7 shows that all
interstory drift ratios are less than 0.025 using the period of Equation (30.4).
(Note: Using the full value for TB would result in a lower base shear and smaller
story displacement.)
The building has rigid diaphragms at all levels, including the roof. In this Part,
seismic forces on each diaphragm will be determined, and the roof level diaphragm
designed. The roof was selected because it is the most heavily loaded diaphragm.
4a. Determine diaphragm load distribution. §1633.2.9
In multistory buildings, diaphragm forces are determined by the following formula:
Ft + ∑ Fi
F px = (w px ) (33-1)
∑ wi
where:
0.5C a IW px < F px ≤ 1.0C a IW px §1633.2.9 Item 2

The diaphragm forces at each level, with the upper and lower limits, are calculated
as shown in Table 1A-8.
Table 1A-8. Diaphragm forces (kips)

Level Fi ΣFi wx Σw i Fpx 0.5Ca Iw px 1.0Ca Iw px
Roof 1,811.3 1,811.3 6,687 6,687 1,811.3 1,471.1 2,942.3
4th 1,404.5 3,215.8 6,840 13,527 1,626.1 1,504.8 3,009.6
3rd 956.2 4,172.0 6,840 20,367 1,401.1 1,504.8 3,009.6
2nd 508.0 4,680.0 6,840 27,207 1,176.6 1,504.8 3,009.6
Note: C a = 0.44 and I = 1.0 .
4b. Determine diaphragm shear.
The maximum diaphragm design force occurs at the roof level. To facilitate
diaphragm and collector design, this force is divided by the plan area to obtain an
average horizontal seismic force distribution, q roof .
1,811
q roof = = 0.020 kips/ft 2
90,720
The maximum diaphragm span occurs between Lines A and N, so the north-south
direction will control. Both loading and shear for the roof diaphragm under north-
south seismic forces are shown in Figure 1A-15.
Figure 1A-15. Roof diaphragm north-south seismic load and shear

The computer model assumes rigid diaphragms or load distribution to the frames.
In lieu of an exact analysis, which considers the relative stiffness of the diaphragm
and braced frames, we envelop the solution by next considering the diaphragms
flexible. Shears at each line of resistance are derived assuming the diaphragms
span as simple beam elements under a uniform load.
w1 = q roof (312 ft ) = 0.020(312) = 6.24 kips/ft
w2 = q roof (180 ft ) = 0.020(180 ) = 3.6 kips/ft
Diaphragm shears:
 180 
V A = VGA = 6.24   = 562 k
 2 
 192 
VGN = V N = 3.6   = 346 k
 2 
To fully envelop the solution, we compare the flexible diaphragm shear at Line N
with the force resisted by Frame A8 (Figure 1A-14) assuming a rigid diaphragm.
From the computer model, we find at Frame A8: Froof = 440 k . The force from the
rigid analysis (440 k) is greater than the force from the flexible analysis (346 k), so
the greater force is used to obtain the maximum diaphragm shear at Line N:
q N = 440 180 = 2.44 k/ft at Line N §1612.3.2
Using allowable stress design and the alternate load combinations of §1612.3.2, the
(12-13) basic load combination is:
 E 
  (12-13)
 1.4 
Maximum design shear:
 2.44 
qN =   = 1.74 kips/ft
 1.4 
With 3-1/4 inch lightweight concrete over 3"×20 gauge deck, using 4 puddle welds
per sheet, the allowable deck shear per the manufacturer’s ICBO evaluation report
is:
Vallow = 1.75 > 1.74 kips/ft o.k.

Other deck welds (e.g., parallel supports, seam welds) must also be designed for
this loading.
At seismic collectors, it is good practice to place additional welded studs in every

low flute of the deck for shear transfer.
4c. Determine collector and chord forces.
Using a flexible analysis and assuming diaphragm zone III acts as a simple beam
between Lines G and N (Figure 1A-16), for north-south seismic loads the
maximum chord force on lines 1 and 7 is:
wl 2 3.6(192) 2
CF = = = 92.2 kips §1633.2.9 Items 6 and 7
8d 8(180)
Note that this value must be compared to the collector force at Lines 1 and 7, and
the largest value used for design.
Figure 1A-16. Roof diaphragm zones
For structures with plan irregularity type 2, the code disallows the one-third stress
increase for allowable stress design for collector design (§1633.2.9, Item 6). This
code section also requires chords and collectors be designed considering
“independent movement of the projecting wings,” for motion of the wings in both
the same and opposing directions. There are two ways to achieve this:

1. Use a three dimensional computer model with membrane or thin-shell

diaphragm elements to capture the relative stiffness between the floor and
braces.
2. Make a simplifying assumption that gives reasonable values for collector

forces at the re-entrant corner.
For this example, the second option is chosen.
If each wing is assumed to be flexible relative to the central diaphragm (Zone II),
the wings can be considered as “fixed-pinned” beams. The maximum moment at
Line G is:
w2l 2 3.6(192)2
M fixed = = = 16,589 kips-ft
8 8
The maximum tie force (TG ) along Lines 1 and 7 at the intersections with Line G
is:
TG = 16,589 180 = 92.2 kips
With allowable diaphragm shear of 75 k/ft, this tie force must be developed back
into diaphragm zone II over a length of at least:
92.2 kips
= 37.6 ft
(1.4)1.75 kips/ft
Next, the collector forces for east-west seismic loads are determined. For Zone III
between Lines 1 and 7, the equivalent uniform lateral load is:
w3 = q (depth ) = 0.020(372 ) = 7.44 k/ft
The collector force at Line 1 is:
R1 = 7.44(180 2) = 670 kips
From the computer model, at the roof level the frames on Line 1 (Frames A1 and
A2) resist loads of 405 kips and 425 kips, respectively.
R1 = 405 A1 + 425 A2 = 830 kips > 670 kips

Therefore, the “rigid diaphragm” analysis governs, and the shear flow along Line 1
(q1 ) , is:
q1 = 830 372 = 2.23 kips/ft
As shown in Figure 1A-17, collector forces at points a, b, c, and d are:
Fa = 2.23(30 ) = 67 kips
Fb = 2.23(90 ) + 405 = 204 kips
Fc = 2.23(244 ) + 405 = 140 kips
Fd = 2.23(64 ) = 143 kips
The maximum collector force as shown in Figure 1A-17 is T = 204 kips .
Figure 1A-17. Collector force diaphragm at Line 1
The collector forces for east-west seismic loads exceed the chord forces calculated
for north-south seismic, and therefore govern the collector design at Line 1.
Use maximum T1 = 204 kips and minimum T1 = 140 kips .
The collector element can be implemented using either the wide flange spandrel
beams and connections or by adding supplemental slab reinforcing. In this
example, supplemental slab reinforcing is used. Under §1633.2.6, using the
strength design method, collectors must be designed for the special seismic load
combinations of §1612.4.
E m = Tm = Ω oT = (2.2)T §1633.2.6

Using the factored loads of §1612.4:
Tmu = (1.0 )E m = (1.0 )(2.2 )T §1612.4
Maximum Tmu = 2.2(204) = 449 kips (30-2)
Minimum Tmu = 2.2(140) = 308 kips
Maximum As = Tmu φ f y = 449 0.9 (60) = 8.3 in.2 (12-18)
(
∴ Use 11-#8 As = 8.69 in.2 )
Minimum As = 308 0.9 (60 ) = 5.7 in. 2
∴ Use 8-#8 (As = 6.32 in.2)
On Line 1, place 8-#8 bars continuous from Lines A to N, and additional 3-#8 (for
a total of 11) along frame A1 to Line G. With slab reinforcing, the collected load
must be transferred from the slab to the frame. This can be done with ¾" diameter
headed studs, again using the special seismic load combination of §1612.4.
At Frame A1:
 Ω F  1.0 (2.2 ) 405

vu = 1.0  o A1  = = 14.9 kips/ft
 LA1  60
The shear strength of ¾" diameter headed studs as governed in this case by the
concrete strength ( f ' c = 3,000 psi ) is derived from §1923.3.3:
φVc = φ800 Abλ f 'c = 0.65 (800)(0.44 )(0.75) 3,000 1,000
= 9.4 kips/stud §1923.3.3
The required number of studs per foot (n ) is:
14.9 kips/ft
n= = 1.59 studs/ft
9.4 kips/stud
∴ Use 2-3/4" diameter studs at 12-inch cc over length of Frame A1.

5. Braced frame member design. §2212
In this part, the design of a typical bay of bracing is demonstrated. The design bay,
taken from Elevation A, Figure 1A-4, is shown in Figure 1A-18. Member axial
forces and moments are given for dead, live, and seismic loads as output from the
computer model. All steel framing will be designed per Chapter 22, Division V,
Allowable Stress Design. Requirements for special concentrically braced frames
are given in §2213.9 of Chapter 22.
Figure 1A-18. Typical braced bay
TS brace @ 3rd story:
PDL = 24 kips
PLL = 11 kips
Pseis = 348 kips
PE = ρ (Pseis ) = 1.0(348 ) = 348 kips
WF beam @ 3rd floor:
M DL = 1,600 kip-in.
M LL = 1,193 kip-in.
V DL = 14.1 kips
V LL = 10.3 kips

Pseis = 72 kips
PE = ρ (Pseis ) = 1.0(72 ) = 72 kips
WF column @ 3rd story:
PDL = 67 kips
PLL = 30 kips
Pseis = 114 kips
M seis ≈ 0
PE = 1.0 (Pseis ) = 1.0(114 ) = 114 kips
5a. Diagonal brace design at the 3 story.

rd
§1612.3.1
The basic ASD load combinations of §1612.3.1 with no one-third increase are
used.
E 348
D+ : Ρ1 = 24 + = 273 k (compression) (12-9)
1.4 1.4
E
: Ρ2 = 0.9(24 ) −
348
0.9 D ± = −227 kips (tension) (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E   348 
D + 0.75 L +   : Ρ3 = 24 + 0.7511 + = 219 kips (compression) (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
The compressive axial load of Equation (12-9) controls. The clear unbraced length
(l ) of the TS brace is 18.5 feet, measured from the face of the beam or column.
Assuming k = 1.0 for pinned end,
kl = 1.0(18.5) = 18.5 ft §2213.9.2.1
kl 1,000
Maximum slenderness ratio: ≤
r Fy

1,000
For a tube section, F y = 46 ksi ∴ = 147.4
46
kl 12(18.5)
Minimum r = = = 1.51in. §2213.9.2.4
147.4 147.4
 b  110
Maximum width-thickness ratio   ≤ = 16.2
t Fy
Try TS 8 × 8 × 5 8 :
r = 2.96 > 1.51 in. o.k
b 8
= = 12.8 < 16.2 o.k.
t 0.625
For kl = 19 ft, Pallow = 324 kips > 273 kips o.k. AISC-ASD, pp. 3-41
∴ Use TS8 × 8 × 5 8
5b. rd
Girder design at the 3 floor.
The girder will be designed using the basic load combinations of §1612.3.1 as
noted above. The loads are:
D + L : M D +L = 1,600 + 1,193 = 2,793 kip-in. (12-8)
E 72
D± : Pseis = = 51.4 kips (12-9)
1.4 1.4
  E   72 
D + 0.75 L +   : Pseis = 0.75   = 38.6 kips (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
M D + L+ seis = 1,600 + 0.75(1,193) = 2,495 kip-in.

For the girder, use ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi . Assume that the bottom
beam flange is braced at third points
30
∴ly = = 10.0 ft
3
As a starting point for design, assume a beam with a cross-section area of area of
20 in.2 Find the required beam section modulus.
= 2.6 ksi , and maximum Fa = 0.6(36 ) = 21.6 ksi then,

51.4
fa =
20
fa 2.6
= = 0.12
Fa 21.6
For an allowable bending stress, use:
f b = (1 − 0.12 )(0.60)(36 ) = 19.0 ksi
2,793
∴ S req'd = 147 in.3
19.0
Try W 24 × 68 beam
S = 154 in.3
A = 20.1 in.2
rx = 9.55 in.
ry = 1.87 in.
 kl  12(30 )
  = = 37.7
 r x 9.55
 kl  12 (10.0 )
  = = 64.2
 r y 1.87
Fa = 17.02 ksi (compression governs) AISC-ASD, pp. 3-16

51.4
Maximum f a = = 2.55 ksi
20.1
fa 2.55
= = 0.149 < 0.15 o.k.
Fa 17.02
For combined stresses, use AISC Equation H1-3. AISC-ASD Part 5, Ch. H
Check load combination of Equation (12-8).
fb 2,793
= = 0.84 < 1.0 o.k.
Fb 154(21.6 )
fa f 2.55 1,600
+ b = + = 0.15 + 0.48 = 0.63 < 1.0 o.k.
Fa Fb 17.02 154(21.6 )
fa f 38.6 2,495
+ b = + = 0.11 + 0.75 = 0.86 < 1.0 o.k.
Fa Fb 20.1(17.02 ) 154(21.6 )
∴ Use W 24 × 68 girder
Note that §2213.9.1 requires the girders to be continuous through brace

connections between adjacent columns. For chevron bracing configurations,
several additional requirements are placed on the girder design. Those
requirements are addressed in Design Example 1C. The X-bracing configuration
shown in this Example ensures the desired post-buckling capacity of the braced
frame without inducing the large unbalanced seismic loading on the girder that
occurs in a chevron brace configuration.
5c. rd
Column design at the 3 floor.
The frame columns will also be designed using the basic load combinations of
§1612.3.1 with no one-third increase.
D + L : P0 = 67 + 30 = 97 kips (compression) (12-8)
E 114
D+ : P1 = 67 + = 148.4 kips (compression) (12-9)
1.4 1.4

E
: P2 = 0.9(67 ) −
114
0.9 D ± = 21.1 kips (tension) (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E   114 
D + 0.75 L +   : P3 = 67 + 0.75 30 + = 150.6 kips (compression) (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
Per the requirements of §2213.9.5, the columns must have the strength to resist the
special column strength requirements of §2213.5.1:
ΡDL + 0.7 ΡLL + Ω o ΡE :
Pcomp = 67 + 0.7(30 ) + 2.2(114 ) = 339 kips (compression) §2213.9.5, Item 1
0.85ΡDL ± Ω o ΡE :
Ρtens. = 0.85(67 ) − 2.2(114 ) = −194 kips (tension) §2213.5.1, Item 2
For the columns, ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi will be used.
The unbraced column height (floor height less ½ beam depth) is:
h = 15 − 1 = 14 ft
Try a W 10 × 49 column with kl = 14 ft
Pallow = 242 kips > 150.6 kips o.k. AISC-ASD, pp. 3-30
Check the column for the special column strength requirements of §2213.5 using
member strength per §2213.4.2:
Psc = 1.7 Pallow
Psc = 1.7(242 ) = 411 > 339 kips (compression) o.k.
Pst = F y A = 36(14.4) = 518.4 > 194 kips (tension) o.k. §2213.4.2
Note that §2213.5.2 places special requirements on column splices. To ensure the
column splice can meet the ductility demand from the maximum earthquake force
(E m ) , full-penetration welds at splices are recommended. The splice must occur
within the middle one-third of the column clear height, not less than 4 feet above
the beam flange.
Finally, §2213.9.5 requires that the columns meet the width-thickness ratio limits
of §2213.7.3:

bf
≤ 8.5 for F y = 36 ksi §2213.7.3
2t f
bf
For a W 10 × 49 =
10
(0.56) = 8.9 > 8.5 no good Division III, §2251N7
2t f 2
Try a W 10 × 54
bf
= 8.1 < 8.5 o.k. AISC-ASD, pp. 5-96
2t f
Thus, the column design is governed by the local buckling compactness criterion.
∴ Use W10 x 54
In this part, the connection of the TS8 × 8 brace to the W 10 column and W 24
girder will be designed. Connection of the braces to the mid-span of the girder is
similar, and is shown in Example 1C.
6a. Determine connection design forces. §2213.9.2
Section 2213.9.3.1 requires that bracing connections have the strength to resist the
lesser of:
3. The strength of the brace in axial tension, Pst .
4. Ω o times the design seismic forces, plus gravity loads.
5. The maximum force that can be transferred to the brace by the system.
For the TS8 × 8 × 5 8 brace used in the design bay, the connection force is taken as
the lesser of:
Pst = Fy A = 46(17.4 ) = 800.4 kips controls

or:
Pm = PD + PL + Ω o PE = (24 + 11) + 2.2 (348) = 800.6 kips
∴ Use 800.4 kips for design
6b. Design procedure using the uniform force method.
Based on research by AISC [Thornton, 1991], the Uniform Force Method (UFM)
has been presented as an efficient, reliable procedure for design of bracing
connections. The basis for the UFM is to configure the gusset dimensions so that
there are no moments at the connection interfaces: gusset-to-beam; gusset-to-
column; and beam-to-column. [For more information on the UFM, refer to AISC
1994 LRFD, Volume II, Connections.]
Figure 1A-19 illustrates the gusset configuration and connection interface forces
for the UFM. Note that the distances to the centroids of the gusset connection, ∝
and β , are coincident with the brace centerline. To achieve the condition of no
moments at the interfaces, the following relationship must be satisfied:
∝ − β tan θ = eb tan θ − ec
The connection forces are then given by these equations:
r= (α + ec )2 + (β + eb )2
α
H b =  Ρ
r
e 
Vb =  b  Ρ
 r 
β
Vc =   Ρ
r
e 
H c =  c Ρ
 r 
If the connection centroids do not occur at ∝ and β , moments are induced on the
connection interface. The UFM can also be applied to this condition (see the LRFD
Connections manual for the Special Case No. 2 example). In some cases, it may be
beneficial to first select proportions for the gusset, then design the welds using
unbalanced moments computed per the UFM Special Case No. 2.

6c. Gusset plate configuration and forces.
Application of the UFM essentially involves selecting of gusset dimensions, then

analyzing plate and connection stresses and capacities at the interfaces. It is
inherently a trial and error solution, and can readily be formatted for a spreadsheet
solution. For this example, welded connections are used from gusset-to-beam and
gusset-to-column. The beam-to-column connection will be made with high-
strength bolts.
A suggested starting point for determining the length of weld between gusset and
column (2 β ) is to assume half the total length of weld to the brace. Note that per
the AISC reference, these welds should be designed for the larger of the peak stress
or 140 percent of the average stress. The 40 percent increase is intended to enhance
ductility in the weld group, where gusset plates are welded directly to the beam or
column.
For this example brace connection, these parameters are fixed:
θ = 45°
= 5.0" (W 10 × 54)
10.0
ec =
2
= 11.9" (W 24 × 68)
23.7
eb =
2
α − β tan θ = eb tan θ − ec
α − β(1.0) = 11.9(1.0 ) − 5.0
∴ α = 6.9 + β
After a few trials, the following are selected: α = 15.9" and β = 9.0"
Using the axial strength of the brace, Pst = 800.4 kips , the connection interface
forces are as follows:
r= (15.9 + 5)2 + (9.0 + 11.9)2 = 29.56"
Gusset-to-beam:
 15.9   11.9 
H b = 800.4  = 431 kips , Vb = 800.4  = 322 kips
 29.56   29.56 

Gusset-to-column:
 9.0   5.0 
Vc = 800.4  = 244 kips , H c = 800.4  = 135 kips
 29.56   29.56 
From review of the computer output for the braced frame at the third floor, the
collector force (Ab ) to the beam connection is:
Ab = 41 kips
6d. Brace-to-gusset design.
Bracing connections must have the strength to develop brace member forces per
§2213.9.3.1. The capacities of the connection plates, welds and bolts are
determined under §2213.4.2.
Determine TS brace weld-to-gusset.
For 5/8-in. tube, minimum fillet weld is ¼-in. Try ½-in. fillet weld using E70
electrodes.
Per inch, weld capacity = 1.7(8)(0.928) = 12.62 kips-in. AISC-ASD Table J2.5
800.4
lreq = = 15.9" @ 4 locations
12.62 ( 2)(2)
∴ Use 18-inches of ½-in. fillet each side, each face
Check minimum gusset thickness for block shear:
[
RBS = (1.7 ) 0.30 Av Fu + 0.50 A t Fu ]
Fu = 58 ksi (A36 plate)
where:
Av = net shear area
At = net tension area
For TS 8 × 8 with Lweld = 18 in.
Av = 2(18)t , At = (8)t

RBS = (1.7 )[0.3(36 ) + 0.5(8)](58)(tmin ) = 1,361kips
tmin = 0.93 in.
∴ Use 1-in. plate gusset minimum, ASTM A36, F y = 36 ksi
Check gusset plate compression capacity. §2213.9.3.3
Section 2213.9.3.3 requires the gusset plate to have flexural strength exceeding
that of the brace, unless the out-of-plane buckling strength is less than the in-plane
buckling strength and a setback of 2t is provided as shown in Figure 1A-19. The
gusset plate must also be designed to provide the required compressive capacity
without buckling. The 2t setback is a minimum requirement. A setback of 3t
provides for construction tolerance for brace fit-up, and should be considered
during design.
From Figure 1A-19, the gusset plate provides much greater in-plane fixity for the
tube. The effective length factor (k ) for out-of-plane buckling is by observation
greater than the in-plane factor (k ) , so the out-of-plane buckling strength will be
less than the in-plane buckling strength. The setback of 2t promotes enhanced
post-buckling behavior of the brace by allowing for hinging in the gusset instead of
the brace.
The gusset plate must be designed to carry the compressive strength of the brace
without buckling. Using the Whitmore’s Method (see AISC LRFD Manual Vol.
II), the effective plate width at Line A-A of Figure 1A-19a is:
b = tube width + 2 (λ w ) tan 30° = 8 + 2 (18) tan 30° = 28.8 in.
The unsupported plate length Lu is taken as the centerline length from the end of
the brace to the edge of beam or column. From Figure 1-19a, this length measures
20 in. As recommended by Astaneh-Asl [1998], a value of k = 1.2 will be used.
Maximum l u = 20 in.
t 1.0
r= = = 0.289 in. AISC-ASD, Table C-36
12 3.464
kl 1.2 (20 )
= = 83.0 ∴ for F y = 36 ksi, Fa = 15.0 ksi
r 0.289
Gusset capacity:
Pplate = 1.7(1.0)(28.8)(15.0 ) = 734 kips §2213.4.2

TS 8 × 8 brace compression capacity:
Pbrace = 1.7(324 ) = 551 < 734 kips o.k.
Comment: Where tube sections are slotted for gusset plates, as shown in
Figure 1A-19, recent testing has shown that over-cut slots are of concern. Net
section fracture at the end of the slot should be checked considering shear lag at
the connection. If required, it is recommended that the tube section be reinforced
with a cover plate at the end of the slot.
a. Symbols for connection design b. Force diagram at gusset plate
c. Force diagram at column d. Force diagram at beam
Figure 1A-19. Connection design using the uniform force method (UFM)

6e. Gusset-to-beam design.
In this section, the connection of the 1-inch-thick plate gusset to the W24 beam
will be designed. The weld length from gusset to beam is the plate length less the
1-inch clear distance between the beam and column.
l w = 2(15.9 − 1.0 clr ) = 29.8"
Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are:
Hb 431
fx = = = 7.23 ksi (x-component)
2(l w ) 2(29.8)
Vb 322
fy = = = 5.40 ksi (y-component)
2(l w ) 2(29.8)
2
fr = (7.23)2 + (5.40) = 9.0 ksi (resultant)
For E70 electrodes, the allowable weld strength is: §2213.4.2
Fw = 1.7(0.3)(70 ksi ) = 35.7 ksi
The required weld size is:
9.0
t weld = = 0.36 in.
35.7(0.707 )
Under AISC specifications (Table J2.4), the minimum weld for a 1-inch gusset
plate is 5/16-in., but as noted in Part 6c, we increase the weld size by a factor of
1.4 for ductility.
t weld = 0.36(1.4 ) = 0.50 in. use ½-in. fillet weld
Comparing the double-sided fillet to the allowable plate shear stress, the minimum
plate thickness is:
2 (0.707 )(21)(0.50 )
t pl = = 1.0 in.
0.4 (36.0 )
∴ 1-inch plate o.k.

Check compressive stress in web toe of W 24 × 68 beam:
t w = 0.415 in.
k = 1.375 in.
N = lw = 29.8 in.
R = Vb = 322 kips
R
≤ 1.33(0.66 )F y AISC-ASD, K1.3
t w (N + 2.5 k )
= 23.3 ksi ≤ 1.33 (0.66 )(36 ksi ) = 31.6 ksi

322 kips
o.k.
(0.415)(29.8 + 2.5 (1.375))
6f. Gusset-to-column design.
The gusset plate connection to the column is designed using the same procedure as
the gusset-beam connection.
The weld length to the column is:
lw = 2(9 ) = 18 in.
Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are:
Hc 135
fx = = = 3.75 ksi (x-component)
2(l w ) 2(18)
Vc 244
fy = = = 6.77 ksi (y-component)
2(l w ) 2(18)
fr = (3.75)2 + (6.77 )2 = 7.75 ksi (resultant)
Determine the required weld size, with the 1.4 factor to enhance ductility of the
weld.
 7.75 ksi 
t weld = 1.4   = 0.42 in.
 35.7(0.707 )
∴ ½-in. fillet weld o.k.

Check compressive stress in the web toe of the W 10 × 54 column:
R 135
= = 17.3 ksi AISC-ASD K1.3
t (N + 2.5k ) (0.37 )(18 + 2.5(1.25))
1.33(0.66 )(36 ksi ) = 31.6 ksi > 17.3 ksi o.k.
6g. Beam-to-column connection.
The connection of the W 24 beam to the W 10 column must carry the dead and live
loads on the beam as well as the vertical and horizontal components of the brace
force transferred from the gusset plates to the top and bottom of the beam.
From the diagonal brace above the beam (see Figure 1A-19d), the connection
forces to the beam are:
Ab + H c = 41 + 135 = 176 kips
Rb = V DL + V LL = 14.1 + 10.3 = 24.4 kips
Rb + Vb = 24.4 + 322 = 346 kips
The diagonal brace below the beam also contributes to the beam-to-column
connection forces. The horizontal component from the brace below (H c ) acts
opposite to the brace above, while the vertical component (Vb ) adds to that from
the brace above. The connection forces above are based on the tensile capacity of
the brace, so it is reasonable to use the compressive strength of the brace below.
Assuming a TS8 × 8 × 5 8 -in. brace below:
Psc = 1.7(324 ) = 551 kips
∴ Vb = 322(551 800 ) = 222 kips
H c = 135(551 800) = 93 kips
The net beam-to-column connection forces (as shown in Figure 1A-19b) are:
Ab + H c = 176 − 93 = 83 kips
Rb + Vb = 346 + 222 = 568 kips

Using an eccentricity of ± 3 inches:
M ecc = (3)(568) = 1,704 kip-in.
Try a single shear plate (A572 grade 50) with 2 rows of 7-1¼-inch diameter A490
SC bolts (14 bolts total) and a complete penetration weld from the shear tab to the
column. Slip critical bolts are required for connections subject to load reversal per
AISC. Check the plate and weld stresses with capacities per §2213.4.2. Assuming
a plate thickness of 1-inch, stresses are:
Shear tab length = 6(3") + 3" = 21 in.
83
fx = = 3.95 ksi (x-component)
(21)(1)
568
fy = = 27.0 ksi (y-component)
(21)(1)
Z plastic =
(21)2 = 110.3
4
1,704
f x⋅x = = 15.4 ksi (rotation)
110.3
fr = (27.0)2 + (3.95 + 15.4)2 = 33.2 ksi (resultant)
(
Required minimum plate thickness F y = 50 ksi : )
f r (1) 33.2
t PL = = = 0.66 in.
Fy 50
Try ¾-in. shear tab with complete penetration weld to column. §2213.4.2
Check shear capacity of plate.
Vs = 0.55 F y dt = 0.55 (50 )(21)(0.75) = 433 kips < 568 kips no good
Try 1-inch plate.
 1.0 
Allowable Vc = 433   = 577 kips > 568 kips o.k.
 0.75 
∴Use 1-in. plate shear tab

Check shear plate net area for tension. §2213.9.3.2

§2213.8.3.2
Ae 1.2αF *
≥ (13-6)
Ag Fu
where:
83
F* = = 3.95 ksi
(1.0)(21)
1.2αF * 1.2(1.0 )3.95

= = 0.073
Fu 65
Ae = 21(1.0) − 7 (1.375)(1.0) = 11.38 in.
Ae 11.38
= = 0.54 > 0.073 o.k.
Ag 21.0
Check bolt capacity for combined shear and tension.
Per bolt:
83
Fx = = 5.9 kips
14
568
Fy = = 40.6 kips
14
FR = (5.9)2 + (40.6)2 = 41.0 kips
For 1-1/4-in. diameter A490-SC bolts, the allowable shear bolt is:
Vbolt = 1.7(25.8) = 43.9 kips > 41.0 kips o.k.
∴Use 1¼-inch A90-SC bolts

Commentary
As shown on the frame elevations (Figure 1A-4), a horizontal steel strut has been
provided between the columns at the foundation. Welded shear studs are installed
on this strut with the capacity to transfer the horizontal seismic force resisted by
the frame onto the foundations, through grade beams or the slab-on-grade. This
technique provides redundancy in the transfer of seismic shear to the base, and is
recommended as an alternate to transferring the frame shear force solely through
the anchor bolts.
References
AISC-ASD, 1989. Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design.

American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. 9th Edition.
AISC/LRFD, 1994. Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor

Design. Volumes I and II. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
Illinois. 2nd Edition.
Astaneh-Asl, A., 1998. “Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates,” Steel-
Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council.
Cochran, Michael, 2000. “Design and Detailing of Steel SCBF Connections,”

SEAONC Seminar Series. Structural Engineers Association of California,
Hassan, O. and Goel, S., 1991. Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically
Braced Steel Structures. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan.
ICBO, 1998. Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and
Adjacent Portions of Nevada. International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, California.
Lee, S. and Goel, S., 1987. Seismic Behavior of Hollow and Concrete Filled
Square Tubular Bracing Members. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of
Michigan.
Sabelli, R., and Hohbach, D., 1999. “Design of Cross-Braced Frames for
Predictable Buckling Behavior,” Journal of Structural Engineering. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.125, no.2, February 1999.
Thornton, W., 1991. “On the Analysis and Design of Bracing Connections,”
National Steel Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Steel Construction,
pp. 26.1-26.33 Chicago, Illinois.


Design Example 1B ! Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame
Design Example 1B
Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame
Figure 1B-1. Four-story steel frame office building with ordinary concentric braced frames (OCBF)
Overview
This Design Example illustrates the differences in design requirements for an

ordinary concentric braced frame (OCBF) and a special concentric braced frame
(SCBF) (illustrated in Design Example 1A). The same four-story steel frame
structure from Example 1A is used in this Design Example (Figure 1B-1).
Building weights, dimensions, and site seismicity are the same as Example 1A.
Coefficients for seismic base shear are revised as required for the OCBF. The
“typical design bay” is revised for the OCBF, and the results compared to those for
the SCBF structure.
It is recommended that the reader first review Design Example 1A before reading
this Design Example. Refer to Example 1A for plans and elevations of the
structure (Figures 1A-1 through 1A-4).

In the Blue Book Commentary (C704.12), OCBFs are not recommended for
areas of high seismicity or for essential facilities and special occupancy
structures. SCBFs are preferred for those types of structures, since SCBFs
are expected to perform better in a large earthquake due to their ductile
design and detailing. OCBFs are considered more appropriate for use in
one-story light-framed construction, non-building structures and in areas
of low seismicity.
Outline
1a. Classify the structural system. §1629.6
The structure is a building frame system with lateral resistance provided by

ordinary braced frames (System Type 2.4.a of Table 16-N). The seismic factors
are:
R = 5.6
Ω = 2.2
hmax = 160 ft Table 16-N

1b. Select lateral force procedure. §1629.8.3
The static lateral force procedure will be used, as permitted for irregular structures
not more than five stories or 65 feet in height.
1c. Determine seismic response coefficients. §1629.4.3
For Zone 4 and Soil Profile Type SD:
C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.08) = 0.69 Table 16-R
1d. Evaluate structure period T.
From Design Example 1A:
TB = 0.57 sec §1630.2.2
1e. Determine design base shear. §1630.2.1
Cv I 0.69(1.0)
V = W = W = 0.216W (30-4)
RT 5.6(0.57)
Base shear need not exceed:
2 .5C a I 2 . 5 ( 0 . 44 ) (1 . 0 )
V = W = = 0 . 196 W (30-5)
R 5 .6
For Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than:
0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.08)(1.0)
V = W = = 0.062W (30-7)
R 5.6
Equation 30-5 governs base shear.
∴ V = 0.196W

1f. Determine earthquake load combinations. §1630.1
20
Reliability/redundancy factor ρ = 2 − (30-3)
rmax Ab
From Design Example 1A, use ρ = 1.0 .
For the load combinations of §1630.1:
E = ρE h + E v = 1.0(V ) (30-1)
E m = ΩE h = 2.2(V ) (30-2)
2a. Building weights and mass distribution.
The weight and mass distribution for the building is shown in Table 1B-1. These
values are taken from Design Example 1A.
Table 1B-1. Mass properties summary

W X cg Ycg M MMI
Level
(kips) (ft) (ft) (kip⋅ sec2/in.) (kip ⋅ sec2 ⋅ in.)
Roof 6,687 161.1 1,80.9 17.3 316,931
4th 6,840 161.1 1,80.9 17.7 324,183
3rd 6,840 161.1 1,80.9 17.7 324,183
2nd 6,840 161.1 1,80.9 17.7 324,183
Total 27,207 70.4
2b. Determine total base shear.
As noted above, Equation (30.5) governs, and
V = 0.196W = 0.196(27207) = 5,333 kips (30-5)

For the Static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each level is
applied as follows:
(V − Ft )W x h x  W h 
Fx = = V  x x 
 (30-15)
∑ Wi hi  ∑ Wi hi 
Table 1B-2. Distribution of base shear

Level
(kips) (ft) (ft) Σw x hx (kips) (kips)
Roof 6,687 62 414,594 0.39 2,064
4th 6,840 47 321,480 0.30 1,600 2,064
3rd 6,840 32 218,880 0.20 1,090 3,665
2nd 6,840 17 116,280 0.11 579 4,754
Total 27,207 1,071,234 1.00 5,333 5,333
3. Calculate interstory drift.
3a. Determine ∆M.
The maximum inelastic response displacement, ∆ M , is determined per

§1630.9.2 as:
∆ M = 0.7(R )∆ S = 0.7(5.6 )∆ S = 3.92∆ S (30-17)
3b. Check story drift.
The maximum interstory drift (obtained from a computer analysis and summarized
in Table 1A-7 of Design Example 1A) occurs in the north-south direction at the
second story, and is 0.36 inches with R = 5.6 . This value must be adjusted for the
R = 6.2 used for OCBF systems.
 6.2 
∆ S drift =   (0.36") = 0.40 in.
 5.6 
∆ M drift = 0.40(3.92 ) = 1.57 in.
1.57
Drift ratio = = 0.009 < 0.025 o.k. 1630.10.2
180

Comment: The elastic story displacement is greater for the SCBF than the OCBF,
but the maximum inelastic displacement (∆ M ) is equivalent to the SCBF. Drift
limitations rarely, if ever, govern braced frame designs. And, as a design
consideration, there is essentially no difference in the calculated maximum drifts
for OCBFs and SCBFs.
Braced frame member design will be done using the same typical design bay as
shown in Example 1A. SCBF member seismic forces are increased proportionally
for the OCBF using a ratio of the R values. Member axial forces and moments for
dead load and seismic loads are shown below (Figure 1B-2). All steel framing is
designed per Chapter 22, Division V, Allowable Stress Design. Requirements for
braced frames, except SCBF and EBF, are given in §2213.8.
Figure 1B-2. Typical braced bay
Ρ DL = 24 kips
ΡLL = 11 kips
ΡE = 400 kips

WF beam @ 3rd floor:
M DL = 1600 kip-in.
M LL = 1193 kip-in.
V DL = 14.1 kips
V LL = 10.3 kips
ΡE = 83 kips
WF column @ 3rd story:
ΡDL = 67 kips
ΡLL = 30 kips
ΡE = 130 kips
ME ≈ 0
4a. rd
Diagonal brace design at the 3 story.
The basic ASD load combinations of §1612.3.1 with no one-third increase will be
used.
E 400
D+ : P1 = 24 + = 310 kips (compression) (12-9)
1.4 1.4
E
: P2 = 0.9(24 ) −
400
0.9 D ± = −264 kips (tension) (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E   400 
D + 0.75 L +   : P3 = 24 + 0.7511 + = 246 kips (compression) (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
The compressive axial load of Equation (12-9) controls.
The unbraced length, lw, of the TS brace is 18.5 feet.
The effective length kl = 1.0(18.5) = 18.5 feet .

Maximum slenderness ratio:
kl 720
≤ §2213.8.2.1
r Fy
For a tube section:
Fy = 46 ksi
720
∴ = 106
46
kl 12(18.5)
Minimum r = = = 2.09 in.
106 106
 b  110
Maximum width-thickness ratio   ≤ = 16.2 §2213.8.2.5
t Fy
Try TS 10 × 10 × 5 8 .
r = 3.78 > 2.09" o.k.
b 10
= = 16.0 < 16.2 o.k.
t 0.625
For an OCBF, the capacity of bracing members in compression must be reduced by

the stress reduction factor “B” per §2213.8.2:
Fas = BFa (13-4)
B = 1 /{1 + [(K l r ) / (2C c )]} (13-5)
where:
2π 2 E
Cc = AISC-ASD §E2
Fy
1.0(12)(18.5)
( Kl ) / r = = 58.7
3.78
1
B= = 0.79
1 + [58.7 2 (111.6 )]

For kl = 18.5 ft
Pallow = 482 kips AISC-ASD, pp. 3-41
Pas = (0.79)(482) = 380 > 310 kips o.k.
∴ Use TS 10 × 10 × 5 8
4b. rd
Girder design at the 3 story.
From a review of Design Example 1A, the vertical load moment governs the girder
design. With only a nominal increase in axial force from seismic loading, the
girder is okay by inspection.
4c. Column design at the 3 story.

rd
The columns will be designed using the basic ASD load combinations with no one-
third increase.
D + L : Ρ1 = 67 + 30 = 97 kips (compression) (12-8)
E 130
D+ : Ρ1 = 67 + = 160 kips (compression) (12-9)
1.4 1.4
E
: Ρ2 = 0.9(67 ) −
130
0.9 D ± = 33 kips (tension) (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E   130 
D + 0.75 L +   : Ρ3 = 67 + 0.7530 + = 159 kips (compression) (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
For the columns, ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi . The unbraced column height is:
h = 15 − 1 = 14 ft
Per AISC-ASD manual, p. 3-30, select a W 10 × 49 column with kl = 14 ft .
Pallow = 242 > 160 kips o.k. AISC-ASD pp. 3-30
∴ Use W 10 × 49 column

Note that without the local buckling compactness requirement of §2213.9.2.4, the
W 10 × 49 works in the OCBF, where a W 10 × 54 is required for the SCBF of
Example 1A. Also note that the special column strength requirements of §2213.5.1
do not apply to the OCBF. The relaxation of ductility requirements for the OCBF
reflects lesser inelastic displacement capacity than the SCBF, hence the greater
seismic design forces for the OCBF.
5. Braced connection design. §2213.8.3
The design provisions for OCBF connections are nearly identical to those for
SCBF connections, with one significant difference. The SCBF requirements for
gusset plates do not apply to OCBF connections. Therefore, the minimum “2t”
setback, as shown in Figure 1A-19(a) of Design Example 1A for the SCBF, may be
eliminated. This allows the end of the tube brace to extend closer to the beam-
column intersection, thereby reducing the size of the gusset plate.
Under the requirements of §2213.8.3.1, the OCBF connections must be designed

for the lesser of:
1. PST = F y A = 46( 22.4) = 1030 kips §2213.8.3.1
2. PM = PD + PL + Ω M PE = ( 24 + 11) + 2.2( 400) = 915 kips
3. Maximum force that can be transferred to brace by the system.
The remainder of the connection design follows the same procedure as for Design
Example 1A, with all components designed for the 915 kip force derived above.

Design Example 1C ! Chevron Braced Frame
Design Example 1C
Chevron Braced Frame
Figure 1C-1. Four-story steel frame office building with chevron braced frames
Overview
This Example illustrates the additional design requirements for chevron bracing
designed as either an Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame (OCBF) or a Special
Concentric Braced Frame (SCBF). The typical design bay from Design
Example 1A is modified for use in this example. For comparison, the member
forces are assumed to be the same as for Design Examples 1A and 1B. It is
recommended that the reader first review Design Examples 1A and 1B before
reading this example. Refer to Design Example 1A for plans and elevations of the
structure (Figures 1A-1 through 1A-4).

Outline
1. Bracing configuration.
2. Chevron bracing design under OCBF requirements.
3. Chevron bracing design under SCBF requirements.
4. Brace to beam connection design.
1. Bracing configuration. §2213.2, 2213.8
Section 2213.2 defines chevron bracing as “…that form of bracing where a pair of
braces located either above or below a beam terminates at a single point within the
clear beam span.” It also defines V-bracing and inverted V-bracing as chevron
bracing occurring above or below the beam (Figure 1C-2).
Chevron V-bracing Chevron inverted V-bracing
Figure 1C-2. Chevron bracing elevations
As discussed in the Blue Book Commentary §C704.9, the seismic performance of

chevron braces can degrade under large cyclic displacements if the diagonals have
poor post-buckling behavior. For this reason, the design force for chevron bracing
in OCBF systems is increased so that the bracing members remain elastic during
moderate earthquakes. Chevron bracing in SCBF systems has demonstrated
enhanced post-buckling behavior, due to the additional design parameters placed

on SCBF members and connections. Chevron braces designed to SCBF

requirements are therefore not subject to the load amplification factor
(§2213.8.4.1, Item 1) imposed on chevron braces in OCBF systems.
Recognizing that the buckling capacity of the compression diagonals is critical to

all forms of braced frame performance, §2213.8.2.3 requires that no more than 70
percent of the diagonals act in compression along any line of bracing. By providing
some balance in the distribution of tension and compression diagonals, ultimate
inelastic story drifts are compatible for both directions.
The typical design bay from Design Example 1A is re-configured for chevron
inverted V-bracing, as shown below in Figure 1C-3.
Figure 1C-3. Typical chevron braced bay under OCBF requirements
2. Chevron bracing design under OCBF requirements.
For comparison, assume the forces to the diagonal bracing members are the same
as for Example 1B:
PDL = 24 kips
PLL = 11 kips
PE = 400 kips

For OCBF chevron bracing, §2213.8.4.1 requires that the seismic force be
increased by a factor of 1.5:
PE = 1.5(400 ) = 600 kips §2213.8.4
Also note that the same section requires the beam to be continuous between
columns, and that the beam be capable of supporting gravity loads without support
from the diagonal braces. From Design Example 1A, the W 24 × 68 girder satisfies
these conditions.
For the diagonal brace at the third story, we have the following basic ASD load
combinations with no one-third increase:
E 600
D+ : P1 = 24 + = 453 kips (compression) (12-9)
1.4 1.4
: P2 = 0.9(24 ) −
E 600
0.9 D ± = −407 kips (tension) (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E   600 
D + 0.75 L +   : P3 = 24 + 0.75 11 + = 354 kips (compression) (12-11)
  1.4   1.4 
The compressive axial load of Equation (12-9) controls.
From Design Example 1B, the capacity of a TS 10 × 10 × 5 8 tube section, adjusted

by the stress reduction factor (B ) of §2213.8.2.2 is:
Pas = 342 kips < 453 kips n.g. §2213.8.2.5
The TS 10 × 10 × 5 8 is the largest section that satisfies the width-thickness ratio

for tubes as required by §2213.8.2.5. A wide flange section using A572 grade. 50
( )
steel F y = 50 ksi will be required in lieu of a tube section.
Effective length @ centerline: kl = 1.0 (18.5) = 18.5 ft §2213.8.2.1
kl 720
Maximum slenderness ratio: ≤
r Fy
720
For F y = 50 ksi; = 102
50

kl 12(18.5)
∴ Minimum r = = = 2.18 in.
102 102
 bf  65
Maximum width-thickness ratio  ≤
 = 9.2 AISC-ASD, Table B5.1
 2t  Fy
Try W 12 × 120 brace:
ry = 3.13 > 2.18 in. o.k.
bf
= 5.6 < 9.2 o.k.
2t
Stress reduction factor: §2213.8.2.2
Pas = BPa (13-4)
B = 1 /{1 + [(kl / r ) / 2C c ]} (13-5)
1.0(12)(18.5)
kl / ry = = 70.9
3.13
1
B= = 0.75
1 + [70.9 / 2(107)]
For kl = 18.5
Pa = 733 kips AISC-ASD, pp. 3-27
Pas = (0.75)(733) = 550 > 453 kips o.k.
∴Use W 12 × 120 brace member
3. Chevron bracing design under SCBF requirements. §2213.9.4.1
For SCBF chevron bracing, §2213.9.4.1 does not require the seismic force to be
increased by a factor of 1.5 as is required for OCBF chevron braces. This provision
is waived for SCBF chevron bracing due to an additional requirement for beam
design. As for OCBF braces, §2213.9.4.1 also requires the beam to be continuous
between columns, and that the beam be capable of supporting gravity loads
without support from the diagonal braces. Additionally, for special chevron
bracing, the beam intersected by chevron braces is to have sufficient strength to
resist gravity loads combined with unbalanced brace forces. This requirement

provides for overall frame stability, and enhanced post-buckling behavior, with
reduced contribution from the buckled compression bracing members.
For comparison, assume the member forces remain the same as for Design
Example 1A.
PDL = 24 kips
PLL = 11 kips
PE = 348 kips
WF beam @ 3rd story:
M LL = 1,193 kip-in.
V DL = 14.1 kips
V LL = 72 kips
PE = 72 kips
3a. Diagonal brace design.
The diagonal brace design for the SCBF chevron brace remains the same as that of
the two-story X-brace presented in Design Example 1A.
∴ Use TS 8 × 8 × 5 8 brace member
3b. rd
Beam design at the 3 floor.
As demonstrated in Design Example 1A, the W 24 × 68 beam satisfies the basic

load combinations of §1612.3.1. However, the unbalanced brace force specified in
§2213.9.4.1 imposes a severe mid-span point load to the beam. Using a TS
8 × 8 × 5 8 section, the brace forces are as follows:
( )
Pst = A F y = 17.4(46 ) = 800.4 kips
Psc = 1.7 Pallow = 1.7(324 ) = 551 kips

The maximum unbalanced brace force Pb is taken as the net difference of the
vertical components of Pst and 0.3Psc as show in Figure 1C-4. §2213.9.4.1
P st 0.3P sc
Figure 1C-4. Unbalanced chevron brace forces
Pb = 0.707[800.4 − 0.3(551)] = 449 kips
M b = Pb L 4 = 449(12)(30 ) 4 = 40,410 kip-in.
The beam must have the strength to resist load combinations similar to the Special
Seismic Combinations of §1612.4:
1.2 D + 0.5L + Pb §2213.9.4.1, Item 3
M max = 1.2(1,600 ) + 0.5(,1193) + 40,410 = 42,927 kip-in.
0.9 D − Pb
M min = 0.9(1600) − 40410 = −38970 kip − in.
Neglecting consideration of composite beam action, and using the flexural

strength, the minimum required plastic modulus Z is solved below (using A572
grade 50 steel).
( )
M s = Z F y > M max
∴ Z reqd ≥ 42927 50 = 859 in.3
Try W 36 × 232
Z = 936 in.3 > 859 in.3 o.k.
∴Use W 36 × 232 beam

To complete the beam design, the beam-to-column connection should be checked

for the reaction from vertical load plus (Pb 2) .
Comment: From the foregoing examples in Parts 2 and 3, it is apparent that

compared to X-bracing, chevron bracing will require a substantial increase in
member sizes. For the OCBF chevron-braced system, the brace size will increase,
possibly resulting in larger demands at the connections. For the SCBF chevron
bracing, the beam size increases to provide the capacity to meet the strength
demand imposed by the unbalanced, post-buckling brace forces. Given their
superior cyclic performance, it is recommended that SCBF chevron bracing be
used in regions of moderate to high seismicity.
4. Brace to beam connection design. §2213.9.3.1
The brace to beam connection is shown in Figure 1C-5 below. This Example uses
the SCBF bracing and forces. The design for the OCBF connection is similar,
without the 2t setback between the end of the brace and the line of restraint for the
gusset plate, as required for SCBF systems.
Figure 1C-5. Chevron brace-to-beam connection

4a. Gusset plate design.
From Design Example 1A, the TS 8 × 8 × 5 8 brace strength is used for connection
design. The brace-to-gusset design is as given in Part 6d of Design Example 1A:
Connection force:
( )
Pst = A F y = 800.4 kips
Brace weld to gusset:
18" of 1
2" fillet weld each side each face
Gusset plate thickness:
1" plate gusset minimum
The gusset plate is also checked for shear and bending at the interface with the
beam. From Figure 1C-5 we determine the plate length to be 86 inches.
Check plate shear stress:
2(800.4)
V Plate = = 1,132 kips
2
1,132 kips
fv = = 13.1 ksi
1.0(86 in.)
Allow Fv = 0.55 F y = 0.55(36 ) = 19.8 ksi o.k. §2213.4.2
Check plate bending stress.
From Figure 1-4, use an assumed moment couple length as distance between
intersections of brace centerlines with beam flange.
2(18)(800.4 )
M plate = = 20,375 kip-in.
2
1.0(86 )2
Z= = 1,849 in.4
4
20,375
fb = = 11.0 ksi
1,849

The allowable compressive bending stress is governed by the unsupported plate

length perpendicular to the beam. From Figure 1C-5:
l 2 = 10" and assume k = 1.2
kl 1.2(10 )
= = 41.4 AISC-ASD, Table C-36
r 0.29(1.0 )
∴ Fa = 19.08 ksi
Allowable Fsc = 1.7(Fa ) = 1.7(19.08) = 32.4 ksi > 11.0 ksi o.k.
∴Use 1-inch plate gusset
4b. Gusset to beam design.
Length of weld to beam is l w = 86 inches. Minimum fillet weld for 1-inch plate is
5/16-inch. Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are:
V 1,132
fx = = = 6.58 ksi (x-axis)
2(l w ) 2(86)
M 20,375(6 )
fy = = = 8.26 ksi (y-axis)
Sw 2(86 )2
fr = (6.58)2 + (8.26)2 = 10.56 ksi (resultant)
Allow Fw = 1.7(0.3)70 = 35.7 ksi §2213.4.2
10.56
Required weld size: t w = = 0.41in.
0.707(35.7 )
∴ Use 1/2-inch fillet weld each side plate

Commentary
The Blue Book Commentary warns that even with the strong-beam SCBF chevron,
configurations may be susceptible to large inelastic displacements and P-delta
effects. To mitigate these effects, chevron configurations that use two-story
X-bracing or zipper columns are recommended. These bracing configurations are
presented in the section Factors That Influence Design at the beginning of Design
Example 1A.


Design Example 2 ! Eccentric Braced Frame
Design Example 2
Eccentric Braced Frame
Figure 2-1. Eccentric braced frame (EBF) building
Overview
Use of eccentric braced frames (EBFs) in steel frame buildings in high seismic
regions is a fairly recent development. This system was introduced in the 1988
UBC. While the concept has been thoroughly tested in laboratories, it has not yet
been extensively tested in actual earthquakes. Many structural engineers, however,
feel that it offers superior earthquake resistance. Following the problems with steel
moment frame connections in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many buildings that
previously would have been designed as SMRF structures are now being designed
with EBF systems.
Eccentric braced frames may be configured with several geometric patterns,

including centrally located links (as chosen in this problem) or with links located
adjacent to columns. When links are located adjacent to columns, a seismic SMRF
connection is required at the link beam/column intersection. Several papers and
many practitioners recommend that configurations using centrally located links be
chosen to avoid the use of link beam/column SMRF connections, which increase
the risk of brittle failure. Braces may be oriented to slope up to central link beams
(inverted “V” braces) or down (“V” braces) to central link beams. Also, a two-
story frame section can be designed with upper and lower braces meeting at a
common link beam located between the two levels.

It is also desirable to prevent single-story yield mechanisms. Some options for this
include using inverted braces at two levels with common link beams, which
ensures two story yield mechanisms, or zipper columns at either side of link beams,
extending from the second level to the roof, which ensures multi-story
mechanisms.
In this Design Example, the five-story steel frame building shown schematically in
Figure 2-1 is to have eccentric braced frames for its lateral force resisting system.
The floor and roof diaphragms consist of lightweight concrete fill over steel
decking. A typical floor/roof plan for the building is shown in Figure 2-2. A typical
EBF frame elevation is shown in Figure 2-3.
The typical frame is designed in both allowable stress design (ASD) and load and
resistance factor design (LRFD) because the code allows a designer the choice of
either design method. The LRFD method is from the 1997 AISC-Seismic, which is
considered by SEAOC to be the most current EBF design method. The ASD
method has been in the UBC for several cycles and is considered to be older, not
updated, code methodology.
Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process.
2. Reliability/redundancy factor.
3. Design base shear and vertical distribution of shear.
4. Horizontal distribution of shear.
5. EBF member design using allowable stress design (ASD).
6. EBF member design using load and resistance factor design (LRFD).
7. Typical EBF details.
Note: Many calculations in this Design Example were performed using a

spreadsheet program. Spreadsheet programs carry numbers and calculations to ten
significant figures of accuracy, and thus will have round off errors when compared
to hand calculations with two or three significant figures. The round off errors are
usually within a percent or two. The reader should keep this in mind when
comparing tables and calculations performed by hand.

Given Information

Roofing 6.0 psf Floor covering 1.0 psf
Insulation 3.0 Steel deck and fill 47.0
Steel deck and fill 47.0 Framing (beams and columns) 13.0
Roof framing 8.0 Partition walls 10.0
Partition walls (10 psf) 5.0 seismic Ceiling 3.0
Mechanical/electrical 2.0 Total 76.0 psf
Total 74.0 psf
Live load: 50.0 psf
Live load: 20.0 psf
Exterior curtain wall, steel studs,

gypsum board, EIFS skin,
weight: 20.0 psf
Wide flange shapes and plates (
ASTM A572, Grade 50 F y = 50 ksi )
Light weight concrete fill f c ' = 3,000 psi

Seismic Source Type = A

Figure 2-2. Typical floor and roof framing plan
Figure 2-3. Typical frame elevation at frame EBF4

1. Design base shear coefficient. §1630.2
The static force procedure will be used and the building period is calculated using
Method A. §1630.2.2
T = Ct (hn )3 4 = .030(62 )3 4 = .66 sec (30-8)
Near source factors for seismic source type A and distance to source of 5 km are:
Seismic coefficients for Zone 4 and soil profile type S D are:
C a = 0.44 N a = 0.44(1.2 ) = 0.53 Table 16-Q
Cv = 0.64 N v = 0.64(1.6 ) = 1.02 Table 16-R
R coefficient for a steel frame building with eccentric braced frames:
R = 7.0 , height limit is 240 feet Table 16-N
Calculation of design base shear: §1630.2.1
Cv I 1.02(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.22W (30-4)
RT 7(0.66 )
2.5C a I 2.5(.53)(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.189W (30-5)
R 7
The total design shear shall not be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11(.53)(1.0)W = 0.058W (30-6)

0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.6)(1.0)
V = W = W = 0.073W (30-7)
R 7
Therefore, Equation (30-5) controls the base shear calculation.
∴ V = 0.189W
2. Reliability/redundancy factor. §1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor ∆ must be estimated. The factor was added to the
code to penalize non-redundant systems. It varies from a minimum of 1.0 to a
maximum of 1.5. It is determined for each principal direction. Since the building in
this Design Example has four frames in the east-west direction, ∆ is determined
based on eight braces (two per frame) and a maximum torsional contribution of 2
percent (thus 1.02). The assumption is that all frames will be identical and that the
horizontal component carried by each brace is equal. This assumption can be
checked after final analysis. However, in this analysis it is determined without a
structural analysis.
20
ρ = 2− (30-3)
rmax AB
AB = 212′ ×15′ = 32,224 ft 2
1
rmax = = 0.128 (8 braces, 2 percent from torsion)
8(1.02)
1.0 ≤ ρ ≤ 1.5 §1630.1.1
20
ρ = 2− = 1.13 (30-3)
.128 32,224
∴ ρ = 1.13 for east-west direction
ρ = 1.0 for north-south direction

3. Design base shear and the vertical distribution of shear. §1630.5
The floor area at each level is 32,224 square feet. The perimeter of the exterior
curtain wall is 728 feet. The roof parapet height is 4 feet. Assume that the curtain
wall weights distribute to each floor by tributary height.
The building mass calculation is shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Building mass calculation

Length
Floor area wi Wr f exterior h Walls w i Walls W Walls Wi
Level
(sf) (psf) (kips) walls (ft) (psf) (kips) (kips)
(ft)
Roof 32,224 74 2,385 728 10 20 146 2,530
5 32,224 76 2,449 728 12 20 175 2,624
4 32,224 76 2,449 728 12 20 175 2,624
3 32,224 76 2,449 728 12 20 175 2,624
2 32,224 76 2,449 728 13 20 11 2,660
Totals 161,120 12,181 871 13,062
3a. Design base shear. §1630.2.1
Using the design base shear coefficient from Part 1, the base shear for the east-west
direction is
V = 1.13 × 0.189W = 1.13 × 0.189(12900 ) = 2,789 k
3b. Vertical distribution of shear. §1630.5
The total lateral force (i.e., design base shear) is distributed over the height of the
building in accordance with §1630.5. The following equations apply:
n
V = Ft + ∑ Fi (30-13)
i =1
Ft = 0.07TV ≤ 0.25V (30-14)
Ft = 0 for T ≤ 0.7 sec , T = 0.66 sec for this Design Example
(V − Ft )w x hx
Fx = (30-15)
∑ wx hx
Using the building mass tabulated in Table 2-1 above, the vertical distribution of
shear is determined as shown in Table 2-2 below.
Table 2-2. Vertical distribution of shear

w x hx
wx w hx h w x hx Fx ΣVI
Level Σw i h i
(k) (k) (ft) (ft) (k-ft) (k) (k)
(%)
R 2,530 2,530 62 12 156,871 32 887 887
5 2,624 5,154 50 12 131,187 27 742 1,629
4 2,624 7,778 38 12 99,702 20 564 2,193
3 2,624 10,401 26 12 68,217 14 386 2,598
2 2,660 13,062 14 14 37,242 7 211 ,789
Totals 13,062 493,220 100 2,789 2
4. Horizontal distribution of shear. §1630.6
Although the centers of mass and rigidity coincide, §1630.6 requires designing for
an additional torsional eccentricity, e , equal to 5 percent of the building dimension
perpendicular to the direction of force regardless of the relative location of the
centers of mass and rigidity.
eew = (0.05)(150 ) = 7.5 ft for east-west direction
ens = (0.05)(210) = 10.5 ft for north-south direction
Assume that all frames have the same rigidity, since all are similar EBFs. This
assumption can be refined in a subsequent analysis, after members have been sized
and an elastic deflection analysis has been completed. Many designers estimate the
torsional contribution for a symmetric building by adding 5 percent to 10 percent to
the element forces. However, in this Design Example the numerical application of
the code provisions will be shown.
Assume R1 = R2 = ...R14 = 1.0 , where Ri is the rigidity of each EBF frame.
The calculation of direct shear plus torsion for a given frame is based on the
following formula:
 V   V ec 
Vi = Ri  i  ± Ri  i 
∑R 
 ∑ R xy c

2


Table 2-3 gives the distribution of direct shear and torsional shear components as
percentages of shear force (based on geometry).
Table 2-3. Calculation of direct shear plus torsion as percentage of story shear
Frame J= Sum Vi Vy Sum
X(ft) (1) Y(ft) (1) Ri XRi YRi X 2Ri Y 2Ri 2 Vi / Vy (2) Tx (%) (3) V (%) (2) Ty (%) (3) V
ID ΣRd I (%) i
Longitudinal
1 75 1 -75 5,625 25% -0.84% 25.00% -1.18%
2 75 1 -75 5,625 25% -0.84% 25.00% -1.18%
3 75 1 75 5,625 25% 0.84% 25.84% 1.18%
4 75 1 75 5,625 25% 0.84% 25.84% 1.18%
Transverse
5 -110 1 -110 12,100 -1.23% 16.7% -1.73% 16.7%
6 -110 1 -110 12,100 -1.23% 16.7% -1.73% 16.7%
7 10 1 10 100 0.11% 16.7% 0.16% 16.9%
8 10 1 10 100 0.11% 16.7% 0.16% 16.9%
9 100 1 100 10,000 1.12% 16.7% 1.57% 18.3%
10 100 1 100 10,000 1.12% 16.7% 1.57% 18.3%
Totals 66,900(4) 100%
0% 100% 0%
Notes:
1. X and Y are distances from the center of mass (i.e., the center of the building) to frames in
the X and Y directions, respectively.
2. Vx and Vy are direct shears on frames in the X and Y directions, respectively.
3. Tx and Ty are shear forces on frames that resist torsional moments on the building. These
shear forces are either in the X or Y directions and can be additive or subtractive with
direct shear forces.
2
4. ∑ Rd 2 = ∑ x Ri + ∑ y 2 Ri
Based on the direct and torsional shear values tabulated in Table 2-3, and on the
vertical distribution of shear tabulated in Table 2-2, the story forces to be used for
design of the typical eccentric braced frame (EBF4) are as follows:
Table 2-4. Story shear forces for design of frame EBF4

Frame Story V x Story Tx Frame V4 Frame T4 Vi ,6 Story Fx ,4
Level
ID (kips) (ft-kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
4 R 887 6,653 222 7 229 229
4 5 1,629 12,217 407 14 421 192
4 4 2,193 16,445 548 18 567 146
4 3 2,578 19,338 645 22 666 99
4 2 2,789 20,918 697 23 721 55

5. EBF member design using (ASD).
In the 1997 UBC, a designer has a choice of whether to design using allowable
stress design (ASD) methods or whether to use load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) methods. In part 5, the ASD method is illustrated. In part 6, the LRFD
method is illustrated. The results are slightly different, depending on the method
chosen.
5a. Seismic forces for initial member design. §2213.10
Seismic forces on a typical EBF, in this case EBF4 on line 6, will be determined.
The forces E , applied to EBF4 are calculated first by determining the seismic load
along line 6. The unit shear load along line 6, vi 6 , is thus Vi 6 210 feet.
Frame EBF4 has a tributary collector length of 210 feet / 2 = 105 feet, and tributary
lengths on the west side of the frame of 60 feet and on the east side of the frame of
45 feet. The frame forces are thus F4iL = vi 6 (60 feet) and F4iR = vi 6 (45 feet). The
compression force in the link is equal to half the story shear tributary to the frame,
minus the frame force at the right side (F4iL + F4iR ) 2 − F4iR . Table 2-5
summarizes the forces at each level of frame EBF4.
Table 2-5. Axial forces through shear links on frame EBF4

Frame Line 6 FxiL FxiR C =T
Level Fx ,4 Vi 4 (west) (east) (link)
(kips) (klf) (kips) (kips) (kips)
R 229 2.18 131.0 98.2 16.4
5 192 1.83 109.5 82.1 13.7
4 146 1.39 83.2 62.4 10.4
3 100 0.95 57.0 42.7 7.1
2 54 0.51 31.1 23.3 3.9
5b. Link length.
The inelastic behavior of a link is influenced by its length, e . The shorter the link
length, the greater the influence of shear forces on the inelastic performance. Shear
yielding tends to occur uniformly along the link length. Shear yielding of short
links is very ductile with an inelastic capacity in excess of that predicted by
calculations.
The following is a summary of link behavior as a function of the link length e .

MS is the flexural strength of the link and VS is the shear strength. Both are defined
in §2213.4.2.

MS M Ensures shear behavior and is the recommended upper

1.0 ≤ e ≤ 1.3 S
VS VS limit for shear links. Links less than 1.0 M s Vs the
link may not yield as expected.
MS Elastic behavior is controlled by shear behavior,

e ≤ 1.6
VS however, region is transition between shear governed
behavior and bending governed behavior.
MS Link behavior is theoretically balanced between shear

e > 2.0
VS and flexural yielding.
MS Elastic deformation is controlled by flexural yielding.

e ≥ 3.0
VS
The shorter the link length, the stiffer the EBF frame will be; however, the greater
the link rotation. The code sets limits on link plastic rotation of 0.090 radians
(ASD) and 0.080 radians (LRFD) due to ∆ m deflections. For most designs, link
lengths of 1.0 to 1.3 M s Vs work well.
5c. Preliminary EBF frame member sizes.
Preliminary sizes of the EBF frame beams are determined by calculating the
required shear area (dt w ) due to the story forces and frame geometry. The load
combinations for allowable stress design procedures are given in Equations (12-7)
through (12-11) or (12-12) through (12-16) in §1612.3. These load combinations
use load values of E 1.4 to account for allowable stress design.
ΣV2 = 721k/1.4/2 ΣV3 = 666kips/1.4/2

= 257.4 kips = 237.8 kips
15'
15'
Level 2 Level 3
V2, link V3, link
12'
14'
Link analysis at Level 2 Link analysis at Level 3

(levels 4, 5, R, similar)
Figure 2-4. Preliminary link analysis

For initial sizing, shear forces in the links may be approximated as follows:
ΣVi ( h) ΣVi / 2( h)
Vi ,link = =
l l/2
 721 kips 
 (14' ) 
V2,link =  1.4  = 240.2 kips
 30' 
 
 
 666 kips 
 (12' ) 
V3,link =  1.4  = 190.4 kips
 30' 
 
 
 567 kips 
 (12' ) 
V4,link =  1.4  = 161.9 kips
 30' 
 
 
 421 kips 
 (12' ) 
V5,link =  1.4  = 120.3 kips
 30' 
 
 
 229 kips 
 (12' ) 
V R ,link =  1.4  = 65.5 kips
 30' 
 
 
The values for dt w , VS and M S are calculated as follows:
V i ,link
Minimum dt w = §2213.10.5
0.80 × 0.55 F y
V s = .55 F y dt w
M s= Zx F y
Preliminary beam sizes are determined as shown in Table 2-6 (forces are E 1.4 ).

Table 2-6. Preliminary link analysis and sizing for frame EBF4
Vi ,link 1.3
Story Vi Fi min. Link 1.6 Link
req. d tw dtw Zx Ms Vs
Level h 2 2 dtw Beam M s Vs M s Vs Lg. Ω
(in.) (in.) (in.2) (in.3) (k-in.) (kips)
(ft) (kips) (kips) link (in.2) Size (in.) (in.) (in.)
shear
R 12 81.9 81.9 65.5 2.98 W16x77 16.52 0.46 7.52 150.0 7500 207 47.2 58.1 24 3.16
5 12 150.3 68.5 120.3 5.47 W18X86 18.39 0.48 8.83 186.0 9300 243 49.8 61.3 34 2.02
4 12 202.4 52.0 161.9 7.36 W18X97 18.59 0.54 9.95 211.0 10550 274 50.1 61.7 36 1.69
3 12 238.0 35.6 190.4 8.65 W18X97 18.59 0.54 9.95 211.0 10550 274 50.1 61.7 36 1.44
2 14 257.4 19.4 240.2 10.92 W21X132 21.83 0.65 14.19 333.0 16650 390 55.5 68.3 46 1.62
The most efficient link sections usually:
1. Optimize the required shear area, i.e., minimize dt w .
2. Are the deepest section possible while complying with the compact web
criteria , i.e., maximize dt w .
3. Have compact flanges with sufficient bending capacity to ensure shear

failure of the section under ultimate load.
4. The frames must meet the deflection and link rotation limitations and thus
be sized for stiffness.
MS
The recommended [Engelhardt and Popov, 1989] link length is emax = 1.3
VS
A computer model has been created for EBF4. The results of the computer
analysis, including forces and displacements, have been determined. The computer
model was analyzed with moment resisting connections, which more closely
estimates the real behavior of the frame with end moments much less than M p .
For the first story, the EBF member design will be based on use of a W 21× 132
link beam at Level 2.
5d. Link rotation.
The frame displacement at the second level, ∆ S 2 , was determined from a separate
computer analysis (not shown) using the design base shear (not divided by 1.4) and
not increased by ∆ because frame distortion limits are based on calculations using
applied strength level seismic forces not increased by the redundancy factor.
∆ S 2 = 0.48 in.

The corresponding maximum inelastic response displacement at the second level,

∆ M 2 is estimated as follows:
∆ M = .7 R∆ s = .7 (7 )0.48" = 2.40 in. (30-17)
The link rotation is computed as a function of the frame story drift and frame
geometry. For a frame of story height h , bay width l , link length e , and
dimensions a =
(l − e) , the link rotation may be calculated by the following
2
formula [Becker and Ishler, 1996]. Link rotations, θ , must be limited to 0.090
radians per §2213.10.4.
∆M  2 a  1.37"  2(157 ") 

θ= l + = l +  = 0.060 radians ≤ 0.090
h  e  180"  46" 
∴ o.k.
Note that the frame height, h , in the first story is 180 inches, or 15 ft-0 in. because
the base plate is anchored 12 inches below the slab.
5e. Link shear strength. §2213.10.5
The purpose of EBF design is to ensure that any inelastic behavior in the structure
under seismic motions occurs in the links. To achieve this, all elements other than
the links are designed to have strengths greater than the forces that will be induced
in them when the links experience yielding. Therefore, if the links have excess
capacity, all other elements in the frame (braces, columns, link beams outside the
link lengths) will also have corresponding excess capacity. Section 2213.10.5
requires than the link shear does not exceed 0.8Vs under design seismic forces.
Thus links have a minimum overstrength factor Ω min = (1.0 0.8) = 1.25 which
provides a safety factor on shear capacity. Depending on the actual link beam
chosen for design, the link overstrength factor, Ω , may be greater than 1.25. Thus,
for the W 21× 132 link beam with applied shear Vi ,link = 240.2 kips (see
Table 2-6):
V s = .55 F y dt w = .55 (50 ksi )(21.83")(.650") = 390.2 kips
Vs 390.2 k
Ω= = = 1.62 ≥ 1.25
V i,link 240.2 k
∴ o.k . §2213.4.2
The link beam in this Design Example is sized for stiffness to thus limit deflections
and link rotations under code loads. It therefore has greater strength than required

5f. Beam compact flange. §2213.10.2
Check to assure that the beam flanges are compact to prevent flange buckling.
bf 12.44" 52 52
= = 6.0 ≤ = = 7.36
2t f 2 (1.035") Fy 50 ksi
∴ o.k.
5g. Link length.
The length of the link will determine whether the link yields in shear or in bending.
To ensure shear yielding behavior, the link beams have been limited to lengths less
than 3 M s Vs .
V s = .55 F y dtw = 390.2 kips §2213.4.2
e ≈ 1.3 M s = 55.5 in. [Popov, Englehardt, and Ricles]

Vs
3
M s = Z x F y = (333 in. ) (50 ksi) = 16,650 kip-in. §2213.4.2
For frame stiffness, drift, and rotation control purposes at the second level, use
e = 46 in. Thus:
eVs (46" ) (390.2 kips)

= = 1.08
Ms 16,650 kip − in.
∴ o.k.
5h. Beam and link axial loads.
The summation of story forces down to level 3, ΣFi = V3 in Table 2-4, (the sum of
level shears from the roof to level 3) is 666k (476k on an ASD basis). The ASD
frame forces in level 2 at the left connection and right connection are
F2 L = 31.1 k 1.4 = 22.2 k and F2 L = 23.3 k 1.4 = 16.7 k . The link beam outside
the link must be checked for combined bending, plus axial loads. The link must be
checked for bending plus axial loads using the flanges only (because the web is
assumed to have yielded in shear and not capable of carrying axial load).

Therefore, the axial force in the link on an ASD basis is:
(31.1 k − 23.3 k ) = 2.8 k

C link = T link =
2 × 1.4
The axial force can be factored up to account for actual link design overstrength,
Ω . For this link, Ω = 1.62 and the link axial force can be factored to be 4.5 kips.
5i. Beam compact web.
The maximum d/tw ratio permitted for compact beam sections is dependent on the
axial load in the beam. Wide flange sections listed in the AISC W shapes tables
(AISC-ASD) have compact webs for all combinations of axial stress when the
yield strength is less than the tabulated values of F y .
If a beam section is chosen that does not have a compact web for all axial loads, the
section should be checked using allowable stress design of UBC Chapter 22,
Division V, Table B5.1 of (AISC-ASD). The web should be compact along the full
length of the beam. The UBC does not allow doubler plates to reduce d/tw
requirements for a link beam (see §2213.10.5). For the W 21× 132 beam at the
second level of EBF4:
dt w = 33.6
A = 38.8 in.2
Maximum axial force in link beam outside the link:
V 3   666 kips 
 + F 2L   + 31.1 kips 
 2 = 2  = 260 kips
P 2L =
1.4 1.4
P 2L = 260 k = 6.7 ksi

fa=
A 38.8 in.2
fa 6.7 ksi
= = 0.13 ≤ 0.16 AISC-ASD, Table B5.1
Fy 50 ksi

For f a ≤ 0.16 F y , the allowable d/tw to prevent local buckling is determined from
the equation below.
d 640  f  640  6.7 ksi 

= l − 3.74 a  =  l − 3.74  = 45.1in.3 AISC-ASD, Table B5.1
tw  F y  50 ksi  50 ksi 
Fy
∴ d tw = 33.6 in.2 ≤ 45.1in.3
∴ o.k.
5j. Combined link loads.
This calculation is made to check the combined bending plus axial strength of the
link (using loads anticipated to yield the link with the link design overstrength
factor, Ω = 1.62 ).
P2,link = 2.8 k (1.62) = 4.5 kips
M 2,link = VS , 2
e
= 390.2 k
(46") = 8,975 kip-in.
2 2
A f = b f t f = (12.440") × (1.035") = 12.875 in.2
( )( ) ( )
Z f = d − t f b f t f = (21.83"−1.035") 12.875 in.2 = 267.7 in.3
P2,link M 2,link 4.5 k 8,975 ksi

+ = + = 33.7 ksi ≤ 50 ksi
2 Af Zf (
2 12.875 in.2
) 267.7 in.3
∴ Link combined axial plus bending capacity is o.k.
5k. Verification of link shear strength. §2213.10.3
The strength of the link is used to establish the minimum strength required of
elements outside the link. The link shear strength Vs was determined using the web
area d/tw, of the beam. When a beam has reached flexural capacity, shear in the link
may be less than the shear strength of the section. If this is the case, the flexural
capacity of the section will limit the shear capacity of the link. Section 2213.10.3
requires that the flexural capacity of the section, reduced for axial stress, be
considered as a possible upper limit of the link capacity. This will be checked
below.

Vs = 390.2 kips
(
M rs = Z x f y − f a ) §2213.10.3
P2,link 4.5 k
fa = = = 0.17 ksi
2 Af 2 × 12.875 in.2
Z x = 333 in.4 AISC-ASD, pp. 1-21
M rs = 333 in.3 (50.0 ksi − 0.17 ksi ) = 16,593 kip-in.
2 M rs 2 (16,593 kip − in.)

Vrs = = = 721 kips
e (46")
The controlling shear capacity is the least of Vs or Vrs . In this case, Vs = 390 kips
and Vrs = 721 kips . Therefore the controlling shear capacity is 390 kips.
Thus, the controlling mode of yielding is shear in the link, because the shear
required to yield the beam in bending will not be developed.
5l. Required beam brace spacing. §2313.10.18
Section 2213.10.18 requires lateral braces for the top and bottom flanges at the
ends of the link beams. The maximum interval l u ,max is determined below.
l u ,max = 76
bf
= 76
(12.87") = 138.4" ≅ 11'−6" §2313.10.18
Fy 50 ksi
Therefore the beam bracing at 10 ft 0 in. is adequate. (Note: the composite steel
deck and lightweight concrete fill is not considered effective in bracing the top
flange.)
5m. Beam analysis (outside of link). §2213.10.13
The beam outside the link is required to resist 130 percent of the bending, plus
axial forces generated in the link beam. The combined beam bending plus axial
interaction equations are referenced from AISC-ASD, Section N. Note that the
ASD version of capacity design is being used because the beam is being checked
under forces generated with a yielding link element in shear.
Forces are from a hand evaluation of EBF frame behavior and from computer
model analysis:

Axial force in beam outside link:
PE = 260 kips
From computer model:
PD = 11 kips
Increased axial load on beam outside the link:
P = 1.3ΩP2,link + 1.3PDL = (1.3 × 1.62 × 260 k ) + (1.3 × 11 kips ) = 564 kips
From EBF frame analysis:
M E = 8,974 k-in.
From computer analysis:
M D = 188.4 k-in.
Increased moment on beam outside the link:
V link e
M = 1.3 + 1.3M DL = 1.3 (8,974 k-in.) + 1.3 (188.4 k-in.) = 11,912 k-in.
2
Beam slenderness parameters, assuming k = 1.0 :
kl
=
(1.0)(120") = 41.0
ry 2.93"
kl
=
(1.0)(150") = 16.4
rx 9.12"
Allowable axial stress based on beam slenderness and bracing:
 ( kl / ry ) 2   ( 41.0) 2 
1 −  F 1 − 50 ksi
2
y
 2C c 2   2(107) 

Fay = 3
= = 25.7 ksi AISC-ASD §E2
5 3 ( kl / ry ) (kl / ry ) 5 3 ( 41.0) (41.0) 3
+ − + −
3 8C c 8C c 3 3 8 (107) 8 (107) 3

Euler buckling stress multiplied by a safety factor:
12π 2 E 12 (3.14 )2 (29,000,000 psi )

Fey' = = = 88,834 psi = 88.8 ksi AISC-ASD §E2
(
23 kl / ry )2 23 (41.0 )2
Beam slenderness parameter:
12π 2 E 12 (3.14 )2 (29,000 ksi )

Cc = = = 107 AISC-ASD §E2
Fy (60 ksi )
ASD axial capacity:
Pcr = 1.7 Fa A = 1.7 (25.69 ksi )(38.8 sq in.) = 1,695 kips AISC-ASD §N4,
Euler buckling capacity:
 23   23 
(
Pe =   Fe' A =   (88.8 ksi ) 38.8 in.2 = 6,603 kips ) AISC-ASD §N4
 12   12 
ASD axial yielding load:
( )
Py = F y A = (50 ksi ) 38.8 in.2 = 1,940 kips AISC-ASD §N4
Maximum moment that can be resisted by the member in the absence of axial load:
( )
M m = M p = F y Z x = (50 ksi ) 333 in.3 = 16,650 k-in. AISC-ASD §N4
Coefficient for sidesway:
C m = 0.85
Check AISC Equations (N4-2) and (N4-3):
P Cm M 564 kips 0.85 (11,912 k − in.)

+ = + AISC-ASD (N4-2)
Pcr  Pbu  1,695 kips  564 kips 
 1 -  M m  1 - 16,650 k − in.
 Pe   6,603 kips 
= 0.33 + 0.67 = 1.0
∴ Say o.k.

P M 564 kips 11,912 k − in.

+ = + AISC-ASD (N4-3)
Py 1.18 M p 1,940 kips 1.18 (16,650 k − in.)
= 0.29 + 0.61 = 0.90 ≤ 1.0
∴ o.k.
5n. Beam stiffeners. §2213.10.7
There are two types of stiffeners required in links: link stiffeners at ends at brace
connections and intermediate stiffeners (Figures 2-7 and 2-11).
Link end stiffeners.

Full depth web stiffeners are required on both sides of the link beam at the brace
connections. The stiffeners are used to prevent web buckling and to ensure ductile
shear yielding of the web.
The stiffeners shall have a combined width not less than bf - 2tw and a thickness not
less than 0.75t w or 3/8 inch. For the W 21× 132 beam
B f − 2t w = 12.440"−2 (.650") = 11.14" use 2 × 5.625" §2213.10.10
The minimum thickness of the stiffener is
t stiff ≥ 0.75t w = 0.75 × .650" = 0.49" use ½ in. stiffeners.
Therefore, use 55/8 in. × ½ in. link beam stiffeners at link ends at each side of web
(total 4).
Intermediate link stiffeners.

Section 2310.10.8 requires intermediate full depth web stiffeners (see Part 7,
Figure 2-7) for either of the following conditions:
1. Where link beam strength is controlled by Vs .
2. Where link beam strength is controlled by flexure and the shear determined
by applying the reduced flexural strength, M rs exceeds 0.45F y dt w .
Therefore, intermediate web stiffeners are required for this Design Example.

The spacing limits are a function of the link rotation per §2310.10.9. For a link
rotation 0.09 radians, the maximum allowed, the spacing shall not exceed
38t w − d w 5 . For link rotation of 0.03 radians, the spacing shall not exceed
56t w − d w 5 . Linear interpolation may be used between link rotations of 0.03 and
0.09 radians. Thus,
dw  21.83" 
38t w − = 38 (.650") −   = 20.33 in. §2213.10.9
5  5 
dw  21.83" 
56tw − = 56 (.650") −   = 32.03 in. §2213.10.9
5  5 
Since the link rotation is 0.088 radians for the beam, interpolation must be used to
determine the maximum spacing of intermediate stiffeners. This is shown below.
 0.090 rad − 0.088 rad 

  (32.03"−20.33") + 20.33" = 20.72 in.
 0.090 rad − 0.030 rad 
Since the link length is 46 inches, use three equal spacings of 46/3 =15.33 inches.
The web stiffener location is determined in accordance with §2313.10.10. Since the
link beam is a W21, one sided stiffeners are required of thickness 3/8-inch. The
width shall not be less than:
(b f 2)− tw + (12.44" 2) − .650"+5.57 in.

Therefore, use 5-5/8 in. × 3/8 in. intermediate (one-sided) stiffener plates (2 total).
Web stiffener welds.

Fillet welds connecting the web stiffener to the web shall develop a stiffener force of:
Ast F y = (5.625"× .375")(50 ksi ) = 105.5 kips
The minimum size of fillet weld, per AISC Table J2.4, is ¼-inch to the link web
and 5/16 in. to the link flange. Using E70XX electrodes and 5/16-inch fillet welds
each side, the weld capacity is 1.7 allowable. The required weld length is
105.5 kips
1required = (70 ksi )(1.7 )(2 × 5 16")(.707 ) = 6.7 in.
.3
Therefore, 5/16 in. fillet welds, both sides of the stiffener, at the flanges and the
web are adequate.

Fillet welds connecting the web stiffener to the flanges shall develop a stiffener
force of
Ast F y / 4 = (5.625"×.375")(50 ksi ) / 4 = 26.4 kips
26.4 kips
1, required = (70 ksi )(1.7 )(2 × 5 16")(.707 ) = 1.7 in.
.3
Therefore, 5/16-inch fillet welds, both sides of the stiffener, at the flanges are
adequate.
5o. Link beam design.
Tables 2-7a through 2-7g presents tabular calculations that show the results from
procedures from Parts 5a through 5s applied to all beams in the frame EBF4. The
link beam design for all levels is as shown below in tabular form following the
equations given above (each link beam at each level of the frame has a row
calculation which extends through the full table):
Table 2-7a. Link beam section properties

A Zx br tr d tw e a h Af Zf Fy
Level Link
(in.2) (in.3) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.2) (in.3) (ksi)
R W16x77 22.60 150.0 10.30 0.76 16.52 0.46 24 168 144 15.6 123.3 50
5 W18X86 25.30 186.0 11.09 0.77 18.39 0.48 34 163 144 17.1 150.5 50
4 W18X97 28.50 211.0 11.15 0.87 18.59 0.54 36 162 144 19.4 171.8 50
3 W18X97 28.50 211.0 11.15 0.87 18.59 0.54 36 162 144 19.4 171.8 50
2 W21X132 38.80 333.0 12.44 1.04 21.83 0.65 46 157 168 25.8 267.7 50
Table 2-7b. Compact flange, compact web

Compact
Compact Compact
Flange Compact 1.3
Level Vs Ω Ms bf 2tf Flange fa fa Fy dtw web Web
Limit M s Vs
Results Limit dtw Results
bf 2tf
R 206.7 3.16 7,500 6.77 7.35 o.k. 47.2 4.14 0.08 36.3 62.5 o.k.
5 242.7 2.02 9,300 7.20 7.35 o.k. 49.8 6.33 0.13 38.3 47.7 o.k.
4 273.5 1.69 10,550 6.41 7.35 o.k. 50.1 7.36 0.15 34.7 40.7 o.k.
3 273.5 1.44 10,550 6.41 7.35 o.k. 50.1 8.53 0.17 34.7 36.3 o.k.
2 390.2 1.62 16,650 6.01 7.35 o.k. 55.5 6.71 0.13 33.6 45.1 o.k.

Table 2-7c. Combined link stresses, controlling shear, unsupported length

Shear Level Pmax Comb. lu
Levels at Link fa Plink Diaph. M link fa Link Vs M rs Vrs Vmin
Level Max
Above level Beam (ksi) (kips) Factor (k-in.) (psi) Stress (kips) (k-in.) (kips) (kips)
(kips) (kips) (psi) (in.)
(kips)
R 0 131.0 94 4.14 16.4 1.00 785.9 0.75 6.7 206.7 7.388 615.7 206.7 110.7
5 229.2 109.5 160 6.33 13.7 1.12 2.044.5 0.64 13.9 242.7 9.181 540.0 242.7 119.2
4 420.9 83.3 210 7.36 10.4 1.31 2.914.1 0.50 17.2 273.5 10.444 580.2 273.5 119.8
3 566.6 57.0 243 8.53 7.1 1.69 3.426.8 0.44 20.2 273.5 10.456 580.9 273.5 119.8
2 666.3 31.1 260 6.71 3.9 2.70 5.525.6 0.29 20.8 390.2 16.553 719.7 390.2 133.7
Table 2-7d. Calculation of design forces, beam outside the link

Beam Pcomp Mcomp Beam Pbu M bu
P M = Vs e 2 Link
Level Overstress DL "DL" Overstress Design Design
(kips) (k-in.) Ω
Factor (kips) (k-in.) Factor (kips) (kips)
R 94 2,480 3.16 1.3 10 208.8 1.3 397 3,496
5 160 4,127 2.02 1.3 8.73 226.8 1.3 431 5,660
4 210 4,923 1.69 1.3 11.2 213.6 1.3 475 6,678
3 243 4,923 1.44 1.3 10 200.4 1.3 467 6,661
2 260 8,975 1.62 1.3 11 188.4 1.3 564 11,912
Table 2-7e. Beam properties

A Z Fy Lu rx ry Cc kl r y C c
Level Section kl ry
(in.2) (in.3) (ksi) (ft) (in.) (in.) (ksi)
R W16x77 22.6 150 50 10 5.89 1.92 62.5 107.0 0.58
5 W18X86 25.3 186 50 10 7.77 2.63 45.6 107.0 0.43
4 W18X97 28.5 211 50 10 7.82 2.65 45.3 107.0 0.42
3 W18X97 28.5 211 50 10 7.82 2.65 45.3 107.0 0.42
2 W21X132 38.8 333 50 10 9.12 2.93 41.0 107.0 0.38
Table 2-7f. AISC-ASD equations (N4-1) and (N4-2)
Fa F'e Pcr Pe Py M m ,M p P M AISC- AISC

Level Cm Design Design ASD ASD Results
(ksi) (ksi) (k) (k) (k) (k-in.) (k) (k-in.) (N4-2) (N4-3)
R 22.3 38.2 856 1,655 1,130 7500 0.85 397 3,496 0.98 0.75 o.k.
5 25.0 71.7 1,076 3,478 1,265 9300 0.85 431 5,660 0.99 0.86 o.k.
4 25.1 72.8 1,214 3,978 1,425 10550 0.85 475 6,678 1.00 0.87 o.k.
3 25.1 72.8 1,214 3,978 1,425 10550 0.85 467 6,661 0.99 0.86 o.k.
2 25.7 89.0 1,695 6,620 1,940 16650 0.85 564 11,912 1.00 0.90 o.k.
Table 2-7g. Link rotations at each level

Delta S Delta M Rotation
Level Results
Deflection (in.) Drift (in.) (rad)
R 1.01 0.69 0.0715 o.k.
5 0.87 0.88 0.0649 o.k.
4 0.69 1.13 0.0783 o.k.
3 0.46 1.08 0.0749 o.k.
2 0.24 1.18 0.0548 o.k.

5p. Brace design. §2213.10.13
The braces are required to be designed for 1.3Ω times the earthquake forces in the
braces, plus 1.3 times the gravity loads. There is a misprint in 97 UBC
§2213.10.13, where the brace and beam overstrength factor is both 1.5 and 1.3.
However, the factor 1.5 was from the 1994 UBC and should have been deleted.
The factor 1.3 should be used.
E
PE = 1.3Ω Pcomputer due to loads
1.4
E
M E = 1.3Ω M computer due to loads
1.4
Using plastic design procedures outlined in AISC Section N, obtaining forces from
a computer analysis, and showing calculations in tabular form. Design forces for
braces ( P and M ) are calculated as 1.3φ times seismic forces plus 1.3 times
gravity forces. Column shear forces are not a controlling factor and are not shown
for brevity. Tables 2-8a through 2-8c show tabular design of braces for EBF4 at all
levels.
Table 2-8a. Brace forces
PE ME Brace PD MD Brace
P M
Level Ω Overstress Overstress
E/1.4 E/1.4 D D Design Design
Factor Factor
5 106 10.2 3.16 1.5 11.8 5.1 1.5 519.5 55.9
4 194 11.7 2.02 1.5 14.6 4.4 1.5 609.3 42.0
3 262 23.4 1.69 1.5 14.7 4.3 1.5 686.0 65.7
2 302 26.7 1.44 1.5 14.4 4.3 1.5 672.4 64.0
1 372 38.5 1.62 1.5 13.9 3.4 1.5 927.2 98.9
Table 2-8b. Brace section properties

Brace A Z Fy L rx ry Cc
Level kl ry kl / ry / Cc
Section (in.2) (in.3) (ksi) (ft) (in.) (in.) (ksi)
5 W12X87 25.60 132.0 50 20.5 5.34 3.31 74.4 107.0 0.70
4 W12x87 25.60 132.0 50 20.2 5.38 3.32 73.1 107.0 0.68
3 W12x87 25.60 132.0 50 20.2 5.43 3.34 72.5 107.0 0.68
2 W12X106 31.20 164.0 50 20.2 5.57 3.41 71.0 107.0 0.66
1 W12X120 35.30 186.0 50 19.9 5.66 3.44 69.4 107.0 0.65

Table 2-8c. Brace, axial plus bending interaction calculations
Fa F' e Pcr Pe Py M m ,M p P M
Level Cm AISC AISC Results
Design Design (N4-2) (N4-3)
(ksi) (ksi) (k) (k) (k) (k-in.) (k) (k-in.)
5 20.1 262.1 875.2 12,860 1280 6600 0.85 450.2 659.0 0.60 0.35 o.k.
4 20.3 262.1 885.6 12,860 1280 6600 0.85 528.0 493.7 0.66 0.41 o.k.
3 20.5 262.1 890.8 12,860 1280 6600 0.85 594.5 778.7 0.77 0.46 o.k.
2 20.7 262.1 1100.5 15,673 1560 8200 0.85 582.8 757.5 0.61 0.37 o.k.
1 21.0 262.1 1262.8 17,732 1765 9300 0.85 803.5 1178.6 0.75 0.46 o.k.
5q. Column design. §2213.10.14
The columns are required to resist 1.25 times the strength developed in the links to
assure that the yielding mechanism is the link beams (Section 2213.10.14). Design
forces ( P and M ) are calculated as 1.25Ω times (frame analysis) seismic forces
plus 1.25 times gravity forces. Column shear forces are not a controlling factor and
are not shown for brevity. Tables 2-9a through 2-9c show tabular design of
columns for EBF4 at all levels
Table 2-9a. Design column forces
PE ME Brace PD MD Brace
P M
Level Ω Overstress Overstress
E/1.4 E/1.4 D D Design Design
Factor factor
km5 106 10.2 432.9 46.6
4 3.16 1.25 11.8 5.1 1.25 507.7 35.0
3 2.02 1.25 14.6 4.4 1.25 571.7 54.8
2 1.69 1.25 14.7 4.3 1.25 4.3 1.25 560.3 53.3
1 372 38.5 1.62 1.25 13.9 3.4 1.25 772.6 82.4
Table 2-9b. Column section properties

Column A Z Fy L rx ry Cc kl / ry / Cc
Level kl ry
Section (in.2) (in.3) (ksi) (ft) (in.) (in.) (ksi)
5 W12X65 19.10 96.8 50 12 5.28 5.67 2.48 107.0 0.02
4 W12X65 19.10 96.8 50 12 5.28 5.67 2.48 107.0 0.02
3 W12X65 19.10 96.8 50 12 5.28 5.67 25.4 107.0 0.24
2 W12X87 25.60 132.0 50 12 5.38 5.72 25.2 107.0 0.24
1 W12X87 25.60 132.0 50 14 5.38 5.72 29.4 107.0 0.27

Table 2-9c. Column axial plus bending interaction calculations
Fa F' e Pcr Pe Py M m ,M p P M
Level Cm AISC AISC Results
Design Design (N4-2) (N4-3)
(ksi) (ksi) (k) (k) (k) (k-in.) (k) (k-in.)
5 29.8 262.1 968 9,594 955 4840 0.85 432.9 559.4 0.55 0.45 o.k.
4 29.8 262.1 968 9,594 955 4840 0.85 507.7 420.2 0.60 0.53 o.k.
3 27.7 262.1 899 9,594 955 4840 0.85 571.7 657.5 0.76 0.60 o.k.
2 27.7 262.1 1,206 12,860 1280 6600 0.85 560.3 639.9 0.55 0.44 o.k.
1 27.2 262.1 1,185 12,860 1280 6600 0.85 772.6 989.0 0.79 0.60 o.k.
5r. Foundation design considerations.
In EBF design, special consideration should be given to the foundation design. The
basis for design of the EBF is that the yielding occurs in the EBF links. Thus, all
other elements should have the strength to develop the link beam yielding
strengths.
The code does not require the foundation design to be capable of developing the
link beam strengths. However, if only a minimum code foundation design is
performed, the foundation will generally not develop the EBF link beam strengths,
and yielding will occur in the foundation. This is not consistent with the design
philosophy for EBF frames.
The SEAOC Blue Book recommends that the foundation be designed to develop
the strength of the EBF frame. The intention is to have adequate foundation
strength and stability to ensure the development of link beam yield mechanisms to
achieve the energy dissipation anticipated in the eccentric braced frames. A static
pushover analysis of an EBF frame can give a good indication of the foundation
adequacy.
5s. Final frame member sizes (ASD).
Table 2-10. Final frame member sizes for EBF4 (ASD)

Level Beams Link Lengths Columns Braces
Roof W16X77 24"
5 W18X86 34" W12X65 W12X87
4 W18X97 36" W12X65 W12X87
3 W18X97 36" W12X65 W12X87
2 W21X132 46" W12X87 W12X106
1 W12X87 W12X120

Figure 2-5. EBF4 frame member sizes (ASD)
6. EBF member design using (LRFD).
In the 1997 UBC, a designer has a choice of whether to design using allowable
stress design (ASD) methods or whether to use load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) methods. In part 5, the ASD method is illustrated. In part 6, the LRFD
method is illustrated. The results are slightly different, depending on the method
chosen. In this part, the frame EBF4 that was designed to ASD requirements in Part
5 is now designed to LRFD requirements of AISC-Seismic.
LRFD design provisions for EBF frames are contained in Section 15 of the AISC
document, “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,” published in 1997.
This document is commonly known as AISC-Seismic. Note that the Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, 1992 edition, is included in the AISC-
LRFD Manual, Part 6, which is adopted by reference in the code in Chapter 22,
Division II, §2206. However, the 1997 AISC-Seismic provisions have been
updated and are recommended in the SEAOC Blue Book, Section 702.

6a. Link shear strength.
The link shear strength Vn can be found from the minimum values of V p or
2 M p e . The values for V p are calculated as follows:
(d − 2t f )t w ≥ 0.90V(0i,link
.60)
AISC-Seismic §15.2d
Fy
V p = 0.60 F y t w (d − 2 t f ) AISC-Seismic §15.2d
M p = ZxFy
Preliminary beam sizes are determined as shown in Table 2-11. Note that seismic
forces for LRFD procedures use both E h and E v . The E v seismic force is additive
to dead load D and is included in the load combination of Equation (12-5).
1.2 D + f1l + 1.0 E (12-5)
E = ∆E h + E v
Ev = 0.5Ca ID = 0.5(0.53)(1.0 )D = 0.265 D
Substituting for E h , E v , and f1 in Equation (12-5)
1.2 D + 0.5l + 1.0(∆E h + E v )
= 1.2 D + 0.5l + 1.0(1.13E h + 0.265D )
= 1.465D + 0.5l + 1.13E h
Tables 2-11a through 2-11c show preliminary link analysis and sizing (LRFD).
Table 2-11a. Design seismic forces at EBF frame
Story Frame Forces, E h Frame Forces, E h

Level Fi Vi 2
Forces Left Right C, T link Fil Fir Vi
R 229 131.0 98.2 16.4 131.0 98.2 229.2 229.2 114.6
5 192 109.5 82.1 13.7 109.5 82.1 420.9 191.7 210.4
4 146 83.2 62.4 10.4 83.2 62.4 566.6 145.7 283.3
3 100 57.0 42.7 7.1 57.0 42.7 666.2 99.7 333.1
2 54 31.1 23.3 3.9 31.1 23.3 720.6 54.4 360.3

Table 2-11b. Preliminary link beam sizes and properties
Level
Story Fi 2 Fi 2 Vli
(d − 2t f )t w Size d tw tf
Height min.
R 12 114.6 114.6 105.8 3.92 W14X38 14.10 0.31 0.52

5 12 95.8 95.8 194.3 7.19 W16X89 16.75 0.53 0.88
4 12 72.8 72.8 261.5 9.68 W21X111 21.51 0.55 0.88
3 12 49.8 49.8 279.8 10.36 W21X122 21.68 0.60 0.96
2 15 27.2 27.2 415.8 15.40 W27X178 27.81 0.73 1.19
Table 2-11c. Preliminary link beam results

1.3 1.6 Link Ratio
Level (d − 2t f )t w Results Zx Mp φVp Ω CDR
M p Vp M p Vp e M p Vp
R 4.05 o.k. 61.50 3,075 109 36.5 45.0 32 1.26 1.15 1.03
5 7.88 o.k. 175.00 8,750 213 53.5 65.8 48 1.30 1.22 1.09
4 10.87 o.k. 279.00 13,950 293 61.8 76.1 56 1.31 1.25 1.12
3 11.86 o.k. 307.00 15,350 320 62.3 76.7 56 1.30 1.27 1.14
2 18.44 o.k. 567.00 28,350 498 74.0 91.1 66 1.29 1.33 1.20
For the first (ground level) story, the EBF link beam design will be based on use of
a W 27 × 178 link beam at Level 2. Note that §15.2 of AISC-Seismic limits the
yield strength of the link beam to F y = 50 ksi .
6b. Link rotation.
The frame displacement at the second level, ∆ S 2 , was determined from a separate
computer analysis (not shown) using the design base shear without ∆ .
∆ S 2 = 0.28 in.
The corresponding inelastic displacement, ∆ M 2 may be estimated from a static

analysis by the following formula:
∆ M = .7 R∆ s = .7(7 )0.28" = 1.37 in. (30-17)

The link rotation is computed as a function of the frame story drift and frame
geometry. For a frame of story height h , bay width l , link length e, and
dimensions a = l − e 2 , the link rotation may be calculated by the following
formula. Link rotations, θ , must be limited to 0.080 radians per AISC-Seismic
§15.2g.
∆M  2a  1.37"  2 (147 ") 

θ= 1 + = 1 +  = 0.042 radians ≤ 0.080
H  e  180 "  66 
∴ o.k.
Comment: The above formula makes the assumption that all deformation occurs
within the link rotation at a particular level. It has been observed that there is
significant contribution to deformations from column and brace elongation and
shortening. A more accurate analysis of link rotation can be made looking at joint
displacements and calculating rotations based on relative joint displacements.
Another simple method is to perform an analysis using very strong column and
brace section properties in the model and force all deformations into the link beam
for purposes of evaluating the link rotations.
6c. Link shear strength. AISC-Seismic §15.2d
The nominal shear strength of the link, Vn , is equal to the lesser of V p or 2 M p e .

Solving for the design strength φVn .
φVn ≤ Vi ,link at any given level
( )
φVn = 0.9 (0.60 )F y t w d − 2t f = 0.9 (0.6 )(50 ksi )(.73")[27.8"−2 (1.19")] = 498 kips
φ2 M p
=
0.9 (2 )M p
=
0.9 (2) F y Z x
=
( )
0.9 (2 )(50 ksi ) 567.0 in.3
= 773 kips
e e e 66"
φVn = 498 kips
498 kips
φVn = = 553 kips
0.9
The design overstrength factor for this link beam Ω is calculated as follows:
Vn 553 kips
Ω= = = 1.33
Vi ,link 416 kips

The minimum link design shear overstrength ratio is controlled by the φ factor.
Thus, the minimum Ω is Ω min = 1.0 φ = 1.0 0.9 = 1.11 . The significance of the
overstrength ratio is that the link will not yield until seismic forces overcome the
link yield point. The overstrength factor Ω is a relationship between code forces
and design overstrength forces which will likely yield the link. Note that the Ω
factor does not include the R y factor for expected yield stress of the steel.
The link beam in this Design Example has been sized for strength and stiffness. In
beams above the level under discussion, it was found necessary to add cover plates
for the beams outside the links (for increased beam capacity outside the link). The
attempt was made to balance the design between good ratios of Mp /Vp of
approximately 1.3 and the requirement for cover plates outside the link. It was
decided to use cover plates to meet strength requirements for EBF beams outside
the link to maintain desired ratios of Mp /Vp. The trade-off is to lessen the ratio of
Mp /Vp and not require cover plates. It is believed that the performance of the link is
more important than the cover plate requirement, and thus it was not possible to
size beams to meet requirements outside the link without beam cover plates for this
configuration of EBF frame.
6d. Beam compact flange.
Check the W 27 × 178 beam to ensure that the flanges are compact to prevent
flange buckling.
bf 14.09" 52 52
= = 5.92 ≤ = = 7.35
2 t f 2(1.19") Fy 50 ksi
∴ o.k. AISC-Seismic, Table I-9-1
6e. Link length.
The length of the link will determine whether the link yields in shear or in bending
deformations. To ensure the desired shear yielding behavior (see discussion in Part
5b), the link beams have been limited to lengths less than 1.3Mp /Vp. From part 6c,
Vp and Mp are calculated:
V p = 553 kips
( )
M p = Z x F y = 567 in. (50 ksi ) = 28,350 kip-in.
3

Check that the 1.3 M p V p criteria is not exceeded.
eV p
=
(66")(553 kips ) = 1.29 ≤ 1.3
Mp 28,350 k − in.
∴ o.k.
Second floor link length of 66 inches is o.k.
6f. Verification of link shear strength.
The strength of the link is used to establish the minimum strength required of
elements outside the link. The link shear strength Vp was determined using the web
area (d-2tf) of the beam. When the beam has reached flexural capacity, shear in the
link may be less than the shear strength of the section. If this is the case, the
flexural capacity of the section will limit the shear capacity of the link. AISC-
Seismic §15.2f requires that the shear strength of the section be the minimum of
shear yielding strength or shear required for plastic moment yielding behavior.
V p = 553 kips
2M p
=
(
2 (50 ksi ) 576 in.3 )
= 872 kips
e 66"
The controlling nominal shear capacity Vn is the minimum of V p or 2V p e . From

Part 6c, Vn = 553 kips . By selecting the W27x178 section as the link beam, the
controlling mode of yielding is shear yielding in the link and therefore bending
yielding will not be developed.
6g. Required beam brace spacing. §2313.10.18
The limiting unbraced length for full plastic bending capacity, L p , is determined as
follows. Lateral beam braces for the top and bottom flanges at the ends of the link
beams are still required.
300ry 300(3.26")
Lp = = = 138.3" ≅ 11'−6" AISC-LRFD (F1-4)
F yf 50 ksi
Therefore, the beam bracing at 10 ft.-0 in. is adequate. (Note: the composite steel
deck and lightweight concrete fill is not considered effective in bracing the top
flange.)

6h. Beam and link axial loads.
The summation of story forces down to level 3, ΣFi = V3 in Table 2-4 (the sum of
level shears from the roof to Level 3) is 666 k. The frame forces in Level 2 at the
left connection and right connection are F2 L = 31.1 k and F2 R = 23.3 k .
If the required axial strength of the link Pu is equal to or less than 0.15 Py , the
effect of axial force on the link design shear strength need not be considered.
Therefore, the axial force in the link is:
(31.1 k - 23.3 k ) = 3.90 k

C link = T link =
2
The maximum axial stress in the link must be checked for the requirements of
§15.2e of AISC-Seismic:
Ω(3.9 kips ) 1.33(3.9 kips )

fa = = = 0.10 ≤ 0.15 F y
Ag 52.30 in.2
Therefore, the effect of axial force on the link design shear strength need not be
considered.
6i. Beam compact web. AISC-Seismic §9.4
The maximum hc t w ratio permitted for compact beam sections is dependent on

the axial load in the beam. Sections noted Fy′′′ in the AISC-LRFD (2nd Edition)
have compact webs for all combinations of axial stress when the yield strength is
less than the tabulated values.
If a beam section is chosen that does not have a compact web for all axial loads, the
section should be checked using Table I-9-1, of AISC-Seismic. The web should be
compact along the full length of the beam. Both the UBC and AISC-Seismic do not
allow the use of doubler plates for a link beam.
For a W 27 × 178 beam.
A = 52.30 in.2
hc d − 2k 27.81"−2(1.875")
= = = 32.9
tw tw 0.73"

Maximum axial force in link beam outside the link:
V 3   666 kips 
P 2L = Ω  + F 2L  = 1.33  + 31.1 kips  = 484 kips
2   2 
Pu 484kips
= = 0.21 ≥ 0.125
(
φ b Py 0.90 (50 ksi ) 52.30 in.2 ) AISC-Seismic, Table I-9-1
For Pu φ b Py ≥ 0.125 , allowable d t w to prevent local buckling is determined

from the equation below.
 hc  191 
 = 2.33 −
2.75 Pu 
= 191 
 2.33 −
(364 kips )  = 58.8 ≥ 253 = 5.06
 tw  F y  φ b Py 
 50 ksi  0.9 (2,615 kips )  Fy
∴ hc / t w = 32.9 ≤ 58.8
∴ o.k. AISC-Seismic, Table I-9-1
6j. Combined link loads.
The combined bending plus axial strength of the link must be checked and
compared with the yield stress. In the link, axial and bending stresses are resisted
entirely by flanges.
Pu = 3.9 kips (Ω ) = 3.9 kips(1.33) = 5.2 kips
Pu 364 kips
= = 0.14 ≤ 0.15
(
Py (50 ksi ) 52.30 in.2 ) AISC-Seismic §15.2f
Moment from yielding link shear:
Mu = Vp
e
= 553 k
(66") = 18,249 kip − in.
2 2
A f = b f t f = (14.09")× (1.19") = 16.77 in.2

( )( ) ( )
Z f = d − t f b f t f = (27.81"−1.19") 16.77 in. 2 = 446.2 in.3
Pu M 10.5 kips 18,249 k − in.

+ u = + = 40.9 ksi ≤ 50 ksi
2Af Zf 2 16.77 in.(2
)
446.2 in.3
∴ Link combined axial plus bending capacity is o.k.
6k. Beam analysis (outside of link). AISC-Seismic, AISC §15.6b
Link beams have difficulty resisting the link beam moments increased by 1.1 and
Ry when using a lower bound strength not including Ry. Although AISC-Seismic
allows the LRFD design strength to be increased by Ry, it is not very clear how
AISC-Seismic had intended it to be performed. In conversation with
representatives of AISC-Seismic, it was conveyed to the author of this Design
Example that the intention was simply to increase LRFD design strengths (Pn, Mn)
by an Ry factor. It was not the intention of the AISC-Seismic subcommittee to
increase Fy by Ry and carry those values through all the LRFD design equations.
The solution in this Design Example has the beam outside the link resisting the
entirety of the link beam moment. A more refined analysis can be performed where
the brace contributes to the resistance of moment, which would reduce the moment
on the beam outside the link. The analysis in this Design Example includes the use
of flange cover plates to increase the bending capacity of the beam outside the link.
The beam outside the link is required to resist 110 percent of the bending and axial
forces corresponding to the link beam yield, using its nominal strength Ry. The
combined beam bending plus axial interaction equations are referenced from
AISC-LRFD Section H. Axial load analysis is referenced from AISC-LRFD
Section E and bending analysis is referenced from AISC-LRFD Section F.
The steps below yield forces from the hand evaluation of EBF frame behavior and
from the computer model (not shown).
Axial force in beam outside link is:
PE = 364 kips
From computer model, the load combination of Equation (12-5), including

E v = 0.265 D , is:
1.2 D + 0.265 D + 0.5l + 1.0 E h
1.465D + 0.5l ; PD +L = 18 kips

From EBF4 frame analysis:
M E = 18,249 kip-in.
Pu = (1.1)(1.33)(1.3)(364 k ) + (1.15)(18 kips ) = 712 kips AISC-Seismic §15.6a
Pu = 1.1ΩR y PE + 1.1PD + L
From computer analysis, load combination Equation (12-5):
1.2 D + 0.265 D + 0.5l + 1.0 Eh
M D + L = 307 kip-in.
1.1R y V p e
Mu= + 1.1M D + L
2
1.1(1.3)(553 kips )(66")

= + 1.1(307 kip-in.)
2
= 26,443 kip-in.
Beam section properties.

Combined section properties are given in Table 2-12, the reader should understand
how to convert typical beam section properties to those with cover plates:
The beam at Level 2 does not require cover plates. The beams at Levels 3-Roof all
require cover plates and thus have transformed section properties for use in the
following equations.
For W 27 × 170 beam without cover plates:
A = 52.3 in.2
Z x = 567 in.3
Z f = 446 in.3
I x = 6,990 in.4
S x = 503 in.3
ry = 3.26 in.

I y = 555 in.4
J = 19.5 in.4
C w = 98,300 in.6
X 1 = 2,543
X 2 = 0.00375
Beam slenderness parameters:
kl
=
(1.0)(120") = 36.8
ry 3.26"
Slenderness parameter for beam-column lc is calculated as follows:
lc =
kl Fy
=
36.8 (50 ksi ) = 0.487 AISC-LRFD (E2-4)
rπ E 3.1416 29,000 ksi
The critical axial stress Fcr is calculated:
For lc ≤ 1.5 :
 
(
Fcr =  0.658lc  Fy = 0.658.487
2 2
) (50 ksi) = 45.3 ksi AISC-LRFD (E2-2)
φ c = 0.85
Nominal axial strength is calculated as follows:
( )
Pn = Ag Fcr = 52.3 in.2 (45.3 ksi ) = 2,368 kips AISC-LRFD (E2-1)
R y Pn = 1.3(2,368 kips ) = 3,078 kips AISC-Seismic §15.6b
Bending capacity calculations are calculated:
φ b = 0.90 AISC-LRFD§F1.1
M n = M p for a limit state if flexural yielding AISC-LRFD (F1-1)
( )
M p = Z x Fy = 567 in.3 (50 ksi ) = 28,350 k-in.

Check lateral torsional buckling stability and allowable strength:
  Lb − L p 
M n = C b  M p − ( M p − M r )  ≤ M p AISC-LRFD (F1-2)
  L − L 
p 
 r 
C b = 1.0
Unbraced length:
Lb = 120 in.
Limiting laterally unbraced length for full plastic yielding:
300ry 300(3.26)
Lp = = = 138 in. AISC-LRFD (F1-2)
F yf 50 ksi
Limiting laterally unbraced length for inelastic lateral torsional buckling:
ry X 1
Lr = 1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2 AISC-LRFD (F1-6)
FL
Limiting buckling moment:
M r = FL S AISC-LRFD (F1-7)
Beam buckling factors, X 1 and X 2 :
π EGJA
X1 = AISC-LRFD (F1-8)
Sx 2
2
Cw  S x 
X2 = 4   AISC-LRFD (F1-9)
I y  GJ 
FL is the smaller of the yield stress in the flange minus compressive residual
stresses (10 ksi for rolled shapes) or web yield stress. AISC-LRFD §F1.2a
FL = (50 ksi − 10 ksi ) = 40 ksi
Lr =
ry X 1
1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2 =
(3.26)(2,543) 1 + 1 + (0.00375)(40 ksi )2 = 396
FL (40 ksi )

( )
M r = FL S x = (40 ksi ) 503 in.3 = 20,108 k-in.
  
(
M n = Cb  M p − M p − M r ) LLb −− LLp 
  r p 
  120"−138" 
= 1.0 28,350 − (28,350 − 20,108) 
  396"−138" 
= 28,933 k-in. ≥ M p = 28,350 k-in.
∴ M n = 28,350 k-in.
R y M n = 1.3 (28,350 k-in.) = 36,855 k-in.
Comparison of lateral torsional buckling moment with plastic yield moment

indicates that plastic yield moment is the controlling yield behavior. AISC-LRFD
Section H, combined axial plus bending interaction equations are as follows:
For the case:
Pu
≥ 0.2 AISC-LRFD (H1-1a)
φ c R y Pn
Pu 8 M ux
+ ≤ 1.0
φ c R y Pn 9 φ b R y M nx
For the case:
Pu
< 0.2 AISC-LRFD (H1-1b)
φ c R y Pn
Pu M ux
+ ≤ 1.0
2φ c R y Pn φ b R y M nx
Thus, for this Design Example:
Pu 712 kips
= = 0.27 ≥ 0.2
φ c R y Pn 0.85(3,078 kips )

Pu 8 M ux 712 kips  8  26,443 k − in.

+ = +  = 0.98 ≤ 1.0
φc R y Pn 9 φb R y M nx (0.85)(3,078 kips )  9  0.90 (36,855 k − in.)
∴ o.k.
Therefore, W 27 × 178 beam outside the link is okay. The EBF beams above Level
2 require cover plates and thus utilize combined section properties in the above
equations.
6l. Beam stiffeners. AISC-Seismic §15.3
There are two types of stiffeners required in links: 1.) link stiffeners at ends at
brace connections; and 2.) intermediate stiffeners. These are shown in Figure 2-7.
Link end stiffeners.

Full depth web stiffeners are required on both sides of the link beam at the brace
connections. The stiffeners are used to prevent web buckling and to ensure ductile
shear yielding of the web.
The stiffeners shall have a combined width not less than bf - 2tw and a thickness not
less than 0.75t w or 3/8 inch, whichever is larger. For the W 27 × 178 beam:
b f − 2t w = 14.09"−2(0.73") = 12.63" use 2 × 6.375" AISC-Seismic §15.3a
The minimum thickness of the stiffeners is:
0.75t w = 0.75(0.73") = 0.548" use 5/8" stiffeners
∴ Use 6 3/8 in. × 5/8 in. stiffeners each side of beam (total 4)
Intermediate stiffeners.
AISC-Seismic §15.3b requires intermediate full depth web stiffeners (Figure 2-7)
where link lengths are 5 V p M p or less.
Where link lengths are 1.6 V p M p or less, the spacing shall not exceed
30t w − d w 5 for link rotation of 0.08 radians and 52t w − d w 5 for link rotations of
0.02 radians. Linear interpolation may be used between link rotations of 0.02 and
0.08 radians. Thus,

d  27.81" 
30tw − = 30(0.73") −   = 16.33 in. AISC-Seismic §15.3b
5  5 
d  27.81" 
52t w − = 52(0.73") −   = 32.43 in. AISC-Seismic §15.3b
5  5 
Since the link rotation is 0.040 radians for the beam, interpolation must be used to
determine the maximum spacing of intermediate stiffeners. This is shown below.
 0.080 rad − 0.040 rad 

  (32.43"−16.33") + 16.33" = 27.0 in.
 0.080 rad − 0.020 rad 
Since the link length is 72 inches, therefore use three equal spacings of 24 inches.
Since the link beam is a W 27 , stiffener depth is 27.81 in. – 2 (1.19 in.) = 25.4 in.
Under §15.3b, Item 5, AISC-Seismic, intermediate stiffeners of depth greater than
25 inches are required to be placed on both sides of the beam. One-sided stiffeners
are required for depths less than 25 inches. The width shall not be less than
b f 2 − t w = 12.44" 2 − .650" = 5.57 in.
Therefore use 6 3/8 in. × 5/8 in. stiffeners on both sides of the beam.
Web stiffener welds.

The web stiffener welds are required to develop a stiffener force of
Ast F y = (6.375")(0.625")(50 ksi ) = 199 kips AISC-Seismic §15.3c
The minimum size of fillet weld, per AISC-LRFD Table J2.4, is ¼-inch to the link
web and 5/16-inch to the link flange. Using E70XX electrodes and 5/16-inch fillet
welds each side, the weld capacity is 0.6FEXX. The required weld length on the
beam web is:
199 kips
1required = = 10.72 in.
0.60(70 ksi )(2 × 5 16")(.707 )
Therefore, use 5/16-inch fillet welds, both sides of the stiffener, at flanges and web.
Note: One-fourth of the above required weld is required at the flanges.

6m. Tabulated link beam design.
Tables 2-12a through 2-12h present tabular calculations that show the results from
procedures in Parts 6a through 6l applied to all beams in the frame EBF4. The link
beam design for all levels is as shown below in tabular form following the
equations given above (each row/level is a continuation of the table above).
Table 2-12a. Link beam section properties

Link Aweb
Level e a h Fy A bf tf d tw Size
Beam t w (d − 2t r )
R W14X38 32 164 144 50 11.20 6.77 0.52 14.10 0.31 4.05 o.k.
5 W16X89 48 156 144 50 26.20 10.37 0.88 16.75 0.53 7.88 o.k.
4 W21X111 56 152 144 50 32.70 12.34 0.88 21.51 0.55 10.87 o.k.
3 W21X122 56 152 144 50 35.90 12.39 0.96 21.68 0.60 11.86 o.k.
2 W27X178 66 147 168 50 52.30 14.09 1.19 27.81 0.73 18.44 o.k.
Table 2-12a. Link beam section properties (continued)

Link Af Zf Zx lx Sx rx ly Sy ry Cw
Level J
Beam
R W14X38 7.0 47.4 61.5 385.0 54.6 5.86 26.7 7.89 1.54 0.80 1,230
5 W16X89 18.1 144.0 175.0 1,300.0 155.0 7.04 163.0 31.45 2.49 5.45 10,200
4 W21X111 21.6 222.8 279.0 2,670.0 249.0 9.04 274.0 44.41 2.89 6.83 29,200
3 W21X122 23.8 246.5 307.0 2,960.0 273.0 9.08 305.0 49.23 2.91 8.98 32,700
2 W27X178 33.5 446.2 567.0 6,990.0 502.0 11.56 555.0 78.81 3.26 19.50 98,300
Table 2-12b. Combined section properties (beams plus cover plates)

Link Plate
At Zx Zf lx Sx ry ly Cw X1 X2
Level t J
Beam b
R W14X38 6 0.375 16 94 80 621 84 1.60 40 0.8 1,230 1,697 0.01065
5 W16X89 6 0.250 29 201 169 1517 176 2.43 172 5.5 10,200 2,872 0.00197
4 W21X111 6 0.250 36 312 255 3025 275 2.82 283 6.8 29,200 2,274 0.00533
3 W21X122 6 0.250 39 340 279 3321 299 2.84 314 9.0 32,700 2,499 0.00369
2 W27X178 0 0.000 52 567 446 6990 503 3.26 555 19.5 98,300 2,543 0.00375
Table 2-12c. Compact flange, web

φVp b Comp. Comp. 1.1R y Pu h Comp. Comp.
Level φVp Ω Mp b f Flange Flange Pu Py Web Web
Mp 2t f φPn tw
Limit Results M p Vp Limits Results
R 109.4 1.15 3,075 1.26 6.57 7.35 o.k. 34.0 130.97 560.00 0.28 42.2 55.5 o.k.
5 212.6 1.22 8,750 1.30 5.92 7.35 o.k. 49.8 224.13 1,310.00 0.20 28.6 57.5 o.k.
4 293.4 1.25 13,950 1.31 7.05 7.35 o.k. 57.5 293.69 1,635.00 0.21 35.9 57.2 o.k.
3 320.1 1.27 15,350 1.30 6.45 7.35 o.k. 58.0 340.24 1,795.00 0.22 32.9 56.9 o.k.
2 497.8 1.33 28,350 1.29 5.92 7.35 o.k. 68.9 364.21 2,615.00 0.16 35.1 58.5 o.k.

Table 2-12d. Combined link stresses, unsupported length

Shear Pmax Comb Allow. 2φM pa
Link Lu
Level Above Fi Link Plink M link Link Link Vpa M pa 2 Vu Value
Result max.
Level Beam Loads Stress
R 0 131.0 131.0 16.4 1,944.8 42.2 50 o.k. 106.4 2,780 156.4 106.4 1.14 72.8
5 229.2 109.5 224.1 15.3 5,670.0 39.8 50 o.k. 209.5 8,558 320.9 209.5 1.17 111.4
4 420.9 83.2 293.7 13.7 9,129.1 41.3 50 o.k. 288.7 13,504 434.1 288.7 1.18 132.6
3 566.6 57.0 340.2 12.0 9,959.0 40.7 50 o.k. 314.3 14,680 471.8 314.3 1.17 133.2
2 666.2 31.1 364.2 10.5 18,252.4 41.1 50 o.k. 492.9 28,794 785.3 492.9 1.16 151.4
Table 2-12e. Beam outside link, design forces

M u ,SEISMIC Beam Pu ,D +L M u ,D +L Beam Pbu Pbu
Level Pu ,1.0Eh Ω Overstr. 1.465D+ 1.465D+ Overstr. Ry
Vp e 2 Factor Factor (kips) (k-in.)
0.5L 0.5L
R 131 1,945 1.15 1.10 2.0 342.0 1.10 1.3 217 3,157
5 224 5,670 1.22 1.10 12.0 359.0 1.10 1.3 403 8,503
4 294 9,129 1.25 1.10 17.0 303.0 1.10 1.3 542 13,388
3 340 9,959 1.27 1.10 17.4 318.0 1.10 1.3 638 14,591
2 364 18,252 1.33 1.10 17.6 307.0 1.10 1.3 712 26,439
Table 2-12f. Axial compression parameters

Lu Fcr Pn R y Pn
Level Section kl r y λc φc
(ft) (ksi) (kips) (kips)
R W14X38 10 75.0 0.991 33.14 0.85 520 676
5 W16X89 10 49.4 0.653 41.82 0.85 1,221 1,587
4 W21X111 10 42.6 0.563 43.78 0.85 1,563 2,032
3 W21X122 10 42.2 0.558 43.89 0.85 1,707 2,219
2 W27X178 10 36.8 0.487 45.28 0.85 2,368 3,078
Table 2-12g. Flexural strength parameters and combined axial plus bending results
(LTB=lateral torsional buckling yield mode)
Mn Pu AISC- AISC-
Mn = M p C b Lb L p FL Lr Mr Mn Ry Mn
Level φ b X1 X2 LTB LRFD LRFD
(k-in.) LTB (in.) (in.) (ksi) (in.) (k-in.) (k-in.) (k-in.) φR y Pn
(k-in.) H1-1a H1-1b
R 0.9 4,703 1.0 120 68 1,697 0.01065 40 156 3,344 3,895 3,895 5,064 0.38 0.99 NA
5 0.9 10,025 1.0 120 103 2,872 0.00197 40 304 7,034 9,771 9,771 12,703 0.30 0.96 NA
4 0.9 15,582 1.0 120 119 2,274 0.00533 40 324 10,995 15,569 15,570 20,241 0.31 0.97 NA
3 0.9 16,994 1.0 120 121 2,499 0.00369 40 338 11,977 17,007 16,995 22,093 0.34 0.99 NA
2 0.9 28,350 1.0 120 138 2,543 0.00375 40 396 20,108 28,933 28,350 36,855 0.27 0.98 NA

Table 2-12h. Link rotations

Story Story Rot
Drift h a e
Level ∆S ∆M θ
∆S (in.) (in.) (in.)
(i.n) (rad)
R 1.21 0.20 0.98 144 164 32 0.0766
5 1.01 0.23 1.13 144 156 48 0.0587
4 0.78 0.25 1.23 144 152 56 0.0547
3 0.53 0.25 1.23 144 152 56 0.0547
2 0.28 0.28 1.37 180 147 66 0.0416
6n. AISC-Seismic brace design. §15.6, AISC-Seismic
The braces are required to be designed for 1.25R yV p times the yielding link
strength plus 1.25 times gravity load combinations.
PE = 1.25ΩR y Pcomputer due to E h loads.
M E = 1.25 R yV p e / 2
Using strength design procedures outlined in AISC-LRFD Section H, obtaining

forces from a computer analysis, and showing calculations in tabular form
(Tables 2-13a through 2-13e), the design forces for braces ( P and M ) are
calculated. Column shear forces are not a controlling factor and are not shown for
the sake of brevity.
Table 2-13a. Brace section properties

A Zx Sx L rx ry Fy
Level Section kl r y
(in.2) (in.3) (in.3) (ft) (in.) (in.) (ksi)
5 W12X87 26 132 118 18 5.38 3.07 71.4 50
4 W12X152 45 243 209 18 5.66 3.19 68.7 50
3 W12X210 62 348 292 18 5.88 3.28 66.8 50
2 W12X230 68 386 321 18 5.98 3.31 65.5 50
1 W12X252 74 428 353 19 6.06 3.34 68.6 50

Table 2-13b. Brace design loads

Pgravity M gravity
Overstr. Overstr. Pbu M bu
Level Section PE ME Ω 1.465D+ 1.465D+ Ry
Factor Factor design design
0.5L 0.5L
R W12X87 150 1,512 1.15 1.25 18.0 276.0 1.25 1.3 303 3,168
5 W12X72 276 3,036 1.22 1.25 24.0 247.0 1.25 1.3 575 6,309
4 W12X79 378 3,744 1.25 1.25 24.0 180.0 1.25 1.3 796 7,811
3 W12X106 446 4,200 1.27 1.25 25.0 181.0 1.25 1.3 953 8,903
2 W12X120 565 3,996 1.33 1.25 25.0 105.0 1.25 1.3 1,253 8,770
Table 2-13c. Brace axial design parameters

Lu Fcr Pn
(ft) (ksi) (kips)
R W12X87 18 71.4 0.943 34.45 0.85 881.9
5 W12X72 18 68.7 0.908 35.40 0.85 1,582.4
4 W12X79 18 66.8 0.883 36.08 0.85 2,229.5
3 W12X106 18 65.5 0.865 36.55 0.85 2,474.5
2 W12X120 19 68.6 0.906 35.46 0.85 2,627.3
Table 2-13d. Brace bending design parameters

φb Mn = M p Cb Lb Lp FL Mr Mn
Level X1 X2 Lr
(ksi) (k-in.) (kips) (in.) (in.) (k-in.) (k-in.) (k-in.)
0.9 6,600.0 1.0 219 130 3,869 0.0006 40 459 4,720 6,092.5
5 0.9 12,150.0 1.0 219 135 3,225 0.0012 40 423 8,360 11,045.1
4 0.9 17,400.0 1.0 219 139 3,524 0.0008 40 460 11,680 15,974.5
3 0.9 19,300.0 1.0 217 140 4,650 0.0003 40 572 12,840 18,158.5
2 0.9 21,400.0 1.0 229 142 5,231 0.0002 40 639 14,120 20,120.9
Table 2-13e. Brace, combined axial

plus bending results
Pu AISC AISC
Level Section LRFD LRFD
φPn
H1-1a H1-1b
5 W12X87 0.40 0.92 NA
4 W12X152 0.43 0.99 NA
3 W12X210 0.42 0.90 NA
2 W12X230 0.45 0.94 NA
1 W12X252 0.56 0.99 NA

6o. AISC-Seismic column design. AISC-Seismic §15.8
The design of the columns for frame EBF4 for the requirements of AISC-Seismic
is shown in Tables 2-14a through 2-14e. The columns are required to resist an axial
force corresponding to 1.1RyVn, which is the shear strength of the links to ensure
that the yielding mechanism is within the link beams. Design forces (P and P) are
calculated as 1.1ΩRy times seismic forces plus 1.1 times factored gravity load
combinations. Column shear forces are not a controlling factor and are not shown
for the sake of brevity.
Table 2-14a. Column, section properties

A Zx Sx L rx ry Fy
Level Section kl r y
(in.2) (in.3) (in.3) (ft) (in.) (in.) (ksi)
5 W12X87 26 132 118 18 5.38 3.07 71.4 50
4 W12X87 26 132 118 18 5.38 3.07 71.4 50
3 W12X87 26 132 118 18 5.38 3.07 71.4 50
2 W12X170 50 275 235 18 5.74 3.22 67.4 50
1 W12X170 50 275 235 19 5.74 3.22 71.3 50
Table 2-14b. Column, design loads

Pgravity M gravity
Overstr. Overstr. Pbu M bu
Level Section PE ME Ω 1.465D+ 1.465D+ Ry
Factor Factor design design
0.5L 0.5L
R W12X87 0 276 1.15 1.10 4.0 168.0 1.10 1.3 4 638
5 W12X87 84 432 1.22 1.10 22.0 180.0 1.10 1.3 170 949
4 W12X87 238 504 1.25 1.10 44.0 144.0 1.10 1.3 473 1,057
3 W12X170 458 552 1.27 1.10 67.0 120.0 1.10 1.3 906 1,136
2 W12X170 683 972 1.33 1.10 87.0 60.0 1.10 1.3 1,395 1,915
Table 2-14c. Column, axial design parameters

Lu Fcr Pn
(ft) (ksi) (kips)
R W12X87 12 46.9 0.620 42.56 0.85 1,089.6
5 W12X87 12 46.9 0.620 42.56 0.85 1,089.6
4 W12X87 12 46.9 0.620 42.56 0.85 1,089.6
3 W12X170 12 44.8 0.592 43.18 0.85 2,159.0
2 W12X170 15 56.0 0.740 39.76 0.85 1,988.1

Table 2-14d. Column, bending design parameters

φb Mn = M p Cb Lb Lp FL Mr Mn Mn
Level X1 X2 Lr
(ksi) (k-in.) (kips) (in.) (in.) (k-in.) (k-in.) (k-in.) (k-in.)
R 0.9 6,600.0 1.0 144 130 3,869 0.0006 40 459 4,720 6,521.0 6,521
5 0.9 6,600.0 1.0 144 130 3,869 0.0006 40 459 4,720 6,521.0 6,521
4 0.9 6,600.0 1.0 144 130 3,869 0.0006 40 459 4,720 6,521.0 6,521
3 0.9 13,750.0 1.0 144 136 7,173 0.0001 40 824 9,400 13,702.1 13,702
2 0.9 13,750.0 1.0 180 136 7,173 0.0001 40 824 9,400 13,474.4 13,474
Table 2-14e. Column, combined axial

plus bending results
Pu AISC AISC
Level Section LRFD LRFD
φPn
H1-1a H1-1b
5 W12X87 0.00 NA 0.11
4 W12X87 0.18 NA 0.25
3 W12X87 0.51 0.67 NA
2 W12X170 0.49 0.58 NA
1 W12X170 0.83 0.97 NA
6p. Final frame member sizes (LRFD).
Table 2-15. Final frame member sizes for EBF4 (LRFD)

Level Beams Links (in.) Beam Cover Plate (in.) (1) Columns Braces
Roof W14x38 32 6x¼
5 W16x89 48 6x¼ W12X65 W12X87
4 W21x111 56 6x¼ W12X65 W12X87
3 W21x122 56 6x¼ W12X65 W12X87
2 W27x178 66 Not req’d W12X87 W12X106
1 W12X87 W12X120
Note:
1. Top and bottom flanges outside link.

Figure 2-6. EBF4 Frame member sizes (LRFD)
7. Typical EBF details.
Figures 2-7 through 2-14 are examples of typical EBF connection details. These
are shown for both wide-flange and tube section braces.
Figure 2-7. EBF brace-beam connection at link using wide flange brace

Figure 2-8. EBF brace-column connection using wide flange brace
Figure 2-9. EBF beam-brace connection at link using TS brace

Figure 2-10. Brace-beam connection with TS brace
Figure 2-11. EBF stiffeners at links

Figure 2-12. EBF beam stability bracing
Figure 2-13. Partial plan of EBF beam stability bracing

Figure 2-14. Link beam cover plates (beam outside the link)
Commentary
EBF frames are considered a quality seismic system because of their ability to
yield with a known behavior at controllable locations and to demonstrate very good
hysteretic behavior during cyclical loading. The possibility exists of discrete
postearthquake repairs in local areas if yielding of a frame occurs in an earthquake.
The construction of these frames is not difficult, and the cost is only slightly
greater than the cost of special concentric braced frame systems.
As can be seen, the LRFD design in accordance with AISC-Seismic yields more
conservative results. However, the provisions of AISC-Seismic are considered
state-of-the-art and more likely to yield an EBF frame with the superior
performance that is expected of EBF systems.
It was found that by designing an EBF link beam that meets all of the most
desirable attributes of EBF design, that the beam outside the link might require
cover plates to achieve the required strength. The designer will struggle with
optimization of the link design and the requirement for cover plates outside the
link. It is believed that optimization of the link is the most important element in the
system and if cover plates are required outside the link, that is a cost worth paying.
In the ASD example, the link lengths (to 1.3Vs/Ms), were not optimized and thus
did not need cover plates. However, from a performance standpoint, the ASD
frame may not be as good a design as the LRFD frame because its link lengths are
much shorter.

References
Becker and Ishler, “Seismic Design Practice for Eccentrically Braced Frames, Based
on the 1994 UBC,” Steel Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga,
California, December 1996.
Popov, Kasai, and Engelhardt, 1987. “Advances in Design of Eccentrically Braced

Frames,” Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, California, Vol.3, no.1.
Engelhardt and Popov, 1989. “On Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames,”

Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
California, Vol. 5, No. 3.
Popov, Engelhardt, and Ricles, 1989. “Eccentrically Braced Frames: US Practice,”

Engineering Journal. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,
AISC, 2nd quarter.
Kasai and Popov, 1986. “General Behavior of WF Steel Shear Link Beams,” Journal
of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia, Vol. 112, no. 2.

Design Example 3A ! Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
Design Example 3A
Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
Figure 3A-1. Four-story steel office building with steel special moment resisting frames (SMRF)
Foreword
This Design Example illustrates use of the 1997 UBC provisions for design of a
steel special moment resisting frame (SMRF). During the course of the
development of this Volume III, an intensive steel moment frame research
program, including considerable full-scale testing, was conducted by the SAC
project. As a result of this effort, new SAC guidelines have been developed.
However, these came after the finalization of this Design Example. Consequently,
the SMRF example given in this document shows only 1997 UBC and
FEMA-267/267A methodology. With the help of member of the SAC team,
comments have been added to this Design Example indicating where the
anticipated new SAC guidelines will be different than the methodology shown in
this Design Example.

Overview
Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the prior design procedures for steel
moment resisting frames have been subject to criticism, re-evaluation, and
intensive reseach. Given the observed earthquake damage attributed to brittle
connection fractures in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, it was determined that the
1994 UBC requirements for moment resisting joint design were inadequate and
should not continue to be used in new construction. In September 1994, the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) issued an emergency code
amendment that eliminated the prescriptive code design procedures for special
moment resisting frame (SMRF) beam-column connections. Those procedures
were replaced with code language requiring qualification of SMRF connection
design through prototype testing or calculation. A SMRF conection is now
required to demonstrate by testing or calculation the capacity to meet both the
strength and inelastic rotation performance as specified by 1997 UBC §2213.7.1.
To address the research needs precipitated by the SMRF connection concerns, the
SAC Joint Venture was formed by SEAOC, the Applied Technology Council
(ATC), and the California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engneering
(CUREe). SAC was charged with developing interim recommendations for
professional practice, including design guidelines for use in new SMRF
connections. To this end, FEMA-267, Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair,
Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures was published
in August, 1995. This was followed by FEMA-267A, Interim Guidelines; Advisory
No. 1, published in March, 1997.
As a prelude to possible future code requirements, FEMA-267A offers design

procedures and calculation methodologies for certain SMRF connection
configurations. While these procedures are subject to further refinement, they
represent the current state of practice for SMRF connection design. This Design
Example follows the procedures as presented in FEMA-267A, with the reduced
beam section (RBS) the selected joint configuration. Test results for the RBS joint
configuration indicate that it provides the requisite inelastic rotation capacity, and
is one of the more cost-effective of the current SMRF connection options.
Following publication of the FEMA-267 series, the SAC Joint Venture entered into
a supplemental contract with FEMA to perform additional research and develop
final design guidelines. That work, recently completed, culminated with the
publication of FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New
Moment Resisting Steel Frame Structures. FEMA-350 will present design details
and criteria for ten different types of connections that are prequalified for use
within certain limits. The FEMA-350 criteria are similar, but not identical, to those
illustrated here.

The 4-story steel office structure shown in Figure 3A-1 is to have special moment
resisting frames as its lateral force resisting system. The typical floor plan is shown
on Figure 3A-2 and the moment frame elevation is provided in Figure 3A-3 at the
end of this Design Example.
Outline
5. SMRF member design.
6. SMRF beam-column connection design.
Given Information

Roofing 4.0 psf Floor covering 1.0 psf
Insulation 2.0 Concrete fill on metal deck 44.0
Concrete fill on metal deck 44.0 Ceiling 3.0
Mechanical/electrical 4.0 Steel framing 9.0
Steel framing 6.0 Partitions (seismic DL) 10.0
Total 63.0 psf Total 76.0 psf
Live load: 20.0 psf Live load: 80.0 psf
Exterior wall system weight: steel

studs, gypsum board, fascia panels 20.0 psf

Site seismic and geotechnical data:

Occupancy category: Standard Occupancy Structure §1629.2
Seismic importance factor: I = 1.0 Table 16-K
Soil profile type: Type S D (default profile) §1629.3, Table 16-J
Seismic Zone: Zone 4, Z = 0.40 §1629.4.1, Table 16-I
Seismic source type: Type C §1629.4.2
Distance to seismic 10 km Table 16-S

source:
Near source factors: N a = 1.0 Table 16-T
N v = 1.0 Table 16-U
Wide flange shapes (
ASTM A572, Grade 50 f y = 50 ksi )
Plates ASTM A572, Grade 50
Figure 3A-2. Typical floor framing plan

Figure 3A-3. Frame elevation at Line A
1a. Check configuration requirements. §1629.5
Check the structure for vertical and horizontal irregularities.
Vertical irregularities—review Table 16-L. Table 16-L
By observation, the structure has no vertical irregularities. The moment frames

have no discontinuities or offsets, and the mass is similar at all levels.
Plan irregularities—review Table 16-M. Table 16-M
The floor plan has no re-entrant corners exceeding 15 percent of the plan
dimension, nor are there any diaphragm discontinuities. Therefore, the structure
has no plan irregularities.

1b. Classify structural system and determine seismic factors. §1629.6
The structure is a moment-resisting frame system with lateral resistance provided

by steel special moment resisting frames (SMRF) (system type 3.1, Table 16-N).
The seismic factors are:
R = 8.5 Table 16-N
Ω = 2.8
hmax = no limit
1c. Select lateral force procedure. §1629.8.3
The static lateral force procedure will be used. This is permitted for regular
structures not more than 240 feet in height.
1d. Determine seismic response coefficients Ca and Cv. §1629.4.3
C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.0 ) = 0.64 Table 16-R
1e. Evaluate structure period T. §1630.2.2
Per Method A: (30-8)
T = Ct (hn )3 4
C t = 0.035
T A = 0.03(55.5)3 4 = 0.71 sec
Per Method B:
Using a computer model, in lieu of Eq. (30-10), with assumed member sizes and
estimated building weights, the period is determined:

North-south ( y ) :
TBy = 1.30 sec §1630.2.2

Para. #2
East-west (x ):
TBx = 1.16 sec
For Seismic Zone 4, the value for Method B cannot exceed 130 percent of the
Method A period. Consequently,
Maximum value for TB = 1.3T A = 1.3(0.71) = 0.92 sec
1f. Determine design base shear. §1630.2.1
The total design base shear for a given direction is:
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.082W (30-4)
RT 8.5(0.92 )
The base shear need not exceed:
2.5Ca I 2.5(0.44 )(1.0 )

V = W = = 0.129W (30-5)
R 8.5
But the base shear shall not be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11(0.44)(1.0)W = 0.048W (30-6)
And for Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than:
0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.0)(1.0)
V = W = = 0.038W (30-7)
R 8.5
∴ V = 0.082W (30-4)

Note that if the period from Method A (T = 0.71sec) was used, the base shear
would be V = 0.106W . Method A is based on empirical relationships and is not
considered as accurate as Method B. To avoid unconservative use of Method B,
the code limits the period for Method B to not more than 1.3 times the Method A
period.
1g. Determine earthquake load combinations. §1630.1
Section 1630.1.1 specifies earthquake loads. These are E and E m as set forth in
Equations (30-1) and (30-2).
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
Em = Ω o Eh (30-2)
The normal earthquake design load is E . The load E m is the estimated maximum
earthquake force that can be developed in the structure. It is used only when
specifically required, as will be shown later in this Design Example.
Before determining the earthquake forces for design, the reliability/redundancy

factor must be determined.
20
Reliability/redundancy factor: ρ = 2 − (30-3)
rmax Ab
Ab is the ground floor area of the structure. Note that per the exception in
§1630.1, Ab may be taken as the average floor area in the upper setback portion in
buildings with a larger ground floor area and a smaller upper floor area.
Ab = (140 × 240) − 8(8.5)2 / 2 = 33,311 ft 2
The element story shear ratio ri is the ratio of the story shear in the most heavily
loaded single element over the total story shear at a given level i . The value for
rmax is the greatest value for ri occurring in any story in the lower two-thirds of
the structure. In structures with setbacks or discontinuous frames, the value of ri
should be checked at each level. For this Design Example, the frames are uniform
at all levels and will resist approximately the same relative lateral force at each
story. For moment frames, ri is taken as the maximum of the sum of the shears in
any two adjacent columns in a moment frame bay, divided by the story shear. The
exception is that for interior columns in multi-bay frames, 70 percent of the shear
may be used in the column shear summation.

By observation, the moment frame with the highest total shear per bay will govern
the value for rmax . For this Design Example, the design base shear is equal for both
north-south and east-west directions. Referring to the floor framing plan
(Figure 3A-2), the east-west direction has 16 moment frame columns, while the
north-south direction has 12 moment frame columns; so the north-south rmax will
be greatest. Although a different value of ρ may be used for each direction, the
larger rmax will be used for both directions in this Design Example to be
conservative.
Assume that the frames at Lines A and H each take half the story shear. Using the
portal method for the frame at Line A (Figure 3A-4), the four interior columns take
approximately 80 percent of the frame shear, and the two exterior columns
20 percent of the frame shear.
ΣF=50%
0.05V 0.1V 0.1V 0.1V 0.1V 0.05V
Figure 3A-4. Frame at Line A
At the exterior bay: ri = 0.05 + 0.7 (0.1) 1.0 = 0.12
At the interior bays: ri = 0.7 (0.1 + 0.1) 1.0 = 0.14
The interior bay governs with the larger value of ri . Per the SEAOC Blue Book
Commentary (§C105.1.1.1), ri is to include the effects of torsion, so a 5 percent
increase will be assumed.
rmax = 1.05(0.14) = 0.147
20
∴ρ = 2− = 1.25 o.k. (30-3)
0.147(33,311)1 / 2
Note that ρ cannot be less than 1.0, and that for SMRFs, ρ cannot exceed 1.25
per §1630.1.1. If necessary, moment frame bays must be added until this
requirement is met.

For the load combinations per §1612, and anticipating using allowable stress
design (ASD) in the frame design:
E = ρE h + E v = 1.25(V ) ( E v = 0 for allowable stress design) (30-1)
E m = ΩE h = 2.8(V ) (30-2)
Note that seismic forces may be assumed to act nonconcurrently in each principal
direction of the structure, except as per §1633.1. Although for this Design Example
the same value of ρ is used in either direction, a different value of ρ may be used
for each of the principal directions.
2a. Building weights and mass distribution.
Calculate the building weight and center of gravity at each level. Include an
additional 90 kips (3.0 psf) at the roof level for estimated weight of mechanical
equipment. Distribute the exterior curtain wall to each level by tributary height.
Figure 3A-5. Typical floor

Table 3A-1. Building mass properties

Roof Level Mass Properties
Roof: w DL = 63.0 + 3.0add'lmech = 66.0 psf ; Exterior Walls: w wall = 20 psf ; Wall Area = (6.5 + 4.0)(696 ft ) = 7,308 ft 2
Mark
w DL Area
(sf)
Wi X cg Ycg
( )
W X cg ( )
W Ycg
(psf) (kips) (ft) (ft)
Floor 66.0 29,090 1,920 100 70 191,994 134,396
Walls 20.0 7,308 146 100 70 14,616 10,231
Totals 2,066 206,610 144,627
X cg = 206 ,610 2,066 = 100.0ft ; Ycg = 144,627 2,066 = 70.0ft
4th, 3rd, & 2nd Level Mass Properties

Floor: w DL = 72.0 psf ; Exterior Walls: w wall = 15 psf ; Wall Area = (13.5)(696 ft ) = 9,396 ft 2
Mark
w DL Area
(sf)
Wi X cg Ycg
( )
W X cg ( )
W Ycg
(psf) (kips) (ft) (ft)
Floor 72.0 29,090 2,094 100 70 209,448 146,614
Walls 15.0 9,396 141 100 70 14,094 9,866
Totals 2,235 223,542 156,479
X cg = 223 ,542 2,235 = 100.0ft ; Ycg = 156,479 2,235 = 70.0ft
(1)
Table 3A-2. Mass properties summary
W X cg Ycg M (2) MMI (3)
Level
(kips) (ft) (ft)
Roof 2,066 100 70 5.3 26,556
4th 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
3rd 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
2nd 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
Total 8,771 22.7
Notes:
1. Mass (M) and mass moment of inertia (MMI) are used in analysis for determination of
fundamental period (T).
2. M = (W/386.4) (kips-sec2/in.)
3. MMI = M/A (lx + ly) (kips-sec2-in.)

As noted above, Equation (30-4) governs, and:
V = 0.082W = 0.082(8,771) = 720 kips
For the static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each level is
applied as follows:
V = Ft + ∑ Fi where Ft = 0.07T (V ) ≤ 0.25(V ) (30-13)
Except Ft = 0 where T ≤ 0.7 sec (30-14)
For this structure: T = 0.92 sec ∴ Ft = 0.07(0.92)(720) = 46.4 kips
The concentrated force Ft is applied at the roof, in addition to that portion of

the balance of the base shear distributed to each level per §1630.5:
Fx =
(V − Ft )Wx hx = (673.6 ) 
W x hx 
 (30-15)
∑ Wi hi  ∑
 Wi hi


Table 3A-3. Vertical distribution of shear

Level
(kips) (ft) (k-ft) Σwx (kips) (kips)
Roof 2,066 55.5 114,663 0.375 299.0
4th 2,235 42.0 93,870 0.307 206.8 299.0
3rd 2,235 28.5 63,698 0.208 140.3 505.8
2nd 2,235 15.0 33,525 0.110 73.9 646.1
Total 8,771 305,756 1.000 720.0 720.0
Note: Froof = 0.38 (673.6) + 46.4 = 299.0 kips

2d. Determine horizontal distribution of shear. §1630.6
Structures with concrete fill floor decks are typically assumed to have rigid
diaphragms. Seismic forces are distributed to the moment frames according to their
relative rigidities. For structures with assumed rigid diaphragms, an accidental
torsion must be applied (in addition to any actual torsional moment) equal to that
caused by displacing the center of mass 5 percent of the building dimension
perpendicular to the direction of the applied lateral force.
For the structural computer model of this Design Example, this can be achieved by
combining the direct seismic force applied at the center of mass at each level with
a torsional moment at each level:
North-south:
M t = 0.05(204 ft )FX = (10.2 )FX
East-west:
M t = 0.05(144 ft )FX = (7.2)FX
Table 3A-4. Horizontal distribution of shear

Fx N/S M t E/W M t
Level
Roof 299.0 3,050 2,153
4th 206.8 2,109 1,489
3rd 140.3 1,431 1,010
2nd 73.9 754 532
Note: Mt = horizontal torsional moment
Using the direct seismic forces and torsional moments noted above, the force distribution to the
frames is generated by computer analysis. The torsional seismic component is always additive to
the direct seismic force. For the computer model, member sizes are initially proportioned by
extrapolation from the tested configurations for SMRF reduced beam section joints, as discussed
in Part 6 below.
From the preliminary computer analysis, the shear force at the ground level is determined for each
frame column. As shown in Figure 3A-5, there are a total of six rigid frames: A1, A2, B1, B2, B3,
and B4. Frames A1 and A2 are identical. Frames B1, B2, B3, and B4 are also identical.
Recognizing that the building is symmetrical, the frame forces are the same for Frames A1 and
A2, as well as for Frames B1 through B4. Frame forces at the base of each frame type, A1 and B1
are summarized in Tables 3A-5 and 3A-6.

Table 3A-5. North-south direction, frame type A1

Line A/1.2 Line A/2 Line A/3 Line A/4 Line A/5 Line A/5.8 Total
Column Shears (kips)
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Direct Seismic 41.8 75.2 69.7 69.7 75.2 41.8 373.4
Torsion Force 2.6 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.6 2.6 23.0
Direct + Torsion 44.4 79.8 74.0 74.0 79.8 44.4 396.4
Table 3A-6. East-west direction, frame type B1

Line 1/A.2 Line 1/B Line 1/C Line 1/C.8 Total
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Direct Seismic 33.4 59.9 59.9 33.4 186.6
Torsion Force 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 7.2
Direct + Torsion 34.7 62.2 62.2 34.7 193.8
As a check on the computer output, compare the total column shears with the
direct seismic base shear of 720 kips:
North-south:
ΣFtype A = 2(373.4 ) = 746.8 > 720 kips o.k.
East-west:
ΣFtype B = 4(186.6 ) = 746.4 > 720 kips o.k.
The summation of the column shears is about 3 percent greater than the design
base shear input to the computer model. This is mostly due to the inclusion of P∆
effects in the computer analysis. As required by §1630.1.3, P∆ effects are to be
considered when the ratio of secondary (i.e., moment due to P∆ effects) to
primary moments exceeds 10 percent.
Next, to refine the initial approximation for rmax and ρ , the actual column shears
for Frame A1 from Table 3A-5 above will be used.
rmax = 0.7(79.8 + 74.0 ) / 747 = 0.144
20
∴ ρ=2− = 1.24 ≈ 1.25 o.k.
0.144(33,311)1 / 2

3a. Determine ∆S and ∆M.
The design level response displacement ∆ S is the story displacement at the center
of mass. It is obtained from a static-elastic analysis using the design seismic forces
derived above. For purposes of displacement determination, however, §1630.10.3
eliminates the upper limit on TB , used to determine base shear under Equation
(30-4). The maximum inelastic response displacement ∆ M includes both elastic
and estimated inelastic drifts resulting from the design basis ground motion. It is
computed as follows:
∆ M = 0.7(R )∆ S = 0.7(8.5)∆ S = 5.95∆ S (30-17)
The maximum values for ∆ S and ∆ M are determined, including torsional effects
(and including P∆ effects for ∆ M ). Without the 1.3T A limit on TB , the design
base shear per Equation (30-4) is:
North-south:
TBy = 1.30 sec
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
Vn / s = W = W = 0.058W = 509 kips (30-4)
RT 8.5(1.30)
East-west:
TBx = 1.16 sec
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
Ve / w = W = W = 0.064W = 561 kips
RT 8.5(1.16 )
Note that §1630.9.1 and §1630.1.1 require use of the unfactored base shear V, with
ρ = 1 . Using these modified design base shears, the accidental torsion and force
distribution to each level are adjusted for input to the computer model. The
structure displacements and drift ratios are derived as shown below in Table 3A-7.

Table 3A-7. Interstory displacements

North-South Interstory Displacements
Height ∆ S Drift ∆ M Drift Drift Ratio
Story (∆ M h )
h (in.) (in.) (in.)
4th 162 (1.36 - 1.16)= 0.20 1.19 0.0073
3rd 162 (1.16 - 0.85)= 0.31 1.84 0.0114
2nd 162 (0.85 - 0.47)= 0.38 2.26 0.0140
1st 180 (0.47 - 0.0) = 0.47 2.80 0.0156
East-West Interstory Displacements
Height ∆ S Drift ∆ M Drift Drift Ratio
Story (∆ M h )
h (in.) (in.) (in.)
4th 162 (1.17 - 1.01)= 0.16 0.95 0.0059
3rd 162 (1.01 - 0.73)= 0.27 1.61 0.0099
2nd 162 (0.73 - 0.40)= 0.33 1.96 0.0121
1st 180 (0.40 - 0.0) = 0.40 2.38 0.0132
Note: Interstory drift ratio = ∆M/story height.
3b. Determine the story drift limitation. §1630.10
For structures with T > 0.7 , the allowable story drift is: ∆ M = 0.020 (story
height). A review of drift ratios tabulated in Table 3A-7 shows that all interstory
drift ratios are less than 0.020, using seismic forces corresponding to the actual
period TB in base shear Equation (30-4). Also, note that all drift ratios are less
than (0.95)(0.020 ) = 0.019 . This 5 percent reduction in the drift limit is required
for reduced beam section joint designs under FEMA-267A.
Looking ahead to the SMRF member design, §2213.7.10 imposes certain

conditions on moment frame drift calculations, including bending and shear
contributions from clear beam-column spans, column axial deformation, and panel
zone distortion. These conditions are met by most general purpose structural
analysis programs used in building design, except for the contribution to frame
drift from panel zone distortion. The code provides an exception whereby a
centerline analysis may be used if the column panel zone strength can develop
80 percent (0.8ΣM s ) of the strength of the girders framing into the joint. As will
be seen from the SMRF beam-column joint design, this condition will always be
met under the current performance criteria. Moreover, the FEMA-267A provisions
produce stronger, stiffer column panel zone designs than previously permitted by
the UBC. Therefore, panel zone distortion will generally not contribute
significantly to overall frame drift.

To gain a feel for the influence of beam-column joint stiffness on overall frame
drift, two conditions are modeled for east-west seismic forces, with the lateral
displacements at the roof derived as follows:
Centerline analysis: 1.37 inches
50 percent rigid joint analysis: 1.17 inches
The centerline analysis produces a displacement 17 percent greater than the

50 percent rigid joint analysis. Most engineers feel that the centerline analysis
over-estimates, and the 100 percent rigid joint underestimates, the actual frame
drift. The 50 percent rigid joint analysis is an accepted standard of practice for
providing reasonable design solutions for frame displacements.
4. Typical diaphragm design. §1633.2.9
4a. Determine diaphragm load distribution.
In multi-story buildings, diaphragm forces F px are determined by the formula:
Ft + ∑ Fi
F px = (w px ) and 0.5C a IW px < F px ≤ 1.0C a IW px (33-1)
∑ wi
The diaphragm forces at each level, with the upper and lower limits, are calculated
as shown in Table 3A-8 below. Note that the 0.5C a IW px minimum controls for
this building.
Table 3A-8. Diaphragm load distribution

Fi (1) ΣFi wx Σw i FPx 0.5Ca Iw Px 1.0Ca Iw Px
Level
(kips) (kips) (kips) (1) (kips) (kips) (2) (kips) (3) (kips) (3)
Roof 299.0 299.0 2,066 2,066 299.0 454.5 909.0
4th 206.8 505.8 2,235 4,301 262.8 491.7 983.4
3rd 140.3 646.1 2,235 6,536 220.9 491.7 983.4
2nd 73.9 720.0 2,235 8,771 183.5 491.7 983.4
Notes:
1. See Table 3A-3.
2. Ft = 46.4 kips (see Part 2c)
3. Ca = 0.44 kips (see Part 1d)

4b. Determine diaphragm shear.
The diaphragm design is governed by the minimum seismic force 0.5C a I pW p ( )

and the 491.7 kip force at the floor levels is used for design. This value is not
factored up by ρ per §1630.1.1. The reliability/redundancy factor ρ is only
applied to transfer diaphragms (see Blue Book §105.1.1).
∴ E floor = FP = 491.7 kips (30-1)
The maximum diaphragm span occurs between Lines A and H, so the north-south
direction will control.
Although the computer model assumes rigid diaphragms for load distribution to
the frames, we now consider the diaphragm as a horizontal beam. Shears at each
line of resistance are derived assuming the diaphragm spans as simple beams under
a uniform load.
w1 = E floor / (200′) = 491.7 / (200) = 2.46 k/ft
Diaphragm shear:
 200 
VA = VH = 2.46   = 246 kips
 2 
Figure 3A-6. Diaphragm shear

Using the alternate basic load combination of Equation (12-13) for allowable stress
design, the factored diaphragm design shear at Line A is (E/1.4):
qA =
(V ) = 246
= 1.25 k-ft
1.4 1.4(140')
Using 3¼-inch light weight concrete over 3"× 20 gauge deck, with 4 welds per
sheet at end laps and button punch at 12 in. side laps, the allowable deck shear per
the manufacturer’s ICBO Evaluation Report is:
Vallow = 1.75 > 1.25 k-ft o.k.
4c. Determine collector and chord forces.
Assuming the diaphragm acts as a simple beam between Lines A and H (and this is
the usual assumption), the maximum chord force at Lines 1.2 and 5.8 for north-
south seismic is:
2.46(200)2
CF = = 100.0 k
8(123)
Because the beam framing is continuous on Lines 1.2 and 5.8, these lines are
chosen to resist the chord force. [Lines 1 and 6 have indentations in the floor plan
(Figure 3A-2).] The chord force must be compared to the collector force at these
lines, and the greatest value used for design.
For east-west seismic loads, the factored shear flow at Line 1.2 is approximately:
491.7
q1.2 = = 1.23 k-ft
(2)(200')
Figure 3A-7 shows the collector force diaphragm for Line 1.2.
Figure 3A-7. Collector force diagram at Line 1.2

The maximum collector force is:
Fa = Fd = 1.23(8.5) = 10.5 kips
Fb = Fc = 1.23(75.5) − 123 = 30.1 kips
Per §1633.2.6, seismic collectors must be designed for the special seismic load
combinations of §1612.4. Note that the value for E M does not include the ρ
factor.
E M = Ω o (FP ) = 2.8(30.1) = 84.3 kips (30-2)
The seismic drag tie or chord can be implemented using supplemental slab
reinforcing. With the strength design method for concrete per §1612, including
Exception 2, the factored collector and chord forces are:
Factored chord force: Tu = 1.1(E ) = 1.1(100.0 ) = 110.0 kips §1612.4
Factored collector force: Tu = 1.0(E M ) = 1.0(84.3) = 92.7 kips (12-17)
The factored chord forces for north-south seismic loads govern the design at
Line 1.2. The required slab chord reinforcing is calculated as:
Required As = Tu φf y = 110.0 0.9(60) = 2.0 in.2
∴ Use 4-#7, As = 2.4 in.2
5. SMRF member design.
In this Part, representative beam and column members of Frame A1 are designed
under the provisions of §2213.7. Certain provisions of §2213.7 pertaining to joint
design have been modified by the recommendations of FEMA-267A. These
provisions, including the strong column-weak beam and panel zone requirements,
are discussed with the RBS joint design in Part 6 of this Design Example.
From past experience, steel moment frame designs have typically been drift
controlled. Frame members were chosen with sufficient stiffness to meet the drift
limits, and then checked for the SMRF design requirements. However, to meet the
intent of §2213.7.1, the design process begins by selecting beam-column
combinations extrapolated from tested RBS joint assemblies. The rationale for
selection of the member sizes is also presented in Part 6, with a W 30 × 108 beam
and W 14 × 283 column chosen for this Design Example.

5a. rd
Design typical beam at 3 floor.
The typical beam selected to illustrate beam design is a third-floor beam in Frame
A1. This is shown in Figure 3A-8 below.
Figure 3A-8. Typical beam at third floor of Frame A1.
From a review of the computer output prepared separately for this Design
Example, the moments and shears at the right end of the beam are greatest. The
moments and shears at the face of the column at Line 5 are:
M LL = 924 kip-in.
M seis = ± 3,590 kip-in.
M E = ρM seis = 1.25(3,590 ) = ± 4,487 kip-in.
V DL = 16.4 kips
V LL = 13.3 kips
Vseis = ± 22.3 kips
VE = ρVseis = 1.25(22.3) = ± 27.9 kips §1630.1.1

The basic load combinations of §1612.3.1 (ASD) are used, with no one-third
increase. (These were selected to illustrate their usage, although generally it is
more advantageous to use the alternate basic load combinations of §1612.3.2.)
D + L : M D +L = 1,042 + 924 = 1,966 kip-in. (12-8)
V D +L = 16.4 + 13.3 = 29.7 kips
E 4,487
D+ : M D +E = 1,042 + = 4,247 kip-in. (12-9)
1.4 1.4
27.9
VD + E = 16.4 + = 36.3 kips
1.4
  E    4,487  
D + 0.75 L +   : M D + L + E = 1,042 + 0.75924 +    = 4,139 kip-in. (12-11)
  1.4    1.4  
  27.9 
VD + L + E = 16.4 + 0.7513.3 +   = 41.3 kips
  1.4 
Try W 30 × 108 , ASTM A572, Grade 50 beam.
Check flange and web width-thickness ratios per §2213.7.3 (flange and web
compactness criteria to mitigate premature formation of local buckling):
bf 52 d 640
≤ = 7.35 and ≤ = 90.5
2t f 50 tw 50
bf
For W 30 × 108 : = 6.9 < 7.35 o.k.
2t f
d 29.83
and = = 54.7 < 90.5 o.k.
t w 0.545
Check the beam bracing requirements of §2213.7.8:
Maximum brace spacing = 96ry = 96 (2.15) 12 = 17.2 ft
Place minimum bracing at one-third points: L = 96 28.0 3 = 9.33 ft on center

Check allowable moment capacity:
From AISC-ASD (p. 2-10) for W 30 × 108 :
( )
Lu = 9.8 > 9.33 ∴ Fb = 0.60 F y = 30.0 ksi
Allowable M a = 299(30.0 ) = 8,970 kip-in. > 4,247 kip-in. o.k.
Check allowable shear capacity:
h 29.83 − 2(0.76 ) 380

For W 30 × 108 : = = 51.9 < = 53.7
tw 0.545 50
( )
∴ Fv = 0.4 F y = 0.4(50 ) = 20.0 ksi
Allowable Va = 20.0(0.545)(29.83) = 325 kips > 41.3 kips o.k.
∴ Use W 30 × 108 beam
Note: The W 30 × 108 beam is much larger than required by allowable stress
considerations. The reason for this is that this shape has been part of the beam-
column assemblies tested with RBS configurations.
5b. Design typical column at 2

nd
story.
The column to be designed is the second-story column of Frame A1 shown in

Figure 3A-9.
For the second-story column at Line 5, the maximum column forces generated by
the frame analysis (not shown) are:
M DL = 236 kip-in.
M LL = 201 kip-in.
M seis = 3,970 kip-in.
M E = 1.25(3,970) = 4,963 kip-in.
V DL = 3.1 kips
V LL = 2.7 kips
Vseis = 56.8 kips

V E = 1.25(56.8) = 71 kips
PDL = 113 kips
PLL = 75 kips
Pseis = 28 kips
PE = 1.25(28) = 35 kips
The maximum strong axis moments occur at the bottom of the column, and are
taken at the top flange of the second-floor beam.
Figure 3A-9. Typical second story column at Frame A1
Using the basic load combinations of §1612.3.1:
D + L: M D + L = 236 + 201 = 437 kip-in. (12-8)
PD + L = 113 + 75 = 188 kips
VD + L = 3.1 + 2.7 = 5.8 kips

E 4,963
D+ : M D + E = 236 + = 3,781 kip-in. (12-9)
1.4 1.4
35
PD + E = 113 + = 138 kips
1.4
71.0
VD + E = 3.1 + = 53.8 kips
1.4
: PD − E = 0.9(113) −
E 35
0.9 D − = 76.7 kips compression (12-10)
1.4 1.4
  E    4,963 
D + 0.75 L +   : M D + L + E = 236 + 0.75201 +   = 3,046 kip-in. (12-11)
  1.4    1.4 
 71.0 
VD + L + E = 3.1 + 0.75 2.7 + = 43 kips
 1.4 
  35 
PD + L + E = 113 + 0.75 75 +   = 188 kips
  1.4 
Under the requirements of §2213.5.1, columns must have the strength to resist the
following axial load combinations (neglecting flexure):
PDL + 0.7 PLL + ΩPseis : Pcomp = 113 + 0.7(75) + 2.8(28) = 244 kips compression
0.85PDL − ΩPseis : Ptens = 0.85(113) − 2.8(28) = −18 kips compression
The intent of these supplemental load combinations is to ensure that the columns
have adequate axial strength to preclude buckling when subjected to the maximum
seismic force that can be developed in the structure.
Try W 14 × 283 , ASTM A572, Grade 50 column.
Unbraced column height (taken from top of framing at bottom to mid-depth of

beam at top):
h = 13.5 − (2.5 2 ) = 12.25 ft

Under §2213.5.3, the factor k can be taken as unity if the column is continuous,
( )
drift ratios are met per §1630.8, and f a ≤ 0.4 F y . The example column is
continuous, complies with the drift ratios, and:
Maximum f a = 188 / 83.3 = 2.26 ksi < 0.4(50) = 20.0 ksi ∴ k = 1.0
 kl  12(12.25)
  = = 21.6
 r x 6.79
 kl  12(12.25)
  = = 35.3
 r y 4.17
∴ Fa = 26.5 ksi
f a 2.26
Maximum = = 0.085 < 0.15
Fa 26.5
Therefore, AISC-ASD Equation H1-3 is used for combined stresses.
From AISC-ASD manual (p. 3-21) for W 14 × 283 , Grade 50:
Lc = 14.4 > 12.5
( )
∴ Fb = 0.66 Fy = 33.0 ksi
Check combined stresses for the critical load combinations.
E f f 138 3,781
D+ : a + bx = + = 0.063 + 0.250 = 0.313 < 1.0 o.k. (12-9)
1.4 Fa Fb 83.3(26.5) 459(33.0 )
 E  f a f bx 3,046
D + 0.75 L +  : + = 0.085 + = 0.286 < 1.0 o.k. (12-11)
 1.4  Fa Fb 459(33.0 )
Check column shear capacity:
Allowable Va = 0.4(50)(16.74)(1.29) = 432 kips > 53.8 kips o.k.

Next, check required axial strength per §2213.5.
Compression:
Psc = 1.7 Pallow = 1.7 (83.3)(26.5) = 3,753 kips > 244 kips o.k.
Tension:
Pst = F y A = 50(83.3) = 4,165 kips o.k.
The column width-thickness ratio limit of §2213.7.3 is to meet the requirement of

AISC-ASD, Chapter N, Plastic Design, Section N7. Columns meeting this criterion
are expected to achieve full plastic capacity prior to local flange buckling.
bf
≤ 7.0 for F y = 50 ksi
2t f
bf
For W 14 × 283 : = 3.89 < 7.0 o.k.
2t f
∴ Use W 14 × 283 column
Note: The W 14 × 283 column is much larger than required by allowable stress
considerations. The beam-column assemblies selected for this Design Example
have been tested with the RBS configuration.
6. SMRF beam-column connection design.
As discussed in FEMA-267 (Sections 7.3 and 7.5), SMRF joint designs may be
acceptable without testing of a particular beam-column combination only with the
following qualifications:
1. Joint design calculations are based on comparisons with tested assemblies.
2. The joint configuration considered closely mirror the tested detail.
3. Calculated member sizes are extrapolated from tested combinations.
4. A qualified third party peer review is performed.
Where such calculations are determined to be acceptable, the design provisions of

FEMA-267A may be applied to member sizes extrapolated or interpolated from
tested configurations. Use of calculations alone, without testing to form a basis for
reasonable extrapolation, is not recommended.

This Design Example utilizes tests conducted at the University of Texas Ferguson
Laboratory [Engelhardt et al., 1996]. Testing of additional RBS joint combinations
was performed as part of the SAC Phase II program. Results of these tests will be
published by SAC when available; updates may be found at SAC’s web site:
http://quiver.eerc.berkeley.edu:8080/design/conndbase/index.html.
Using the circular cut reduced beam section, the following beam-column joint
assemblies were successfully tested at the University of Texas:
Table 3A-9. Tested RBS beam-column joint assemblies

Specimen Column Beam
DB2 W14x426 W36x150
DB3 W14x426 W36x170
DB4 W14x426 W36x194
DB5 W14x257 W30x148
Each of these specimens achieved plastic chord rotation capacity exceeding 0.03
radians, the recommended acceptance criterion per FEMA-267A (Section 7.2.4).
The parameters for extrapolation or interpolation of beam-column test results are

difficult to determine. When extrapolating, it should be done only with a basic
understanding of the behavior of the tested assembly. The California Division of
the State Architect (DSA), in the commentary to its Interpretation of Regulations
27-8 (DSA IR 27-8), has established guidelines for extrapolation of joint tests.
Until further testing is completed, DSA recommends that members sizes taken
from tested configurations be extrapolated, by weight or flange thickness, no more
than 15 percent upward or no more than 35 percent downward.
Using the DSA criteria for extrapolation with the lightest column section (DB5) of
the tested sizes noted above, the following possible beam-column size
combinations are possible:
W 14 × 257 column:
Max. weight = 296 lbs. Max. t f = 2.17 in.
Min. weight = 167 lbs. Min. t f = 1.22 in.
∴ Use W 14 × 176 to W 14 × 283

W 30 × 148 beam:
Max. weight = 170 lbs. Max. t f = 1.36 in.
Min. weight = 96 lbs. Min. t f = 0.77 in.
∴ Use W 30 × 108 to W 30 × 173
For compatibility with this test configuration, beam-column pairs are selected from
the ranges noted above. After evaluating several combinations for weak
beam/strong column and panel zone strength criteria, the combination of a
W 30 × 108 beam and W 14 × 283 column is selected for use in this Design
Example. Note that this combines the lightest beam with the heaviest column in
the available range.
The W 30 × 108 beam was selected after confirming that with this combination, the
overall frame drifts per the computer analysis are within the code limits (as shown
in Part 3b above). The W 14 × 283 column was chosen to eliminate the requirement
for doubler plates. When given the option, steel fabricators have elected to use
heavier columns in lieu of doubler plates for economy. Also, tests have shown that
the weld of the doubler plate to the column fillet (k) region may be detrimental to
joint performance.
As shown in Figure 3A-10, the W 14 × 283 columns are to be full-height, one

length. Full-height columns without splices were found to be the least-cost option.
Column splices in SMRFs must comply with §2213.5.2. However, it is suggested
that column splices be made with complete penetration welds located near mid-
height.
Note: Where referenced, the FEMA-267/267A sections are noted with a preceding
“FEMA” in the remainder of this Design Example (e.g. FEMA §7.2.2.1). The
reduced beam section (RBS) joint configuration used in this Design Example is
shown in Figure 3A-10.
6a. Determine member and material strengths.
When determining the strength of a frame element, FEMA §7.2.2 defaults back to
§2213.4.2. Material strength properties are stipulated in FEMA §7.5.1,
Table 7.5.1-1. FEMA-267A modified the allowable through-thickness stress to 0.9
(Fy) in recognition of improved joint performance for configurations locating the
plastic hinge away from the face of the column. For this Design Example, material
strengths are taken as:

W 30 × 108 beam, Shape Group 2, A572 Grade 50:
F y = 50 ksi
F ym = 58 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Through-thickness FTT = 0.9(50 ) = 45 ksi
W 14 × 283 column, Shape Group 4, A572 Grade 50:
F y = 50 ksi
F ym = 57 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Through-thickness FTT = 45 ksi
6b. Establish plastic hinge configuration and location.
The fundamental design intent espoused in FEMA-267 is to move the plastic hinge
away from the column face. The RBS design achieves that goal in providing a
well-defined, relatively predictable plastic hinge region. Of the various RBS
options, the circular curved configuration is chosen due to its combination of tested
performance and economy of fabrication.
The distance c from the face of the column (see Figure 3A-10) to the beginning of
the circular cut, and the length of the cut l c , are based on prior RBS tests. It is
desirable to minimize c to reduce the amplification of M f at the face of the
column.
FEMA-267A recommends that c = d b / 4 , while Englehardt [1998] recommends

0.5b f ≤ c ≤ 0.75b f . As the member sizes for this Design Example are
extrapolated from testing by Englehardt, c ≅ 0.6b f is selected. Both FEMA-267A
and Englehardt recommend l c ≅ 0.75d .

Figure 3A-10. RBS (“dog bone”) geometry
W 30 × 108 :
0.5b f = 0.5(10.5) = 5.25 in.
0.75b f = 0.75(10.5) = 7.88 in.
∴ Use c = 6.0 in.
lc = 0.75d = 0.75(29.83) = 22.37 in.
∴ Use lc = 24.0 in.
The depth of the cut n should be made such that 40 percent to 50 percent of the
flange is removed. This will limit the projection of moments at the face of the
column to within 90 percent to 100 percent of the plastic capacity of the full beam
section. With a 45 percent reduction in the flange area:
 bf  0.45(10.5)
n = 0.45  = = 2.36 in.
 2  2
Use 2 ¼-in. cut
4n 2 + l c2 4(2.25)2 + 24 2
∴R = = = 33.1 in. radius
8n 8(2.25)
The plastic hinge may be assumed to occur at the center of the curved cut per
FEMA §7.5.3.1, so that:
lh = (16.74 / 2) + 6.0 + (24 / 2) = 26.37 in.

and:
L = 28.0 ft.
∴ L' = 28 − 2(26.37 / 12 ) = 23.6 ft
The length between the plastic hinges L ' (see Figure 3A-11) is used to determine
forces at the critical sections for joint analysis.
Figure 3A-11. Plastic hinges
The circular curved cut provides for a gradual transition in beam flange area. This
configuration also satisfies the intent of §2213.7.9.
6c. Determine probable plastic moment and shear at the reduced beam section.
The plastic section modulus at the center of the reduced beam section is calculated
per FEMA §7.5.3.2 as:
[ (
Z RBS = Z x − br t f d − t f )] FEMA-267A, Eqn. (7.5.3.2-1)
where b r is the total width of material cut from the beam flange.
br = 2(2.25) = 4.5 in. and
Z RBS = 346 − [4.5(0.76 )(29.83 − 0.76)] = 247 in.3

Next, the probable plastic moment at the reduced beam section Mpr is calculated as:
M pr = Z RBS β(FY ) FEMA-267A, Eqn. (7.5.3.2-2)
The factor β accounts for both variations in the beam steel average yield stress
and strain hardening at the plastic hinge. Per FEMA §7.5.2.2, for ASTM A572
steel, β = 1 .2 . Therefore:
M pr = 247(1.2)(50 ) = 14,820 kip-in.
As illustrated in FEMA §7.5.2.3, the shear at the plastic hinge is derived by statics,
considering both the plastic moment at the hinge and gravity loads. For simplicity,
the beam shear from the frame analysis for dead and live loads at the hinge is used.
To be consistent with this strength design procedure, the special seismic load
combinations of §1612.4 are used:
L’
Mpr Mpr
VE VE
Figure 3A-12. Beam equilibrium under the

probable plastic moment Mpr
2 M pr 2(14,820 )
VE = = = 104.7 kips
L' 12(23.6)
and:
V P = 1.2(V D ) + 0.5(V L ) + 1.0(V E )
∴ V P = 1.2(16.4 ) + 0.5(13.3) + 1.0(104.7 ) = 131 kips
6d. Calculate strength demands at the critical sections of beam-column joint.
There are two critical sections for the joint evaluation. The first section is at the
interface of the beam section and the face of the column flange. The strength
demand at this section is used to check the capacity of the beam flange weld to the
column, the through-thickness stress on the column flange (at the area joined to the
beam flange), and the column panel zone shear strength. The second critical
section occurs at the column centerline. The moment demand at this location is

used to check the strong column-weak beam requirement per FEMA §7.5.2.5
(UBC §2213.7.5).
a. Column face b. Column centerline
Figure 3A-13. Critical sections at beam-column joint
The moment at the face of the column is:
M f = M pr + V P (x ) = 14,820 + 131(6 + 12) = 17,178 kip-in. FEMA §7.5.2.4
The moment at the centerline of the column is:
M cl = M pr + VP (lh ) = 14,820 + 131 (26.37 ) = 18,274 kip-in.
6e. Evaluate the RBS joint strength capacity.
Section 7.5.3.2 of FEMA-267A lists four criteria for the evaluation of RBS joint
capacity:
1. At the reduced section, the beam must have the capacity to meet all code
required forces (i.e. dead, live & seismic per §1612).
2. Code required drift limits must be met considering effects of the RBS.
3. The beam-to-column flange weld must have adequate strength.
4. The through-thickness stress on the face of the column at the beam flange
must be within the allowable values listed in FEMA §7.5.1. (Note: In

subsequent studies conducted by the SAC project, typical rolled column

shapes were found insensitive to through thickness stress. In FEMA-350, the
requirement to check this parameter has been eliminated, and the connection
is designed to produce near-yield conditions at the beam flange to column
joint.)
Check reduced section for code design forces.

At the reduced section, the section modulus S RBS is:
S RBS =
[4,470 − 2(4.5)(0.76)(14.92 − 0.78) ] = 203in.
2
3
14.92
The allowable moment M a , with Fb = 33.0 ksi (see Part 5a), is
M a = 203(33.0 ) = 6,700 kip-in. > 4,247 kip-in.
Thus, the reduced W 30 × 108 section is adequate for the moments derived for the
load combinations of §1612.3.1.
Check frame stiffness for code drift limits.

As discussed in FEMA §7.5.3, the RBS will reduce overall frame stiffness
approximately 5 percent, thereby increasing calculated frame displacements about
5 percent proportionally. To account for this increase, the allowable drift limits are
reduced 5 percent for comparison to calculated frame lateral deflections from the
computer analysis. As shown in Part 3b, the structure drift ratios are found to be
within the reduced code limits.
Check beam-to-column welded connection.

The W 30 × 108 beam and W 14 × 283 column are extrapolated from specimen sizes
tested in an RBS configuration at the University of Texas. In the tested
configuration, the beam webs have complete-penetration welds to the column
flange. Under FEMA §7.8.2, the web connection should be consistent with the
tested assemblies—this weld is shown in Figure 3A-17.
Note: In FEMA-350, RBS and other connections have been prequalified for
application within ranges of member and frame sizes. As long as framing falls
within prequalified limits, reference to specific test data is not required.
Using the cross-sectional area of the beam flange and web weldments at the face of
the column (Figure 3A-14), the elastic section modulus S c of the beam is
calculated from the information in Table 3A-10.

Figure 3A-14. Built-up section at column face
Table 3A-10. Built-up section properties

Area Y Io
Mk A(y)2
(in.2) (in.) (in.4)
1 0.545(26.73)=14.58 0.00 0 869
2 0.76(10.48)=7.96 14.54 1,682 0
3 0.76(10.48)=7.96 14.54 1,682 0
4 0.31(10.48)=3.28 15.07 745 0
5 0.31(10.48)=3.28 15.07 745 0
Sum 4,854 869
The calculated section properties are:
I c = 4,854 + 869 = 5,723 in.4
∴ S c = 5,723 15.23 = 376 in.3
As given in FEMA §7.2.2.1, for complete penetration welds, the weld strength is
taken at the beam yield stress of 50 ksi. The maximum weld stress is calculated
using Mf (see Figure 3A-11). The moment demand on the weld at the face of the
column:
f weld = 17,178 / 376 = 45.7 ksi < 50 ksi o.k.
With the beam web welded to the column, the plastic shear demand should be
checked against the beam shear strength. The plastic shear demand is calculated in
Part 6b above.

VS = 0.55 (50.0)(0.545)(29.83) = 447 kips > V p = 131 kips o.k. FEMA §7.8.2
In this Design Example, the shear tab shown in Figure 3A-17 is present only for
steel erection. For beam web connections using shear tabs, the shear tab and bolts
are to be designed to resist the plastic beam shear Vp. The bolts must be slip-
critical, and the shear tab may require a complete penetration weld to the column.
However, in September 1994, ICBO issued an emergency code change to the 1994
UBC, which deleted the prior requirement for supplemental welds from the shear
tab to the beam web. An example beam-column shear tab connection design is
given in Design Example 1A, Part 6g.
Check the through-thickness stress at the column.

Under FEMA §7.5.3.2, the through-thickness stresses at the interface of the beam
flange with the column face is determined as
f t −t = M f Sc FEMA §7.5.3.2
where M f and S c are as determined above.
∴ f t −t = 17,178 / 376 = 45.7 ksi ≈ 0.9(50) = 45.0 ksi o.k.
Although the through-thickness stress is at the upper limit of the recommended

allowable stress, RBS joints have been successfully tested with calculated stresses
as high as 58 ksi [Englehardt, et al., 1996]. The success of these tests is attributed
to locating the plastic hinge away from the column face and into the beam span.
6f. Verify the strong column-weak beam condition.
The strong column/weak beam requirement given in FEMA §7.5.2.5 is similar to

§2213.7.5. Per FEMA §7.5.2.5 the beam moments are derived from M pr (see Part
6c above), whereas the UBC sums moments at the column centerline. The column
moments ΣM c are taken at the top and bottom of the column panel zone as shown
in Figure 3A-15.

Figure 3A-15. Joint forces and moments
(
ΣZ C F yc − f a )
≥ 1.0 FEMA Eqn. (7.5.2.5-1)
ΣM C
where:
M Ct = VC ht ; ( )
M Cb = VC + V f hb
and:
ΣM C = M Ct + M Cb
V f is the incremental seismic shear to the column at the 3rd floor. From the
computer analysis (not shown): V f = 16.4 kips
Summing moments at the bottom of the lower column:
VC =
[ ( )]
2 M pr + lh V p − V f (hb + d P / 2)
(hb + d P + ht )
ht = hb =
(13.5)(12) − 29.83 = 66.1 in.
2 2
2[14,820 + 26.4(131)] − 16.4(66.1 + 29.83 / 2 )

∴ VC = = 217.4 kips
[2(66.1) + 29.83]

The column moments, taken at the top and bottom of the panel zone are:
M Ct = 217.4(66.1) = 14,370 kip-in.
M Cb = (217.4 + 16.4 )(66.1) = 15,454 kip-in.
∴ M C = 14,370 + 15,454 = 29,834 kip-in.
From Part 5b above, the maximum column axial stress is f a = 2.26 ksi . For the
W 14 × 283 column, Z x = 542 in.3 :
(
ΣZ C Fyc − f a ) = 2[542(50 − 2.260)] = 1.74 > 1.0 o.k. FEMA Eqn. (7.5.2.5-1)
ΣM C 29,824
Therefore, the columns are stronger than the beam moments 2 M pr , and the strong
column-weak beam criteria is satisfied.
6g. Check column panel zone strength.
Column panel zone strength is evaluated per FEMA §7.5.2.6. FEMA-267A

modifies the panel zone provisions of UBC §2213.7.2. The provision (in the 1994
UBC) allowing panel zone strength to be proportioned for “…. gravity loads plus
1.85 times the prescribed seismic forces …” has been eliminated. This
modification produces stiffer/stronger panel zones than previously permitted under
the UBC. Heavier columns are often preferable to use of doubler plates. Thus,
panel zone strength may well dictate the selection of column sizes. (Note: In
FEMA-350, this criteria has changed again to produce balanced yielding between
the beam and panel zone, such that yielding initiates in the panel zone
simultaneously—or slightly after—yielding in the RBS. This is compatible with,
but not identical to, the FEMA-267 procedures.)
Per FEMA §7.5.2.6, the panel zone (Figure 3A-16) is to be capable of resisting the
( )
shear required to develop 0.8ΣM f of the girders framing into the joint (where Mf
is the moment at the face of the column). The panel zone shear strength is derived
as follows:

Figure 3A-16. Panel zone forces
H = 2(66.1) + 29.83 = 162 in.
d p = 29.83 − 0.76 / 2 = 29.45 in.
M f = 17,178 kip-in. (see Part 6d)
VC =
[ ( )] = 2(0.8)(17,178) = 170 kips
2 0.8 M f
H 162
2(0.8)ΣM f 2(0.8)(17,178)
Ff = = = 933 kips
dp 29.45
VZ = F f − VC = 933 − 170 = 763 kips
The panel zone shear strength is determined from §2213.7.2.1.
 3bc t cf2 
V = 0.55 F y d c t 1 +  (13-1)
 d b d c t 

where:
bc = width of the column flange
db = depth of the beam
dc = column depth
t cf = thickness of the column flange
t= total thickness of the panel zone, including doubler plates
For the W 14 × 283 column, the panel zone shear strength is:
 3 (16.11)(2.07 )2 
V = 0.55(50 )(16.74)(1.29 ) 1 +  = 785 > 763 kips o.k. (13-1)
 (29.83)(16.74 )(1.29 )
The W 14 × 283 column panel zone strength is just adequate when matched with
the W 30 × 108 beam without doubler plates. Again, this configuration is selected
in lieu of a lighter column with doubler plates as the most economical design. Note
that if the design does include doubler plates, then compliance with §2213.7.2.3 is
required.
The minimum panel zone thickness t z is also checked per §2213.7.2.2:
t z ≥ (d z + w z ) / 90
where:
d z = panel zone depth between continuity plates
wz = panel zone width between column flanges
t z = 1.29" for W 14 × 283
t z = 1.29" ≥ [(29.73 − 0.76) + (16.74 − 2.07 )/ 90] = 0.48 in. o.k. (13-2)

6h. Check column continuity plates.
Subject to further research, FEMA-267 §7.8.3 recommends that continuity plates

always be provided. The plate thickness should match the beam flange thickness.
Complete penetration welds from the continuity plate to the column flanges are
recommended, and fillet welds to the column web are acceptable. (Note: In
FEMA-350, this criteria has been relaxed, permitting omission of continuity plates
for columns with heavy flanges.)
The minimum continuity plate area is validated for conformance with §2213.7.4
using AISC-ASD Section K1.8, Equation K1-9. UBC §2213.7.4 stipulates that for
(
this equation the value for Pbf is to be taken as: 1.8bt f F y . )
For W 30 × 108 :
Pbf = 1.8(0.76)(10.48)(50) = 717 kips §2213.7.4
AISC-ASD Eq. (K1-9) yields:
Pbf − F yc t wc (t b + 5k ) 717 − 50(1.29 )[0.76 + 5(2.75)]

Ast = = = −4.38
F yst 50
As the area calculated is negative, stiffeners are not required per Equation K1-9 of
AISC-ASD, and continuity plates with a thickness matching the beam flange are
adequate.
With complete penetration welds to the column flanges, the continuity plate
corners should be clipped to avoid the column k-area. This leaves a fillet weld
length to the column web of:
lw = d c − 2(k ) = 16.74 − 2(2.75) = 11.2 in.
The fillet weld to the column web is designed for the tensile strength of the
continuity plate. Using a 3 4 "× 7" plate on each side of the web (top and bottom),
the weld size is determined.
Plate strength:
Pst = 0.75 (7.0 ) 50.0 = 263 kips

Weld size (16ths):
Pst ( 263)
n= = = 7.4
2lw (1.7 )(0.928) 2(11.2 )(1.7 )(0.928)
where weld strength per 1/16th inch with E70XX electrodes is

0.3(70 ksi) (1/16) (.707) = 0.928 kip-in. per AISC-ASD Table J2.5.
∴ Use a ½" fillet top and bottom of continuity plate to column web.
6i. Evaluate beam-to-column joint restraint. §2213.7.7
To preclude SMRF column members from out-of-plane or lateral torsional

buckling, §2213.7.7 specifies requirements for beam-column joint restraint. The
W 14 × 283 frame column has a perpendicular beam framing into it at each level,
providing both column lateral support and joint restraint. The column flanges need
to be laterally supported only at the beam top flange if the column remains elastic.
By satisfying one of the four conditions listed in §2213.7.7.1, a column may be
considered elastic for purposes of determining lateral bracing.
Check condition #1: Strong column-weak beam strength ratio > 1.25
From a review of Part 6f above: (strength ratio) = 1.74 > 1.25 o.k.
The column flanges therefore need lateral bracing only at the beam top flange. The
bracing force is taken at 1 percent of the beam flange capacity, perpendicular to the
plane of the frame. By observation, the bolted connection from the beam framing
perpendicular to the column is adequate.
6j. Provide beam lateral bracing at RBS flange cut. FEMA §7.5.3.5
Lateral bracing is next considered for the beam flanges adjacent to the RBS cut. As
stated in FEMA §7.5.3.5, lateral braces for the top and bottom beam flanges are to
be placed within d/2 of the reduced section. (Note: This requirement is dropped in
FEMA-350 when a composite concrete slab is present. )
Lateral support of the top flange is ordinarily provided by shear studs to the
concrete fill over metal deck. Either diagonal angle bracing or perpendicular
beams can provide bottom flange lateral bracing. Generally, bracing elements may
be designed for about 2 percent of the compressive capacity of the member being
braced. Figure 3A-17 shows an example for angle bracing of the bottom flange.

6k. Detailing considerations.
As noted in FEMA-267A, the reduced beam section SMRF design entails a few
unique considerations:
" At the cut edge of the reduced section, the beam flange should be ground
parallel to the flange to a mirror finish (surface roughness < 1000 per
ANSI B46.1).
" Shear studs should be omitted over the length of the cut in the beam top
flange, to minimize any slab influence on beam hinging.
" A 1-inch-wide gap should be placed all around the column so as to the slab to
reduce the slab interaction with the column connection. (Note: FEMA-350 has
relaxed this requirement.)
6l. Welding specifications.
To ensure that the SMRF joint welded connections are of the highest possible
quality, the design engineer must prepare and issue project-specific welding
specifications as part of the construction documents. The guidelines presented in
FEMA-267, Section 8.2 provide a comprehensive discussion of welding
specifications. For an itemized list of welding requirements, see California
Division of the State Architect (DSA), Interpretation of Regulations #27-8, Section
K – Welding. A few of these requirements are noted below:
" The steel fabricator is to prepare and submit a project Welding Procedure
Specification (WPS) per AWS D1.1, Chapter 5 for review by the inspector and
Engineer of Record.
" Weld filler materials are to have a rated toughness, recommended at 20ft-lbs.
absorbed energy at –20o F per Charpy V-notch test.
" Pre-heat and interpass temperatures are to be strictly observed per AWS D1.1,
Chapter 4.2, and verified by the project inspector.
" Weld dams are prohibited, and back-up bars (if used) should be removed, the
weld back-gouged, and a reinforced with a fillet weld.
" All complete penetration welds shall be examined with ultrasonic

testing/inspection for their full length.

6m. Tests and inspections.
Quality control is presented in Chapter 9 of FEMA-267. Guidelines are presented

for inspector qualifications, as well as suggested scope of duties for the inspector,
engineer and contractor. The extent of testing is discussed, with a recommendation
that the contract documents clearly identify the required testing. An example
Quality Assurance Program is given in FEMA §9.2.7. It is recommended that the
structural engineer incorporate similar requirements into the project specifications.
Figure 3A-17. Reduced beam section joint detail

References
AISC, 1997, 1999. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, April 1997 with Supplement No. 1, February
1999,
DSA IR 27-8, 1998. Interpretation of Regulations 27-8. California Division of the

State Architect, Sacramento, California.
Englehardt, M., 1998. Design Recommendations for Radius Cut Reduced Beam
Section Moment Connections. University of Texas, Austin.
Englehardt, M., et al., 1996. “The Dogbone Connection, Part II,” Modern Steel
Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction.
FEMA-267, 1995. Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification, and Design

of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures. SAC Joint Venture, funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA-267A, 1997. Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1, Supplement to FEMA-267,

FEMA-267B, 1999. Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 2, Supplement to FEMA-267,

Steel Tips, 1999. “Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS/Moment Frame

Connections,” Steel Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga,
California.

Design Example 3B ! Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
Design Example 3B
Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
Figure 3B-1. Four story steel office building with steel ordinary moment resisting frames (OMRF)
Foreword
Steel ordinary moment resisting frames (OMRF) differ from special moment
resisting frames (SMRF) in several important ways. The most significant
differences lie in the details of the beam-column joints and in the consideration of
strong column-weak beam effects in member selection. Because of these and other
factors, the SMRF structure has a higher R-factor (8.5) and no height limit, while
OMRF structures have a low R-factor (4.5) and are limited to 160 feet in height. In
general, SMRF structures are expected to perform much better in earthquakes than
OMRF structures.
This Design Example uses the same 4-story structure used in Design Example 3A
to illustrate design of a steel OMRF. The choice of this structure was based on both
convenience and the fact that the differences between OMRFs and SMRFs could
be easily shown.

It should be noted, however, that SEAOC does not recommend use of steel OMRFs
in buildings over two stories. In fact, SEAOC recommends use of SMRFs in all
steel moment frame structures of any height, particularly mid-rise and taller
structures, in high seismic regions. Typical uses of OMRF systems in high seismic
regions include structures such as one-story open front retail buildings, two-story
residential structures with open lower levels, penthouses and small buildings.
Overview
Steel ordinary moment resisting frames are required to meet the provisions of
§2213.6. The OMRF requirements are essentially the same as stipulated in prior
UBC editions, and were not addressed in the emergency code amendment for
SMRF design issued in the 1996 Supplement to the 1994 UBC. However, both the
SEAOC Blue Book and FEMA-267 recommend against the use of OMRFs in
areas of high seismicity. The OMRF provisions are retained in the code for use in
light on- or two-story buildings, and structures in low seismic hazard zones.
The UBC requires OMRFs to be designed for about twice the lateral seismic force
that would be required for a SMRF in the same structure. As such, the plastic
rotation demand for OMRF connections should be roughly half that of the SMRF.
The connection ductility requirements for OMRFs are therefore less stringent than
for SMRFs. Notwithstanding code provisions, OMRF connections should receive
similar attention to joint detailing as for SMRFs. In particular, lessons learned from
the Northridge earthquake concerning weld procedures and filler materials should
also be applied to OMRFs.
As suggested in FEMA-267 (see p.7-2), OMRFs in areas of high seismicity may be

acceptable if the connections are designed to remain elastic for the design level
earthquake, while the beam and column members are designed per UBC OMRF
requirements. This can be achieved by applying an R factor of 1 in deriving design
base shear and confirming that the connection stresses do not exceed yield. This
enhanced OMRF design approach is also illustrated in this Design Example.
This Design Example uses the 4-story steel office structure from Design
Example 3A to illustrate OMRF design. The same building weights, frame
elevations and site seismicity are used as for Design Example 3A. Although this
Design Example is for a 4-story structure, the design procedure is applicable to all
OMRFs, including such uses as one-story, single bent frames at garage door
openings.
It is recommended that the reader first review Design Example 3A before reading
this Design Example. Refer to Example 3A for plans and elevations of the
structure.

Outline
4. OMRF member design.
5. OMRF beam-column joint design.
1a. Classify structural system and determine seismic factors. §1629.6
The structure is a building frame system with lateral resistance provided by steel
ordinary moment resisting frames (system type 3.4.a of Table 16-N). The seismic
factors are:
R = 4.5 Table 16-N
Ω = 2.8
hmax = 160 ft
1b. Determine seismic response coefficients Ca and Cv. §1629.4.3
C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.0 ) = 0.64 Table 16-R

1c. Evaluate structure period T. §1630.2.2
Per Method A: (30-8)
T = Ct (hn )3 4
C t = 0.035
T A = 0.03(55.5)3 4 = 0.71 sec
Per Method B:
From Design Example 3A, assuming we retain the same beam and column sizes:
North-south:
(y ) : TBy = 1.30 sec §1630.2.2
East-west:
(x ) : TBx = 1.16 sec Para. #2
For Seismic Zone 4, the value for Method B cannot exceed 130 percent of the
Method A period. Consequently,
Maximum value for TB = 1.3T A = 1.3(0.71) = 0.92 sec
1d. Determine design base shear.
The total design base shear for a given direction is:
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.155W (30-4)
RT 4.5(0.92 )
The base shear need not exceed:
2.5C a I 2.5(0.44)(1.0 )
V = W = W = 0.244W (30-5)
R 4.5

But the base shear shall not be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11(0.44)(1.0)W = 0.048W (30-6)
And for Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than:
0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.0)(1.0)
V = W = = 0.071W (30-7)
R 4.5
∴ V = 0.155W (30-4)
1e. Determine earthquake load combinations. §1630.1
20
Reliability/redundancy factor: ρ = 2 − (30-3)
rmax Ab
From Design Example 3A, use ρ = 1.25 .
For the load combinations §1612, and anticipating using allowable stress design
(ASD) for the frame design:
E = ρEh + Ev = 1.25(V ) (30-1)
( E v = 0 for allowable stress design)
E m = ΩE h = 2.8(V ) (30-2)
Note that seismic forces may be assumed to act nonconcurrently in each principal
direction of the structure, except as per §1633.1.

2a. Building weights and mass distribution (from Design Example 3A).
Table 3B-1. Mass properties summary

W X cg Ycg M MMI
Level
(kips) (ft) (ft) (k-sec 2 / in.) (k-sec 2-in.)
Roof 2,066 100 70 5.3 26,556
4th 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
3rd 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
2nd 2,235 100 70 5.8 28,728
Total 8,771 22.7
As noted above, Equation (30-4) governs, and:
V = 0.155W = 0.155(8,771) = 1,360 kips (30-4)
2c. Determine vertical distribution of force.
For the static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each level is
applied as follows:
V = Ft + ∑ Fi (30-13)
where:
Ft = 0.07T (V ) ≤ 0.25(V )
Except Ft = 0
where:
T ≤ 0.7 sec

For this example structure:
T = 0.92 sec
∴ Ft = 0.07 (0.92)(1,360 ) = 87.6 kips
The concentrated force Ft is applied at the roof, in addition to that portion of

the balance of the base shear distributed to each level per §1630.5:
Fx =
(V − Ft )Wx hx = (1,360 − 87.6)  Wx hx  (30-15)
∑Wi hi  ∑W h 
 i i 
Table 3B-2. Vertical distribution of shear

Level
(kips) (ft) (k-ft) Σwx (kips) (kips)
Roof 2,066 55.5 114,663 0.375 564.8
4th 2,235 42.0 93,870 0.307 390.6 564.8
3rd 2,235 28.5 63,698 0.208 265.1 955.4
2nd 2,235 15.0 33,525 0.110 139.5 1,220.5
Total 8,771 305,756 1.000 1,360.0 1,360.0
Note: Froof = 0.375 (1,272.4) + 87.6 = 564.8 kips
2d. Determine horizontal distribution of shear.
As in Design Example 3A, the direct seismic force, Fx , applied at the center of
mass is combined with an accidental torsional moment, M t , using a 5 percent
eccentricity, at each level. This is shown in Table 3B-3.
North-south:
M t = 0.05(204′)Fx = (10.2)Fx
East-west:
M t = 0.05(144′)Fx = (7.2 )Fx

Table 3B-3. Horizontal distribution of shear

Fx N-S M t E-W M t
Level
Roof 564.8 5,761 4,067
4th 390.6 3,984 2,812
3rd 265.1 2,704 1,909
2nd 139.5 1,423 1,004
Note: Mt = horizontal torsional moment
With the direct seismic forces and torsional moments given in Table 3B-3 above,
the force distribution to the frames is generated by computer analysis (not shown).
For this Design Example, the beam and column sizes from Design Example 3A are
used in the computer model.
From the computer analysis, the shear force at the ground level is determined for
each frame column. Frame forces at the base of frame types A1 and B1 are
summarized in Tables 3B-4 and 3B-5.
Table 3B-4. North-south direction, frame type A1

Line A/1.2 Line A/2 Line A/3 Line A/4 Line A/5 Line A/5.8 Total
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Direct Seismic 79.4 143.1 132.6 132.6 143.1 79.4 710.2
Torsion Force 4.9 8.8 8.2 8.2 8.8 4.9 43.8
Direct + Torsion 84.3 151.9 140.8 140.8 151.9 84.3 754.0
Table 3B-5. East-west direction, frame type B1

Line 1/A.2 Line 1/B Line 1/C Line 1/C.8 Total
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Direct Seismic 63.1 113.1 113.1 63.1 352.4
Torsion Force 2.4 4.3 4.3 2.4 13.4
Direct + Torsion 65.5 117.4 117.4 65.5 365.8
3a. Determine ∆S and ∆M. §1630.9
The design level response displacement ∆S is obtained from a static-elastic

analysis using the design seismic forces derived above. For purposes of
displacement determination, however, §1630.10.3 eliminates the upper limit on TB,
used to determine design base shear under Equation (30-4). The maximum
inelastic response displacement ∆ M includes both elastic and estimated inelastic
drifts resulting from the design basis ground motion. It is computed as follows:

∆ M = 0.7(R )∆ S = 0.7(4.5)∆ S = 3.15∆ S (30-17)
The maximum values for ∆ S and ∆ M are determined, including torsional effects
(and including P∆ effects for ∆ M ). Without the 1.3T A limit on TB , the design
base shear per Equation (30-4) is:
North-south:
TBy = 1.30 sec
Cv I 0.64(1.0)
Vn − s = W = W = 0.109W = 956 kips (30-4)
RT 4.5(1.30 )
East-west:
TBx = 1.16 sec
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
Ve − w = W= W = 0.123W = 1,079 kips §1630.1.1
RT 4.5(1.16 )
Note that §1630.1.1 stipulates use of the unfactored base shear (V ) , with ρ = 1 .
Using these modified design base shears, the accidental torsion and force
distribution to each level are adjusted for input to the computer model. The
structure displacements and drift ratios are derived below in Table 3B-6.
Table 3B-6. Interstory displacements

North-South Interstory Displacements
Height ∆ S drift ∆ M drift Drift Ratio
Story (∆ M h )
h (in.) (in.) (in.)
4th 162 (2.41 -2.06)= 0.35 1.10 0.0068
3rd 162 (2.06 -1.52)= 0.54 1.70 0.0105
2nd 162 (1.52 -0.82)= 0.70 2.21 0.0136
1st 180 (0.82 -0.0) = 0.82 2.58 0.0143
East-West Interstory Displacements
Height ∆ S drift ∆ M drift Drift Ratio
Story (∆ M h )
h (in.) (in.) (in.)
4th 162 (2.24 -1.92)= 0.32 1.01 0.0062
3rd 162 (1.92 -1.41)= 0.51 1.61 0.0099
2nd 162 (1.41 -0.77)= 0.64 2.01 0.0124
1st 180 (0.77 -0.0) = 0.77 2.43 0.0135
Note: Interstory drift ratio = ∆M/story height

3b. Determine the story drift limitation. §1630.10
For structures with T > 0.7 seconds, the maximum allowable drift is: ∆ M = 0.020
(story height) per §1630.10.2. A review of the drift ratios tabulated above in
Table 3B-6 shows that all interstory drift ratios are less than 0.020, using the actual
period TB in base shear Equation (30-4). The maximum drift ratio of 0.0143
occurs at the first story in the north-south direction, and is a little more than
70 percent of the 0.020 allowable.
As expected, the maximum ∆ M displacements for the OMRF are very close to the
values for the SMRF from Design Example 3A. At this point in the design process,
the beam and column sizes could be reduced to make the displacements closer to
the code limit. However, using more conservative ∆ M drift ratios produces stiffer
frame designs, which mitigates possible deformation compatibility issues in other
elements such as cladding and non-frame (P∆ ) column design. The same beam
and column sizes previously selected will be retained. The next step will be to
check member stress levels.
4. OMRF member design. §2213.6
Using the W 30 × 108 beam and W 14 × 283 column from Design Example 3A (see
Figure 3A-3 for frame on Line A) for preliminary sizes, the OMRF frame members
are designed per §2213.6.
4a. rd
Design typical beam at 3 floor.
The typical beam designed is the third floor beam shown in Figure 3B-2.
Figure 3B-2. Typical beam at third floor of Frame A1

From a review of the computer output (not shown), the moments and shears at the
right end of the beam are greatest. Note that the seismic moment and shear are
about twice that for the SMRF example. The moments and shears, at the face of
the column at Line 5 are:
M LL = 924 kip-in.
M E = ρM seis = 1.25(6,780) = ±8,475 kip-in.
V DL = 16.4 kips
V LL = 13.3 kips
Vseis = 42.2 kips
V E = ρVseis = 1.25(42.2) = ±52.7 kips §1630.1.1
Using the basic load combinations of §1612.3.1 (ASD), with no one-third increase.
D + L : M D +L = 1,042 + 924 = 1,966 kip-in. (12-8)
V D +L = 16.4 + 13.3 = 29.7 kips
E 8,475 (12-9)
D+ : M D +E = 1,042 + = 7,096 kip-in.
1.4 1.4
52.7
V D +E = 16.4 + = 54.0 kips
1.4
  E    8,475  (12-11)
D + 0.75 L +   : M D + L + E = 1,042 + 0.75924 +   = 6,275 kip-in.
  1.4    1.4 
  52.7 
V D + L+ E = 16.4 + 0.7513.3 +   = 54.6 kips
  1.4 
Try W 30 × 108 , ASTM A572, Grade 50 beam.

Check flange width-thickness ratios per AISC-ASD, Table B5.1 (Note: AISC-
ASD is adopted, with amendments, in Division III of the code):
bf 65
≤ = 9.19
2t f 50
and:
d 640
≤ = 90.5
tw 50
bf
For W 30 × 108 : = 6.9 < 9.19 o.k.
2t f
And:
d 29.83
= = 54.7 < 90.5 o.k.
t w 0.545
As in Design Example 3A, provide beam bracing at one-third points. The

maximum unbraced length is:
L = 28.0 3 = 9.33 ft
Check allowable moment capacity.
From AISC-ASD, p. 2-10; for W 30 × 108 :
Lu = 9.8 > 9.33
( )
∴ Fb = 0.60 Fy = 30.0 ks
Allowable M a = 299(30.0) = 8,970 kip-in. > 7,096 kip-in. o.k.
Check allowable shear capacity.

For W 30 × 108 :
h 29.83 − 2(0.76 ) 380

= = 51.9 < = 53.7
tw 0.545 50
( )
∴ Fv = 0.4 F y = 0.4(50 ) = 20.0 ksi
Allowable Va = 20.0(0.545)(29.83) = 325 kips > 54.6 kips o.k.
∴ Use W 30 × 108 beam
4b. Design typical column at 2

nd
story.
The column to be designed is the second-story column of Frame A1 shown in

Figure 3B-3. For the 2nd story column at Line 5, the maximum column forces
generated by the OMRF frame analysis (not shown) are:
M DL = 236 kip-in.
M LL = 201 kip-in.
M E = 1.25(7,501) = 9,376 kip-in.
V DL = 3.1 kips
V LL = 2.7 kips
Vseis = 107 kips
V E = 1.25(107 ) = 134 kips
PDL = 113 kips
PLL = 75 kips
Pseis = 53 kips
PE = 1.25(53) = 66 kips
The maximum strong axis moments occur at the bottom of the column, and are
taken at the top flange of the beam.

Figure 3B-3. Typical second-story column of Frame A1
Using the basic load combinations of §1612.3.1:
D + L : M D + L = 236 + 201 = 437 kip-in. (12-8)
PD + L = 113 + 75 = 188 kips
VD + L = 3.1 + 2.7 = 5.8 kips
E 9,376 (12-9)
D+ : M D + E = 236 + = 6,933 kip-in.
1.4 1.4
66
PD + E = 113 + = 160 kips
1.4
134
VD + E = 3.1 + = 99 kips
1.4
(12-10)
: PD − E = 0.9(113) −
E 66
0.9 D − = 54.5 kips compression
1.4 1.4

  E    9,376  (12-11)
D + 0.75 L +   : M D + L + E = 236 + 0.75201 +   = 5,410 kip-in.
  1.4    1.4 
 134 
VD + L + E = 3.1 + 0.752.7 + = 77 kips
 1.4 
  66 
PD + L + E = 113 + 0.7575 +   = 205 kips
  1.4 
Under the requirements of §2213.5.1, columns must have the strength to resist the
following axial load combinations (neglecting flexure):
PDL + 0.7 PLL + ΩPseis : Pcomp = 113 + 0.7(75) + 2.8(53) = 314 kips compression
0.85PDL − ΩPseis : Ptens = 0.85(113) − 2.8(53) = −52 kips tension
Try W 14 × 283 , ASTM A572, Grade 50 column:
Unbraced column height:
h = 13.5 − (2.5 2 ) = 12.25 ft
Maximum f a = 205 / 83.3 = 2.46 ksi
 kλ  1.0(12 )(12.25)
  = = 35.3
 r y 4.17
∴ Fa = 26.5 ksi
f a 2.46
Maximum = = 0.092 < 0.15
Fa 26.5
Therefore, AISC-ASD Equation H1-3 is used for combined stresses.
From AISC-ASD manual (p. 3-21) for W 14 × 283 , Grade 50:
Lc = 14.4 > 12.5
( )
∴ Fb = 0.66 Fy = 33.0 ksi

Check combined stresses for the critical load combinations.
E f f 160 6,933
D+ : a + bx = + = 0.073 + 0.458 = 0.530 < 1.0 o.k. (12-9)
1.4 Fa Fb 83.3(26.5) 459(33.0 )
 E  f a f bx 5,410
D + 0.75 L +  : + = 0.092 + = 0.449 < 1.0 o.k. (12-11)
 1.4  Fa Fb 459(33.0 )
Check column shear capacity.
Allowable Va = 0.4(50)(16.74 )(1.29 ) = 432 kips > 99 kips o.k.
Next, check required axial strength per §2213.5.
Compression:
Psc = 1.7 Pallow = 1.7(83.3)(26.5) = 3,753 kips > 314 kips o.k.
Tension:
Pst = F y A = 50(83.3) = 4,165 kips >> −52 kips o.k.
∴Use W 14 × 283 column
5. OMRF beam-column joint design. §2213.6
As shown above, the W 30 × 108 beam and W 14 × 283 column taken from the
SMRF of Design Example 3A have the capacity to meet the load combinations for
an OMRF per §1612.3. Section 2213.6 requires that OMRF beam-to-column
connections are to either meet the SMRF connection criteria (see §2213.7.1), or be
designed for gravity loads plus Ω times the calculated seismic forces.
As discussed in FEMA-267 (Section 7.1), OMRF joints may be considered

acceptable if designed to remain elastic, with an R of unity (1.0). Using an R
factor of 1 is marginally more stringent than multiplying the seismic forces by Ω o .
With R = 1 , it is appropriate to use the full calculated period (TBx = 1.30) to
determine the base shear for joint design. Therefore, the north-south base shear is
taken as:
Cv I 0.64(1.0 )
Vn / s = W = W = 0.492W = 4,315 kips
RT 1.0(1.30 )

For an OMRF (with Ω = 2.8 ), the UBC base shear for connection design is:
Vn / s = 2.8(0.155)W = 0.434W = 3,807 kips
The ratio of base shears is:
FEMA/UBC = 4,315 / 3,807 = 1.13
Thus, there is a 13 percent increase with R = 1 as recommended in FEMA-267.
Using the unreduced seismic base shear, the beam-column joint stresses are
checked to remain elastic. For this, §1612.4, Special Seismic Load Combinations,
is used with a resistance factor φ of one.
5a. Determine beam forces with R=1.
The beam end moment and shear are scaled up to the unreduced seismic force
level by the ratio of the base shears, as follows:
 0.492 
VE ' =   Vseis = 3.17(42.2 ) = 138 kips
 0.155 
 0.492 
M E' =   M seis = 3.17(6,780 ) = 21,493 kip-in.
 0.155 
The special seismic load combination from §1612.4 is:
1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.0 E M (12-17)
M D + L + E = 1.2(1,042) + 0.5(924) + 1.0(21,493) = 23,205 kip-in.
VD + L + E = 1.2(16.4) + 0.5(13.3) + 1.0(138) = 164 kips

5b. Check beam-to-column weld.
As was done in Design Example 3A, the beam webs are to have
complete-penetration welds to the column flange. (Note that this weld is shown in
Figure 12-4). Note also that the flanges are reinforced with 5/16" fillet welds.
Using the cross-sectional area of the beam flange and web weldments at the face of
the column, the elastic section modulus S c of the beam is calculated from
information in Table 3B-7.
Figure 3B-4. Built-up section at column face.
Table 3B-7. Built-up section properties

Area Y Io
Mk A(y)2
(in.2) (in.) (in.4)
1 0.545(26.73)=14.58 0.00 0 869
2 0.76(10.48)=7.96 14.54 1,682 0
3 0.76(10.48)=7.96 14.54 1,682 0
4 0.31(10.48)=3.28 15.07 745 0
5 0.31(10.48)=3.28 15.07 745 0
Sum 4,854 869

The calculated section properties are:
I c = 4,854 + 869 = 5,723 in.4
∴ S c = 5,723 15.23 = 376 in.3
Per FEMA §7.2.2.1 for complete penetration welds, the weld strength is taken as
the beam yield stress of 50 ksi. The maximum weld stress is calculated using the
maximum moment (M D + L+ E ) at the face of the column:
f weld = 23,205 / 376 = 61.7 ksi > φF y = 1.0(50 ) = 50 ksi n.g.
The W 30 × 108 connection (weld) stresses to the column are not within the elastic
limit. At this point, we can choose to either add cover plates, or make the beam
larger. With similar weld patterns, a W 33 × 152 is required to obtain an adequate
(
connection section modulus S c = 575 in.3 : )
f weld = 23,205 / 575 = 40.4 ksi < 50 ksi o.k.
If we choose to instead add cover plates, we would need 10"× 3 / 4" plates at the top
and bottom flanges. With complete penetration welds at the cover plates to the
column, the increased moment of inertia and section modulus are:
I c = 5,723 + 2(7.5)(15.3)2 = 9,234 in.3
S c = 9,234 15.98 = 578 in.3
and:
f weld = 23,205 / 578 = 40.1 ksi < 50 ksi o.k.
The cover plates should be about half the beam depth in length, with fillet welds to
the beam flange as required to develop the tensile capacity of the plate. The
minimum size for ¾" plate is a 5/16" fillet weld.
Cover plate capacity:
TPl = 0.75(10 )(50.0 ) = 375 kips

5/16" fillet capacity:
q = 1.7(0.707 )(0.313)(21.0) = 7.9 kip-in.
Required weld length:
lw = 375/ 7.9 = 47"
Use a 20-inch long plate, which will provide for a total weld length of:
2(20) + 10 = 50" > 47" o.k.
As noted above, the beam web is to have a complete penetration weld to the
column face. The allowable beam shear of 325 kips from Part 4a above exceeds
the unreduced seismic shear demand of 164 kips. For beam-to-column connections
with bolted shear plates in lieu of welded webs, the connection plate and bolts
must be designed for this maximum shear force. See Design Example 3A, Part 6g
for a beam-to-column shear plate connection design.
5c. Additional considerations.
Although the UBC does not explicitly require any further OMRF connection
analysis, it is good practice to check the strong column-weak beam criteria and the
column panel zone shear strength. The column panel zone shear strength should be
reviewed for capacity to resist the maximum beam moment from the unreduced
seismic force. The strong column-weak beam analysis would be similar to that of
the SMRF Design Example 3A, Part 6f. The OMRF joint should also include
continuity plates, and expanded welding procedures as for the SMRF.
OMRFs designed to comply with the foregoing parameters can be expected to

provide a high level of seismic performance. The objective of maintaining
connection stresses within the elastic range is shown to be reasonable even for the
unreduced seismic demand. The resulting frame design produces a structure that
may respond to the design level ground motion without damage (i.e., plastic
deformations). Moreover, OMRF designs will likely produce nominally heavier
members, thereby reducing overall building drift and decreasing the potential for
damage to nonstructural components.

Design Example 4 ! Reinforced Concrete Wall
Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Wall
Figure 4-1. Eight-story reinforced concrete parking garage (partial view)
Overview
The structure in this Design Example is an 8-story parking garage with load-
bearing reinforced concrete walls (shear walls) as its lateral force resisting system,
as shown in Figure 4-1. This Design Example focuses on the design and detailing
of one of the 30'-6" long walls running in the transverse building direction.
The purpose of this Design Example is twofold:
1. Demonstrate the design of a solid reinforced concrete walls for flexure and
shear, including bar cut-offs and lap splices.
2. Demonstrate the design and detailing of wall boundary zones.

The Design Example assumes that design lateral forces have already been
determined for the structure, and that the forces have been distributed to the walls
of the structure by a hand or computer analysis. This analysis has provided the
lateral displacements corresponding to the design lateral forces.
Outline
1. Load combinations for design.
2. Preliminary sizing of wall.
3. Moment strength of wall.
4. Lap splices and curtailment of vertical bars.
5. Design for shear.
6. Sliding shear (shear friction).
7. Boundary zone detailing.
Given Information
Seismic zone = 4
Near field = 5 km from seismic source type A
Reliability/redundancy factor, ρ = 1.0
Importance factor, I = 1.0
Concrete strength, f ' c = 5,000 psi
Steel yield strength, f y = 60 ksi
Figure 4-2 shows the typical floor plan of the structure. Figure 4-3 shows the wall
elevation and shear and moment diagrams. The wall carries axial forces PD
(resulting from dead load including self-weight of the wall) and PL (resulting from
live load) as shown in Table 4-1. Live loads have already been reduced according
to §1607.5. The shear V E and moment M E resulting from the design lateral
earthquake forces are also shown in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-2. Floor plan
Figure 4-3. Wall elevation, shear, and moment diagram

Table 4-1. Design loads and lateral forces

PD PL VE ME
Level
(k) (k) (k) (k-ft)
R 216 41 96 0
8 436 81 262 960
7 643 122 438 3760
6 851 162 625 8530
5 1060 203 821 15400
4 1270 244 1030 24400
3 1470 284 1270 35600
2 1730 325 1470 49600
1 0 75500
For this Design Example, it is assumed that the foundation system is rigid and the
wall can be considered to have a fixed base. The fixed-base assumption is made
here primarily to simplify the example. In an actual structure, the effect of
foundation flexibility and its consequences on structural deformations and strains
should be considered.
Using the fixed base assumption and effective section properties, the horizontal
displacement at the top of the wall, corresponding to the design lateral forces, is
2.32 inches. This displacement is needed for the detailing of boundary zones
according to the UBC strain calculation procedure of §1921.6.6, which is
illustrated in Part 7 of this Design Example.
The design and analysis of the structure is based on an R factor of 4.5 (UBC
Table 16-N) for a bearing wall system with concrete shear walls. Concrete wall
structures can also be designed using an R factor of 5.5, if an independent space
frame is provided to support gravity loads. Such a frame is not used in this Design
Example.
Load combinations for the seismic design of concrete are given in §1612.2.1. (This
is indicated in §1909.2.3, and in the definition of “Design Load Combinations” in
§1921.1.) Equations (12-5) and (12-6) of UBC Chapter 16 are the seismic design
load combinations to be used for concrete.
Exception 2 of §1612.2.1 states “Factored load combinations of this section

multiplied by 1.1 for concrete and masonry where load combinations include
seismic forces.” Thus, the load combinations for Equations (12-5) and (12-6) for
the seismic design of concrete can be written:

1.32 D + 1.1E + 1.1( f1 L + f 2 S )
0.99 D ± 1.1E
The factors f1 and f 2 are defined in §1612.2.1.
The additional 1.1 factor is eliminated in the SEAOC Blue Book and in the
2000 International Building Code, for the reasons given in Blue Book §101.7.1,
and as presented in the section below on SEAOC-recommended revisions to load
combinations.
Load combinations for nonseismic loads for reinforced concrete are given in
§1909.2. Equations (12-1) through (12-4) of §1612.2.1 are not used for concrete.
The allowable stress design load combinations of §1612.3 are also not used for
concrete design.
Horizontal and vertical components of earthquake force E. §1630.1.1

The term E in the load combinations includes horizontal and vertical components
according to Equation (30-1):
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
Equation (30-1) represents a vector sum, and E v is defined as an addition to the

dead load effect, D . Substituting into Equation (30-1):
E = ρEh ± 0.5Ca ID
Substituting this into the seismic load combinations for concrete gives:
(1.32 + 0.55C a I )D + 1.1ρE h + 1.1( f1 L + f2S )
(0.99 − 0.55C a I )D ± 1.1ρE h
SEAOC-recommended revisions to load combinations. Blue Book §101.7.2.1

SEAOC recommends revisions to the load combinations of §1612, as indicated in
Blue Book §101.7.2.1. As shown in Blue Book Section C403.1, the SEAOC
recommended load combinations for the seismic design of reinforced concrete omit
the 1.1 multiplier, and can be written:
(1.2 + 0.5C a I )D + ρE h + ( f1 L + f2S )
0.9 D ± ρE h

Load combinations used in this Design Example.

For this Design Example, it is assumed that the local building department has
indicated approval of the SEAOC recommended revisions to the UBC load
combinations. For examples using the UBC load combinations instead of the
SEAOC recommendations, see Seismic Design Manual Volume II.
Since the given structure is a parking garage, f1 = 1.0 , per §1612.2.1, and since
there is no snow load, S = 0 .
For Soil Profile Type S D , Seismic Zone 4, the factor C a is calculated as 0.44 N a ,
according to Table 16-Q. From Table 16-S, the factor N a is given as 1.2 (5km
from Seismic Source Type A). However, the structure meets all of the conditions
of §1629.4.2 and therefore the value of N a need not exceed 1.1.
Thus, C a = 0.44(1.1) = 0.484 . With I = 1.0 and ρ = 1.0 , the governing load
combinations for this Design Example are:
[1.2 + 0.5(0.484)]D + E h + L = 1.44 D + E h + L

0.9 D ± E h
Actions at base of wall.

For the example wall, the dead and live loads cause axial load only, and the
earthquake forces produce shear and moment only. The second of the above
combinations gives the lower bound axial load. For a wall with axial loads below
the balance point, the lower bound axial load governs the design for moment
strength. (Typically, axial loads in concrete walls are well below the balance point,
as is the case in this Design Example, as shown in Figure 4-8).
The governing axial load at the base of the wall is thus:
Pu = 0.9 PD = 0.9 (1,730 k ) = 1,560 k
The governing moment and shear at the base of the wall is:
M u = M E = 75,500 k - ft
Vu = V E = 1,470 k - ft

2. Preliminary sizing of wall.
2a. Shear stress and reinforcement ratio rules of thumb.
The dimensions and required number of walls in a building can be selected by

limiting the average shear stress in the walls, corresponding to factored lateral
forces, to between 3 f ' c and 5 f ' c . Limiting the average shear stress to
between 3 f ' c and 5 f ' c helps prevent sliding shear failure of the walls. Walls
with higher levels of shear stress are permitted by the UBC.
For the example wall, the maximum factored shear force equals 1470 k.
Conservatively using a 3 f ' c criterion, for a wall length of 30'-6", the wall
thickness equals:
1,470,000#
= 19.0 in.
(
366′ 3 5,000 psi )
Say b = 20 in.
2b. Minimum wall thickness to prevent wall buckling. §1921.6.6(1.1)
For structures with tall story heights, the designer should check that the wall
thickness exceeds l u 16 , where l u is the clear height between floors that brace the
wall out-of-plane. This is based on §1921.6.6.6, paragraph 1.1, applicable to walls
that require boundary confinement. The SEAOC Blue Book Commentary
(C407.5.6, page 178) recommends “that the wall boundary thickness limit of l u 16
be applied at all potential plastic hinge locations, regardless of whether boundary
zone confinement is required.”
For the example wall, the clear height at the first story is 17 feet.
Minimum thickness = l u 16 = 17 (12) 16 = 12.8" < 20" o.k.

2c. Layout of vertical reinforcement.
Based on brief calculations and the preliminary sizing considerations discussed

here, the wall section and reinforcement layout shown in Figure 4-4 is proposed for
the base of the wall:
Figure 4- 4. Layout of vertical reinforcement at wall base
The reinforcement layout considers the following issues:
" Vertical bars are spaced longitudinally at 9 inches on center. This spacing
exceeds 6db of the largest bars used #11: 6db = 6(1.41) = 8.46 in. This offers
the best conditions for lap splicing of reinforcement, as indicated in the CRSI
rebar detailing chart [CRSI, 1996]. A closer spacing of vertical bars might
typically be used in the boundary regions of the wall, but such a spacing
could require longer lap splice lengths.
" The maximum center-to-center spacing of vertical bars is 12 inches in

boundary regions of walls where confinement is needed, according to
§1921.6.6.6 Paragraph 2.4. This means that at the ends of the 20-inch-thick
wall, three bars are used as shown in Figure 4-4.
Section 1921.6.2.1 specifies a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 for both

vertical and horizontal reinforcement of shear walls. For the proposed layout, at the
center portion of the wall’s length:
ρv = As bs = 1.58 in.2 (9"× 20") = 0.0056 > 0.0025 o.k.

3. Moment strength of wall.
As recommended in the SEAOC Blue Book Commentary (§C407.5.5) the vertical

reinforcement in the web of the wall and axial load contributions to the moment
strength of wall sections should not be neglected.
The 1991 and earlier editions of the UBC required wall boundaries to carry all
moment and gravity forces. This practice results in higher moment strengths in
walls, which can lead to poor earthquake performance because it makes shear
failure more likely to occur. This design practice is no longer accepted by the code.
Wall moment strength can be computed by hand calculations, spreadsheet

calculations, or a computer program such as PCACOL. All three calculation
approaches are demonstrated below. All of the calculation methods are based on an
assumed strain distribution and an iterative calculation procedure.
3a. Assumed reinforcement strain.
As indicated in the SEAOC Blue Book Commentary (§C407.4.4), for cyclic

loading all vertical reinforcement along the wall can be assumed to yield in either
tension or compression. This assumption simplifies the hand calculation of moment
capacity and is used in the hand calculations shown below.
Alternatively the reinforcement strain can be assumed to be directly proportional to

distance from the neutral axis, as discussed in §1910.2. This assumption is used in
the spreadsheet calculations demonstrated here and is also used by the PCACOL
computer program.
The assumption of all reinforcement yielding results in a slightly greater moment

strength compared to the strain assumption of §1910.2, but the difference is not
significant. The two possible assumed strain distributions are illustrated in
Figure 4-5 below. The assumption of all reinforcement yielding is typically closer
to the actual strain distribution in a wall section under cyclic displacements than is
the strain assumption of §1910.2, which is derived from monotonic loading.

Pn
Mn
CS1 CS2
TS2 TS1
CC
fy Steel stress,
cyclic loading
-fy
Steel stress,
monotonic loading
Figure 4-5. Steel stress and neutral axis depth
In calculating moment strength, it is necessary to determine the neutral axis depth,

c , as shown in Figure 4-5. A typical calculation of moment strength is based on
the following steps:
1. An initial estimate of c . c = 0.15lw can be used as an initial estimate.
2. Calculation of the steel reinforcement tension and compression forces.
3. Balancing the forces to calculate the concrete compressive force, Cc = (Pn + ΣTs − ΣCs ) .
4. Calculation of the stress block length a , which corresponds to C c .
5. Calculation of c equal to a β1 , and a reiteration of Steps 1 through 4 if necessary.

3b. Hand calculation.
The calculation of moment strength is based on the free-body diagram shown in

Figure 4-6.
The force reduction factor, φ , is calculated as a function of axial load according to

§1909.3.2.2, as follows.
0.10 f ' c Ag = 0.10(5.0ksi )(20′′)(366′′) = 3,660 kips
Pu = 1,560 kips (see Part 1)
φ = 0.9 − 0.2(1,560 3,660 ) = 0.815
Pn = Pu φ = 1,560 0.815 = 1,910 kips
0 2 4 8 ft
x
PN
CS1 CS2 TS3 TS2 TS1
CC
Figure 4-6. Free body diagram for moment strength
The iterative calculation of neutral axis depth and moment strength is shown in
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 below. §1909.2
Table 4-2. First iteration for c and Mn

Reinforcement As Asfy x Asfy*x
Force
Bars in.2 kips in. kip-in.
CS1 3-#11 4.68 -281 3 -842
CS2 12-#11 18.7 -1122 34.5 -38,700
TS3 54-#8 42.7 2562 183 469,000
TS2 12-#11 18.7 1122 332 373,000
TS1 3-#11 4.68 281 363 102,000
Pn 1910 183 350,000
Cc -4472 26.3 -126,000
0 1,130,000
=Mn (kip-in.)

Table 4-3. Second iteration for c and Mn

Reinforcement As Asfy x Asfy*x
Force
Bars in.2 kips in. kip-in.
CS1 3-#11 4.68 -281 3 -842
CS2 12-#11 18.7 -1122 34.5 -38,709
TS3 52-#8 41.1 2465 187 460,918
TS2 12-#11 18.7 1122 332 372,504
TS1 3-#11 4.68 281 363 101,930
Pn 1910 183 349,530
Cc -4375 25.7 -123,369
0 1,121,961=Mn (kip-in.)
93,497=Mn (kip-ft)
First iteration, assume c = 60 in.

Therefore, 15-#11 bars yield in compression, 54-#8 bars (all web vertical
bars) plus 15-#11 bars yield in tension. (Assume all reinforcement yields in
either tension or compression.)
Solve for C c to balance forces, C c = 4,470 kips
(
Calculate a corresponding to C c , a = C c .85 f ' c b ) a = 52.6
Calculate c = a β1 = 52.6 0.80 c = 65.8
Second iteration, assume c = 65 in.

Therefore, 15-#11 bars yield in compression, 52-#8 bars plus 15-#11 bars yield in
tension. Neglect force in 2-#8 located at x = 67 inches. Therefore, centroid of 52-#8
bars is at x = 187 in. Assume all other reinforcement yields.
Solve for C c to balance forces, C c = 4,375 kips
(
Calculate a corresponding to C c , a = C c .85 f ' c b ) a = 51.5
Calculate c = a β1 c = 64.3 solution converged
This results in M n = 93,500 k - ft
φM n = 0.815(93,500 k - ft ) = 77,200 k - ft > M u 75,500 k - ft o.k.

3c. Calculation using a general spreadsheet.
The approach used above to calculate flexural strength can be done on a

spreadsheet or by hand. A more generally applicable spreadsheet to calculate wall
flexural strength can also be created. Such a spreadsheet is shown in Figure 4-7.
This spreadsheet is set up so that each individual layer of reinforcement is

represented by a spreadsheet row. The input variables are at the top of the
spreadsheet. The user adjusts the input value of the neutral axis depth, c , on the
spreadsheet until the tension and compression forces on the section are balanced, as
indicated by the added notes on the section.
The spreadsheet gives a design moment capacity, φM n , of the selected section

equal to 76,150 k-ft, nearly identical to that calculated by hand in the previous
section.
3d. Calculation by PCACOL.
The computer program PCACOL can also be used to design wall sections for
flexure and axial load. The example wall section was run on PCACOL and the
moment strength obtained was the same as that calculated by the hand and
spreadsheet methods. The printed screen output of the PCACOL run is shown in
Figure 4-8.

Figure 4-7. General spreadsheet to calculate flexural strength

Figure 4-8. Analysis of wall section by PCACOL
4. Lap splices and curtailment of vertical bars.
4a. Bar cut-offs. §1912.10.3
Section 1912.10.3 addresses the development of flexural reinforcement and states

“Reinforcement shall extend beyond the point at which it is no longer required to
resist flexure for a distance equal to the effective depth of the member or 12d b ,
whichever is greater.” For a wall, the effective depth may be considered equal to
0.8l w , according to §1911.10.4. Section 402.7 of the SEAOC Blue Book clarifies
this requirement and recommends that the requirement be applied to concrete
walls.
Applying the bar cut-off requirement to the example wall, the moment strength is
reduced in two steps over the height of the wall: above Level 5 and above Level 7.
The dimensions of the wall section and the number of vertical bars are unchanged
at these transitions—only the size of the reinforcement is reduced. The selection of
vertical reinforcement sizes and cut-offs is shown in the wall elevation of
Figure 4-10. A summary of flexural reinforcement and moment strength over the
wall height is given in Table 4-4, below.

Table 4-4. Boundary and vertical web reinforcement

Vertical Bars Web Vertical Axial Load Design Moment
Location
Each Boundary Bars Pu=0.9PD Strength, ΦMn
Level 1 – Level 5 15-#11 54-#8 1560 k 76,200 k-ft
Level 5 – Level 7 15-#10 54-#7 766 k 59,200 k-ft
Level 7 – Level 9 15-#8 54-#6 392 k 40,400 k-ft
The moment strengths for each reinforcement arrangement were calculated using
the spreadsheet procedure described in Part 3c, above.
The moment strength above Level 5 is checked by the calculation below. For
simplicity, the moment diagram is assumed to be linear over the building height.
This also addresses higher mode effects according to the recommendations of
Paulay and Priestley [1992].
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 51'-0" + 3'-2" lap splice = 54.2'
Height after subtracting 0.8l w bar extension = 54.2' – 0.8(30.5') = 29.8'
Moment demand M u at the base of the wall = 75,500 k-ft
Overall wall height, hw = 95.3'
Moment demand at h = 29.8' based on linear
moment diagram = (75,500)(95.3 – 29.8)/95.3 = 51,900 k-ft.
< 59,200 o.k.
Similarly, the moment strength above Level 7 is checked by the following

calculation:
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 73'-2" + 2'-9" lap splice = 75.9'
Height after subtracting 0.8l w bar extension = 75.9 – 0.8(30.5) = 51.5'
Moment demand at h = 51.5' based on
linear moment diagram = (75,500)(95.3 – 51.5)/95.3 = 34,700 k-ft.
< 40,400 o.k.
The calculations for bar cut-off locations are illustrated in Figure 4-9.

Amount of Moment demand

vertical assuming
reinforcement linear variation
Figure 4-9. Calculation of required moment strength at bar cut-off locations
4b. Splices of reinforcement.
The lap splices of the vertical reinforcement are shown in the wall elevation of
Figure 4-11. Lap splice lengths are taken from the CRSI rebar detailing chart
[CRSI, 1996]. Lap splices are not used over the first two stories of the wall,
because this is the anticipated plastic hinge region.
Although not specifically required by the code, lap splices of flexural

reinforcement should be avoided in plastic hinge regions of walls. As indicated in
1999 Blue Book Sections C402.7 and C404.3 (and in the commentary to Section
21.3.2 of ACI 318 [1999], applicable to flexural members of frames), lap splices in
plastic hinge regions are likely to slip unless they are surrounded by confining ties.
Even well-confined lap splices (§C402.7) that do not slip are undesirable in plastic-
hinge regions because they prevent an even distribution of yielding along the
length of the flexural reinforcement.
Paulay and Priestley [1992] note that splices in plastic hinge zones tend to
progressively unzip and that attempting to mitigate the problem by making lap
splices longer than required is unlikely to ensure satisfactory performance.

Welded splices or mechanical couplers. §1921.2.6

Properly designed welded splices or mechanical connection splices are preferable
to lap splices in plastic hinge regions. Ideally, the welded or mechanical splices
should be able to develop the breaking strength of the bar. As a minimum,
mechanical splices must be Type 2 splices according to §1921.2.6. If used in
plastic hinge regions, SEAOC recommends that welded or mechanical splices be
staggered so that no more than one-half of the reinforcement is spliced at one
section, and the stagger is not less than 2 feet. Staggering of the splices is not
required by the UBC.
Plastic hinge length and zone in which to exclude lap splices. §1921.6.6.5
Section 1921.6.6.5 specifies that the equivalent plastic hinge length, l p , of a wall
section “shall be established on the basis of substantiated test data or may be
alternatively taken as 0.5l w .” Based on the work of Paulay and Priestley [1993]
and FEMA-306 [1999], l p for walls can be taken as 0.2lw + 0.07 M V , where
M V is the moment to shear ratio at the plastic hinge location.
For the example wall, l p is calculated by both methods as shown below:
l p = 0.5l w = 0.5(30.5')
= 15.2'
l p = 0.2l w + 0.07 M V = 0.2(30.5') + 0.07(68,600 k-ft / 1340 k) = 6.1' + 3.6'
= 9.7'
For this Design Example, we will take 9.7 ft as l p , based on the substantiated test
data reviewed by Paulay and Priestley [1993].
Equivalent plastic hinge lengths, as calculated above, are used to relate plastic
curvatures to plastic rotations and displacements (for example in §1921.6.6.5). The
actual zone of yielding and nonlinear behavior typically extends beyond the
equivalent plastic hinge length. For flexural members of frames, §1921.3.2.3
indicates that flexural yielding may be possible “within a distance of twice the
member depth from the face of the joint.” This distance is conservatively defined
to be larger, by a factor of two or more, than the equivalent plastic hinge length, lp.
Thus, for this Design Example wall, the expected zone of yielding should be taken
as equal to at least 2l p (19.4 ft), and lap splices should be avoided over this height.
In the Design Example, lap splices are excluded over the first two stories, i.e., over
a height of 28.8 ft, as shown in the wall elevation of Figure 4-10. Because of
potential construction difficulties in using continuous vertical bars from the

foundation through Level 3, an option to use welded or mechanical connection

splices can be specified as shown in Figure 4-10. Such splices require an ICBO
Evaluation Report or acceptance by the local building official.
Figure 4-10. Wall elevation
5. Design for shear.
The SEAOC Blue Book Section 402.8.1 requires that “the design shear strength
φVn shall not be less than the shear associated with the development of the
nominal moment strength of the wall.” A design for shear forces based on code
requirements will not necessarily achieve this objective. Thus, the code provisions
covered in Part 5(a) should be considered as minimum requirements for the shear
design of walls.
Designing for amplified shear forces as recommended in the Blue Book is covered
in Part 5(b) below.

5a. UBC requirements.
Shear demand.
If designing to the minimum requirements of the UBC, the shear demand is taken
directly from the design forces, factored by the load combinations discussed in
Part 1 of this Design Example. At the base of the wall:
Vu = V E = 1,470 k
Shear capacity.
Section 1911.10 gives shear provisions for walls designed for nonseismic lateral
forces such as wind or earth pressure. Section 1921.6.5 gives shear strength
provisions for walls designed for seismic forces.
Since the subject wall has a ratio of hw l w greater than 2.0, Equation (21-6)
governs wall shear strength:
Vn = Acv  2 f ' c + ρ n f y 
 
As prescribed in §1909.3.4.1, the shear strength reduction factor, φ , shall be 0.6

for the design of walls if their nominal shear strength is less than the shear
corresponding to development of their nominal flexural strength.
φVn = 0.6(20")(366") [2 + ρ n (60,000 psi )] = 621 k + 263,000 ρ n
At each level, the amount of horizontal reinforcement provided for shear strength is
given in Table 4-5. Note that for all levels above Level 2, the minimum
reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 governs the amount of horizontal reinforcement.
(§1921.6.2.1)
Table 4-5. Horizontal reinforcement for UBC shear strength

requirements
VE Horizontal φVn
Level ρn
kips Reinforcement kips
R 95 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
8 262 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
7 438 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
6 625 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
5 821 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
4 1030 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
3 1260 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1300
2 1470 #6@12” E.F. 0.00367 1585

UBC §1921.6.5.6 requires that Vn shall not be taken greater than 8 Acv f 'c .
8 Acv f ' c = 8 (20")(366") 5,000 = 4,140 kips > 1,585 kips o.k.
5b. Blue Book recommendations.
Shear demand.
To comply with the Blue Book requirement of providing shear strength in excess
of the shear corresponding to wall flexural strength, an amplified shear demand is
considered.
Section C402.8 of the Blue Book commentary gives the following equation for the
shear amplification factor, ωv , that accounts for inelastic dynamic effects. For
application to designs according to the UBC, the amplification factor
recommended by Paulay and Priestley [1992] can be reduced by a factor of 0.85,
because the Paulay and Priestley recommendations use a different strength
reduction factor, φ , than does the UBC.
ωv = 0.85(1.3 + n/30), for buildings over 6 stories, where n = number of stories
ωv = 0.85(1.3 + 8/30) = 1.33
As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted
triangular distributions of lateral forces. If a response spectrum analysis is carried
out, a slightly lower ωv factor can be justified in some cases.
For this Design Example, the shear demand is taken at the nominal strength. For
further conservatism, one could base the shear demand on the upper bound of
flexural strength, which can be taken as the “probable flexural strength,” Mpr,
defined in §1921.0.
M n is calculated using a strength reduction factor, φ , of 1.0, and taking the upper
bound of axial load from the load combinations of UBC §1921.0. The probable and
nominal moment strengths for the higher axial load are as shown in Table 4-6. The
nominal moment strength previously calculated is shown for comparison.
Table 4-6. Moment strength comparison

Quantity Axial Load Considered Reinforcement Strength Moment Strength
Probable strength Pu = 1.44PD + PL =2820 k 1.25 fy = 75 ksi Mpr = 125,000 k-ft
Nominal strength Pu = 1.44PD + PL =2820 k fy = 60 ksi Mpr = 111,000 k-ft
Nominal strength Pu = 0.9PD =1560 k fy = 60 ksi Mn = 93,500 k-ft

At the base of the wall, the magnified shear demand Vu * is calculated as follows:
Vu * = ωv (M n M u )(VE )= 1.33(111,000 k − ft 75,500 k − ft )(1,470 k ) = 2,870 k
Shear capacity.
Since this Design Example uses nominal shear strength to exceed the shear
corresponding to flexural strength, a strength reduction factor, φ , of 0.85 can be
used. As before, Equation (21-6) is used to calculated shear capacity:
[ ]
φVn = 0.85 (20")(366") 2 + 5,000 + ρ n (60,000 psi ) = 880 k + 373,000ρ n §1921.6.5
For the shear demand of 2870 k, the required amount of horizontal reinforcement is
calculated:
ρ n = (2,870 k − 880 k ) 373,000 = 0.00535
Try #8 @ 12" o.c. each face
(
ρ n = 2 0.79 in.2 ) (12"× 20") = 0.00658 > 0.00535 o.k.
This amount of shear reinforcement is provided over the bottom two stories of the
wall. For the other stories, the recommended amount of horizontal reinforcement,
based on the magnified shear demand Vu*, is calculated as shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Horizontal reinforcement based on Blue Book shear design

recommendations
VE Vu* Horizontal φVn
Level ρn
(k) (k) Reinforcement (k)
R 95 186 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1841
8 262 512 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1841
7 438 856 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1841
6 625 1220 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1841
5 821 1610 #5@12” E.F. 0.00258 1841
4 1030 2010 #7@12” E.F. 0.00500 2742
3 1260 2460 #8@12” E.F. 0.00658 3331
2 1470 2870 #8@12” E.F. 0.00658 3331
Paulay and Priestley [1992] recommend equations for shear strength that are
somewhat different than Equation (21-6), and in which the shear strength at plastic
hinge zones is taken to be less than that at other wall locations. For the wall design
in this Design Example, the Paulay and Priestley shear strength equations result in
nearly identical amounts of horizontal reinforcement as does Equation (21-6).

5c. Discussion of UBC and Blue Book results for shear reinforcement. Blue Book §C407.2.5
A comparison of Tables 4-6 and 4-7 shows that the Blue Book recommendation
(§C407.2.5) of providing shear strength that exceeds flexural strength results in
more horizontal reinforcement in the bottom three stories of the wall than that
required by the code. The Blue Book approach is recommended by SEAOC, as it
leads to more ductile wall behavior.
In the upper five stories of the wall, the code minimum amount of horizontal steel
(ρ n = 0.0025) is adequate to meet both the UBC requirements and the Blue Book
recommendations. Overall, the additional cost of heavier bars in the first three
stories, as determined under the Blue Book requirements, should not be significant.
The wall elevation of Figure 4-10 shows the horizontal reinforcement per the Blue
Book recommendation.
6. Sliding shear (shear friction). §1911.7
At construction joints and flexural plastic hinge zones, walls can be vulnerable to
sliding shear. Typically lowrise walls are more vulnerable. If construction joint
surfaces are properly prepared according to §1911.7.9, taller walls should not be
susceptible to sliding shear failure.
Sliding shear can be checked using the shear friction provisions of §1911.7. Shear
strength is computed by Equation (11-25):
Vn = Avf f y µ
µ is the coefficient of friction, which is taken as 1.0λ , where λ = 1.0 for normal
weight concrete.
Avf is the amount of shear-transfer reinforcement that crosses the potential sliding
plane. For the wall in this Design Example, all vertical bars in the section are
effective as shear-transfer reinforcement [ACI-318 Commentary §R11.7.7]. At the
base of the wall:
( ) ( )
Avf = 30 1.56 in. 2 + 54 0.79 in.2 = 89.5 in.2

Section 1911.7.7 indicates that “permanent net compression” can be taken as

additive to the force Avf f y , thus the lower bound axial load, 0.9 PD , can be
included in Equation (11-25):
(
Vn = Avf f y + 0.9 PD µ )
[( ) ]
= 89.5 in.2 (60 ksi ) + 1,560 k (1.0 ) = 6,930 k
Section 1911.7.5 requires that the shear friction strength not be taken greater than
0.2 f ' c or 800 psi times the concrete area. For the example wall with
f ' c = 5,000 psi , the 800 psi criterion governs:
Vn ≤ (800 psi )(20"× 366") = 5,860 k > Vu * = 2,870 k o.k.
By inspection, the sliding shear capacity at higher story levels of the building is
also okay.
7. Boundary zone detailing.
The code gives two alternatives for determining whether or not boundary zone
detailing needs to be provided: a simplified procedure, §1921.6.6.4, and a strain
calculation procedure, §1921.6.6.5.
7a. UBC simplified procedure. §1921.6.6.4
Under §1921.6.6.4, boundary zone detailing need not be provided if:
Pu ≤ 0.10 Ag f ' c ( Pu ≤ 0.05 Ag f ' c for nonsymmetrical wall sections)
and either:
M u (Vu l w ) ≤ 1.0
or:
Vu ≤ 3 Acv f 'c

Use of this procedure for the wall in this Design Example is shown below:
Pu = 1.44 PD + PL = 2,820 k
0.10 Ag f ' c = 0.10(20"× 366")(5.0 ksi ) = 3,660 k > 2,820 k
M u (Vu l w ) = 75,000 k − ft [(1,470 k )(30.5')] = 1.68 > 1.0
3 Acv f 'c = 3(20"×366") 5,000 psi = 1,550,000# = 1,550 k > Vu = 1,470 k
Therefore, boundary zone detailing as defined in §1921.6.6.6 is not required.
7b. UBC strain calculation procedure. §1921.6.6.5
Section 1921.6.6.5 requires the calculation of total curvature, φ t , at the plastic

hinge region of the wall. The procedure applies only when the plastic hinge is
located at the base of the wall, which is the case for the example wall. Total
curvature is calculated by the following equation:
∆i
φt =
( )
hw − l p 2 l p
§1630.9.2
where ∆ i = ∆ t − ∆ y
and ∆ t = ∆ m ,when the analysis has used effective stiffness

(cracked section) properties
∆ m is defined in Equation (30-17) of §1630.9.2 as
∆ m = 0.7 R∆ s
∆ s is the design level response displacement. For the example wall at the top, it is
the displacement ∆ s = 2.32 inches, taken from the analysis.
∆ m = 0.7 R∆ s = 0.7(4.5)(2.32") = 7.32"
( )
∆ y is the yield displacement of the wall, taken as M ' n M E ∆ E . For the example
wall, ∆ E , the displacement corresponding to M E , is equal to ∆ s (= 2.32"), the
displacement taken from the analysis.

Calculation of Mń requires a re-calculation of the moment strength at the base of

the wall, this time using the axial load Pú = 1.2 PD + 0.5PL . The results of the
calculation, including the neutral axis depth, are shown in Table 4-8, below.
Table 4-8. Summary of Mń calculation

Reinforcement Neutral Axis
Quantity Axial Load Considered Moment Strength
Strength Depth
M'n P'u = 1.2PD + 0.5PL = 2240 k fy = 60 ksi M'n = 103,000 k-ft c'u = 78.0”
( )
∆ y = M ' n M E ∆ E = (103,000 k − ft 75,500 k − ft )(2.32") = 2.54"
∆ i = ∆ t − ∆ y = 7.31"−2.54" = 4.15"
The height of the wall, hw , equals 95.3 ft (1140 in.), and the plastic hinge length,
l p will be taken as 0.5l w (183 in). The yield curvature φ y , can be estimated as
0.003 / l w . Substituting these values into Equation (21-9):
+ 0.003 366" = 29.8(10 )−6 in.−1

4.15"
φt =
(1,140"−183" 2)183"
The compressive strain at the extreme fiber of the section equals the total curvature
times the neutral axis depth:
( )
ε c = φ t c ' u = 29.8(10 )−6 in.−1 (78") = 0.00233 < 0.003
∴ Boundary confinement not required.
Note that assuming a smaller plastic hinge length, l p = 9.7 ft = 116" , as defined in
Part 4b above, results in a strain of 0.00321, which would require that boundary
confinement be provided.
7c. Blue Book recommendations. Blue Book §402.11.1
Section 402.11 of the Blue Book modifies the UBC, including a revised formula
for ∆ t that gives a more realistic estimate of inelastic seismic displacements and
corrects a tendency for the UBC strain calculation procedure to give
unconservative results. Section 402.11.1 of the 1999 Blue Book replaces the
definition of ∆ t to give:
∆ t = R∆ s

For the example wall in this Design Example, this gives:
∆ t = R∆ s = 4.5(2.32") = 10.4"
∆ i = ∆ t − ∆ y = 10.4"−3.17" = 7.28"
Plugging this value of ∆ i into Equation 21-9 gives:
+ 0.003 366" = 46.1(10)−6

7.28"
φt =
(1,140"−183" 2)183"
The compressive strain at the extreme fiber of the section equals the product of the
total curvature and the neutral axis depth:
( )
εc = φt c 'u = 46.1(10)−6 in.−1 (78") = 0.00360 > 0.003
∴ Boundary confinement is required.
Assuming a smaller plastic hinge length, l p = 9.7 ft = 116 in., as defined in Part 4b
above, results in a strain of 0.00515, further indicating the prudence of adding
boundary confinement to the subject wall.
Section 402.12 of the SEAOC Blue Book requires that all wall edges in potential
plastic hinge regions have ties spaced at 6d b or 6 inches maximum, to restrain the
buckling of bars. For the wall in this Design Example, #4 tie sets at 6 inches on
center, with a tie leg located at each of the #11 bars, as shown in Figure 4-11, and
on the wall elevation of Figure 4-10, should be provided as a minimum.
Figure 4-11. Boundary reinforcement at wall base

References
ATC-43, 1999. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall

Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-43 project) for
the Partnership for Response and Recovery. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Report No. FEMA-306, Washington, D.C.
CRSI, 1996. Rebar Design and Detailing Data – ACI. Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute, Schaumberg, Illinois.
Maffei, Joe, 1996. “Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls — Beyond the Code,”
SEAONC Fall Seminar Proceedings. Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California, San Francisco, California, November.
Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestley, 1992. Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
Design for Seismic Resistance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (Chapter
5 covers seismic behavior and design of reinforced concrete walls, including
examples. The book is not based on the ACI or UBC codes, but explains the
principles that underlie several code provisions.)
Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestley, 1993. Stability of Ductile Structural Walls. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4, July-August 1993.
PCA, 1999. “PCACOL: Design and Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Column

Sections,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.

Design Example 5 ! Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
Design Example 5
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
Figure 5-1. Six-story concrete office building (partial view)
Overview
The structure in this Design Example is a 6-story office building with reinforced
concrete walls (shear walls) as its lateral force resisting system. The example
focuses on the design and detailing of one of the reinforced concrete walls. This is
a coupled wall running in the transverse building direction and is shown in
Figure 5-1. The example assumes that design lateral forces have already been
determined for the building, and that the seismic moments, shears, and axial loads
on each of the wall components, from the computer analysis, are given.

The purpose of this Design Example is to illustrate the design of coupling beams
and other aspects of reinforced concrete walls that have openings. Research on the
behavior of coupling beams for concrete walls has been carried out in New
Zealand, the United States, and elsewhere since the late 1960s. The code provisions
of the UBC derive from this research.
Outline
2. Preliminary sizing of shear wall.
3. Coupling beam design.
4. Design of wall piers for flexure.
5. Plastic analysis of flexural mechanism in walls.
6. Design of wall piers for shear.
7. Boundary zone detailing of wall piers.
8. Detailing of coupling beams.
Given Information
Seismic zone = 4
Near-field = 5 km from seismic source type A
Redundancy/reliability factor, ρ = 1.0
Importance factor, I = 1.0
Concrete strength, f 'c = 4000 psi
Steel yield strength, f y = 60 ksi
The wall to be designed, designated Wall 3, is one of several shear walls in the
building. The wall elevation, a plan section, and the design forces are shown in
Figure 5-2. An elastic analysis of the wall for lateral forces, using a computer
program, gives the results shown in Figure 5-3, which shows the moments and
shear for each coupling beam (i.e., wall spandrel), and the moments, shear and
axial forces for each vertical wall segment (i.e., wall pier).

Lateral story displacements, corresponding to gross section properties, are also

shown on the figure. Where displacements are used in design they should
correspond to effective section properties rather than gross section properties, as
indicated in §1633.2.4. Typical practice is to use a percentage of the gross stiffness,
e.g., 50 percent, for the effective stiffness. In such a case, the displacements from
the gross section model can be uniformly factored up. The displacements for a
linear elastic model using 50 percent of Ig will be two times the displacements
using the gross section properties. In this Design Example, the displacement output
is not used. In an actual building design, the displacements would need to be
considered for: 1.) design of elements not part of the lateral-force-resisting system,
2.) building separations, 3.) boundary design by the strain calculation procedure,
and 4.) P∆ analysis. Other recommendations for member stiffness assumptions are
given in Section 5.3 of Paulay and Priestley [1992].
Gravity loads are not included in the computer model. Gravity effects are added
separately by hand calculations.
Plan
Elevation
Figure 5-2. Wall elevation, plan section, and design forces of Wall 3

Units:
P=kips beam moment at edge of wall piers
V=kips pier moments at floor levels
M=kips-inch
Figure 5-3. Results of ETABS computer analysis for Wall 3

Load combinations for reinforced concrete are discussed in detail in Part 1 of

Design Example 4. As in that example, we assume here that the presiding building
department has indicated approval of the SEAOC recommended revisions to the
UBC load combinations. Thus the governing load combinations become:
(1.2 ± 0.5Ca I )D ± ρEh + ( f1L + f2S ) Blue Book §101.7.2.1
0.9 D ± ρEh Blue Book §C403.11
Since the given structure is an office building, f1 = 0.5 . And since there is no snow
load, S = 0 .
The same seismic zone, soil profile, near-field, redundancy, and importance factors
are assumed as for Design Example 4, thus C a = 0.484 . With I = 1.0 and ρ = 1.0 ,
the governing load combinations for this Design Example are:
0.9 D ± Eh
= 1.44 D ± Eh + 0.5 L
[1.2 ± 0.5(0.484)]D ± Eh + L { = 0.958D ± Eh + 0.5L does not govern
The forces shown in Figure 5-3 correspond to Eh .
2. Preliminary sizing of shear wall.
For walls with diagonally reinforced coupling beams, the required wall thickness is
often dictated by the layering of the reinforcement in the coupling beam. Typically,
a wall thickness of 15 inches or larger is required for diagonally reinforced
coupling beams conforming to the 1997 UBC.
For the subject wall, a wall thickness, bw , of 16 inches will be tried.

3. Coupling beam design.
3a. Requirement for diagonal reinforcement.
Code requirements for the diagonal reinforcement of coupling beams

(§1921.6.10.2) are based on the clear-length to depth ratio for the coupling beam,
l n d , and on the level of shear stress in the coupling beam.
For the wall in this Design Example, it will be assumed that d equals 0.8 times the
overall depth, so that l n d = 72" (0.8 × 72") = 1.25 for the typical coupling beam,
and l n d = 72" (0.8 × 120") = 0.75 for the coupling beams at the second floor.
As shown in Table 5-1 (6th column), for five of the nine coupling beams the shear
exceeds 4 f 'c bw d . For these coupling beams, diagonal reinforcement is required.
For the four coupling beams that have lower shear stress, diagonal reinforcement is
not required by the UBC. Designing these 4 coupling beams without diagonal
reinforcement, using horizontal reinforcement to resist flexure and vertical stirrups
to resist shear, might lead to cost savings in the labor to place the reinforcing steel.
In this Design Example, however, diagonal reinforcement is used in all of the

coupling beams of the wall because: 1.) it can simplify design and construction to
have all coupling beams detailed similarly, and 2.) research results show that
diagonal reinforcement improves coupling beam performance, even at lower shear
stress levels, as discussed in §C407.7 of the SEAOC Blue Book.
Table 5-1. Coupling beam forces and diagonal reinforcement

Vu h d Diagonal Ad α φVn
Grid Line Level Vu bw d f 'c (1) φVn Vu
(kips) (in.) (in.) Bars (in.2) (degrees) (kips)
C-D Roof 151 72 57.6 2.6 4-#8 3.16 37.9 198 1.31
C-D 6th 325 72 57.6 5.6 4-#10 5.08 37.9 318 0.98
C-D 5th 447 72 57.6 7.7 6-#10 7.62 36.0 456 1.02
C-D 4th 211 72 57.6 3.6 4-#9 4.00 37.9 251 1.19
C-D 3rd 180 72 57.6 3.1 4-#9 4.00 37.9 251 1.39
C-D 2nd 285 120 96.0 2.9 4-#9 4.00 53.1 326 1.14
D-E 4th 319 72 57.6 5.5 6-#9 6.00 36.0 359 1.13
D-E 3rd 454 72 57.6 7.8 6-#10 7.62 36.0 456 1.00
D-E 2nd 406 120 96.0 4.2 4-#10 5.08 53.1 414 1.02
Note: Diagonal bars are required when this ratio exceeds 4.

3b. Design of diagonal reinforcement.
Diagonal reinforcement is provided in the coupling beams according to Equation

(21-1) of §1921.6.10.2:
φVn = 2φf y sin αAvd (21-1)
Each group of diagonal bars must consist of at least 4 bars (§1921.6.10.2). The
calculation of the required diagonal reinforcement is shown in Table 5-1. For
coupling beams with higher shear stresses, 6 bars are needed in each group, as
shown in Table 5-1.
The angle α of the diagonal bars is calculated based on the geometry of the
reinforcement layout, as shown in Figure 5-4. The value of α depends somewhat
on overall dimension of the diagonal bar group and on the clearance between the
diagonal bar group and the corner of the wall opening. This affects the dimension x
shown in Figure 5-4 and results in a slightly different value of α for a group of
6 bars compared to that for a group of 4 bars, as shown in Table 5-1.
The provided diagonal bars are shown in Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-4. Geometry of coupling beam diagonal bars

Figure 5-5. Diagonal bars provided in coupling beams
4. Design of wall piers for flexure.
The design of the vertical wall segments for flexure is carried out following the
procedures and recommendations given for conventional “solid” walls. This is
shown in Part 3 of Design Example 4. From Figure 5-3, the critical wall segments
(i.e., those with the highest moments or earthquake axial forces) include the wall
pier at the 4th floor on Line D, and the wall piers at the base on Lines C and E. The
20-foot long wall pier on Line D at the base is also checked.

4a. Critical moments and axial forces.
As can be seen from Figure 5-2, the gravity loads on each wall pier are not
concentric with the wall pier centroid. Therefore, gravity load moments must be
considered in the design of flexural reinforcement. The dead and live loads (except
wall self-weight shown in Table 5-2) in Figure 5-2 act at the column grid lines, and
have an eccentricity, eDF , with respect to the section centroid, as given in
Table 5-3 (Note: The calculation of weights, section centroids, eDF, and eDW is not
shown). The wall self-weight provides additional dead load at each level, equal to
the values given in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Dead load from wall self-weight

Line C Line D Line E
Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity,
Level
Weight (kips) eDW (ft) (1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft) (1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft) (1)
Above 6th 26 2.06 26 -2.06 0
Above 5th 53 2.06 53 -2.06 0
Above 4th 79 2.06 79 -2.06 0
Above 3rd 106 2.06 132 -3.71 26 -2.06
Above 2nd 132 2.06 185 -2.65 53 -2.06
At base 166 2.03 252 -1.94 86 -2.00
Note:
1. eDW = distance between centroid of weight and centroid of wall section.
The calculation of the factored forces on the critical wall piers is shown in
Table 5-3. In this table, gravity moments are calculated about the section centroid,
using the gravity loads acting at the column centerline, PDF and PL , plus the dead
load from wall self-weight, PDW. Earthquake moments, ME, are taken from
Figure 5-3.
Loads are factored according to the combinations discussed in Part 1 of this Design
Example, giving two cases for each wall pier: minimum axial load and maximum
axial load. The minimum axial load case is based on the combination of Eh with
0.9 D , and the maximum axial load case is based on the combination of Eh with
1.44 D + 0.5 L .
Considering that larger axial compression generally increases moment strength,

potentially governing combinations are shown as shaded areas in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Calculation of factored axial forces and moments on critical wall piers
PDF eDR PDW e DW PL Direction PE ME MD M L Minimum Axial Maximum Axial
Level Line
(kips) (ft) (kips) (ft) (kips) of force (kips) (k-ft) (k-ft) (k-ft) PU MU PU MU
4th D 428 -4.13 79 -2.06 44 west -923 -6,070 1,603 182 -467 -4,628 -171 -3,671
4th D 428 -4.13 79 -2.06 44 east 923 6,070 1,603 182 1,379 7,512 1,675 8,469
1st C 874 4.13 166 2.03 100 west 1,600 -4,105 -3,268 -413 2,536 -7,047 3,148 -9,018
1st C 874 4.13 166 2.03 100 east -1,600 4,105 -3,268 -413 -664 1,164 -52 -807
1st E 874 -4.13 86 -2.00 100 west -1,179 -4,191 3,433 413 -315 -1,101 253 959
1st E 874 -4.13 86 -2.00 100 east 1,179 4,191 3,433 413 2,043 7,281 2,611 9,341
1st D 874 0 252 -1.94 100 west -421 -13,250 -489 0 592 -13,690 1,250 -13,954
Notes:
PDF = dead load distributed over floor area, which acts at the column line.
e DF = distance between PDF and centroid of wall section.
PDW = dead load from wall self-weight.
e DW = distance between PDW and centroid of wall section.
4b. Vertical reinforcement.
The program PCACOL [PCA, 1999] is used to design the reinforcement in each
wall pier. Figure 5-6 shows a wall section with the typical layout of vertical
reinforcement. Typical reinforcement in the “column” portion of the wall piers is
8-#9 and typical vertical reinforcement in the wall web is #7@12. The PCACOL
results of Figure 5-7a, 5-7b, and 5-7c show that this reinforcement is adequate in
all locations except Line D at the 4th floor where 8-#10 are required instead of 8-#9.
Figure 5-7d shows that the typical reinforcement provides adequate moment
strength to the 20-foot long wall pier on Line D.
Figure 5-8 shows the vertical reinforcement provided in the wall piers to satisfy
moment strength requirements. Note that the vertical reinforcement in the column
portion of the 4th floor piers is increased to 8-#11 (from 8-#9 used at the lower
levels), and that at the 5th and 6th floors is increased to 8-#10. The reasons for this
will be discussed in Part 5 of this Design Example.
Figure 5-6. Section through wall pier in vicinity of Line C

a. b.
c. d.
Figure 5-7. PCACOL results for design of vertical reinforcement

Figure 5-8. Elevation of vertical wall reinforcement
4c. Lap splice locations.
In general, lap splices should be avoided in potential plastic hinge regions of

concrete structures. This is discussed in Part 4b of Design Example 4 and in Blue
Book §C404.3. For this example wall, plastic hinging is expected (and desired) at
the base of each wall pier and in the coupling beams. Plastic hinging may also be
possible above the wall setback, in the 4th floor wall piers. (This will be
investigated in more detail in Part 5 of this Design Example.)
Lap splices of the vertical wall reinforcement are located to avoid the potential
plastic hinge regions in first floor and fourth floor wall piers, as shown in Figures
5-10 and 5-11 and in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 in Part 5B, below.

5. Plastic analysis of flexural mechanism in walls. Blue Book §C402.8, C407.5.5.2
This part of the Design Example presents a plastic analysis methodology that is not
a code requirement. It is included to assist the reader in understanding the post-
elastic behavior of coupled shear walls and how they can be analyzed for seismic
forces when elements of the wall are yielding.
Plastic analyses are not required by the UBC, but they are recommended in the
SEAOC Blue Book: 1.) to establish shear demand corresponding to flexural
strength, and 2.) to identify potential plastic hinge regions where special boundary
and splicing requirements may be necessary. With the trend toward nonlinear static
analysis (pushover) procedures, as called for in performance-based structural
engineering guidelines [FEMA-273, 1997 and ATC-40, 1996], the ability to use
plastic analyses will become increasingly important. The first three chapters of the
textbook Plastic Design in Steel [ASCE, 1971] summarize the basic principles and
methods of plastic design, and these are recommended reading for the interested
reader.
Given below is an illustration of plastic analysis for the reinforced concrete walls
and coupling beams of this Design Example.
5a. Probable moment strength.
The “probable flexural strength,” Mpr, will be determined in calculating shear

demands, according to the Blue Book recommendations. As defined in §1921.0,
Mpr is calculated assuming a tensile stress in the longitudinal bars of 1.25 f y , and a
strength reduction factor, φ , of 1.0. For the purposes of this plastic analysis, we
will neglect earthquake axial forces Ev in calculating Mpr for each wall pier and
assume an axial load of 1.2 PD + 0.5 PL . In reality, the wall pier with earthquake
axial tension will have a decreased moment strength, while the wall pier with
earthquake axial compression will have an increased moment strength. These
effects tend to cancel out so that our plastic analysis will give a good estimate of
1.) the governing mechanism of response, and 2.) the shear corresponding to the
development of a mechanism at probable flexural strength. Table 5-4 shows Mpr
values for the critical wall piers, based on the PCACOL results shown in
Figure 5-9.

a. b.
c. d.
(
Figure 5-9. PCACOL calculation of probable moment strength M pr fy = 75 ksi, φ = 1.0 )
Table 5-4. Approximate probable moment strengths of wall piers for plastic analysis
Reinforcement of Axial Load Considered
Level Grid Line M pr (k-ft)
Column Portion 1.2PD + 0.5PL (kips)
4th C 8-#9 630 10,500
4th D 8-#10 630 7,500
1st C 8-#9 1,300 12,500
1st D 8-#9 1,400 28,000
1st E 8-#9 1,200 10,000
4th C 8-#11 630 13,000
4th D 8-#11 630 8,000
5b. Mechanism with plastic hinging at the base.
The preferred behavior of the wall occurs when plastic hinges occur at the base of
the wall piers and in the coupling beams. This produces the desirable situation of
flexural yielding, energy dissipation, and avoidance of shear failures.
Table 5-5 shows calculations of the shear strength of the preferred plastic
mechanism, which has plastic hinges forming at the base of each wall pier and in
each coupling beam. The equivalent plastic hinge length at the pier base, lp, is
taken equal to 5 feet.
The plastic hinge length is used in the calculation of external work shown in
Table 5-5. The calculation is not sensitive to the value of lp assumed, since lp /2 is
subtracted from hi, the height above the base. In this case, the value of 5 feet is
taken as one-half the wall length of the external wall piers. Although the central
pier is longer, it is assigned the same plastic hinge length. Note that in the strain
calculation procedure for wall boundary design, the value used for lp has a
significant effect on the results. This is discussed in Part 7 of Design Example 4.
Plastic lateral story displacements, ∆ i , increase linearly with height above the
midpoint of the base plastic hinges. ∆ i is arbitrarily set equal to 1.00 feet at the
roof. The external work equals the sum of each lateral story force, fxi, times ∆ i .

The plastic rotation angle of the wall piers, θ , equals the roof displacement
divided by the roof height above the midpoint of the plastic hinge. Thus,
θ = 1.00 85.5 . The plastic rotation angle and internal work of the coupling beams
can be calculated as follows:
lc
θ cb = θ
ln
where:
l n = clear length of the coupling beam
lc = distance between centroids of wall pier sections
Internal work ( )
= Σ θcb × M pr for each end of each coupling beam
= Σ(θcb × 1.25Vn ln 2 )
= Σ(θ ×1.25Vn lc 2 )
= Σ(θ × 1.25Vn lc ) for each coupling beam (sum of 2 ends)
The internal work of the base plastic hinges equals the sum of Mpr times θ for each
of the three base plastic hinges. The summation of the internal work is shown in
Table 5-5. Equating internal work with external work gives the solution of
V = 2,420 kips .

Table 5-5. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging

(1)
at base and in all coupling beams
External Work
hi hi − l p 2 ∆i fxi Work / V
Level
(ft) (ft) (ft) V (ft)
R 88 85.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 74 71.5 0.836 0.240 0.201
5th 60 57.5 0.673 0.195 0.131
4th 46 43.5 0.509 0.149 0.076
3rd 32 29.5 0.345 0.104 0.036
2nd 18 15.5 0.181 0.058 0.011
Sum 1.000 0.708
Internal Work, Coupling Beams

1.25Vn lc Work
Grid Line Level
(k) (ft) (k-ft)
C-D R 291 21.5 73
C-D 6th 468 21.5 118
C-D 5th 671 21.5 169
C-D 4th 368 21.5 93
C-D 3rd 368 21.5 93
C-D 2nd 480 21.5 121
D-E 4th 528 21.5 133
D-E 3rd 671 21.5 169
D-E 2nd 609 21.5 153
1,120
Internal Work, Wall Piers θ = 1.00/85.5

M pr Work
Grid Line Level
(k-ft) (k-ft)
C base 12500 146
D base 28000 327
E base 10000 117
591
V= (1120 + 591)/0.708 = 2,420 kips
Note:
1. See Figure 5-10 for illustration of hinge locations.

Figure 5-10. Mechanism with plastic hinges at base of wall
5c. th
Mechanism with plastic hinging at the 4 floor.
Table 5-6 shows calculations of the shear strength of another possible plastic
mechanism, which has plastic hinges forming at the 4th floor wall piers and only in
the coupling beams at the 5th, 6th, and roof levels. This plastic mechanism is less
desirable than a mechanism with hinging at the base, because energy dissipation is
concentrated in fewer yielding locations, and because plastic rotations in the wall
piers would need to be much greater to achieve the same roof displacement.
As in the previous calculation, plastic lateral story displacements, ∆ i , increase

linearly with height above the midpoint of the base plastic hinges, and ∆ i is set
equal to 1.00 feet at the roof. For this mechanism, the plastic rotation angle of the
wall piers, θ , equals 1.00/39.5. The plastic analysis solution, based on equating
internal and external work, gives V = 2,300 kips . Since this is less than 2,420 kips,
the mechanism having plastic hinging at the 4th floor governs (i.e., is more likely to
form than the preferred base mechanism shown in Figure 5-10).
To help prevent plastic hinging in the 4th floor piers, their flexural strength can be
increased. Reinforcement of the column portions of these wall piers is increased to
8-#11. Table 5-6 shows revised internal work calculations. The solution gives
V = 2,460 kips . Since this is greater than 2420 kips, the preferred mechanism now
governs.
Note that the calculation of the governing plastic limit load, V, depends on the
assumed vertical distribution of lateral forces, which in actual seismic response can
vary significantly from the inverted triangular pattern assumed. Thus the difference
between V = 2,420 kips and 2,460 kips does not absolutely ensure against plastic
hinging in the 4th floor wall piers.

Inelastic dynamic time-history analyses by computer generally show less

predictability of yield locations than plastic analyses imply. For the wall of this
Design Example, a time-history analysis might show some wall pier yielding both
at the base and at the 4th floor. Interaction of the wall with other walls in the
structure and with gravity framing can also influence the mechanism of yielding.
Plastic analyses are simpler to carry out and understand than most other analysis
methods, particularly inelastic time-history analyses, and they offer valuable
insight into the seismic performance of a structure. For this Design Example, the
plastic analyses indicate that strengthening the 4th floor piers will protect the upper
stories above the setback against high ductility demands, and make it more likely
that the preferred mechanism will form.

th (1)
at 4 floor piers
External Work
hi hi − l p 2 ∆i fxi Work / V
Level
(ft) (ft) (ft) V (ft)
R 42 39.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 28 25.5 0.646 0.240 0.155
5th 14 11.5 0.291 0.195 0.057
4th 0.000 0.149 0.000
3rd 0.000 0.104 0.000
2nd 0.000 0.058 0.000
Sum 1.000 0.466
Internal Work, Coupling Beams

1.25Vn lc Work
Grid Line Level
(k) (ft) (k-ft)
C-D R 291 17 125
C-D 6th 468 17 201
C-D 5th 671 17 289
Sum 615

M pr Work
Grid Line Level
(k-ft) (k-ft)
C 4th 10500 266
D 4th 7500 190
Sum 456
V= (615 + 456)/0.466 = 2,300 kips
Note:
1. See Figure 5-11 for illustration of hinge locations.


th th
at 4 floor piers—revised for stronger piers at 4 floor
M pr Work
Grid Line Level
(k-ft) (k-ft)
C 4th 13000 329
D 4th 8000 203
Sum 532
V= (615 + 532)/0.466 = 2,460 kips
th
Figure 5-11. Mechanism with plastic hinges at 4 floor wall piers
6. Design of wall piers for shear.
In this part, the wall piers will be designed for shear. Both the UBC and Blue Book
approaches will be illustrated. Design for the minimum UBC requirements is given
in Part 6a below.
As discussed in Part 5 of Design Example 4, the SEAOC Blue Book contains more
restrictive requirements than does the UBC for the shear design of reinforced
concrete walls. The SEAOC approach, in Part 6b of this Design Example, is
recommended for the reasons given in Design Example 4.

6a. Design under UBC requirements.
Shear demand.
If designing to the minimum requirements of the UBC, the shear demand is taken
directly from the design forces, factored by the load combinations discussed in
Part 1. For the example wall, all of the significant shear on the wall piers results
from earthquake forces, thus Vu = VE , where the values VE are those shown in
Figure 5-3. The highest shears are at the 4th floor, Line D, with VE = 544 kips in an
11-foot-long wall pier (48.5 k/ft), and at the 1st floor, Line D, with VE = 731kips in
a 20-foot long wall pier (36.6 k/ft).
Shear capacity. §1921.6.5

UBC §1911.10 gives shear provisions for walls designed for nonseismic lateral
forces such as wind or earth pressure. Section 1921.6.5 gives shear strength
provisions for walls designed for seismic forces.
In Equation (21-7), wall shear strength depends on α c , which depends on the ratio
hw l w .
(
Vn = Acv α c f 'c + ρ n f y ) (21-7)
Per §1921.6.5.4 the ratio hw l w is taken as the larger of that for the individual wall
pier and for the entire wall.
Overall wall hw l w = 88' 54' = 1.63
11' long by 8' clear-height pier hw l w = 8' 11' = 0.73
20' long by 8' clear-height pier hw l w = 8' 20' = 0.40
Thus the value hw l w = 1.63 governs for all wall piers. The coefficient α c varies
linearly from 3.0 for hw l w = 1.5 to 2.0 for hw l w = 2.0 .
α c = 3.0 − 1.0(1.63 − 1.5) (2.0 − 1.5) = 2.74

As prescribed in §1909.3.4.1, the shear strength reduction factor, φ , shall §1921.6.5.3

be 0.6 for the design of walls if their nominal shear strength is less than the shear
corresponding to development of their nominal flexural strength. For the 11-foot
long wall piers:
[ ]
φVn = 0.6(16") lw 2.74 4,000 + ρ n (60,000 psi ) = lw (1.66 k − in. + 576 k − in. ρn )
For the wall sections with highest shear, the amount of horizontal shear
reinforcement is given in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8. Design for shear by the UBC

Grid lw VE Horizontal φVn
Level ρn Vu φAcv f 'c (1)
Line (in.) (kips) Reinforcement (kips)
4th C 132 371 #4@10” E.F. 0.00250 409 4.63
4th D 132 544 #6@10” E.F. 0.00550 637 6.79
1st C 132 283 #4@10” E.F. 0.00250 409 3.53
1st D 240 731 #4@10” E.F. 0.00250 744 5.02
1st E 132 316 #4@10” E.F. 0.00250 409 3.95
Note:
1. Under §1921.6.5.6, the value of Vu φAcv f 'c shall not exceed 10 for any wall pier, or 8
for an entire wall section.
As shown above, for all wall pier locations except the 4th floor at Line D, the
minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 (required under §1921.6.2.1) is sufficient
to meet UBC shear strength requirements.
6b. Design using Blue Book recommendations.
Shear demand. SEAOC 402.8, C402.8

To comply with the Blue Book requirement of providing shear strength in excess
of the shear corresponding to wall flexural strength, an amplified shear demand
must be considered. For this Design Example, shear strength in excess of that
corresponding to the development of probable flexural strength will be provided.
This has been calculated by the plastic analysis in Part 5 of this Design Example as
V = 2,420 kips at the base of the wall.
Section C402.8 of the Blue Book Commentary gives the following equation for the
shear amplification factor, ωv , that accounts for inelastic dynamic effects. For
application to designs according to the UBC, the amplification factor
recommended by Paulay and Priestley [1992] can be reduced by a factor of 0.85,
because the Paulay and Priestley recommendations use a different strength
reduction factor, φ , than does the UBC.

ωv = 0.85(0.9 + n / 10), for buildings up to 6 stories, where n = number of stories
= 0.85(0.9 + 6 / 10) = 1.28
As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted
triangular distributions of lateral forces. If a response spectrum analysis is carried
out, a slightly lower ωv factor can be justified in some cases.
At the base of the wall, the magnified shear demand Vu * is calculated as follows:
( )
Vu * = ωv M pr M u (VE ) = (ωv 2,420 kips ) = 1.28(2,420 ) = 3,100 kips
In the plastic analysis, the amplification effect considered by ωv can instead be

considered by using a different vertical distribution of the lateral forces, fxi. Rather
than using the inverted triangular distribution, a vertical distribution with a
resultant located lower in the building, such as a uniform distribution pattern, could
be used in the plastic analysis to give shear forces.
Shear capacity.
Since we are designing for the nominal shear strength to exceed the shear
corresponding to flexural strength, a strength reduction factor, φ, of 0.85 can be
used. As before, UBC Equation (21-6) is used to calculate shear capacity:
(
Vn = Acv α c f 'c + ρ n f y ) (21-7)
[ ]
φVn = 0.85(16") lw 2.74 4,000 + ρ n (60,000 psi ) = lw (2.36 k − in. + 816 k − in. ρn )
For the shear demand of 3100 k over the net wall length of 42 feet (504 inches) at
the first floor, the required amount of horizontal reinforcement is calculated:
φVn = 504(2.36 + 816ρ n )= 1,190 + 411,000ρ n ≥ 3,100
ρ n = (3,100 k − 1,190 k ) 411,000 = 0.00464
Try #6 @ 12" o.c. each face
( )
ρ n = 2 0.44 in.2 (12"×16") = 0.00458 o.k.
For the other stories of the building, the shear demands are magnified from the
analysis results by the same proportion as for the first floor. The recommended
amount of horizontal reinforcement can be calculated as shown in the Table 5-9.

Table 5-9. Design for shear by the Blue Book recommendations
VE (kips) Vu * (kips) (1) l w net (in.) Horizontal ρn φVn (kips)

Level
Reinforcement
6th 338 788 264 #5@12” E.F. 0.00323 1,320
5th 656 1,530 264 #6@12” E.F. 0.00458 1,610
4th 915 2,130 264 #6@8” E.F. 0.00688 2,100
3rd 1,150 2,680 504 #6@12” E.F. 0.00458 3,070
2nd 1,250 2,920 504 #6@12” E.F. 0.00458 3,070
1st 1,310 3,100 504 #6@12” E.F. 0.00458 3,070
Note:
1. Vu * = magnified shear demand.
At the 4th floor wall piers, the vertical reinforcement must be increased from
#7@12" to #8@12" to provide ρ v ≥ ρ n , per §1921.6.55.5. The Blue Book deletes
this requirement for the reasons given in Blue Book §C402.9. However, in this
case, the increase in flexural strength of the 4th floor wall piers is desirable, as
discussed in Part 5C, above.
6c. Recommended shear reinforcement.
A comparison of the Tables 5-8 and 5-9 shows that the Blue Book
recommendations for ensuring that shear strength exceeds flexural capacity results
in increased horizontal reinforcement compared to that required by the UBC. The
Blue Book approach is recommended, as it leads to more ductile wall behavior.
7. Boundary zone detailing of wall piers.
The UBC gives two alternatives for determining whether or not boundary zone
detailing needs to be provided: a simplified procedure (§1921.6.6.4), and a strain
calculation procedure (§1921.6.6.5). For this Design Example, the simplified
procedure will be used, and for comparison the Blue Book recommendations for
the strain calculation procedure will be checked. For an illustration of the UBC
strain calculation procedure, see Design Example 4.

7a. UBC simplified procedure. §1921.6.6.4
Under the requirement of §1921.6.6.4, boundary zone detailing need not be

provided in the example wall if the following conditions are met:
Pu ≤ 0.10 Ag f 'c ( Pu ≤ 0.05 Ag f 'c for unsymmetrical wall sections)
and either
M u (Vu l w ) ≤ 1.0
or
Vu ≤ 3 Acv f 'c
For the critical piers of the example wall, Pu /Agf′c calculated as shown in
Table 5-10. All of the piers are geometrically unsymmetrical, except for those on
Line D at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stories. Of the unsymmetrical piers, only those at the
6th floor have Pu Ag f ' c ≤ 0.005 and Vu ≤ 3 Acv f ' c . All three of the symmetrical
piers have Pu / Ag f c′ ≤ 0.01 and Vu ≤ 3 Acv f ' c . Therefore all piers require
boundary confinement except those at the 6 floor, and those on Line D at the 1st,
th
2nd, and 3rd floors.
The required boundary zone length is calculated as a function of Pu / Ag f c′ per

§1921.6.6.4. The code requires that shear walls and portions of shear walls not
meeting the conditions of §1921.6.6.4 and having Pu < 0.35Po shall have boundary
zones at each end over a distance that varies linearly from 0.25l w to 0.15l w as Pu
varies from 0.35Po to 0.15Po . The boundary zone shall have a minimum length of
0.15l w and shall be detailed in accordance with §1921.6.6.6. The results of this
determination are shown in Table 5-10.
Table 5-10. Boundary zone strength requirement by the UBC simplified procedure
Pu Ag Pu (Required Boundary Required
Level Line
(1.44PD + 0.5PL + PE ) (kips) (in.2) Ag f 'c Length) ÷ lw Boundary Length (in.)
6th C,D 388 2,300 0.042 not required not required
4th D 1,675 2,300 0.182 0.166 21.9
1st C 3,148 2,300 0.342 0.246 32.5
1st E 2,611 2,300 0.284 0.217 28.6
1st D 1,250 4,030 0.078 not required not required

At the column end of each wall pier, confining the 8 column bars plus two wall-
web bars gives a boundary zone length of 34 inches. At the inside (doorway) end of
each wall pier, confining 8 bars give a boundary zone length of 39 inches. The
confinement details are shown in Figure 5-12. The required area of boundary ties is
calculated according to Equation (21-10):
Ash = 0.09 shc f ' c f y (21-10)
Figure 5-12. Boundary ties required by the UBC simplified procedure
Calculations of Ash are given in Table 5-11, corresponding to section cuts A, B, C,

D, and E through the boundary zones as shown in Figure 5-10.
Table 5-11. Required boundary zone ties by the UBC simplified procedure
hc s Ash Required Ash Provided
Section Cut Tie legs
(in.) (in.) (in.2) (in.2)
A 20.5 6 0.74 3-#5 0.93
B 12.5 6 0.45 2-#5 0.62
C 32 6 1.12 4-#5 1.24
D 12.5 4 0.45 2-#5 0.62
E 37.5 4 0.90 4-#5 1.24
Note:
1. See Figure 5-12.

7b. Blue Book recommendations. SEAOC §402.11
Section 402.11 of the Blue Book contains significant revisions to the UBC
provisions for wall boundary confinement. Sections 402.11.1 and 402.11.2 revise
definitions used in the strain calculation procedure of §1921.6.6.5. Blue Book
§402.11.3 adds the following two exceptions to the UBC procedure:
Exception 1: Boundary zone details need not be provided where the

neutral axis depth c'u is less than 0.15l w .
Exception 2: The length of wall section at the compression boundary

over which boundary zone detailing is to be provided may be taken as
cc , where cc is the larger of c'u = 0.1lw or c'u 2 .
In applying these recommendations to the example wall, the wall piers with the
largest neutral axis depth-to-length ratio, c′u /lw, govern the design. The largest
neutral axis depth at the column end of a wall pier occurs at the 1st floor at Line C,
where a large downward earthquake axial force occurs:
P’u = (1.2PD + 0.5PL) + PE = 1,300 kips + 1,600 kips = 2,900 kips
The neutral axis depth, c’u, for this case is calculated by PCACOL to be 48 inches.
c'u l w = 48" 132" = 0.36 ≥ 0.15 therefore boundary zone detailing is required
cc = c'u −0.1l w = 48"−0.1(132") = 35 in. governs
cc = c'u 2 = 48" 2 = 24 in. does not govern
The calculation of cc = 35 inches can be compared to the required UBC boundary

length of 32.5 inches shown in the Table 5-10.
The largest neutral axis depth at the inside (doorway) end of a wall pier occurs at
the 1st floor Line E. Compression at this end of the wall pier corresponds to the
loading direction that has earthquake axial force acting upward:
P'u = (1.2 PD + 0.5PL ) + PE = 1,200 kips − 1,180 kips = 20 kips
The neutral axis depth, c’u, for this case is calculated by PCACOL to be 20 inches.
c'u l w = 20" 132" = 0.15 ≥ 0.15

Thus, the requirement for boundary confinement at the inside (doorway) ends of
the wall piers is marginal.
cc = c'u −0.1lw = 20"−0.1(132") = 7 in. does not govern
cc = c'u 2 = 20" 2 = 10 in. governs
The calculation of cc = 10" can be compared to the required boundary length of

28.6 inches shown in the Table 5-10. Figure 5-6 shows the ties resulting from the
Blue Book recommendation, which can be compared to those required by the UBC
simplified procedure, shown in Figure 5-12.
8. Detailing of coupling beams.
The detailing of coupling beams may require a number of preliminary design

iterations to determine required bar sizes and the lateral dimensions of the diagonal
bar group. Preliminary design iterations are not shown in this Design Example.
8a. Layering of reinforcement.
For this Design Example, the recommended layering of reinforcement in the

coupling beams is shown in Figure 5-13. The proposed layering corresponds to a
clear cover of 1 inch in the coupling beam and 1 3/8 inches in the wall pier.
Section 1921.6.10.3 requires transverse reinforcement around each group of

diagonal bars of the coupling beam. Figure 5-13 assumes that these ties are No. 4
in size and extend over the portion of the diagonal bars within the coupling beam
length, as shown in Figure 5-14. Thus the diagonal bars, but not the ties around
them, must pass between the reinforcement curtains of the wall pier.
The layering shown in Figure 5-13 results in a diagonal bar cage with lateral “core”
dimensions of 9.0 inches by 14.8 inches, measured outside-to-outside of the ties.
These dimensions conform to the requirement of §1921.6.10.2 that the lateral core
dimensions be “not less than bw 2 or 4 inches.”

Figure 5-13. Section through coupling beam showing layering of reinforcement
8b. Ties around diagonal bars. §1921.4.4
Under the requirements of §1921.6.10.3, the required transverse reinforcement

around diagonal bars must conform to §1921.4.4.1 through §1921.4.4.3. Section
1921.4.4.2 requires a maximum tie spacing of 4 inches or one-quarter of the
minimum member dimension.
Equations (21-3) and (21-4) must be checked in each direction.
(
Ash = 0.3 shc f 'c f y )([ Ag ) ]
Ach − 1
(21-3)
Ash = 0.09 shc f ' c f y (21-4)

The quantity Ag is calculated assuming the minimum cover per §1907.7 around
each diagonal bar core. For walls with No. 11 bars and smaller, without exposure
to weather, this minimum cover equals ¾ inch. Thus:
Ag = [9.0 + 2 (0.75)] × [14.8 + 2 (0.75)] = 10.5 × 16.3 = 171 in. and
Ach = 9.0 ×14.8 = 133 in.
Although Ach is based on outside-to-outside of tie dimensions, hc is based on

center-to-center of tie dimensions. Assuming No. 4 ties, hc = 9.0 – 0.5 = 8.5 inches
in the horizontal direction, and hc = 14.8 – 0.5 = 14.3 inches in the other lateral
dimension. For hc = 8.5:
(
Ash = 0.3 shc f 'c f yh )[(Ag ) ]
Ach − 1
(21-3)
= 0.3[(4")(8.5")(4 ksi ) 60 ksi ] (171 133 − 1) = 0.194 in .2
Ash = 0.09 shc f 'c f yh = 0.09 (4")(8.5")(4 ksi ) (60 ksi ) = 0.204 in .2 governs (21-4)
For hc = 14.3 :
(
Ash = 0.3 shc f 'c f yh )[(Ag / Ach )− 1]
(21-3)
= 0.3 [(4")(14.3")(4 ksi ) 60 ksi ] (171 133 − 1) = 0.327 in .2
Ash = 0.09 shc f 'c f yh = 0.09(4")(14.3")(4 ksi ) (60 ksi ) = 0.343 in .2 governs (21-4)
A single #4 tie around the six diagonal bars provides two tie legs in each direction
and Ash = 0.40 in .2 A #3 perimeter tie with a #3 crosstie would provide
Ash = 0.22 in .2 across the shorter core direction and Ash = 0.33 in .2 across the
longer core direction, which would not quite meet the Ash requirement of 0.343
in.2
Per §1921.4.4.3, crossties shall not be spaced more than 14 inches on center. For
the heaviest diagonal reinforcement of 6-#10 bars, the center-to-center dimension
of the #10 bars is given as 12 inches in Figure 5-14. The center-to-center hoop
dimension in this direction thus equals 12 inches plus one diameter of a #10 bar
plus one diameter of a #4 tie, equal to 12.0 + 1.27 + 0.5 = 13.8 inches. Since this is
less than 14 inches, a crosstie is not needed.

The diagonal bars must be developed for tension into the wall piers. Following the
recommendation of Paulay and Priestley [1992], the bars are extended a distance of
1.5l d beyond the face of the supporting wall pier, as shown in Figure 5-14, where
l d is the development length of a straight bar as determined under §1912.2.
Crossties are added at the intersection of the diagonal bars at the center of the
coupling beam, and along their development into the wall piers, as shown in
Figure 5-14. The crossties are also added in locations where ties around the
diagonal bars are not used.
Figure 5-14. Elevation showing detailing of a coupling beam
8c. Reinforcement “parallel and transverse.” §1921.6.10.4
Section 1921.6.10.4 requires reinforcement parallel and transverse to the

longitudinal axis of the coupling beam, conforming to §1910.5, §1911.8.9, and
§1911.8.10. The Blue Book contains less restrictive requirements (in §402.13) for
this reinforcement, and the Blue Book Commentary notes that the UBC
requirements referenced should not be applied because the diagonal bars, not the
parallel and transverse bars, act as the principal flexural and shear reinforcement.

UBC requirements.
By §1911.8.9, for #4@6 transverse (vertical) bars:
Av ≥ 0.0015bw s = 0.0015 (16")(6") = 0.144 in .2 ≤ 0.40 in .2 o.k.
By §1911.8.10, for 14-#4 longitudinal (horizontal) bars:
Avh ≥ 0.0025bw s2 = 0.0025 (16")(72" 7 ) = 0.41in .2 ≅ 0.40 in .2 o.k.
By §1910.5.1:
As , min = 200 bwd f y = 200 (16")(0.8 × 72") 60,000 psi = 3.07 in .2 (10-3)
This requires 7-#6 longitudinal bars (As = 7(0.44 in.2) = 3.08 in.2 ) both top and
bottom of the coupling beam, or 14-#6 longitudinal bars total. Per the discussion
below, these are not recommended by SEAOC to be used, and are not shown in
Figure 5-14.
Blue Book recommendations.

Blue Book Commentary §C402.13 cautions against providing excess longitudinal
reinforcement in the coupling beam, as required by the application of UBC
§1910.5.1. The 1999 ACI code eliminates the requirement of UBC §1910.5.1.
The Blue Book recommends using less longitudinal reinforcement. This can be
justified on the basis of UBC §1910.5.3, which states that the requirements of
§1910.5.1 need not be applied if the reinforcement provided is “at least one-third
greater than that required by analysis.” Since the diagonal bars resist the entire
flexural tension forces, it could be interpreted that no additional longitudinal
reinforcement is required by analysis.
In §402.13 of the Blue Book requires the reinforcement parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the beam to be at least No. 3 in size, spaced at not more than 12 inches on
center. The reinforcement transverse to the longitudinal axis of the beam must be at
least No. 3 in size, spaced at not more than 6 inches on center.
Figure 5-14 shows the recommended parallel and transverse reinforcement: 14-#4
bars longitudinally and #4 ties @ 6" transversely.
Per the Blue Book recommendations of §402.13, the longitudinal reinforcement is

extended 6 inches into the wall pier, as shown in Figure 5-14, but is not developed
for tension.

References
ASCE, 1971, Plastic Design in Steel, A Guide and Commentary, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York.
ATC-40, 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied

Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
FEMA 273, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
FEMA 306/307, 1998. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry

Wall Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ghosh, S. K., 1998. “Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997
UBC,” Building Standards, May-June, pp. 20-24. International Conference of
Building Officials, Washington, D.C.
Maffei, J., 1996. “Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Beyond the Code”
SEAONC 1996 Fall Seminar Notes, Structural Engineers of Northern
California, San Francisco, California.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N., 1992. Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,
Design for Seismic Resistance, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
PCA, 1999. “PCACOL: Design and Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Column

Sections,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.


Design Example 6 ! Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
Design Example 6
Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
Figure 6-1. Seven-story concrete special moment resisting frame (SMRF) building
Overview
Concrete frame buildings, especially older, nonductile frames, have frequently

experienced significant structural damage in earthquakes and a number have
collapsed. Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, special requirements for
ductile concrete frames were introduced in the code. Today these ductile frames are
designated as special moment resisting frames (SMRF). All reinforced concrete
frame structures built in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 must be SMRF, as required by
§1633.2.7. Ordinary moment resisting frames (OMRF) and intermediate moment
resisting frames (IMRF) are prohibited in Zones 3 and 4, except that IMRF are
permitted for some nonbuilding structures under §1634.2.

In this Design Example, the seismic design of a seven-story concrete SMRF is

illustrated. A conceptual elevation of the building is shown in Figure 6-1. The
structure is a reinforced concrete office building with the typical floor plan shown
in Figure 6-2. The building is seven stories and has a SMRF on each perimeter
wall. A typical building elevation is shown in Figure 6-3.
Outline
1. Design base shear coefficient and reliability/redundancy factor.
2. Vertical and horizontal distribution of shear.
3. Frame nodal and member forces.
4. Analysis and evaluation of frame drifts.
5. Beam design.
6. Column design.
7. Joint shear analysis.
8. Detailing of beams and columns.
9. Foundation considerations.
Given Information
The building has a floor system that consists of post-tensioned slabs and girders.
Vertical loads are carried by a frame system. Use of perimeter SMRF frames and
interior frames is designed to allow freedom for tenant improvements.

Seismic source type = A

Average story weights (for seismic design)
Roof weights:
Roofing 9.0 psf
Concrete slab (8 in.) 100.0
Girders 27.0
Columns 4.0
Partitions 5.0
Curtain wall 5.0
Mechanical/electrical 5.0
Miscellaneous 3.0
Total 158.0 psf
Typical floor weights: (3rd-7th floors) (2nd floor)

Covering 2.0 psf 2.0 psf
Concrete slab (8 in.) 100.0 100.0
Girders 48.0 48.0
Columns 8.0 10.0
Partitions* 10.0 10.0
Curtain wall 10.0 10.0
Mechanical/electrical 5.0 5.0
Miscellaneous 3.0 3.0
Total 186.0 psf 188.0 psf
*Partitions are 2 psf for gravity calculations and 10 psf for seismic calculations.
Concrete f c ' = 4,000 psi (regular weight)
(
Reinforcing A706, Grade 60 f y = 60 ksi )

Figure 6-2. Typical floor plan
Figure 6-3. Typical frame elevation, Line A

1. Design base shear coefficient and reliability/redundancy factor.
Two key design parameters, the design base shear coefficient and the
reliability/redundancy factor ρ , are determined in this part. The 1997 UBC
significantly revised the determination of base shear and introduced the concept of
the reliability/redundancy factor to penalize lateral force resisting systems that have
little redundancy. Base shear is now determined on a strength basis, whereas base
shear in the 1994 UBC was determined on an allowable stress basis, with forces
subsequently increased by load factors for concrete strength design. The 1997 UBC
also introduced design for vertical components of ground motion E v .
Period using Method A.
T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .030(86 )3 / 4 = .85 sec (30-8)
Near source factors for seismic source type A and distance to source = 10 km
Seismic coefficients for Seismic Zone 4 (0.4) and soil profile type S D :
C a = 0.44 N a = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 Table 16-Q
C v = 0.64 N v = 0.64(1.2 ) = 0.77 Table 16-R
The R coefficient for a reinforced concrete building with an SMRF system is:
R = 8.5 Table 16-N
Note that Table 16-N puts no limitation on building height when a SMRF system is
used.

1a. Calculation of design base shear coefficient. §1630.2.2
The four equations for design base shear are as follows:
Cv I 0.77(1.0 )
V= W= W = 0.107W (30-4)
RT 8.5(0.85)
but the design base shear need not exceed:
2.5C a I 2.5(.44 )(1.0)

V = W = W = 0.129W (30-5)
R 8.5
The total design base shear shall not be less than:
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11(.44 )(1.0 )W = 0.048W (30-6)
0.8ZN v I 0.8(.4)(1.20 )(1.0 )

V = W = W = 0.045W (30-7)
R 8.5
Therefore, Equation (30-4) controls the base shear calculation.
∴ V = 0.107W
1b. Calculation of reliability/redundancy factor. §1630.1
The reliability/redundancy factor is determined in accordance with §1630.1 by

comparing the shear in the highest loaded moment frame bay with the base shear at
that level. This calculation is completed using an iterative process with knowledge
of results from the frame analysis presented later in this Design Example. The two
columns with the largest base shears are used to define the highest loaded bay. If
the columns are part of adjacent bays, 70 percent of their shear values are used in
this computation.

Column base shear reactions from computer model of the building are shown
below (Figure 6-4). These base shear reactions are based on a computer analysis of
the frame as described later, including an accidental torsion moment.
116 k 176 k 168 k 176 k 116 k
Figure 6-4. Column shears at frame base (from computer analysis with 1.0Eh )
The maximum element story-shear ratio rmax is defined as the largest individual
element story-shear ratios at or below the two-thirds height of the building. For this
building rmax is calculated as shown below.
Calculation of r at interior SMRF bay: §1630.1.1
0.70(176 k + 168 k )
r= = 0.16
1,475 k
Calculation of r at exterior SMRF bay:
116 kips + 0.70(176 kips )

r= = 0.16
1475 k
Note that r should be evaluated at all moment frame bays and for the bottom two-
thirds levels of the building. Since no other r values control, other calculations are
not shown.
Equation (30-3) is used to calculate ρ as shown below.
AB = (120')(90') = 10,800 ft 2
20 20
ρ = 2− = 2− = 0.82 ≤ 1.0 (30-3)
rmax AB .16 10800
∴ ρ = 1.0

For moment resisting SMRF frames, ρ must be less than 1.25. If ρ is greater than
1.25, additional bays must be added such that ρ is less than or equal to 1.25.
1c. Vertical component of earthquake ground motion. §1630.1.1
Because the design of the concrete frames will use strength design, the vertical
component E v must be considered in the load combination of Equation (30-1).
Determination of E v is shown below.
E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.5(0.44 )(1.0 )W = 0.22W
The effect of E v is added to the gravity loads that are used in combination with
horizontal seismic loads.
Thus, the following earthquake load is used in the earthquake load combinations:
E = ρE h + E v (30-1)
2. Vertical and horizontal distribution of shear. §1628.4 and §1628.5
In this part, the seismic forces on the concrete frame are determined.
2a. Story masses (weights).
Table 6-1. Calculation of building and story weights

Area wi WI
Level
(sf) (psf) (kips)
R 10,800 158.0 1,706
7 10,800 186.0 2,009
6 10,800 186.0 2,009
5 10,800 186.0 2,009
4 10,800 186.0 2,009
3 10,800 186.0 2,009
2 10,800 188.0 2,030
Total 75,600 13,781

2b. Base shear and vertical distribution of shear.
Using the results of Part 1a, the base shear is
V = .107W = .107(13,781 k ) = 1,475 kips
The building period is 0.85 seconds using Method A. Therefore, the concentrated
force at the top is determined from §1630.5 as follows
Ft = 0.07TV = 0.07(0.85)(1,475 k ) = 87 kips (30-14)
The vertical distribution of shear is determined from Equation (30-13)
n
V = Ft + ∑ Fi (30-13)
i =1
The calculation of story forces and story shears is shown in Table 6-2 below.
Table 6-2. Vertical distribution of shear

Story Wi h i
Wi ΣW i hi Wi h i Fi ΣFi
Level H ΣW i h i
(k) (k) (ft) (ft) (k-ft) (k) (k)
(%)
Ft = 87
R 1,706 1,706 86 12 146,750 22% 301 388
7 2,009 3,715 74 12 148,651 22% 30 304
6 2,009 5,724 62 12 124,546 18% 255 255
5 2,009 7,733 50 12 100,440 15% 206 206
4 2,009 9,742 38 12 76,334 11% 156 544
3 2,009 11,750 26 12 52,229 8% 107 651
2 2,030 13,781 14 14 28,426 4% 58 709
Totals 13,781 677,376 100% 1,475

Figure 6-5. Computer model of the frame on Line A
3. Frame nodal and member forces.
The longitudinal frame along Line A is designed in this part. First, dead and live
loads on the beams are determined using a tributary width of 15 feet. The gravity
loads applied to the beams in the frame analysis are summarized below in
Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. Beam gravity loads for analysis

Dead Load Live Load
Framing Level
(plf) (plf)
Roof 2,250 300
7th Floor 2,886 750
6th Floor 2,886 750
5th Floor 2,886 750
4th Floor 2,886 750
3rd Floor 2,886 750
2nd Floor 2,879 750
A torsional analysis of the building using a 5 percent accidental torsion (using an

eccentricity equivalent to 5 percent of the perpendicular building dimension) gives
results such that all frames on the four faces of the building resist torsional shears
of approximately 2 percent of the base shear. Thus the seismic forces in the frame
analysis were increased by 2 percent to account for accidental torsion (per

§1630.7). Each of the perimeter frames on Lines A, D, 1 and 5, will be designed to

resist a base shear of 52 percent of the total building design base shear, V .
A two dimensional frame analysis is performed for the frame along Line A. The
frame forces are determined from story forces above. Forces are distributed to
frame nodes in proportion to their location along Line A. Thus, at longitudinal
frames (Lines A and D), 12.5 percent of the story force is applied to end column
nodes and 25 percent of the story force is applied to the interior column nodes. The
force distribution at transverse frames (Lines 1 and 5) is 16.7 percent to exterior
column nodes and 33 percent to interior column nodes. The frame nodal loads for
longitudinal and transverse frames are summarized below in Table 6-4. Frame joint
and member numbers are shown in Figure 6-5.
Table 6-4. Column nodal forces for analysis

Long. Frame Long. Frame Trans. Frame Trans. Frame
Story
End Column Interior Col. End Column Interior Col.
Level Forces
Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces
(kips)
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
R 388 24.7 49.5 33.0 66.0
7 304 19.4 38.8 25.9 51.7
6 255 16.3 32.5 21.7 43.4
5 206 13.1 26.2 17.5 35.0
4 156 10.0 19.9 13.3 26.6
3 107 6.8 13.6 9.1 18.2
2 58 3.7 7.4 4.9 9.9
Total 1,475
The loads shown in Table 6-4 add to 50 percent of the design base shear. To
account for torsion, a load factor of 1.02 was used in the frame analysis program.
This problem was solved on a two dimensional frame program. Any elastic finite
element analysis program could be used, including those with three dimensional
capability.
4. Analysis and evaluation of frame drifts.
Under §1630.10.2, story drifts are limited to 0.020 times story heights for drifts
corresponding to the maximum inelastic response displacement ∆ m for structures
with periods 0.7 seconds or greater. Under §1630.10.2
∆ m = 0.7 R∆ s
or:
∆ m = 0.7(8.5)∆ s = 5.95∆ s

Table 6-5 summarizes the calculation of the allowable frame drifts.
Table 6-5. Allowable story deformations and displacements

Total Story Allowable Sum Allowable Sum
Story Height Height ∆s Σ∆ s ∆M Σ∆ M
(ft) (ft) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
R 86 12 0.484 3.469 2.88 20.64
7 74 12 0.484 2.985 2.88 17.76
6 62 12 0.484 2.501 2.88 14.88
5 50 12 0.484 2.017 2.88 12.00
4 38 12 0.484 1.533 2.88 9.12
3 26 12 0.484 1.049 2.88 6.24
2 14 14 0.565 0.565 3.36 3.36
The frame analysis is thus performed using a standard frame analysis program.
Columns, beams, and grade beams were sized to meet allowable drift limits.
Member section properties were chosen to represent the cracked structure. In
accordance with §1910.11.1, 70 percent of the gross section properties are used for
columns and 35 percent of gross section properties are used for beams to estimate
the contribution of cracked sections on frame behavior.
Selected sections were 42 × 42 corner columns, 36 × 44 interior columns, 30x48

beams and 60 × 48 foundation grade beams. The designer must size a frame which
meets drift limitations and also meets strength criteria. For the design of this frame,
the controlling parameters are frame stiffness and strength of beams. Using the
member sizes chosen, frame analysis gives the lateral story displacements, given
below in Table 6-6. Note that the frame analysis gives ∆ s deflections, thus the
comparison is made using ∆ s deflections and that the ρ factor is not used in the
deflection analysis.
Table 6-6. Displacements determined from analysis

Maximum
From Analysis From Maximum
Total Story Allowable
∆s Analysis Allowable
Story Height Height ∆s
Story Drifts Σ∆ s Σ∆ s
(ft) (ft) Story Drifts
(in.) (in.) (in.)
(in.)
R 86 12 0.48 3.18 3.47
7 74 12 0.38 0.48 2.80 2.98
6 62 12 0.48 0.48 2.34 2.50
5 50 12 0.48 0.48 1.82 2.02
4 38 12 0.48 0.48 1.34 1.53
3 26 12 0.47 0.48 0.87 1.05
2 14 14 0.44 0.56 0.43 0.57

As shown in Table 6-6, story drifts are determined to be within allowable limits.
The iteration between frame stiffness and member strengths has resulted in a frame
design with conservative drifts. The designer must iterate between frame analysis
and member section design.
5. Beam design.
5a. Load combinations.
The next procedure is frame member design. Frame beams are designed to support
gravity loads and resist seismic forces. Beams are sized to limit frame drift and to
resist the corresponding moment with a nominal strength φM n . The φ factor for
bending analysis is 0.90. The controlling load combinations are given in §1612.2.1
and are summarized below. Note that Exception 2 of §1612.2.1 requires the load
combinations to be multiplied by 1.1 as shown below.
1.1(1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.0 E + 0.22 D ) = 1.58 D + 0.55 L + 1.1E (12-5)
1.1(0.9 D − 0.22 D − 1.1E ) = 0.75D − 1.1E (12-6)
Note: The SEAOC Seismology Committee does not support the 1.1 factor for
concrete and masonry elements under seismic loads and the 1.1 factor is not
included in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book. However, until ICBO makes a different
ruling, it is part of the 1997 UBC and is thus included in this Design Example.
5b. Design requirements for frame beams.
The nominal beam strength is calculated using the following formulas and ignoring
compression steel for simplicity:
 a
φ M n = φ As f y  d −  ≥ M u
 2
Note that historic practice has been to consider the frame beam to have a
rectangular section without consideration of the contribution of the adjacent slab
for both compression and tension stresses. That is still true for design under the
1997 UBC. The ACI-318-99 has included new provisions requiring that the
adjacent slab be included in consideration of the frame beam analysis. These
provisions will be required in the adoption of future codes.
The probable flexural strength, Mpr, is calculated per §1921.5.1.1 using 1.25 f y for
the reinforcing steel stress. Recalculating the beam strength using φ = 1.0 , thus:

 a pr 
M pr = 1.25 As f y  d − 

 2 
The shear strength of the beam must be designed to be greater than required in
order to resist Mpr, at both ends of the beam. L is the distance from column face to
column face. For this Design Example the distance is L = 30 ft – 48 in. (columns)
= 26 ft – 0 in. The φ factor for shear analysis is 0.85 per §1909.3.2.3. Thus, the
ultimate shear load is calculated as:
+M pr − (− M pr ) w FACTORED , GRAVITY L
Vu= + ≤ φV n
L 2
φV n = φ V c + φ V s
d
φ V c = 0; φVs = .85 Av f y
s
Under §1921.3.4.2, the shear contribution from concrete Vc is considered zero

when both of the following conditions occur: 1.) the earthquake-induced shear
force represents more than one-half of the total shear force; and 2.) factored axial
compressive force is less than Ag F ' c 20 per §1921.3.4.2.
In the region of plastic hinges, transverse ties are required to resist shear forces.
Maximum spacing of ties cannot exceed any of the following: §1921.3.3.2
1. d 4.
2. 8 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal reinforcement.
3. 24 times the diameter of the hoop bars.
4. 12 inches.
An example beam design for Beam 36 (Figure 6-5) is shown. The controlling load
combinations, including seismic forces, are Equations (12-5) and (12-6).
Depending on the direction of seismic inertial force, seismic moments add with
gravity moments at one beam end and subtract at the other end.
Beyond regions of potential plastic hinges, stirrups with seismic ties are required at
a maximum spacing of d 2 throughout the length of the beam under §1921.3.3.4.
Diagrammatic shear and moment diagrams are shown below in Figure 6-6.

Gravity loading
Gravity moment
Gravity shear
Seismic moment
Seismic shear
Gravity + seismic moment
Gravity + seismic shear
Figure 6-6. Moment and shear diagrams for beams
A review of the moment and shear diagrams for gravity loads and seismic loads
(Figure 6-6) will help the designer realize that seismic moment and negative
gravity moment at beam ends will be additive for top reinforcement design and
subtractive for bottom reinforcement design. Since seismic moment is usually
considerably greater than gravity moment, the reinforcement design will be
controlled by load combinations including seismic loads. However, greater
amounts of top reinforcement will be required than bottom reinforcement. Since
the frame behavior produces beam moments as depicted in Figure 6-6, load
combination Equation (12-5) will maximize negative moments for top
reinforcement design and load combination Equation (12-6) will maximize positive
moments for bottom reinforcement design.

An example calculation for Beam 36 is as follows:
From the frame analysis, Equation (12-5), negative moment is –1,422 k-ft. For a
beam with b = 30 in. and h = 48 in., d = 45 in.
Try 5-#11 top bars, As = 7.80 in.2
Per §1921.3.2.1:
200bwd 200(30")(45")
As,min = = = 4.5 in.2 ≤ 7.80 in.2 ∴ o.k.
fy 60,000 psi
a=
(7.80 in. ) (60,000 psi) = 4.59 in.
2
0.85(4.000 psi )(30")
( ) 
φM n = (0.90 ) 7.80 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 45"−
4.59"   1   1 kip 
  
2   12"   1,000 lbs 

= 1,498 k-ft ≥ 1,422 k-ft
∴ o.k.
From the frame analysis, Equation (12-6), positive moment is 905 k-ft.
Try 5-#9 bottom bars, As = 5.0 in.2
a=
(5.0 in. )(60,000 psi) = 2.94 in.
2
0.85(4000 psi )(30")
( ) 
φM n = (0.90 ) 5.0 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 45"−
2.94"   1   1 kip 
  
2   12"   1,000 lbs 

= 979 k-ft ≥ 905 k-ft
∴ o.k.
Thus, the Beam 36 design will have 5-#11 top bars and 5-#9 bottom bars. Note that
§1921.3.2.2 requires that positive moment strength (bottom reinforcement) be a
minimum 50 percent of negative moment strength at the joints and that neither the
positive nor negative moment strength along the beam be less than one-quarter of
the strength at either joint (end).

5c. Beam skin reinforcement.
If the effective depth of a beam exceeds 36 inches, longitudinal skin reinforcement

shall be distributed along both side faces of a beam for a distance d 2 nearest the
flexural tension reinforcement per §1910.6.7. The skin reinforcement shall be
spaced a maximum of the lesser of d 6 or 12 inches. Thus, for a 48-inch deep
beam with d = 45 inches, d 6 is 7 ½ inches. The beam will have flexural tension
regions at the top and bottom of the beam, thus four quantities of Ask are required
at the top and bottom of each side.
Ask = 0.012(2 − 30")(d / 12") = 0.012(45"−30")(45" / 12") = 0.675 in.2
( )
Ask = 2 0.675 in. 2 = 1.35 in. 2
∴ Use 5-#5 bars, Ask = 1.55 in. 2 each side of beam spaced 7½ inches apart
∴ o.k.
5d. Beam shear design.
As noted above, the beam will also have 5-#5 side bars on each side of the beam.
For this Design Example, the assumption is made that 3-#5 side bars each side
contribute to the plastic moment. For shear design, the designer allows for plastic
hinge formation that will produce shear forces greater than those from frame
analysis.
+M pr − (−M pr ) wGRAVITY L
Vu= +
L 2
+a =
(1.25)(7.80 + 1.86)(60,000 psi ) = 7.10 in.
0.85(4,000 psi )(30")

( ) 
+ M pr = (1.25) 7.80 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 45"−

7.10" 
2 
( ) 
 + (1.25) 1.86 in.2 (60,000 psi )  30"−
7.10"   1 
  = 2,328 k - ft
2   12,000 
 
− a pr =
(1.25)(5.0 + 1.86)(60,000 psi ) = 5.04 in.
0.85(4,000 psi )(30")

( ) 
− M pr = (1.25) 5.0 in.2 (60,000 psi )  45"−

5.04" 

( ) 
 + (1.25) 1.86 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 30"−

5.04"   1 
   = 1,647 k - ft
2   12,000 
 2

Shear from dead load is calculated from the load combination of Equation (12-5):
 26' 
V gravity = [(1.58)(2,879 plf ) + (0.55)(750plf )]  = 65 kips
 2 
∴ Vu =
(2,328 k - ft + 1,647 k - ft ) + 65 kips = 246 kips
22'
The design shear Vu is thus the sum of the shear from the plastic end moments plus
the gravity shear.
Seismic stirrups at the plastic hinge regions are calculated as shown below. Note
that the plastic hinge region is a distance of 2h from the column face.
Try #4 ties with four vertical legs at 6-inch spacing over the 2h length (86 inches).
φVn = φVc + φV s
φVc = 0
φAv f y d
φVs =
s
φVn = 0 +
( )
0.85(4 ) 0.20 in.2 (60,000 psi )(45")
= 306 kips ≥ 246 kips
6"
∴ o.k.
Therefore, use 4 legs, #4 stirrup ties at 6-inch spacing at plastic hinge regions at
beam ends.
Seismic stirrups in the beam between plastic hinge regions are calculated as
follows.
Try #4 ties at 8-inch spacing:
 13'−3"−2 × 45" 
Vu = 181 kips + 65 kips   = 209 kips
 13'−3" 
( )
φVs = .85 .80 in.2 (60,000 psi )(45") 8" = 229 kips ≥ 209 kips
∴ o.k.

Therefore, the final design for Beam 36 is a 30-inch wide by 48-inch deep beam
with 5-#11 top bars, 5-#9 bottom bars, 5-#5 side bars, and 4 legs - #4 stirrup ties at
6-inch spacing each end with 4 legs - #4 stirrup ties at 8 feet between.
5e. Design of all Frame A beams.
Following these same procedures and using the forces from the frame analysis, the
Frame A beam designs for flexural strength are shown in Table 6-7.
Table 6-7. Beam member longitudinal steel design

M u ,i M u, j Bar As a φM n Bending
b h d Bar No. Bar
Member Area DCR (1)
(Eq. 12-6) (Eq. 12-5) (in.) (in.) (in.) Location bars Size (in.2) (in.) (k-ft) Results
(in.2)
36 -1,405 30 48 45 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,499 o.k. 0.94
905 30 48 45 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 979 o.k. 0.92
37 -1,389 30 48 45 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,499 o.k. 0.93
858 30 48 45 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 979 o.k. 0.88
38 -1,392 30 48 45 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,499 o.k. 0.93
856 30 48 45 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 979 o.k. 0.87
39 -1,422 30 48 45 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,499 o.k. 0.95
876 30 48 45 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 979 o.k. 0.89
Level 3
40 -1,568 30 52 49 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,639 o.k. 0.96
1,093 30 52 49 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 1,069 o.k. 1.02
41 -1,569 30 52 49 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,639 o.k. 0.96
1,036 30 52 49 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 1,069 o.k. 0.97
42 -1,564 30 52 49 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,639 o.k. 0.95
1,036 30 52 49 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 1,069 o.k. 0.97
43 -1,637 30 52 49 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,639 o.k. 1.00
1,036 30 52 49 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 1,069 o.k. 0.97
Level 4
44 -1,281 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.94
781 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.88
45 -1,304 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.96
772 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.87
46 -1,304 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.96
772 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.87
47 -1,334 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.98
781 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.88

Table 6-7 (continued)

Level 5
48 -1,273 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.94
783 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.88
49 -1,298 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.96
766 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.86
50 -1,297 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.95
766 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.86
51 -1,343 30 44 41 Top 5 #11 1.56 7.80 4.59 1,359 o.k. 0.99
780 30 44 41 Bottom 5 #9 1.00 5.00 2.94 889 o.k. 0.88
Level 6
52 -854 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 0.99
337 24 36 33 Bottom 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.74
53 -878 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 1.00
346 24 36 33 Bottom 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.76
54 -878 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 1.00
346 24 36 33 Bottom 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.76
55 -887 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 1.00
346 24 36 33 Bottom 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.76
Level 7
56 -775 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 0.90
257 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.57
57 -799 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 0.93
267 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.59
58 -799 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 0.93
266 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.59
59 -806 24 36 33 Top 4 #11 1.56 6.24 4.59 862 o.k. 0.93
266 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.59
Roof
40 -593 24 36 33 Top 4 #10 1.27 5.08 3.74 712 o.k. 0.83
206 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.46
41 -603 24 36 33 Top 4 #10 1.27 5.08 3.74 712 o.k. 0.85
198 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.44
42 -599 24 36 33 Top 4 #10 1.27 5.08 3.74 712 o.k. 0.84
196 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.43
43 -610 24 36 33 Top 4 #10 1.27 5.08 3.74 712 o.k. 0.86
199 24 36 33 Top 4 #8 0.79 3.16 2.32 453 o.k. 0.44
Note:
1. DCR=demand to capacity ratio
With longitudinal beam reinforcement proportioned as indicated in Table 6-7

above, the plastic moment Mpr and shear design is as follows. Note that Mpr is
calculated including contribution of perimeter reinforcement. VU , gravity is
calculated as the factored combination of D + L loads : VU , gravity = 1.58D + 0.55L .

Table 6-8. Beam member shear reinforcement design

Mem Bar As As a M pr Vpr V u , GR Vu φV c Ties Avs s φV s φVn
Result DCR (1)
ID Loc. T&B side (in.2) (k-ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) # legs (in.2) (in.) (kips) (kips)
Level 2
36 Top 5-#11 1.86 7.10 2,389 215 70 285 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 306 306 o.k. 0.93
Bottom 5-#9 1.86 5.04 1,708 154
37 Top 5-#11 1.86 7.10 2,389 215 70 285 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 306 306 o.k. 0.93
Bottom 5-#9 1.86 5.04 1,708 154
38 Top 5-#11 1.86 7.10 2,389 215 70 285 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 306 306 o.k. 0.93
Bottom 5-#9 1.86 5.04 1,708 154
39 Top 5-#11 1.86 7.10 2,389 215 70 285 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 306 306 o.k. 0.93
Bottom 5-#9 1.86 5.04 1,708 154
Level 3
40 Top 5-#11 2.64 7.68 2,769 253 70 323 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 333 333 o.k. 0.97
Bottom 5-#9 2.64 5.62 2,028 185
41 Top 5-#11 2.64 7.68 2,769 253 70 323 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 333 333 o.k. 0.97
Bottom 5-#9 2.64 5.62 2,028 185
42 Top 5-#11 2.64 7.68 2,769 253 70 323 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 333 333 o.k. 0.97
Bottom 5-#9 2.64 5.62 2,028 185
43 Top 5-#11 2.64 7.68 2,769 253 70 323 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 333 333 o.k. 0.97
Bottom 5-#9 2.64 5.62 2,028 185
Level 4
44 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
45 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
46 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
47 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
Level 5
48 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
49 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
50 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
51 Top 5-#11 1.20 6.62 2,055 182 70 252 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 279 279 o.k. 0.90
Bottom 5-#9 1.20 4.56 1,435 127
Level 6
52 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Bottom 4-#8 2.90 623 54
53 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Bottom 4-#8 2.90 623 54
54 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Bottom 4-#8 2.90 623 54
55 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Bottom 4-#8 2.90 623 54

Table 6-8 (continued)

Level 7
56 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
57 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
58 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
59 Top 4-#11 5.74 1,175 101 70 171 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.76
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
Roof
40 Top 4-#10 4.67 974 84 48 132 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.59
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
41 Top 4-#10 4.67 974 84 48 132 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.59
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
42 Top 4-#10 4.67 974 84 48 132 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.59
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
43 Top 4-#10 4.67 974 84 48 132 0.0 4 0.80 6.0 224 224 o.k. 0.59
Top 4-#8 2.90 623 54
Note:
1. DCR=demand to capacity ratio.
Check longitudinal skin reinforcement per §1910.6.7.
The code requires skin reinforcement for beams with d greater than 36 inches.
This reinforcement is calculated as Ask = .012(d − 30 ) per foot depth on each side
face. This reinforcement is required on the tension half of the section, and thus is
required both top and bottom since seismic loads could cause tension stresses on
the bottom half of the section. For a 48-inch deep beam, d = 45 inches:
Ask = 0.012(45"−30")(48" / 12") = 0.72 in.2
This skin reinforcement is required on each side of the beam and in each tension
region a distance d 2 from the tension reinforcement. Thus, four quantities of this
reinforcement are required. The reinforcement may be spaced a maximum distance
apart of the lesser of 12 inches or d 6 .
( )
Therefore, use 5-#5 bars Ask = 1.55 in.2 / 1.44 in.2 each side spaced
d 6 = 45 in. / 6 = 7.5 in. along the side face of the beam.
Having satisfied both the design for bending and shear, the final beam designs are
thus chosen as shown in Table 6-9. See Figure 6-7 for a beam cross-section
showing dimensions and reinforcement.

Table 6-9. Final beam designs

Shear Reinf. Shear Reinf.
Width Depth Long. Reinf. Long. Reinf. Skin
Level In Hinge Between
(in.) (in.) Top Bottom Reinf.
Regions Hinge Regions
Roof 24 36 4-#10 4-#6 None 4 legs 4 legs
#4 ties@ 6" #4 ties@ 12”
7 24 36 4-#11 4-#7 None 4 legs 4 legs
#4 ties@ 6" #4 ties@ 9"
6 24 36 4-#11 4-#7 None 4 legs 4 legs
#4 ties@ 6" #4 ties@ 9"
5 30 42 5-#11 5-#9 5 - #4 4 legs 4 legs
ea. face #4 ties@ 6" #4 ties@ 8"
4 30 42 5-#11 5-#9 5 - #5 4 legs 4 legs
3 30 52 5-#11 5-#9 5 - #6 4 legs 4 legs
2 30 48 5-#11 5-#9 5 - #5 4 legs 4 legs
ea. face #4 ties@ 6" #4 ties@ 6”
Figure 6-7. 30 x 48 beam at Level 2

6. Column design.
Columns should be designed to ensure that the plastic hinges are located in the
beams (i.e., strong column-weak beam behavior) and to resist column shears. To
ensure strong column-weak beam behavior, columns must be designed to have
nominal bending strengths 120 percent stronger than beams per §1921.4.2.2. This
is achieved by summing the M e of columns above and below a joint and
comparing that with the sum of M g for beams on both sides of a joint.
∑ M e ≥ (6 / 5)∑ M g (21-1)
The controlling girder location occurs at Level 3. The girder is a 30 in. by 52 in.
with 5-#11s top, 5-#9s bottom, and 5-#6s shin reinforcement each side. The
assumed two skin bars are effective in calculation of M g , or alternatively a
computer program can be used for more accurate results.
Calculation of − M g (negative, at beam tops).
a=
[5 (1.56 in. ) + 4 (0.44 in. )](60,000 psi) = 5.62 in.
2 2
0.85(4,000 psi )(30")
( ) 
− M g = (0.90 ) 7.80 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 49"−
5.62" 
( ) 
 + (0.90 ) 1.76 in. (60,000 psi ) 37.5"−
2 5.62" 

 2   2 
− M g = 22,752 kip-in. = 1,896 kip-ft
Calculation of M g (positive, at beam bottoms).
a=
[5 (1.00 in. )+ 4 (0.44 in. )](60,000 psi) = 3.98 in.
2 2
0.85(4,000 psi )(30")
( ) 
M g = (0.90 ) 5.00 in.2 (60,000 psi ) 49"−
3.98" 
( ) 
 + (0.90 ) 1.76 in. (60,000 psi ) 37.5"−
2 3.98" 

 2   2 
M g = 16,067 kip-in. = 1,339 kip-ft

Therefore, at interior columns:
6 6
5
∑ M g = (1,896 kip-ft + 1,339 kip-ft) = 3,882 kip-ft
5
Therefore, at end columns:
6 6
5
∑ M g = (1,896 kip-ft) = 2,275 kip-ft
5
The girder moments are resisted by two column sections, the column above the
joint and the column below the joint. The required column strengths, M e , for
interior and end columns are given below.
1
Me = (3,882 kip-ft) = 1,941 kip-ft
2
or:
1
Me = (2,275 kip-ft) = 1,138 kip-ft
2
6a. Forces on columns due to factored load combinations.
For column design, the load combinations of Equations (12-5) and (12-6) are used.
Also, because strength design is used, the effect of the vertical seismic component
Ev must be included. Equations (12-5) and (12-6) are given below. Tables 6-10
and 6-11 provide axial forces and moments on the columns of Frame A for
Equations (12-5) and (12-6), respectively.
1.1(1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.0 E + 0.22 D ) = 1.58 D + 0.55 L + 1.0 E h (12-5)
1.1(0.9 D − 1.0 E ) = 1.1(0.9 D − 0.22 D − 1.0 E h ) = 0.75 D − 1.1E h (12-6)

Table 6-10. Column loads for Equation (12-5)

Pu Vu M u bottom M u top
Member
(kips) (kips) (k-ft) (k-ft)
1 145 114 1,604 -226
2 141 71 476 -374
3 148 62 505 -241
4 136 51 323 -287
5 123 39 276 -190
6 81 23 -69 -347
7 34 -21 -305 -54
8 1,001 192 2,227 -842
9 850 196 1,212 -1142
10 700 180 1,255 -903
11 553 158 942 -957
12 405 128 874 -665
13 258 88 326 -733
14 111 62 102 -642
15 1,002 185 2,142 -822
16 853 196 1,214 -1133
17 705 181 1,262 -913
18 557 160 954 -969
19 408 130 886 -670
20 260 93 346 -770
21 112 61 86 -647
22 990 195 2,259 -868
23 843 195 1,193 -1141
24 698 185 1,289 -926
25 552 162 963 -983
26 406 132 901 -680
27 259 94 346 -783
28 111 61 80 -651
29 868 140 1,719 -520
30 724 137 902 -744
31 566 127 894 -625
32 428 115 709 -675
33 290 103 668 -570
34 181 90 318 -762
35 78 55 45 -610

Table 6-11. Column loads for Equation (12-6)

Pu Vu M u bottom M u top
Member
(kips) (kips) (k-ft) (k-ft)
1 -140 122 1636 -309
2 -102 90 597 -478
3 -53 80 615 -350
4 -23 69 432 -397
5 7 57 386 -297
6 8 42 40 -464
7 4 0 -206 -207
8 441 193 2236 -849
9 374 196 1206 -1142
10 307 181 1264 -910
11 243 159 948 -964
12 178 129 882 -669
13 114 90 332 -747
14 51 62 96 -645
15 438 185 2142 -822
16 373 196 1214 -1133
17 309 181 1262 -913
18 244 160 954 -969
19 180 130 886 -670
20 115 93 346 -770
21 51 61 86 -647
22 430 194 2250 -860
23 367 195 1198 -1141
24 305 183 1279 -919
25 242 161 957 -976
26 179 131 894 -675
27 115 92 340 -769
28 50 61 86 -648
29 583 133 1686 -437
30 481 118 782 -639
31 365 108 784 -517
32 270 97 600 -566
33 174 85 557 -462
34 108 71 209 -644
35 47 34 -53 -458

6b. Design of column for bending strength.
Section 1921.4.3 requires the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of columns to be

between 1 and 6 percent. Design of columns is usually performed by calculating a
column axial force-moment capacity (P − M ) interaction diagram. The major
points used to construct such a diagram are φPn for compression, (φPb , φM b ) at
the balance point, φM n for pure moment, and φTn for pure tension. The φ factor
for column calculations is 0.70 for tied columns and 0.75 for spiral tied columns
meeting requirements on §1910.9.3. In accordance with §1909.3.2.2, the φ factor
may be increased linearly to 0.9 for columns or other axial load carrying members
as φPn decreases from 0.10 f ' c Ag (or φPb whichever is less) to zero.
The equation for φPn is given in §1910.3.5.
[ ( )
φPn = 0.85φ 0.85 f 'c Ag − Ast + f y Ast ] (10-1)
Note that φ = 0.70 for members with axial compression and flexure (not with
spiral shear reinforcement) per §1909.3.2.2.
Calculation of the balance point is determined by using 0.002 strain for reinforcing
steel at yield and 0.003 for concrete strain at crushing (§1910.3.2.). By summing
forces and moments, the balanced axial load and moment (φPb , φM b ) can be
determined. The nominal moment strength is determined by using 0.002 strain for
steel yielding and by calculating tension forces and compression forces such that
they add up to 0. The resulting moment is thus φM n , where φ = 0.90 .
The equation for tension members is:
φTn = φf y Ast
Note that φ = 0.90 for members with axial tension and axial tension with flexure
per §1909.3.2.2.
The designer may use a commercial program such as PCACOL developed by the
Portland Cement Association to develop a P − M diagram for the column axial
load-moment interaction, including effects for slenderness of columns. From the
frame analysis for Frame A, the controlling load cases are summarized in
Table 6-12.

Table 6-12. Critical column loads for Frame A

Load
Size Pu Vu Mu
Column Level Location Comb.
(in.) (kips) (kips) (k-ft)
Equation
22 1 interior 36x44 12-5 990 195 2,258
1 1 end 42x42 12-6 -140 121 1,636
Note: See Figure 6-5 for locations of columns.
Column 22 represents the controlling load combination for a column in

compression and Column 1 represents the controlling load combination for
Column 22 in tension.
Using the PCACOL program, check 36 × 44 interior column with 18 #10 bars
around perimeter. The resulting P − M diagram is shown in Figure 6-8.
P-M diagram
φ Pn (kips)
column 22 point
φ Mn (kip-ft)
Figure 6-8. Column P-M diagram for 36 x 44-inch interior Column 22

Check 42 × 42 corner Column 1 with 20-#10 bars around perimeter. The resulting
P − M diagram is shown in Figure 6-9.
P-M diagram
φ Pn (kips)
column 1 point
φ Mn (kip-ft)
Figure 6-9. Column P-M diagram for 42-inch square Column 1
By comparing the design loads against the column P − M diagrams of Figures 6-8
and 6-9, it can be seen that both columns have adequate strength. Both column
sections achieve 120 percent of beam moment strength, and thus have adequate
strength to develop the plastic moments of beams. φM n for interior columns is
approximately 2,550 kip-ft and for end columns is approximately 2,450 kip-ft at
the axial load of approximately 1,000 kips.
6
∑Me = 5 ∑M
2(2,550 kip - ft )
∑ M e,interior =
0.7
= 7,284 kip-ft ≥ 3,882 kip-ft
∴ o.k.
2(2,450 kip - ft )
M e,end = = 7,000 kip-ft ≥ 2,275 kip-ft
0.7
∴ o.k.

It is assumed by the code that the design of columns to be 120 percent greater in
flexural strength than girders will ensure plastic hinge formation in the beams, and
this is probably true in most cases. Since that is what is required in the 1997 UBC,
that is what is shown in this Design Example.
Some engineers believe that they should design the columns to develop the strength
of the beam plastic moments Mpr. While this is not explicitly required by the 1997
UBC, it is probably a good idea. The reasoning is that the yielding elements in the
frame are the beam plastic moments located at beam ends followed by column
plastic moments at column bases. When all nonyielding aspects of the frame are
designed to be stronger than the yielding elements, the anticipated frame yield
behavior is ensured. Thus, the shear design of beams, columns, and joints, column
flexural strengths, and foundation elements are all designed to have adequate
strengths to resist the anticipated flexural yield mechanism of the frame.
Table 6-13. Column axial and flexural design strengths

φP n φM n
Size φP b φM b
Column at M = 0 at P = 0
(in.) (kips) (k-ft)
(kips) (k-ft)
Interior 36x44 3,750 1,600 2,750 1,950
End 42x42 4,100 1,900 2,850 2,100
6c. Design of columns for shear strength.
Columns must be designed for shear strength Ve required by §1921.4.5.1 and for
the special transverse reinforcement required by §1921.4.4.1. The design shear
force Ve shall be determined from the consideration of the maximum forces that
can be generated at the faces of the beam/column joints at the ends of beams
framing into the joint. These joint forces are determined in one of three methods:
1. Using the maximum probable moment strengths, M pr , of the column at the

top and bottom between joints along with the associated factored axial loads
on the column.
2. The column shear Ve need not exceed that determined based on the probable
moment strength, M pr , of the beams framing into the joint.
3. Ve shall not be less than the factored shear determined from analysis.
It is likely that the second method described above will control the shear design of
the column, since strong column behavior of the frame will force plastic hinges to
form in the beams. At the columns in the first story, the controlling case is from

column top moments based on M pr of beams and column bottom moments based
on M pr of the column calculated with associated axial loads.
For the interior column, 36 × 44 , at stories one and two, the maximum shear need
be determined from maximum shear that can be transferred from beam strength,
M pr , as shown below.
Interior column at first story.

Clear height of column = 14 ft-0 in. – 4 ft-0 in. = 10 ft-0 in.
M pr of beams framing into top of column is based on negative moment from one
beam and positive moment from the other beam.
∑ M pr = 2,389 kip-ft + 1,708 kip-ft = 4,097 kip-ft
Distribution of beam moments to columns is in proportion of 4 EI L of columns

below and above the joint. Since columns are continuous, 4 EI is constant, and
moments are distributed based on 1 L of columns. The lower column has height 14
ft-0 in. and the upper column has height 12ft-0 in. The lower column will have a
moment determined as follows at its top:
 1 
 
 12' 
M = 4,097 kip-ft  14'  = 4,097 kip-ft   = 1,890 kip-ft
 1 1   26' 
 + 
 14' 12' 
The lower column could develop a maximum of M pr at its base. The moment
M pr for the column is determined with the PCA column program using a
reinforcement strength of 1.25 F y or 75 ksi. M pr determined with the PCA column
for an axial load of 1,000 kips is approximately 4,000 kip-ft.
The shear Ve is determined as follows based on clear column height
Ve =
(4,000 kip − ft + 1,890 kip − ft ) = 589 kips
10' 0"
This value is compared with frame analysis Vu = 176 kips, thus Ve controls.

Interior column at second story.

Clear height of column = 12 ft-0 in. – 4 ft-2 in. = 9 ft-10 in.
M pr of beams framing into top and bottom of column is based on negative

moment from one beam and positive moment from the other beam.
∑ M pr ,above = 2,769 kip-ft + 2,028 kip-ft = 4,797 kip-ft
∑ M pr ,below = 2,389 kip-ft + 1,708 kip-ft = 4,097 kip-ft
The second story column will have moments of:
 12' 
M top = 4,797 kip-ft   = 2,399 kip-ft
 24' 
 14' 
M bottom = 4,097 kip-ft   = 2,206 kip-ft
 26' 
∑ M col = 2,399 kip-ft + 2,206 kip-ft = 4,605 kip-ft
thus column shear Ve is determined as follows based on clear column height
4,605 kip − ft
Ve = = 588 kips
7'10"
This value is compared with frame analysis Vu = 195 kips , thus Ve controls.
The tabulated calculation of column shears is shown in Table 6-14 below.

Table 6-14. Calculation of column shear forces, Ve

Col. Col. −M pr +M pr Dist. M −M pr +M pr Dist M
ΣM pr ΣM pr Ve
at Level/ Clear (joint (joint ΣM pr at Col. (joint (joint ΣM pr at Col. ΣM
Grid Story Height above) above) at
to Top below) below) at
to Bot. (kip-ft) at Col.
Lines (ft) Joint (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Joint (kip-ft) (kips )
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) col. col.
1, 5 1 10 2,389 0 2,389 0.462 1,104 0 0 0 0.462 4,000 1,104 510
2 7.83 2,769 0 2,769 0.5 1,385 2,389 0 2,389 0.538 1,285 2,670 341
3 8.5 2,055 0 2,055 0.5 1,028 2,769 0 2,769 0.5 1,385 2,412 284
4 8.5 2,055 0 2,055 0.5 1,028 2,055 0 2,055 0.5 1,028 2,055 242
5 9 1,175 0 1,175 0.5 588 2,055 0 2,055 0.5 1,028 1,615 179
6 9 1,175 0 1,175 0.5 588 1,175 0 1,175 0.5 588 1,175 131
7 9 974 0 974 1 974 1,175 0 1,175 0.5 588 1,562 174
2,3,4 1 10 2,389 1,708 4,097 0.462 1,893 0 0 0 0.462 4,000 1,893 589
2 7.83 2,769 2,028 4,797 0.5 2,399 2,389 1,708 4,097 0.538 2,204 4,603 588
3 8.5 2,055 1,435 3,490 0.5 1,745 2,769 2,028 4,797 0.5 2,399 4,144 487
4 8.5 2,055 1,435 3,490 0.5 1,745 2,055 1,435 3,490 0.5 1,745 3,490 411
5 9 1,175 623 1,798 0.5 899 2,055 1,435 3,490 0.5 1,745 2,644 294
6 9 1,175 623 1,798 0.5 899 1,175 623 1,798 0.5 899 1,798 200
7 9 974 623 1,597 1 1,597 1,175 623 1,798 0.5 899 2,496 277
Special transverse reinforcement per §1921.4.4.

The total cross-section area of rectangular hoop reinforcement shall not be less than
that required by Equations (21-3) and (21-4).
(
Ash = 0.3 shc f ' c / f yh )[(Ag ) ]
Ach − 1
(21-3)
(
Ash = 0.09 shc f ' c / f yh ) (21-4)
Transverse reinforcement shall be spaced at distances not exceeding 1.) one-quarter

minimum member dimension and 2.) 4 inches. The transverse reinforcement
should extend beyond any joint face a distance l o equal to the larger of: 1.) one
column member depth; 2.) 1/6 of the clear column span; or 3.) 18 inches. Spacing
between transverse reinforcement should not exceed 6 bar diameters of the
longitudinal steel or 6 inches.
Table 6-15 below shows calculations for special transverse reinforcement.

Table 6-15. Special transverse reinforcement in columns

Col. hc hc No. Size
Eq. b d f 'c fy Ag Ach s Ash
Size Trans Long Legs Bars
36x44 (21-3) 36 44 32 4,000 60,000 1,584 1,390 4 0.357
(21-4) 36 44 32 4,000 60,000 4 0.768 5 #4
(21-3) 36 44 40 4,000 60,000 1,584 1,390 4 0.446
(21-4) 36 44 40 4,000 60,000 4 0.96 6 #4
42x42 (21-3) 42 42 38 4,000 60,000 1,764 1,560 4 0.397
(21-4) 42 42 38 4,000 60,000 4 0.912 6 #4
(21-3) 42 42 38 4,000 60,000 1,764 1,560 4 0.397
(21-4) 42 42 38 4,000 60,000 4 0.912 6 #4
Calculations for the required shear steel are shown in Table 6-16. The final column
design at the first level is summarized in Table 6-17. The column design may be
used for the full height columns or the reinforcement can be reduced slightly at the
upper portion of the frame. Since the longitudinal reinforcement is only
1.44 percent, the longitudinal reinforcement cannot be reduced below 1 percent in
any portion of the columns.
Table 6-16. Shear strength

Shear Vu Shear Ve b d f 'c fy φVc Av s φVs φVn
Col. DCR
(kips) (kips) (in.) (in.) (psi) (psi) (kips) (sq. in.) (in.) (kips) (kips)
36x44 195 510 36 44 4,000 60,000 159 1.2 4 627 786 0.65
42x42 140 589 42 42 4,000 60,000 176 1.2 4 597 773 0.76
Table 6-17. Final column design at first level

Column Longitudinal Long. Stirrups Long. Stirrups Trans. Stirrups Trans. Stirrups
Reinforcement Within Yielding Beyond Yielding wWthin Yielding Beyond Yielding
Zones, l o Zones, l o Zones, l o Zones, l o
36x44 18-#10 6-#4@4" 6-#4@6" 5-#4@4" 5-#4@6"
42x42 20-#10 6-#4@4" 6-#4@6" 6-#4@4" 6-#4@6"
Figures 6-10 and 6-11 show the column cross-section with dimensions and
reinforcement indicated.
Note: Crossties can have 90 degree and 135 degree bends at opposite ends. 90
degree bends should be alternated with 135 degree bends at each successive tie set
and at adjacent bars.

Figure 6-10. 36 x 44 column
Figure 6-11. 42 x 42 column

6d. Orthogonal effects for columns. §1633.1
The code requires that columns that are part of two or more intersection lateral
force resisting systems be analyzed for orthogonal effects. However, the code
excepts columns where the axial force caused by seismic forces from systems in
any direction is less than 20 percent of the column capacity (per §1633.1). In this
Design Example, the corner columns are required to be part of both the
longitudinal and transverse seismic frames. An analysis would indicate that these
columns fall below the 20 percent threshold and thus do not require an orthogonal
analysis.
7. Joint shear analysis.
Beam-column joints of frames must be analyzed for joint shear in accordance with
§1921.5. The shear forces from analysis and the joint strength are calculated in
Table 6-18.
Table 6-18. Joint shear analysis

Shear from Vpr , Plastic Joint
Nominal Aj Result
Element Location Analysis Shear Strength
Shear Stress (in.2) s
(kips) (kips) (kips)
Interior Beam Level 3 155 253 φ15 f'c A j 1,320 1,064 o.k.
End Beam Level 3 157 253 φ12 f'c A j 1,260 813 o.k.
Interior Column Level 2 195 588 φ15 f'c A j 1,320 1,064 o.k.
End Column Level 2 133 341 φ12 f'c A j 1,260 813 o.k.
8. Detailing of beams and columns.
8a. Beam reinforcement.
Beams should be detailed with top, bottom and side reinforcement as shown in
Figure 6-7. In accordance with §1921.3.3, beam shear reinforcement, which meets
the spacing requirements of §1921.3.3.2, should be provided over a distance 2d
from the faces of columns. The tie spacing shall not exceed: 1.) d 4 ; 2.) 8d b of
minimum beam longitudinal bar diameters; 3.) 24d b of stirrup bars; and 4.) 12
inches. These requirements result in a 9-inch maximum tie spacing. However, from
analysis, ties required are #5 ties spaced at 6-inch centers. For ties between beam
hinge regions, ties are required at d 2 spacing. However, based on analysis # 5

ties at 9-inch spacing are adequate across the remaining length of the beam (outside
the hinge areas at each end).
Longitudinal beam bars should be spliced away from the beam-column joints and a
minimum distance of 2h from the face of the columns, per §1921.3.2.3. At the
Level 2 beams for this Design Example, the beam clear spans are approximately
26 ft and 2h is 2(46") = 7 ft-8 in. The designer might consider splicing beam
longitudinal reinforcement at the quarter-, third-, or half-span locations. In this
case, the quarter-span locations would not be away from hinge regions. However,
the one-third, or mid-span, locations would also be okay. Increased shear
reinforcement is required at the lap splice locations per §1921.3.2.3. The maximum
spacing of ties in these regions shall not exceed d 4 or 4 inches. In this case, the
beam mid-point is the best place to locate the lap splices, which for the #11 top
bars at Class B splices would have a splice length of 110 inches or 7 ft-2 in. The
lap splice length for #9 bottom bars at a Class B lap splice is 69 inches or 5 ft-9 in.
Longitudinal reinforcement can be shipped in 60 ft-0 in. lengths on trucks, thus two
locations of longitudinal beam lap splices would be required in the frame along
Line A, conceivably on the two interior spans.
8b. Column reinforcement.
Column splices should occur at column mid-story heights (or within the center half
of the column heights) per §1921.4.3.2. Special transverse reinforcement is
required per §1921.4.4 over a length l o above and below beams at spacing not
greater than: 1.) the column depth; 2.) one-sixth the column clear span; or 3.) a
maximum of 18 inches. For this Design Example the column depth would control
which is either 42 inches or 44 inches depending on the column. For column
sections between the locations where special transverse reinforcement is required,
the spacing requirements of §1907.10.5.2 apply where ties should be spaced a
maximum of 16 longitudinal bar diameters, 48 tie bar diameters or the least
dimension of the column. This would require ties at 20 inches; however for this
Design Example, it is recommended not to space column tie bars greater than 6
inches per §1921.4.4.6 and 4 inches at lap splices.
9. Foundation considerations.
The foundation system should be capable of resisting column base moments

sufficient to cause plastic hinges to be located in the beams and column bases. If the
plastic hinge location is forced into the columns, the foundation elements need not be
designed for yielding or ductility. The foundation should also be adequate to keep
soil pressures within allowable values and adequate for frame overturning stability.
For this analysis, a 60-inch wide by 48-inch deep grade beam was used and cracked
beam properties were used in the computer analysis (Figures 6-12 through 6-16).
Note that ASD combinations of loads are used for calculation of soil pressures. The
actual design of foundation elements is not performed in this Design Example.

Figure 6-12. Beam-column joint
Figure 6-13. Beam reinforcement lap splice

Figure 6-14. Beam-column joint reinforcement at exterior span
Figure 6-15. Beam reinforcement at interior spans
Figure 6-16. Beam column corner joint at roof

Commentary
Deformation compatibility should be checked at interior columns due to seismic

drifts ∆ M . This will lead to a conservative design for punching shear at
slab/column joints. These joints may require drop panels or shear head
reinforcement in the slab over interior columns.
The building period in this Design Example was calculated using Method A.
Method B could be used as long as the resulting period was not more than
130 percent of the Method A period (in Seismic Zone 4) or 140 percent of the
Method A period (in Seismic Zones 1, 2, and 3). If Method B is used to determine
the period, the designer should keep in mind that nonseismic elements can cause
stiffness in the building and thus cause a decrease to the Method B period
determination. Thus, interior nonseismic columns or other important stiffening
elements should be included in Method B period calculations to ensure
conservative period calculation results.
Reinforced concrete SMRF frames can provide very ductile seismic systems for
buildings with highly desirable performance characteristics. The yielding
mechanisms can be predicted and the seismic performance will be ductile and not
brittle. Care should be taken to ensure adequate shear strength at beams, columns,
and joints, so that ductile flexural yielding will occur as anticipated. Care should
also be taken with lap splices and detailing of reinforcement and with specified
couplers. Reinforcement should be ASTM-A706, which has more ductile
performance characteristics that ASTM-A615 reinforcement.

References
A. H. Nilson and G. Winter, 1986. Design of Concrete Structures, Tenth Edition.

McGraw-Hill, New York.
ATC-40, 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Applied

Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
J. C. McCormac, Design of Reinforced Concrete. Third Edition. Harper-Collins, New

York.
J. G. MacGregor, 1992. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Second Edition.

Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
R. Park and T. Paulay, 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, N.J., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Design Example 7 ! Precast Concrete Cladding
Design Example 7
Precast Concrete Cladding
front elevation typical wall section
Figure 7-1. Typical precast concrete panel elevation
Overview
This Design Example illustrates the seismic design of precast concrete cladding
Panels A and B shown in the partial wall elevation of Figure 7-1. This cladding
example is for a 4-story steel moment frame structure located in Seismic Zone 4.
The architect has chosen precast concrete panels for the façade.
Current standard practice is to specify that the fabricator perform the design for the
panel and connections. The structural Engineer of Record for the building typically
reviews the fabricator’s design for compliance with the project design

specifications, and for compatibility with the structural framing. It is important that
the structural Engineer of Record understand that panel loads are concentrated at
discrete points to the structure. These points of attachment will usually require
additional support steel to reach the panel connection hardware. These supports
will typically induce eccentric loads into the beams and columns that must be
accounted for in design of the structure. Wind loads will also be considered in this
example, since some elements of the connection and panel reinforcing may be
controlled by wind, while seismic forces may control other parts.
Earthquake-damaged cladding can become a severe falling hazard, particularly

damaged cladding on highrise buildings in congested urban areas. Cladding is
typically connected at a few discrete points, which limit the redundancy of the
system. For this reason, code seismic requirements for the “attachment” of
cladding require a more conservative design than other building components.
Building cladding is also required to resist realistic story drifts without failure
through flexible connections and adequate panel joints. These requirements are
detailed in §1633.2.4.2 and will be illustrated in this Design Example.
This Design Example provides an overview of the design procedure for precast
concrete cladding panels and their connections to the structure.
Outline
1. Governing loading conditions and forces.
2. Selection of panel thickness.
3. Selection of the panel connection scheme.
4. Panel reinforcing design.
5. Connection forces.
6. Typical connection design.
7. Panel joint widths to accommodate drift.
8. Typical connection details.

Given Information
Exterior wall system weight:

Precast concrete panel (5″ thickness) = 62.5 psf
Window system = 10 psf
Metal stud and gypsum board, 5 psf
Wind design data:

Basic wind speed = 70 mph
Wind exposure = C
Importance factor, Iw = 1.0
Seismic design data:

Occupancy category: standard occupancy structure
Seismic importance factor, Ip = 1.0
Soil profile type: stiff soil type SD (default profile)
Seismic zone 4, Z=0.4
Near-source factors:
Seismic source type A
Distance to seismic source, 7 km
Maximum inelastic response displacement, ∆M = 3.2 in.
Building design data:

Building mean roof height = 64 ft
Top of parapet = elevation 66 ft 6 in.
Building plan dimensions = 150 ft x 70 ft
Material specifications:
Concrete:
Compressive strength fć = 4,000 psi, ASTM C39
Aggregates, ASTM C33
Portland Cement, ASTM C150
Admixtures, ASTM C494
Unit weight 150 pcf, ASTM C138
Steel:
Structural shapes, plates and bars Fy = 36 ksi, ASTM A36
Hollow structural section: round Fy = 33 ksi, ASTM A53, Grade B
Hollow structural section: rectangular Fy = 46 ksi, ASTM A500, Grade B
Welded Reinforcing steel fy = 60 ksi, ASTM A706
Non-welded reinforcing steel fy= 60 ksi, ASTM A615, Grade 60
Coil rods, ASTM A108
Weld electrodes:
Shielded metal arc welding FEXX = 70 ksi, AWS A5.1 E70XX
Flux-cored arc welding FEXX = 70 ksi, AWS A5.20 E7XT

1. Governing loading conditions and forces. §1605.1
Cladding panels must be designed to resist both vertical loads and lateral forces.
Typically the vertical loads consist of the panel weight and the weight of any
windows or other miscellaneous architectural items attached to the panel.
Normally, two bearings points are provided and the panel is treated as a simply
supported beam for vertical loads. The lateral forces consist of both wind and
seismic effects. Wind forces are included in this Design Example because they are
an integral part of the design process for cladding and to illustrate the application
of load combinations for all the loading cases.
Where structural effects of creep, shrinkage, and temperature change may be §1909.2.7
significant in the design, they shall be included in the load combinations.
1a. Design wind pressures. Chapter 16, Division III
Wind pressures are determined from Equation (20-1) using the 70 mph basic wind
speed. This process is shown below.
P = Ce Cq qs Iw (20-1)
qs = 12.6 psf Table 16-F
h = mean roof height = 64 ft
Interpolation is used to determine the combined height and exposure factor Ce. Table 16-G
Interpolation for h = 64 ft (mean roof height).
Ce = (1.53 − 1.43)
(64 − 60) + 1.43 = 1.45
(80 − 60)
Interpolation for h = 66.5 ft (top of parapet).
Ce = (1.53 − 1.43)
(66.5 − 60) + 1.43 = 1.46
(80 − 60)
The pressure coefficients for the exterior elements are given in Table 16-H. The
resulting pressures are summarized in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1. Design wind pressures
Element Direction Cq p (psf)
Typical panel and connection In 1.2 21.92

Typical panel & connection Out 1.2 21.92
Corner panel & connection Out 1.5 27.41
Corner panel & connection In 1.2 21.92
Parapet panel & connection In/out 1.3 23.91
Note: The inward pressure may be calculated for the actual
height of that element; however, the outward pressure is
based on the mean roof height and is considered to be
constant along the height of the building. For simplicity the
inward pressure is calculated using the mean roof height.
The outward corner pressure may be reduced based on the
actual tributary area being considered . Since seismic forces
will usually govern the connection design for precast panels,
this reduction has not been applied in Table 7-1.
1b. Design seismic forces. §1632
Seismic forces for elements of structures, such as the precast panels of this
example, are specified in §1632. These are summarized below.
panel
in-plane
out-of-plane
Figure 7-2. In-plane and out-of-plane force on panel
The basic equation is:
Fp = 4.0 Ca Ip Wp (32-1)
This represents an upper bound of element force levels and is seldom used.
The alternate equation, more frequently used is:
Fp = 1 + 3 x W p (32-2)
Rp  hr 

Limits are set on Equation (32-2) such that Fp shall not be less than 0.7 CaIpWp and
need not be more than 4 CaIpWp. (32-3)
Typically the alternate Equation (32-2) is used since the results for panel and body
loads will be more in line with the previous code force levels.
Pertinent values for ap and Rp , taken from Table 16-O, are given below in
Table 7-2.
Table 7- 2, Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp

Wall Elements of Structure ap Rp
Unbraced (cantilevered) parapets 2.5 3.0
Exterior walls at or above the ground level 1.0 3.0
All interior bearing and nonbearing walls 1.0 3.0
The structural Engineer of Record must specify the near-source factor and distance
to the fault zone. In many cases the seismic coefficient Ca is specified, but for this
example we will start with Na and the fault distance.
The seismic coefficient Ca is found from Table 16-Q.
For seismic zone 4 and soil profile type Sd
Ca = 0.44 Na Table 16-Q
Since the distance to the source is 7 km and the source is type A, Na is found by
interpolation as permitted by Table 16-S.
Na =
(1.2 − 1) (10 − 7 ) + 1.0 = 1.12
(10 − 5)
Ca = 0.44 (1.12) = 0.493

The maximum, minimum, and the value at height hx of Fp are:
Maximum Fp = 4.0 (0.493) (1.0) Wp = 1.97 Wp
Minimum Fp = 0.7 (0.493) (1.0) Wp = 0.345 Wp
At hx :
Fp =
(1.0)(0.493)(1.0) 1 + 3 hx  = 0.164 1 + hx 
   
3.0  64   21.33 
Additional requirements for exterior elements are given in §1633.2.4.2. These

apply to the “attachments” of the panel to the structure.
For the body of the connection system:
ap = 1.0 Rp = 3.0
For the fasteners of the connection system:
ap = 1.0 Rp = 1.0
Table 7-3 below summarizes the seismic coefficients, which multiplied by the
tributary weight Wp, are used to determine the design lateral force Fp. Note that the
seismic coefficients for the fasteners are substantially higher than those for the
panel or the body of the connection. Use of these is illustrated later in this example.
Table 7-3. Seismic coefficients

Level hx/hr Fp (panel) Fp (body) Fp (fastener)
0 0.00 0.345 0.345 0.493
1 0.25 0.345 0.345 0.862
2 0.50 0.411 0.411 1.232
3 0.75 0.534 0.534 1.602
4 1.00 0.657 0.657 1.970
Parapet 1.00 1.643 1.643 1.970
Note: When the difference in elevation of connections becomes
significant, the current interpretation of the code requires a
calculation of Fp at each level of connections for the area of panel
tributary to those connections. Examples are full story wall panels
where the bottom connections are made to one floor while the top
connections are made to the floor above.
In this Design Example, the floor elevation where the upper connections are
attached was used to calculate Fp. For out-of-plane forces, this is conservative since
the other connections are below this point. For in-plane forces this would follow
the current interpretation since all primary reactions occur at this level.

2. Selection of panel thickness.
In general the final precast design begins with the panel thickness as a fixed
dimension and the connection system is developed from that point forward. The
panel thickness is a decision that must be made early in the design process by the
architect. Consultation with a precast manufacturer is recommended to help with
shipping and handling considerations. Any changes to the panel thickness after the
project has proceeded can have significant impact on other portions of work.
There are many factors to consider when deciding on a panel thickness. Some of
these are listed below:
Architectural considerations:
Fire resistance
Thermal insulation
Sound insulation
Weather resistance
Structural considerations:
Total weight of exterior elements
Weight supported by exterior beams and columns
Deflection and cracking
Fabrication and installation:

Minimum weight for handling, shipping and erection
Adequate thickness for efficient handling
Adequate stiffness for an efficient connection scheme
For this project, the panels are specified to be 5 inches thick. This thickness
provides adequate anchorage depth for the connection hardware and also allows the
panel to be handled easily. Another consideration is the warping and bowing that
may occur during curing. Thin long panels will bow or warp more than thick short
panels.
3. Selection of panel connection scheme.
The primary goal in developing a connection system is to minimize the number of

connections and provide connections that have adequate tolerance with the
structural frame.
For this example we will try 4 connections first as shown in Figure 7-3. Because of
the moment frame structural system, the bearing connection must either be located
off of the column or on the beam away from any potential hinge location. In this
case we will assume a support is provided off of the column so that the bearing
connections will be close to the end of the panel.

▼ resists forces in
all directions
● resists out-of-plane
forces only
1.5 ft, typ
27 ft
Figure 7-3. Initial connection scheme for Panel A
Compare wind loading versus seismic loading.

The tributary height is 16 ft because the precast panels transfer wind load on both
the glazing and panels to the structure.
Total uniform wind loading on panel.
pw = 21.92 psf (16 ft) = 351 plf
Assume the panel under consideration is located on Level 3. The working level
load for the seismic forces is:
Fp 0.534
ps = wp = [(62.5 psf )(7 ft ) + (10 psf )(9 ft )] = 201.1 plf
1.4 1.4
Therefore, wind controls for panel design. This is typical for a spandrel panel.
Check panel moment at mid-span.
2 2
M = 0.351 klf (27 /8 – 1.5 /2) = 31.5 k-ft
2 3
Sy = (84 in.)(5 in.) / 6 = 350 in.
fby = My / Sy = 1.08 ksi
The modulus of rupture for concrete is
f r = 7.5 f c′ = 7.5 4000 = 474 psi (9-9)
This panel stress is well above the modulus of rupture and the panel will not satisfy
the deflection criteria because of the reduced moment of inertia from cracking
(§1909.5.2.3).

Although the code does not specifically address out-of -plane deflection of
cladding panels, some guidance can be found in Table 16A-W of the 1998
California Building Code. Typically, the deflection is limited to L/240 because of
the other elements that are attached. Also, in order to satisfy the crack control
criteria of the code (See §1910.6.4), large amounts of reinforcing may be required.
Consequently, connections will be provided at mid-span to reduce the panel
stresses and deflections.
4. Panel design.
Wind controls the panel design and bending moments are determined using the
load combination of Equation (12-6). Note that the 1.1 multiplier of Exception 2 of
§1612.2.1 is not applied for wind.
Wind:
l2 27'
M f = pw = 8.0 k-ft where l = = 13.5'
8 2 Mc
Mu 1
2
a
M c = pw = 0.39 k-ft where a = 1.5' centerline
2 Mu 2
 1 
M u1 = 1.3 M f − M c  = 10.14 k-ft, moment over middle support
 2 
 1M 
M u 2 ≈ 1.3 M f −  u1 + M c  = 5.07 k-ft, approx. moment between supports
 2  1.3 
Determine reinforcing required for strength.
Consider a one-foot width:
Mu = 10.14 k-ft / 7 ft = 1.45 k-ft
b = 12" d = 2"
 a
φ M n = φAs f y  d − 
 2
As f y
a=
0.85 f c′b
Solving directly for As leads to 0.17 in.2/ft.

Minimum reinforcement required for walls. §1914.3.3

For deformed bars not larger than #5 with fy ≥ 60,000 As / bh = 0.0020
As ,min = 0.002(12")(5") = 0.12 in.2 /ft < As , as required
Flexural minimum steel requirements: §1910.5
3 f c′ 3 4000
As ,min = bw d = (12")(2") = 0.076 in.2/ft (10-3)
fy 60,000
But not less than:
200bw d 200 (12")(2")

= = 0.08 in.2 /ft
fy 60,000
The ratio of reinforcement ρ provided shall not exceed 0.75 of the ratio ρ b that
would produce balanced strain conditions for the section.
 0.85β1 f c′   87,000   0.85 (0.85)(4 )   87,000 

ρb =   =   = 0.0285 (8-1)
 f   87,000 + f y   60   87,000 + 60,000 
 y  
As, max = 0.75ρ b bw d = 0.75 (0.0285)(12")(2") = 0.51 in.2/ft
Use #4 at 12 inch o.c., As = 0.20 in.2 /ft
Check crack control requirements. §1910.6.4
Consider a one-foot-wide strip at the bottom of the panel.
bh 2 12 (5)
2
Sy = = = 50.0 in.3
6 6
7.8 k − ft
M wind = = 1.1 k-ft/ft
7′
M wind 1.11(12")
f by = = = 0.267 ksi
Sy 50.0
hb 2 5(84 )2
Sx = = = 5,880 in.3
6 6

Neglect small cantilever at the ends.
0.528 klf (27')2

M DL = = 48.1 k-ft
8
M DL 48.1(12")
f bx = = = 0.098 ksi
Sx 5,880
f tot = f by + f bx = 0.36 ksi < f r = 0.474 ksi
Therefore, there is no cracking under service loads, and the crack control
requirements of §1910.6.4 are not applicable.
The maximum deflection under service wind loading is:
L 13.5' (12 )
∆ = 0.03" < = = 0.675" o.k.
240 240
Deflection is o.k.
5. Connection forces.
In this part, connection forces will be determined. Seismic forces are determined
for a 1g loading. These will then be appropriately scaled in Part 6. The distribution
factors used to determine reactions at the various supports were determined from a
generic moment distribution. For brevity, that analysis is not shown here.
Element weights:
Panel A Wpa = 62.5 psf (7ft) (30 ft) = 13.13 k x = 15 ft z = .208 ft
Column cover B Wpb = 62.5 psf (4 ft/2) (9 ft) = 1.125 k x = 1 ft z = .208 ft
Column cover B Wpb = 62.5 psf (4 ft/2) (9 ft) = 1.125 k x = 29 ft z = .208 ft
Window Ww =10.0 pst (9 ft) (26 ft) = 2.34 k x = 15 ft z = .10 ft
Total Wtot = = 17.72 k x = 15 ft z = .19 ft

Gravity.
For gravity loads, the panel is treated as a simply supported beam using two
bearing connections to support the vertical load. Since the vertical support reaction
does not line up with the center of gravity in the z-direction, additional reactions
are necessary in the z-direction to maintain equilibrium, as shown in Figure 7-4.
ez = 0.33 ft (distance from the back of the panel to the center of the bearing bolt)
R1y = 17.72/2 = 8.86 k
R1z = 8.86 (0.19 + 0.33)/5.25 = .88 k
R3z = -R1z
y
ez
y
R1y
R1z
R3z x
z
Figure 7-4. Gravity load reactions
Seismic out-of-plane ( 1g ).
Connection distribution factors for a uniform load applied to a symmetric two span
continuous beam with cantilevers at the ends are shown below and are used to
distribute the uniform panel weight applied transverse to the panel. These can be
found by moment distribution or other suitable means of continuous beam analysis.
DFe = 0.223 (fraction of total load resisted by outside support)
DFm = 0.554 (fraction of total load resisted by mid-span support)
Connection distribution factors for a uniform load applied to a symmetric two span
continuous beam without cantilevers at the end are given below. These will be used
to distribute the uniform window load to the connections.
DFe = 0.1875 (fraction of total load resisted by exterior support)
DFm = 0.625 (fraction of total load resisted by middle support)

The total reactions (Figure 7-5) are as follows:
R1z = [(0.223)(13.13 kips ) + (0.1875)(2.34 kips ) + 1.125](2.5' 5.25') = 2.19 kips
R3 z = [(0.223)(13.13 kips ) + (0.1875)(2.34 kips ) + 1.125](2.75' 5.25') = 2.35 kips
R5 z = [(0.554 )(13.13 kips ) + (0.625)(2.34 kips )](2.5' 5.25') = 4.16 kips
R6 z = [(0.554 )(13.13 kips ) + (0.625)(2.34 kips )](2.75' 5.25') = 4.58 kips
y y
2.75 ft
R1z R5z
2.50 ft
x
R3z R6z
z
Figure 7-5. Seismic out-of-plane reactions
Seismic in-plane (1g)

In-plane seismic forces (Figure 7-6) are typically resisted by connections at the
level the panel is supported. Overturning forces are resisted by vertical reactions at
the supports.
el = 0.50 ft
R1x = 17.72/3 = 5.91 k
R1y = 17.72 k (2.75'/27') = 1.80 k
R1z = 1.80 k (.19 +.33)/5.25' + 17.72 k (.19 + .5)/27' = 0.63 k

y
el
y
R2x
R1x R5x
R1z
R1y
R3z x
R2y
z
Figure 7- 6. Seismic in-plane reactions

Wind loading.
The distribution of total load is similar as was done for seismic out-of-plane forces
(Figure 7-5).
Pw = 21.92 psf (16')(30') = 10.52 k
R1z = [(0.223)(10.52 k)](2.5'/5.25') = 1.12 k
R3z = [(0.223)(10.52 k)](2.75'/5.25') = 1.23 k
R5z = [(0.554)(10.52 k)](2.5'/5.25') = 2.78 k
R6z = [(0.554)(10.52 k)](2.75'/5.25') = 3.05 k
6. Connection design.
Design of the bearing connection will be done using strength design for both
concrete and steel elements of the connection. This is illustrated in the parts below.
6a. Application of load factors.
The basic load combinations are defined in §1612.2.1. Normally there are no floor
live loads, roof live loads, or snow loads on cladding panels. The load
combinations of Equations (12-1) through (12-6) reduce to the following. Parts of
the load combinations not used have a strike line through them.
1.4D (12-1)
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S) (12-2)
1.2D + 1.6 (Lr or S) + (f1L or 0.8W) (12-3)
1.2D + 1.3W + f1L + 0.5 (Lr or S) (12-4)
1.2D + 1.0E + (f1L +f2S) (12-5)
0.9D + (1.0E or 1.3W) (12-6)
For concrete design, Exception 1 to §1612.2.1 applies for combinations that

include seismic forces. For all other combinations, Exception 2 refers to §1909.2.
These equations reduce to the following:

1.4D + 1.7 L (9-1)
0.75 (1.4D + 1.7 L + 1.7 W) (9-2)
0.9D + 1.3 W (9-3)
1.1(1.2D + 1.0E) (12-5)
1.1 (0.9D ± 1.0E) (12-6)
For concrete anchors, additional load factors can be found in §1923.2. A load
factor of 1.3 is normally applied for panel anchorage when special inspection is
provided. When special inspection is not provided, a factor of 2 is applied. In
addition, when anchors are embedded in the tension zone of a member, an anchor
factor of 2 is required for special inspection and an anchor factor of 3 is required
for no special inspection. These factors are not considered applicable to cladding
panels, since the connector load is already raised significantly for nonductile
portions of the connector.
It should be noted that §1632.2 requires the design of shallow anchors to be based
on forces using a response modification factor, Rp , of 1.5. Most embedded anchors
in panels fall within the shallow anchor criteria. Since the fastener force is based on
an Rp equal to 1.0, the shallow anchor requirement is superceded by the more
stringent fastener force requirement.
The total seismic force is defined as follows, where Fp is used for Eh and Ev is
defined in §1630.1.1:
E = ρ Eh + Ev (30-1)
Ev = 0.5 Ca I D §1630.1.1
Under §1632.2, the reliability/redundancy factor, ρ, may be taken equal to 1.0 for
component design.
The 1997 UBC load factors do not distinguish between members of the lateral
force-resisting system and components, as the 1994 UBC did. Therefore, wording
in the 1997 code is such that Ev should be considered for strength design of
components similar to the requirements for the structure design. Ev was added to
the code to make the load factors consistent with the load combination
1.4 (D + L + E), which applied to lateral force-resisting systems. For component
design, the normal ACI and AISC load factors were appropriate, and hence no
inconsistency was created. The addition of Ev for component design creates a
higher load factor on dead load when compared to the 1994 UBC requirements.

Application of load factors for typical bearing angle design.
Ca = 0.493
Ip = 1.0
Ev = 0.5 Ca Ip D = 0.25 D
For steel design the equivalent load factor for dead load is 1.2 + 0.25 = 1.45.
For concrete design the equivalent load factor for dead load is 1.1(1.2 + 0.25) = 1.60.
Assuming this panel is located at Level 3, Fp (body) = 0.534(Wp); Fp (fastener) =

1.602(Wp)
Table 7-3. Connection 1: bearing support

Body Force Fastener Force
Loading (1)
X-Direction Y-Direction Z-Direction X-Direction Y-Direction Z-Direction
D 0.00 8.86 0.88 0.00 8.86 0.88
Et 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 3.51
Et 3.17 0.96 0.34 9.48 2.88 1.02
Wo 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 1.12
Wi 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 1.12
Concrete Load Combinations Anchor Factor = 1.3 (2)
1.4D 0.00 16.13 1.60
1.60D + 1.1Et 0.00 18.33 6.84
0.99D - 1.1Et 0.00 11.40 -3.89
1.60D + 1.1El 13.56 22.45 3.28
0.99D – 1.1El -13.56 7.28 - 0.33
1.05D + 1.275Wo 0.00 12.09 3.06
0.9D – 1.3 Wi 0.00 10.37 -0.83
Steel Load Combinations
1.4D 0.00 12.40 1.23 0.00 12.40 1.23
1.45D + 1.0Et 0.00 12.82 2.44 0.00 12.82 4.78
0.9D - 1.0Et 0.00 7.97 -0.38 0.00 7.97 -2.72
1.45D + 1.0El 3.16 13.78 1.61 9.48 15.70 2.29
0.9D – 1.0El -3.16 7.01 0.45 -9.48 5.09 - 0.23
1.2D + 1.3Wo 0.00 10.63 2.51 0.00 10.63 2.51
0.9D – 1.3Wi 0.00 7.97 -0.66 0.00 7.97 -0.66
Notes:
1. D = dead load
Et = seismic out-of-plane
El = seismic in-plane
Wo = wind out
Wi = wind in
2. From §1923.3, assuming special inspection.

6b. Typical connection design.
A typical bearing support is illustrated below and is used in this example to outline
the design procedure for a panel connection. Most cladding panels use a threaded
bolt to support the gravity loads. The bolt can be turned to adjust the panel into its
final position. The embed is usually an angle with a threaded hole oriented as
shown is Figure 7-7. This provides a low profile that can be hidden within the
interior finishes.
Figure 7-7. Typical bearing connection
Determine angle size using LRFD. §2206

Make preliminary selection of angle thickness. Note the critical section occurs at
the root of the fillet or a distance k from the heel of the angle.
M u = Rvu (e − k ) = 13.78 (4 − 1.5) = 34.45 k-in.

Let width of angle b = 8 in.
4 Mu
t= = 0.73"
Φ fy b
∴ Use t = 1.0"
Try L6 × 6 × 1 × 0' – 8"
The body of connection forces for the load combination of 1.45 D + 1.0 El are
shown below. Note that the moment is determined at the k-distance (see p. 1-58 of
AISC–LRFD Manual).
Muy = Ry1 (e1 – k) = 13.78 (4–1.5) = 34.45 k-in.
Mux = Rx1 (e2 – k) = 3.16 (6–1.5) = 14.22 k-in.
Pu = 1.61 k
0.9(36 ksi )(8")(1)2

φM ny = φ fyZy = = 64.8 k-in.
4
0.9 (36 ksi )(1")(8)2

φM nx = φ f y Z x = = 518.4 k-in.
4
φPnt = φ f y A t = 0.9 (36 ksi )(8")(1") = 259.2 k
1 Pu M ux M uy
+ + = 0.56 < 1.0 ∴ o.k.
2 φ Pnt φ M nx φ M ny
Use L6 × 6 × 1 × 0'−8"
6c. Anchorage to concrete. §1923
The concrete anchors consist of flat bar metal straps bent in a U-shape and welded
to the back of the angle, as shown in Figures 7-8 and 7-9. Reinforcing bars are then
placed in the inside corners of the bends to effectively transfer the anchor forces
into the concrete. By doing this, the strength reduction factor, φ , may be taken as
0.85 instead of 0.65 per §1923.3.2.

Headed studs are also used to transfer the forces to the concrete. The pull-out
calculation for design is similar to the procedure for bent straps.
le w le
le
bs
le
le bs
le
Figure 7-8. Single strap Ap Figure 7-9. Double strap Ap
Single strap pull-out capacity. §1923.3.2

Find the pull-out capacity of one leg of a 2 in. x 5/16 in. flat bar using the projected
area of the shear cone.
bs = 2 in.
ts = 0.3125 in.
le = l – ts = 4 – 0.3125 = 3.69 in.
( )
A p = 2l e bs + πl e 2 = 57.54 in.2
φPnc1 = φλ 4 A p f c′ = 0.85 (1.0)(4 )(57.54) 4,000 / 1,000 = 12.37 k
Double leg strap pull-out capacity.

Find the pull-out capacity of both legs of the 2-inch x5/16-inch flat bar using the
projected area of the shear cone.
Width w = 8 – 2 (1/2) – 0.3125 = 6.69 in.
( )
A p 2 = 2l e bs + πl e 2 + 2l e w = 106.9 in.
φPnc 2 = φλ 4 A p f c′ = 0.85 (1.0 )(4 )(106.9 ) 4,000 / 1,000 = 22.9 k < 2φPc1 = 24.75
∴ φPc 2 controls

Check pullout of bottom straps (double leg).
dy Cu a/2
el
Tu1
a/2
Rtu
Cu
d ez
Rvu
Tu2
Rxu
Figure 7-10. Forces on straps
φPnc 22.9
a= = = 0.84 in.
0.85 f c′b 0.85 (4 )(8)
(Rvu )(e) (22.45)(4)

Tu 2 = = = 19.61 k < φPnc 2 o.k.
(d − a / 2) (5 − 0.84 / 2)
Check pullout of top straps (single leg).
(R xu )(e1 ) R zu Cu min (13.56)(6) + (− 0.33) − 1 × (7.28)(4) = 8.56 k < φP ∴ o.k.

Tu1 = + − =
(d − a / 2) 2 2 (7.34 − 0.5) 2 2 (5 − 0.4 )
c1
Use reinforcing steel to resist vertical and horizontal shear forces. Computations of
required reinforcement is shown below.
R yu 22.45
Asv = = = 0.32 in.2
φf y (1.3)(0.9)(60 ksi )
Use 2-#4 vertical bars welded to angle.
Rxu 13.56
Ash = = = 0.19 in.2
φf y (1.3)(0.9 )(60 ksi )
Use 1-#5 horizontal bar welded to angle.

6d. Weld design: plate to support.
Rzu/2
2 in.
Rzu/2
Figure 7-11. Typical weld
Out-of-plane forces.
Vertical load is supported by bearing (i.e. leveling) bolt.
Rzu = 4.78 k (factored steel load , fastener level)
Try a fillet weld 3 inches long.
1 R zu 1 4.78
fv = = = 0.80 k/in. shear component
2 lw 2 3
1 Rzu e 1 4.78(2 / 2 )
ft = = = 1.59 k/in. tension component
2 Sw 2 32 / 6
fr = f x 2 + ft 2 = 1.78 k/in. resultant
The weld capacity can be found in Table J2.5 [AISC-LRFD].
φRnw = φt eff 0.6 FEXX = 0.75(0.707 )(0.25)(0.6 )70 ksi = 5.57 k/in. > fr o.k.
Use ¼-inch fillet weld by 3 inches long on each plate.
Since the plate is designed for body loads, a plate of the same length and thickness
will work.
Use plate 5/16 x 3 x 0 ft-5 in.

In-plane forces.
Rxu = 9.48 k (factored steel load, fastener level)
Try a fillet weld 4 inches long.
R xu 9.48
fv = = = 2.37 k/in.
lw 4
1 R xu e 1 9.48(2)
ft = = = 3.55 k/in.
2 Sw 2 42 / 6
fr = f v 2 + f t 2 = 4.27 k/in.
φRnw = φt eff 0.6 FEXX = 0.75(0.707 )(0.25)(0.6 )70 ksi = 5.57 k/in. > fr o.k.
Use ¼-inch fillet weld by 4 inches long.
7. Drift analysis. §1633.2.4.2(1)
One of the most important aspects of cladding design is to ensure that the panel
connections and joints allow for the interstory drift that occurs as a result of lateral
deflection of the frame from wind, seismic loads, temperature, and shrinkage
forces. For most structures in Seismic Zones 3 and 4, seismic drift will control.
For seismic drift, all cladding elements must accommodate the maximum inelastic
story drift (∆M) that is expected for the design basis earthquake forces. The 1994
UBC estimated the inelastic drift as 3/8(Rw) times the calculated elastic story drift
caused by design seismic forces. Now the inelastic drift is computed as 0.7 R∆S per
§1630.9.2 or by a more detailed analysis. A comparison of the two values is shown
below:

1994 UBC 1997 UBC
3 R 
∆M = Rw∆ ∆ M = 0.7 R∆ s ≈ 0.7 w 1.4∆ ≈ 0.7 Rw ∆
8  1.4 
0.04
If T < 0.7 sec , ∆ ≤ h If T < 0.7 sec
Rw
3 0.04h
∆m = Rw ≤ 0.015 h ∆ M ≤ 0.025h
8 Rw
0.03
If T ≥ 0.7 sec , ∆ ≤ h If T ≥ 0.7 sec
Rw
3 0.03h
∆M = Rw ≤ 0.01125h ∆ M ≤ 0.020h
8 Rw
The maximum inelastic drift can be as much as 78 percent higher under the
provisions of the 1997 UBC compared to that calculated under the 1994 UBC. This
can have a major impact on the cladding elements and must be considered early in
the planning process. Fortunately, the majority of structures have drift less than the
maximum.
It is also important to coordinate the mechanism by which this drift is

accommodated with other elements and components of the cladding system, such
as the window system.
Drift requirements are: §1633.2.4.2 (1)
1. 2(∆wind )
2. ∆M = 3.2 in.
3. ∆ min = 0.5 in.
Infill panels, such as the column cover (Panel B), require special review when it
comes to movement. Typical these panels are attached to other elements and see
the full story drift, but the height over which this movement occurs is much less
than the story height. Therefore, the rotation that the panel undergoes can be more
than two times the rotation of the column.

Figure 7-12. Cladding interaction with frame displacements
Consider the column cover in this case:
hs = typical story height (ft)
φ = ∆ M / hc = 3.2"/(9')(12 in./ft) = 0.0296 radians
δv = φ (wc – a) = 0.0296 (48" – 12") = 1.06 in.
Since this is an estimate of the maximum movement, round the joint size to the
nearest ¼-inch.
tj = 1.25 in.
δv
φ
hc
pivot point
a
wc
Figure 7-13. Rocker panel

As the beam hinge location moves toward the interior, the spandrel panel can also
experience up and down movement at each support point.
θ = ∆ M / hs = 3.2"/(16')(12') = 0.01667 radians
δv = θxb = 0.01667 rad (18") = 0.30 in.
Differential displacements out-of-plane of the panel should also be considered.
8. Typical details.
Figures 7-14 and 7-15 illustrate typical connection details.
Figure 7-14. Tieback connection at bottom of cladding

1" return welds
top of floor slab
Figure 7-15. Bearing and shear connection at top of cladding
References
Iverson, James K. and Hawkins, Neil M., 1994. Performance of Precast/Prestressed

Concrete Building Structures During Northridge Earthquake, PCI Journal,
Vol. 39.
McCann, R.A., 1991. Architectural Precast Concrete Cladding Connections,

Implementation and Performance of Structural Details, 1991 Fall Seminar,
Session 2, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California.
PCI, 1999. PCI Design Handbook – Precast and Prestressed Concrete, 5th edition.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago Illinois.
Sheppard, D. A. and Phillips, W. R., 1989. Plant Cast Precast and Prestressed
Concrete: A Design Guide,3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.


SEAOC - SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL VOL 1 - Code Application 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 - SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL VOL 1 - Code Application PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional

Preface .......................................................................... ................................... v

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Table of Contents (continued)

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Ronald P. Gallagher, Project Manager

Volume I was written principally by Theodore C. Zsutty and Ronald P. Gallagher.

John G. Shipp, Chair

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Saeed R. Amirazizi Thomas Hunt Manuel Morden

Production and Art

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Suggestions for Improvement

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Volume I presents 55 examples that illustrate the application of specific seismic

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

AB = ground floor area of structure in square feet to include area

Ac = the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls

Ae = the minimum cross-sectional area in any horizontal plane in

Ax = the torsional amplification factor at Leve x.

ap = numerical coefficient specified in §1632 and set forth in Table

Ca = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-Q of UBC.

Ct = numerical coefficient given in §1630.2.2 of U BC.

Cv = seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16-R of UBC.

D = dead load on a structural element.

De = the length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the

Fx = design seismic force applied to Leve i, n or x, respectively.

Fp = design seismic force on a part of the structure.

Fpx = design seismic force on a diaphragm.

Ft = that portion of the base shear, V, considered concentrated at

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual 

Fy = specified yield strength of structural steel.

fc’ = specified compressive strength of concrete.

fi = lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (30-10) of UBC.

fm’ = specified compressive strength of masonry.

fp = equivalent uniform load.

fy = specified yield strength of reinforcing steel

g = acceleration due to gravity.

hi, hn,hx = height in feet above the base to Leve i, n or x, respectively.

I = importance factor given in Table 16-K of UBC.

Ip = importance factor specified in Table 16-K of UBC.

L = live load on a structural element.

Level i = level of the structure referred to by the subscript i. “i = 1”

Level n = that level that is uppermost in the main portion of the

Level x = that level that is under design consideration. “x = 1”

Na = near-source factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic

Nv = near-source factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic

R = numerical coefficient representative of the inherent

 SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

r = a ratio used in determining ρ. See §1630.1 of UBC.

T = elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the

V = the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by

W = the total seismic dead load defined in §1620.1.1 of UBC.

wi, wx = that portion of W located at or assigned to Level i or x,

Wp = the weight of an element of component.

Z = seismic zone factor as given in Table 16-I of UBC.

∆M = Maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the tota

∆S = Design level response displacement, which is the total drift or

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Apply earthquake load combinations: §1612.2.1

Specific material requirements:

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Apply earthquake load combinations: §1630.1.1

Specific material requirements §1630.1.1

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual

Required hold-down capacity T.

SEAOC Seismic Design Manual