SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations

Combined Systems

ASCE 7-02/05 2001 CBC reference Other standard

reference section(s) section(s) reference section(s)
ASCE 7-02 ASCE 7-05 1629.8.3 item 4 2003 IBC section 1617.6.1.2
9.5.2.2.2 12.2.2-4 1630.4 2003 IBC section 1617.2.1
9.5.2.2.4.4

Background
Many buildings use a combination of seismic force-resisting systems (SFRSs). As explained in a separate article, a
SFRS is defined to consist of the vertically-oriented lateral force-resisting components of a structure, whereas the
overall seismic resistance of the building includes the role of other components such as diaphragms and foundations.
For combinations of SFRSs, building codes traditionally limit or modify design parameters such as R (response
modification factor), Ÿ0 (overstrength factor), and Cd (deflection amplification factor).

Code provisions for SFRS combinations are intended to result in structure geometries that assure a generally
uniform distribution of deformations to all SFRS elements at both elastic and inelastic response levels. While simple
in concept, this is often difficult to achieve, since systems whose rigidities are well balanced while elastic can
exhibit quite different behavior when they are inelastic. Values of R, Ÿ0, and Cd should reflect both the properties of
the selected structural systems and the relative ability of the total structure to match the idealized deformation
pattern.

Building code provisions for combined systems from the 1991 through the 1997 UBC editions did not change
significantly and were based on the recommendations of the 1990 Blue Book (SEAOC Seismology Committee
1990). Changes that occurred since the 1997 UBC are described in the following sections.

Vertical Combinations
When used to resist loads acting on the same horizontal axis, vertical combinations should avoid geometries in
which inelastic behavior is concentrated in the lower system. For example, shear walls or braced frames (except in
small penthouse structures) should not be used above a seismic moment-resisting (SMRF) system. The near collapse
of the main building of Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is an example of unacceptable
performance with this combination.

ASCE 7-02 section 9.5.2.2.2.1, ASCE 7-05 section 12.2.3.1, and 1997 UBC section 1630.4.2 address this situation
by limiting the R value of the lower system so that it does not exceed the R of the upper system. The intent is to
delay the onset of yielding in the lower system until the point at which the entire structure will yield together. An
exception to this rule applies to seismic isolation, where essentially all seismic deformations are concentrated into a
base level designed to accommodate them.

Even where the upper system is more flexible, deformations should not be concentrated in one part of a combined
system. In general, an uneven deformation distribution violates the premise of the equivalent lateral force method
used for most code-based design. To address this issue, the 1990 Blue Book introduced a two-stage analysis
procedure that allows the linear static equivalent lateral force procedure where the lower system is stiff enough to
act essentially as a fixed base for the upper system (SEAOC Seismology Committee 1990, section 1E.3.a). The 1997
UBC presents this procedure in section 1630.4.2, with reference to section 1629.8.3 item 4 for qualifying conditions.

ASCE 7-02 omitted the two-stage procedure. For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F, section 9.5.2.2.4.4
specified that special moment-resisting frames, which are relatively flexible, must be “continuous to the foundation”
if such moment frames are required for the seismic force-resisting system. A review of Table 9.5.2.2 indicates that a
SMRF is required in SDC D-F (either by itself or as part of a dual system) for any building taller than 160 ft; this is
presumed to be the trigger for section 9.5.2.2.4.4. Where SMRFs are used but not required, they may be supported
by more rigid lower systems if vertical irregularity requirements are met. This provision also appears in the 2000
NEHRP Provisions, but without commentary (BSSC 2001, section 5.2.2.4.4).

Article 4.02.040 Page 1 of 3 October 2006

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Combined Systems

The 2003 IBC section 1617.6.1.2 corrected the ASCE 7-02 omission by duplicating the same basic language that
appears in the 1997 UBC. ASCE 7-05 section 12.2.3.1 has now corrected the omission and added the two-stage
procedure.

Effect of redundancy coefficient. The UBC and ASCE 7-05 two-stage procedure for rigid podium structures
properly accounts for the influence of redundancy coefficients on effective R values. These effects must also be
accounted for in other vertical combinations.

Horizontal Combinations
Systems used in horizontal combinations are of potential concern if the individual systems deform in significantly
different elastic or inelastic patterns. Differential inelastic deformations lead to substantial redistribution of forces
between the combined systems, resulting in high collector forces between the systems or high torsion when the
systems are offset from each other. ASCE 7-02 section 9.5.2.2.2.1 and 1997 UBC section 1630.4.4 limited the
combined system R value on a given axis to the lowest value of the individual systems used on that axis. The intent
was to delay yielding in any one system until all the systems could yield together.

When a different system is used for each principal direction, the concern was that a flexible, high-R system in one
direction would cause large transverse displacements to a brittle, low-R bearing wall system framing in the other
direction. Excessive out-of-plane distortions of the low-R system can lead to either failure of the bearing wall or
separation of the wall from the roof or floor framing it supports. For these conditions, both ASCE 7-02 section
9.5.2.2.2.1 and 1997 UBC section 1630.4.3 identified conditions in which the lowest value of any system was to be
used for all systems in any direction. ASCE 7-02 triggered this requirement for all Seismic Design Categories if any
system had an R value less than 5. In comparison, the UBC was triggered only when any system was a bearing wall
system, and then only in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.

The ASCE 7-02 provision in some situations was overly restrictive. The threshold R value of 5 properly considered
plain concrete and masonry shear walls, which are vulnerable, and properly exempts light-framed walls with wood
structural panels, which are not. But it also included less vulnerable systems such as steel ordinary concentrically
braced frames in bearing wall systems (R = 4) and even steel intermediate moment-resisting frames (R = 4.5).

In response to these issues, ASCE 7-05 section 12.2.2 has taken an alternate route, by completely removing any
orthogonal systems requirement. The justification made for the removal was that other code provisions for
displacement compatibility that have been added since the original provisions were adopted have essentially
replaced the need for the former provision. By implication, then, the replacement section in ASCE 7-05 is section
12.12.4 (for Seismic Design Category D, E, or F).

Exception for separate lines of resistance. ASCE 7-05 section 12.2.3.2 includes a separate procedure for
structures having different structural systems on independent lines of resistance, where the following three
conditions are all met: (1) Occupancy type I or II building, (2) two stories or less in height, and (3) use of light-
frame or flexible diaphragms. This procedure permits each line of resistance to be designed using the value of R that
is greatest for any systems found along that line of resistance, and independent of the R value required for any other
line of resistance in the building. The value of Ÿ0 and Cd used for each line of resistance at any story is the largest
value of this factor for the R value used in the same direction being considered. The R value used for design of
diaphragms is the lesser of R for any systems utilized within all lines of resistance in that direction of application of
seismic forces.

The Seismology Committee interprets this exception to apply to a range of situations in which light framing is
combined with cantilever columns, moment frames around large wall openings, and diagonally braced wall framing.
In particular, the exception is taken to apply to elements placed on either side of garage openings in typical houses.
Likewise, it also may apply to interior lines of resistance such as braced frames that are located within concrete or
masonry wall buildings, provided that the diaphragm type is flexible.

Article 4.02.040 Page 2 of 3 October 2006

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Combined Systems

References
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2002). ASCE 7-02, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2006). ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, Including Supplement No. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

California Building Standards Commission (2001). 2001 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations,
Title 24), California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA.

ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) (1997). 1997 Uniform Building Code, ICBO, Whittier, CA.

BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council) (2001). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures, 2000 Edition, Part 2—Commentary (FEMA 369), Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, D.C.

SEAOC Seismology Committee (1990). Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.

Keywords
combined systems
deflection amplification factor, Cd.
lines of resistance
overstrength factor, Ÿ0
response modification factor ,R factor,
seismic force-resisting system, SFRS

How To Cite This Publication

Articles in the SEAOC Blue Book series should be cited as follows, with this example based on an article published
in September, 2006. The publication month and year are shown in the footer of Blue Book articles; the article title is
shown in the header.

In the writer’s text, the article should be cited as:

(SEAOC Seismology Committee 2006)

In the writer’s reference list, the reference should be listed as:

SEAOC Seismology Committee (2006). “Title of the Article,” September, 2006, The SEAOC Blue Book:
Seismic Design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Accessible via the world wide web at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html

Article 4.02.040 Page 3 of 3 October 2006

www.seaoc.org/bluebook