Volume 4
EXAMPLES FOR STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS
Copyright © 2013 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
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional
member organizations (Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and Central 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.
SEAOC Board oversight of this publication was provided by 2012 SEAOC Board President James
Amundson, S.E. and Immediate Past President Doug Hohbach, S.E.
Editor
Disclaimer
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. Users of information from this
publication assume all liability arising from such use.
Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the following:
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
www.seaoc.org and on the ICC web site at www.iccsafe.org.
Design Example 1
Special Moment Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Design Example 2
Special Concentrically Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Design Example 3
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Design Example 4
Special Plate Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Design Example 5
Eccentrically Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Design Example 6
Multi-Panel OCBF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Design Example 7
Metal Deck Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
a. Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
b. Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Design Example 8
Special Moment Frame Base Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Design Example 9
Braced-Frame Base Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
The examples illustrate code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good performance under severe
seismic loading. In some cases simply complying with building-code requirements does not ensure good
seismic response. This manual takes the approach of exceeding the minimum code requirements in such
cases, with discussion of the reasons for doing so.
Recent editions of the IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual have consisted of updates of previous
editions, modified to address changes in the building code and referenced standards. Many of the adopted
standards did not change between the 2006 edition of the International Building Code and the 2009 edition.
The 2012 edition, which is the one used in this set of manuals, represents an extensive change of adopted
standards, with many substantial changes in methodology.
Additionally, this edition has been substantially revised. New examples have been included to address new
code provisions and new systems, as well as to address areas in which the codes and standards provide
insufficient guidance. Important examples such as the design of base-plate anchorages for steel systems and
the design of diaphragms have been added.
Previous editions have been three volumes. This expanded edition contains more types of systems for
concrete buildings and steel buildings. These are no longer contained in the same volume. Volumes 3 and 4
of the 2012 edition replace Volume 3 of the 2009 edition. Additionally, we have fulfilled the long-standing
goal of including examples addressing seismic isolation and supplemental damping. These examples are
presented in the new Volume 5.
In general, the provisions for developing the design base shear, distributing the base-shear-forces vertically
and horizontally, checking for irregularities, etc., are illustrated in Volume 1. The other volumes contain
more extensive design examples that address the requirements of the material standards (for example, ACI
318 and AISC 341) that are adopted by the IBC. Building design examples do not illustrate many of the
items addressed in Volume 1 in order to permit the inclusion of less-redundant content.
Each volume has been produced by a small group of authors under the direction of a manager. The
managers have assembled reviewers to ensure coordination with other SEAOC work and publications, most
notably the Blue Book, as well as numerical accuracy.
This manual can serve as valuable tool for engineers seeking to design buildings for good seismic response.
Rafael Sabelli
Project Manager
Volume 4 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual addresses the design of steel building
systems for seismic loading. Examples include the illustration of the design requirements for braced frames
and moment frames, as were illustrated in previous editions, and also important interfaces with the rest of
the structure.
The design examples in this volume represent a range of steel structural systems. The Manual includes a set
of examples that illustrate a more complete design: the design of diaphragms and collectors is illustrated,
as are the design of base plates and anchorages for moment-frame and braced-frame columns. With the
addition of these items this edition of the Manual offers more extensive guidance to engineers, addressing
the design of these critical components of the seismic system.
The design of each of these systems is governed by standards developed by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC). AISC produces its own Seismic Design Manual to illustrate the correct application of
the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 341) and the AISC Prequalification Standard (AISC 358). The AISC
Seismic Design Manual is a valuable resource for designers, and this volume is not intended to duplicate
AISC’s efforts. This manual, for example, does not include the detailed range of options for gusset-plate
design, as the AISC Seismic Design Manual addresses this design aspect thoroughly.
Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference in purpose and approach between this manual and the AISC
Seismic Design Manual. The AISC Manual illustrates the code requirements, while the SEAOC Structural/
Seismic Design Manual illustrates SEAOC’s recommended practices, which traditionally have gone beyond
the code (or in advance of it). The design examples for base plates are important examples of design
methodologies not explicitly defined by building codes. Building code provisions for these connections
are difficult to apply and do not correspond well to the mechanisms of resistance. The examples herein
provide a convenient and valuable alternative methodology, one that is not an illustration of explicit code
requirements.
The methods illustrated herein represent approaches consistent with the ductility expectations for each
system and with the desired seismic response. In most cases there are several details or mechanisms that
can be utilized to achieve the ductility and resistance required, and the author of each example has selected
an appropriate option. In many cases alternatives are discussed. This Manual is not intended to serve as a
building code or to be an exhaustive catalogue of all valid approaches and details.
The Manual is presented as a set of examples in which the engineer has considered the building-code
requirements in conjunction with the optimal seismic response of the system. The examples follow
the recommendations of the SEAOC Blue Book and other SEAOC recommendations. The examples
are intended to aid conscientious designers in crafting designs that are likely to achieve good seismic
performance consistent with expectations inherent in the requirements for the systems.
Rafael Sabelli
Volume 4 Manager
Volume 4 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly
qualified structural engineers, chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering
practice and seismic design.
Kevin S. Moore, S.E., SECB, Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Examples 1 and 8
With multiple state licenses, Kevin has more than 18 years of experience in structural engineering design,
analysis, and evaluation. He is the Chair of the SEAOC Structural Standards Committee, Past Chair of the
SEAOC Seismology Committee, and Chair of the Seismic Subcommittee of the NCSEA Code Advisory
Committee. He has written multiple papers and design examples associated with steel design, seismic
forces, and structural systems. Kevin is also a member of the AISC Connection Prequalification Review
Panel. www.sgh.com
Rafael Sabelli, S.E., Principal, Director of Seismic Design, Walter P. Moore—Volume 4 Manager and
Example 2
Rafael Sabelli is a member of the AISC Task Committee on the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chair of the AISC Seismic Design Manual committee, a member of the ASCE 7 Seismic
subcommittee, and a member of the BSSC Provisions Update Committee and Code Resource Support
Committee. He is the coauthor (with Michel Bruneau) of AISC Design Guide 20: Steel Plate Shear Walls
as well as of numerous research papers on conventional and buckling-restrained braced frames. He has
served as Chair of the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California and as
President of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. Rafael was the co-recipient of the
2008 AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship and was the 2000 NEHRP Professional Fellow in Earthquake Hazard
Reduction.
Amit Kanvinde, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Davis—Example 8
Amit’s research heavily focuses on the seismic response of steel structures and connections through
experimentation and simulation. Pertinent to the design example, he has conducted 28 large-scale tests
on column base connections and is the author of two major technical reports and several journal and
conference papers on the topic of base plates. His other recent research has addressed the fracture of
seismic column splices in moment frames and braces in SCBF systems. He is the recipient of the 2008
ASCE Norman Medal and the 2003 EERI Graduate Student Paper award addressing the collapse of
structures.
David A. Grilli, M.S., E.I.T., Graduate Student Researcher, University of California, Davis—
Example 8
David is a doctoral student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Davis.
Through large-scale experimentation, his work addresses the seismic response of embedded and exposed
column-base plates. Pertinent to this example, he is co-author of a journal article that characterizes the
rotational flexibility of exposed column base connections. David was the recipient of the AISC Structural
Steel Education Council scholarship in 2009, and the Farrer/Patten Award for outstanding student in Civil
Engineering at UC Davis in 2012.
Geoff Bomba
Mike Cochran
Andrew Cussen
Tom Hale
Walterio López
Sara Jozefiak
Ryan Kersting
Benjamin Mohr
Carrie Leung
Thomas Nunziata
Patxi Uriz
Laura Whitehurst
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during the development of the
document. The Seismology Committee has reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments
and suggestions. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
Standards
American Concrete Institute. ACI 318: Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2011.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 341: Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 358: Prequalified Connections for Special and
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 360: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures. ASCE 2010.
International Code Council. International Building Code (IBC). Falls Church, Virginia, 2012.
Other References
American Institute of Steel Construction. Manual of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2012.
American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic Design Manual, Chicago, Illinois, 2013.
Anonymous, 1977. “Shear walls and slipforming speed Dallas’ Reunion project” Engineering News
Record, 20–21, July 28.
Anonymous, 1978a. “Patent problems, challenge spawn steel seismic walls” Engineering News
Record, 17, January 26.
Anonymous, 1978b. “Quake-proof hospital has battleship-like walls” Engineering News Record,
62–63, Sept. 21.
Astaneh-Asl, A. 2005. “Design of Shear Tab Connections for Gravity and Seismic Loads,” Steel
Technical Information and Product Report. Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.
Basler, K. 1961. “Strength of Plate Girders in Shear” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Vol. 87, No. ST7 October.
Berman, J. W. and Bruneau, M. 2004. “Steel Plate Shear Walls are Not Plate Girders” AISC
Engineering Journal, Third Quarter.
Berman, J. W. and Bruneau, M. 2008. “Capacity Design of Vertical Boundary Elements in Steel
Plate Shear Walls” AISC Engineering Journal, First Quarter.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., and Sabelli, R. Ductile Design of Steel Structures. McGraw-Hill, 2011.
CAN/CSA S16-09 2009. “Limit States Design of Steel Structures,” published by Canadian
Standards Association.
Cheng, J.J.R., and Kulak, G.L. 2000. Gusset plate connection to round HSS tension members.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 4th Quarter, 133–139.
Clifton, C., Bruneau, M., MacRae, G., Leon, R., Russell, A., 2011. “Steel Structures Damage from
the Christchurch Earthquake of February 22, 2011,” NZST, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 4.
DeWolf, J. T., and Ricker, D. T. 1990. AISC Design Guide 1—Column Base Plates, Published by the
American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC.
Engelhardt, M., and Popov, E., 1989. “On Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames,” Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, Vol. 5, No. 3, 495–511.
Fisher, J.M. and Kloiber, L.A. 2006. “Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design,” 2nd Ed., Steel Design
Guide Series No. 1, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Gomez, I.R., Kanvinde A.M., and Deierlein G.G. 2010. “Exposed Column Base Connections
Subjected to Axial Compression and Flexure,” Report Submitted to the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.
Gomez, I.R., Kanvinde, A.M., and Deierlein, G.G. 2011. “Experimental investigation of shear
transfer in exposed column base connections,” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 4th Quarter, 246–264.
ICC/SEAOC 2006. “Design Example 4—Steel Plate Shear Walls”, 2006 IBC Structural/Seismic
Design Manual, Volume 3, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
Imanpour, A., Tremblay, R., and Davaran, A. “Seismic Evaluation of Multi-Panel Steel
Concentrically Braced Frames,” 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
Lehman, D., Roeder, C. 2, Johnston, S. 1, Herman D. 1, and Kotulka, B. 1 2008 “Improved Seismic
Performance of Gusset Plate Connections”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134,
No. 6, 181–189.
Luttrell, Larry D. 1967. “Strength and behavior of light-gage steel shear diaphragms”, Cornell
Research Bulletin 67-1, sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute, Ithaca, NY.
Moehle, Jack P., Hooper, John D., Kelly, Dominic J., and Meyer, Thomas. 2010. “Seismic design
of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms, chords, and collectors: A guide for practicing engineers,”
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief Number 3, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint
Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities
Moore, Kevin S., Feng, Joyce Y., June 2007. “Design of RBS Connections for Special Moment
Frames,” Steel Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California.
Myers, A.T., Kanvinde, A.M., Deierlein, G.G., and Fell B.V. 2009, “Effect of Weld Details on the
Ductility of Steel Column Baseplate Connections,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Volume 65, Issue 6, June 2009, 1366–1373.
Porter, D.M., Rockey, K.C. and Evans, H.R. 1975. “The collapse behavior of plate girders loaded in
shear”, The Structural Engineer, London England, Vol. 53, No. 8., Aug.
Prasad, Badri K., Thompson, Douglas S., and Sabelli, Rafael. 2009. Guide to the design of
diaphragms, chords and collectors based on the 2006 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05, International
Code Council Publications, Country Club Hills, IL.
Purba, R., and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design Recommendations for Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls
Technical Report MCEER-07-0011.
Qu, B., and Bruneau, M. 2010. “Capacity Design of Intermediate Horizontal Boundary Elements of
Steel Plate Shear Walls” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 6.
Ricles, J., and Popov, E., 1989, “Composite Action in Eccentrically Braced Frames,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 8, 2046–2065.
Rogers, C.A. and Tremblay, R. 2008. “Impact of Diaphragm Behavior on the Seismic Design of
Low-Rise Steel Buildings”, AISC Engineering Journal, First Quarter.
Sabelli, R. and Bruneau, M. 2006. AISC Design Guide 20—Steel Plate Shear Walls, Published by
the American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC.
Sabelli, Rafael, Sabol, Thomas A., and Easterling, Samuel W. 2011. “Seismic design of composite
steel deck and concrete-filled diaphragms: A guide for practicing engineers,” NEHRP Seismic
Design Technical Brief Number 5, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture,
a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 10-917-10.
Schumacher, A., Grondin, G.Y. and Kulak, G.L. 1999. “Connection of Infill Panels in Steel Plate
Shear Walls” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 26.
SDI 2004. Diaphragm design manual, Third Edition (SDI DDMO3), Steel Deck Institute, Fox
Grove, IL.
SEAOC Seismology Committee 2007. “Development of System Factors,” May 2007, The SEAOC
Blue Book: Seismic design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008. “Concentrically Braced Frames,” August, 2008, 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
SEAOC Seismology Committee, FEMA 350 Task Group, 2002. “Commentary and
Recommendations on FEMA 350—Appendix D,” Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
Stoakes, C.D., Fahnestock, L.A. “Influence of Weak-axis Flexural Yielding on Strong-axis Buckling
Strength of Wide Flange Columns,” Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural
Stability Research Council, April 2012.
Thornton, W.A., and Fortney, P. 2012, “Satisfying Inelastic Rotation Requirements for In-plane
Critical Axis Brace Buckling for High Seismic Design.” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 49,
No. 3, 3rd Quarter.
Tremblay, R. 2001, “Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames,”
Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 38, No. 3, Chicago, IL.
Tremblay, R., et al. “Seismic Design of Steel Structures in Accordance with CSA-S16-09,” July 25–
29, 2010, Paper No. 1768, Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vian, D., and Bruneau, M. 2005. “Steel Plate Shear Walls for Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Building Structures” Technical Report MCEER 05-0010.
Vian, D., Bruneau, M., Tsai, K.C., and Lin, Y.-C. 2009. “Special Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls
with Reduced Beam Section Anchor Beams 1: Experimental Investigation” Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 3, 211–220.
Wong, Alfred F. “Multi-tier Bracing Panels within a Storey,” Advantage Steel, Canadian Institute of
Steel Construction, No. 43, Summer 2012.
Zayas, V., Mahin, S., Popov, E. “Cyclic Inelastic Behavior of Steel Offshore Structures,” August
1980, Report No. UCB/EERC-80/27 to the American Petroleum Institute, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center & College of Engineering at University of California, Berkeley.
Equation numbers in the right-hand margin refer to the one of the standards (e.g., AISC 341, AISC 358,
AISC 360, ASCE 7). The default standard is given in the heading of each section of each example; equation
numbers in that section refer to that standard unless another standard is explicitly cited.
§ – Section T – Table
F – Figure Eq – Equation
OVERVIEW
Structural steel special moment frames (SMF) are typically comprised of wide-flange beams, columns, and
beam-column connections. Connections are proportioned and detailed to resist internal forces (flexural,
axial, and shear) that result from imposed displacement as a result of wind or earthquake ground shaking.
Inelasticity and energy dissipation are achieved through localized yielding of the beam element outside
of the beam-column connection. Special proportioning and detailing of this connection is essential to
achieving the desired inelastic behavior.
The anticipated seismic behavior of the SMF system is long-period, high-displacement motion, with
well distributed inelastic demand shared by all participating beam-column connections. System yielding
mechanisms are generally limited to frame beams with the intent to invoke yielding at the base of frame
columns. In many cases, engineers may model a SMF system with pin-based columns as significant stiffness
is required to yield the base of large wide-flange members. If yielding at the base of the frame is desired to
occur within the column section, the column might be extended below grade and tied into a basement wall
or a ground-level beam, which is added to create a beam-column connection. Economies of construction
usually limit the size of beam and column elements based on imposed displacement/drift limits.
Design regulations for steel SMF are promulgated in a series of standards: ASCE/SEI 7, ANSI/AISC 341,
ANSI/AISC 358, and ANSI/AISC 360. AISC 358 provides specific regulations related to prequalification
of certain SMF connection types that obviate project-specific testing required by AISC 341. This design
example follows the provisions of AISC 358 for the RBS connection type for the steel SMF seismic-force-
resisting system.
The six-story steel office structure depicted in the figure above has a lateral-force-resisting system
comprising structural steel special moment frames. The typical floor framing plan is shown in Figure 1–1.
A typical frame elevation is depicted in Figure 1–2. This design example utilizes simplifying assumptions
for ease of calculation or computational efficiency. Because bay sizes vary, the example frames can be
designed with different participating bays in each direction, which will result in different sizes of beams and
columns for each frame depending on location. This example explores the design of a single frame and a
single connection of that frame. Assumptions related to base-of-column rotational restraint (assumed fixed),
applied forces (taken from the base example assumptions), and applied wind force (not considered) are all
incorporated into the example in “silent” consideration. Beam and column element sizes were determined
using a linear elastic computer model of the building. These element sizes were determined through iteration
such that code-required drift limits, element characteristics, and strength requirements were met.
While this example is accurate and appropriate for the design of steel SMF structures, different
methodologies for analysis, connection design, and inelastic behavior can be utilized, including the use of
proprietary SMF connection design. This example does not explore every possible option, nor is it intended
to be integrated with other examples in this document (i.e. Base Plate Design, Passive Energy Dissipation).
OUTLINE
4. SMF Frame
• Per Appendix A
䡩 Office occupancy on all floors
䡩 Located in San Francisco, CA, at the latitude and longitude given
䡩 Site Class D
䡩 120 feet × 150 feet in plan with typical floor framing shown in Figure 1–1
䡩 Frame beam and column sizes for lines 1 and 5 (Figure 1–2)
䡲 Beam and column sizes will vary from those on lines A and F
䡩 Six-stories as shown in Figure 1–2
• Structural materials
䡩 Wide-flange shapes ASTM A992 (Fy = 50 ksi)
䡩 Pates ASTM A572, Grade 50
䡩 Weld electrodes E70X-XX
A B C D E F
5 @ 30' – 0'' = 150' – 0''
A B C D E F
TOP OF PARAPET
ROOF W21 X 150 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W21 X 150
6th FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 116 W30 X 116 W30 X 116 W21 X 150
5th FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 132 W30 X 132 W30 X 132 W21 X 150
4th FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 148 W30 X 148 W30 X 148 W21 X 150
3rd FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 173 W30 X 173 W30 X 173 W21 X 150
2nd FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 191 W30 X 191 W30 X 191 W21 X 150
1st FLR
R = 8.0 Ωo = 3 Cd = 5.5
Determine the approximate fundamental building period, Ta, using Section 12.8.2.1:
Ta = 0.86 sec
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T For T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = For T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long-period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long-period transition occurs at 12 sec
(from ASCE 7 Figure 22–12).
1.2
TS = 0.60 sec
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1 SDS = 1.0g
SMF Building Period
0.8 Ta= 0.86 sec, Sa= 0.70g
To= 0.12 sec
Tmax= 1.20 sec, Sa= 0.50g
0.6
Sa= 0.4+5.0T
0.4
Sa= 0.60/T
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 1–3. Design Response Spectrum for the example building
Figure 1–3 depicts the design spectral acceleration determined from T, which is greater than TS , so the
design spectral acceleration Sa is 0.70g.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2 indicates that the fundamental period of the structure “can be established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
analysis,” which might allow a linear elastic modal analysis to suffice. Section 12.8.2, however, limits the
period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta , where Cu is a factor
found in Table 12.8–1. In this case Tmax = 1.4 × 0.86 = 1.20 sec. For preliminary design, the approximate
period, Ta , will be used to design the SMF. As SMF designs are heavily dependent on meeting drift
requirements, the initial value (usually found to be much lower than the period found through mathematical
modeling) will suffice for the first design iteration.
1a. and 1b. Torsional Irregularity—A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift.
Extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift computed including
accidental torsion is more than 1.4 times the average story drift. A static linear elastic
three-dimensional computer analysis is used to obtain the displacement at the corners of the
building. This building has no torsional response, so the difference between the maximum
drift and average drift is 1.0. Table 1–2 provides an example of how one would evaluate the
presence of a torsional irregularity for the earthquake load case in the longitudinal direction
with positive accidental eccentricity and differences between maximum and average drift.
Table 1–2. Story displacements, line 1 and line 5, torsional irregularity check
2. Reentrant corner irregularity exists where both plan projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the
given direction. The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions are 30 feet.
The plan dimensions are 150 feet and 120 feet in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively:
3. to 5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural
irregularities.
1a. to 5b. Calculation for type 1a, 1b, 5a, and 5b may be required for less experienced engineers.
These irregularities consider the stiffness and strength of one story relative to another. If
the story under consideration is less than 70 percent (1a) or 60 percent (1b) of the story
above or 80 percent (1a) or 70 percent (1b) of the average of the three stories above, a
soft-story irregularity will exist. This irregularity does not exist based on the element sizes/
stiffness, identical sizes of frames in each principal direction, the height of the stories, and
the similarity of bay sizes. If the story under consideration is less than 80 percent (5a) or 65
percent (5b) of the story above, a weak-story irregularity will exist. This irregularity does
not exist based on the element sizes, identical sizes of frames in each principal direction, the
relative height of each story, and the similarity of bay sizes. By inspection, the building does
not qualify for any of the vertical structural irregularities, but the engineer is encouraged
to calculate the conditions identified above and described in Table 12.3–2 for this problem.
Other sections of the SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual cover general analysis and
irregularities in more detail.
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the structure is less than
160 feet and has only Type 2 horizontal irregularity—PERMITTED
S DS 10
Cs = = = 0.125 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.087 for T ≤ TL Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T⎜ ⎟ 0 86 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝1 0⎠
and, for structures where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall not be less than:
0 5S1 (0.5)(0.6)
Cs = = = 0.038 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Cs = 0.087
V = 631 kips
According to Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor should be calculated for each principal axis. The
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either 12.3.4.2.a or 12.3.4.2.b is shown to be true, in which case the
Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. 12.3.4.2.a and Table 12.3–3 requires that for each story resisting
more than 35 percent of the base shear, loss of moment resistance at the beam-to-column connections at
both ends of a single beam would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity.
Section 12.3.4.2.a can be satisfied by showing that each story does not resist more than 35 percent of the
base shear (a taller, well-distributed frame design). Indeed, this is the case for this structure as evinced later
in the example; therefore, the Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0.
Section 12.3.4.2.b can be considered as follows. There are total of six bays of moment frame in the
longitudinal direction and four bays of moment frame in the transverse direction; thus, by inspection,
removal of an individual frame beam and its rigid connections will not result in more than a 33 percent
reduction in story strength (1/4 = 25 percent). The second condition needs to be confirmed by rigid
diaphragm analyses by removing individual moment beams and checking whether an extreme torsional
irregularity is produced. Frames can be designed with different elements in each direction, reducing the
influence of this provision. From the three-dimensional linear elastic static computer analysis, single-beam
elements can be changed to “pinned” to confirm that an extreme torsional irregularity does not exist. Since
the example satisfies the requirement promulgated in Section 12.3.4.2.a, Table 1–3 is superfluous and not
an actual representation of the building response, but it provides an example for how one might check for
extreme torsion with the analysis results from a model with a single moment beam removed:
Table 1–3. Story displacements, lines 1, 5, A, and F, extreme torsional irregularity check (illustrative)
δx at δx at δy at δx at
Line 1 Line 5 δavg Line A Line F δavg
Story (in) (in) (in) δmax/δavg Story (in) (in) (in) δmax/δavg
STORY6 10.7 7.65 9.20 1.17 STORY6 15.8 11.00 13.40 1.18
STORY5 9.82 6.48 8.15 1.20 STORY5 14.3 10.5 12.4 1.16
STORY4 8.27 5.35 6.81 1.21 STORY4 12.0 9.44 10.7 1.12
STORY3 6.15 4.89 5.52 1.11 STORY3 8.86 7.22 8.04 1.10
STORY2 3.69 3.01 3.35 1.10 STORY2 5.26 4.51 4.89 1.08
STORY1 1.32 1.25 1.29 1.03 STORY1 1.85 1.80 1.83 1.01
See Appendix 1 for the derivation of combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2SDS = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the SMF are §12.4.2.3
The terms used in Table 1–4 are defined in Section 12.8.3 and are presented in a rounded form taken from
spreadsheet calculations (values will not be duplicated by hand calculation of Table 1–4). Since the
period = 0.86 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for
T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.18. The distribution of story shear is carried out using
wx hxk
Fx = CvxV, where, Cvx = n
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
A B C D E F
5 @ 30' – 0'' = 150' – 0''
±6' – 0''
ACC.
TORSION
4
C.M.
C.R.
3
2
±7' – 6'' ACC.
TORSION TORSION
As shown in Figure 1–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building.
(While not precisely true, the example building is very well behaved and torsional response is non-existent
so the coincident C.M and C.R. is not an unrealistic assumption.) To distribute the load to each SMF, the
story shear, Fi , is applied in the X and Y directions. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the
story shear is offset 5 percent to account for accidental eccentricity. This example designs all SMFs in the
X direction the same as the SMFs in the Y direction. However, for this illustration, a generic stiffness K
is used for all frames, and the assumption is made that frames have different stiffness in each direction as
shown. Each frame bay is described in Table 1–5 by using the gridline location of the frame (A, F, 1, 5) and
the gridline that intersects the frame line of interest (23, 34, BC, CD, DE).
X-Direction
Frame Dir Ry x Rx y d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Vdirect Vtorsion Vacc. tors Vtotal
A23 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
A34 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
F23 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.01Fi
F34 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.01Fi
1BC X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
1CD X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
1DE X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
5BC X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
5CD X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
5DE X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39,780 K
Y-Direction
Frame Dir Ry x Rx y d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Vdirect Vtorsion Vacc. tors Vtotal
A23 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.24Fi
A34 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.24Fi
F23 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.26Fi
F34 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.26Fi
1BC X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
1CD X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
1DE X 0.8 K −60.00 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
5BC X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi
5CD X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi
5DE X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39,780 K
The following calculations find the force in SMF along line F for shear in the X direction:
Ry
Vdirect Fi = 0 25Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M acc. tors Fi × ( .05 × 150) = 7.5Fi ;
M acc. tor Rx y 7 5Fi × 75 K
Facc. tors = = = 0 011Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
39,780 K
M tor Rx y 0 Fi × 75 K
Ftors = = = 0 00 Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
39,780 K
M tors Fi × 0 = 0 Fi ;
Ftotala Fdiirect
r t
+ Facc. tor Fttorsion
i
= 0 26 Fi
Table1–7 shows that the maximum design force for any frame bay is 0.26 times the force at that level. The
rest of this example focuses on the design of the SMF along line F.
The layout of the lateral system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior as well as provide
reasonable redundancy. The layout for SMFs is constrained by the limitation of column alignment and uni-
axial connections (SMF beams aligned along a single column cross-sectional axis), which can sometimes
require discreet bays and frame lines. This example lends itself to the layout shown previously, which
tends to obviate any torsional response and related forces and/or penalties for unbalanced layouts. In some
designs, it may be desirable to design SMF connections in a bi-axial arrangement; only specific connection
types (prequalified or tested) may be utilized for bi-axial applications. Treatment of this complicated
condition is beyond the scope of this example.
SMF design is highly influenced by drift limits. Some augmentative structural elements can be used to help
keep drifts low (i.e. dampers) or SMF can be used in conjunction with stiffer systems, increasing redundancy
and seismic resilience while meeting strict drift limits (i.e. dual systems). However, SMF can be designed to
meet required drift limits without the assistance of other structural elements. The engineer should consider
cost, constructability, anticipated performance, and client influence when weighing the use of SMF with or
without supplemental systems. This example examines only the design of SMF. The elastic story drifts are
the difference in the elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The maximum predicted inelastic story
drift (based on elastic story drift extracted from the linear elastic analysis model described earlier without
any modification of ground motion) is given by the following for the second story along line F:
Cd δ xe
δx = and Δ = δ x δ x −1 Eq 12.8–15 and F 12.8–2
Ie
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system (SMF), > four stories in height
and the Risk Category (II):
Δ Δ a → DRIFT IS OK
When the engineer is calculating lateral deflections for drift analysis, Section 12.8.6.1 provides an
exception that removes the lower limit on Cs , specified in Section 12.8.1.1 in determining seismic design
forces. This exception allows a recalculation of T without consideration of the upper limit on the period
(CuTa) as required by Section 12.8.2 (per Section 12.8.6.2). Therefore, the period calculated in the linear
elastic model described above can be used without modification (Tx and Ty below).
Without the lower limit on Cs , the design base shear per Equation 12.8–3 is
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0 06 Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 35 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Vx = CsW = (0.06)(7256 kips) = 403 kips Eq 12.8–1
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0 05 Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 64 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Vx = CsW = (0.05)(7256 kips) = 332 kips. Eq 12.8–1
Using these modified design base shears, the force distribution to each level is adjusted and applied to the
output from the computer model. The structure displacement, drift ratios, and stability coefficients are
derived as shown in Table 1–9.
Px ΔII e
θ= Eq 12.8–16
Vs hssx Cd
where
0.5
θmax = ≤ 0.25 Eq 12.8–17
a
βCd
where β is the ratio of shear demand to shear capacity for the story between Levels x and x − 1, which
can be taken conservatively as 1.0. When the stability coefficient θ exceeds 0.10 but is less than θmax, the
incremental factor related to P–Δ effects on displacements and member forces shall be determined by
rational analysis, or displacements and member forces can be multiplied by1.0/(1 − θ). If θ is greater than
θmax, the structure is potentially unstable and shall be redesigned.
A review of drift ratios tabulated in Table 1–9 shows that all interstory drift ratios are less than 0.020 using
seismic forces corresponding to the actual period, T, in base shear Equation 12.8–1. Stability coefficients
are all less than 0.10, so P–Δ effects need not be considered. However, AISC 358 indicates that the global
drift consideration of reduced beam section (RBS) SMF design must consider the reduced stiffness
associated with the reduced beam section. The actual reduction in stiffness could be calculated and included
in the mathematical model to determine “accurate” story drifts based on increased beam flexibility.
However, a general value of system stiffness can be used to simplify the design and is allowed to be taken
as 1.1 times the elastic story drift for a 50 percent flange reduction per AISC 358 Section 5.8, Step 1. Using
this approach for the maximum drift ratio, the revised drift ratio is
Most published reference documents (Bozorgnia, 2004; Moore, 2007) recommend a mathematical model
using centerline-to-centerline dimensions of framing members while also allowing for realistic assumptions
for the stiffness of panel zones or modification of the effective span length for beams and columns to more
accurately model frame stiffness. Many different analyses using different computer software, beam-column
joint models, and other parametric considerations indicate that a centerline analysis (assuming no panel
zone stiffness) represents a reasonable assumption for the majority of steel special moment frame designs.
This assumption allows for balanced connection behavior. This simplified analysis assumption (center-to-
center modeling of frame elements) with a 10 percent increase on expected elastic story drift is generally
acceptable for the design of steel SMF in the static linear elastic analysis/design regime and has been used
to determine the displacements and forces extracted for this example problem.
In this part of the design example, representative SMF beam and column members of Frame 1 are designed
in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10. SMF structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D are to conform
to the requirements of the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341). This
example problem uses the RBS SMF connection type.
Steel moment frame designs are typically drift controlled. Frame members are chosen to provide sufficient
stiffness to meet drift limits imposed by the model building code as described above, in this case IBC
2012, which relies upon limits promulgated in ASCE/SEI 7-10. The selected members are then checked for
SMF member design requirements per AISC 341. The selection of beam-column combinations must also
conform to the connection limitations set forth in AISC 358 and AISC 360 as appropriate. After confirming
that drift limitations were reasonably satisfied through selection of beam and column members to determine
acceptable system performance, the W30 × 132 beam at the fifth floor, line 1, and the W33 × 221 column
that comprises an interior connection at line C (see box on connection in Figure 1–2) were chosen to
illustrate this design example.
AISC 341 Chapter A indicates the material specification and strength properties for steel members used in
seismic-force-resisting systems. Where the term “expected strength” is used, the value is to be taken as
Fye = (Ry)(Fy).
The “lower bound” strength is the minimum specified yield strength, Fy.
The fifth-floor beam in Frame 1 is selected to illustrate SMF beam design. This W30 × 132 beam is shown
in Figure 1–5.
C C
30' – 0''
W30 x 132
VL 5TH
VR
FLOOR
ML MR
From a review of the computer output prepared in support of this design example, the moments and shears
at the right end of the beam are greatest. The unfactored moments and shears at the face of the column at
line D are
Seismic forces identified above include both vertical and horizontal components Ev and Eh. The vertical
component, Ev, is added to the dead load in Equation 12.4–1 and subtracted from the dead load in
Equation 12.4–2:
Using the Seismic Load Combinations, Basic Combinations for Strength Design of Section 12.4.2.3:
Prior to evaluating demand/capacity ratios for member strength, SMF beams must be checked for stability
and proportions per AISC 358, 5.3, which references AISC 341 for limiting width-thickness ratios for
elements subjected to compression forces.
b bf E 29,000 ksi
= ≤03 =03 = 7.22. AISC 341, T D1.1
t 2t f Fy 50 ksi
bf
For W30 × 132: = 5 27 7.22 . . . OK
2t f
However, if the section did not pass b/t criteria, then per AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 (6) for RBS connections,
bf may be measured at the end of the center two-thirds of the reduced beam section, provided that gravity
loads do not shift the plastic hinge location a significant distance from the center of the reduced section.
Check the web width-thickness ratio, confirming that the beam is a highly ductile member:
h
for Ca 5; 5 / y (1 − 0.. Ca )
/F AISC 341, T D1.1
tw
Pu 66 k
Ca = = = 0.038
038 < 0.125, soo Ca (foot
f tnotte [d ])
φc Py 0.9(50 ksi)(38.8
.8 i 2 )
h
≤ 2.455 E Fy = 59 0.
tw
h
For W30 × 132: = 43.99 < 59 0 . . . OK
tw
Check beam depth, weight and span-to-depth ratio limits per AISC 358, Section 5.3:
Check beam lateral bracing requirements per AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 (7), which references AISC 341,
Section D1.2b. Note that per the exception in AISC 358 Section 5.3.1 (7), beams supporting a concrete
structural slab that is connected between the protected zones with welded shear connectors spaced at a
maximum of 12 inches on center do not require supplemental top and bottom flange bracing at the RBS.
As this is the case in most conditions (and assumed for this example), bracing will be considered under the
auspices of AISC 341, Section D1.2b:
⎛M C ⎞
Pbr = 0 02 ⎜ r d ⎟ AISC 360, Eq A-6–7
⎝ ho ⎠
Mr = RyZeFy, where Ry = 1.1. AISC 341 §D1.2a and T A3.1
The length of the brace is assumed to be measured from the centerline of the W30 × 132 to the centerline of
the adjacent gravity beam. Assuming 10-foot beam spacing, the length of the brace is
2
⎛ ⎛ 12 in ⎞ ⎞
L = ⎜( f )⎜ + 30.3 i 2
= 124 in = 10.3 ft
⎝ ⎝ ft ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
Based on the Manual of Structural Steel Construction, a L4 × 4 × 3⁄8 as an eccentrically loaded single angle
will be examined:
φc Pn = 16.3 kips ~ 16.4 kips (using 11-foot length and Zx instead of Ze) AISC Manual T 4–12
AISC 360 states that a minimum stiffness is also required to provide adequate lateral bracing (A-6–8). This
type of brace is considered a nodal brace, providing a rigid brace support, so the required brace stiffness is
1 10 M r Cd
β br = AISC 360, Eq A-6–8
ϕ Lb ho
where
φ = 0.75
Mr = Ry ZeFy (however, Zx will be used to estimate bracing)
= 1.1(437 in3)(50 ksi) = 24,035 kip-in = 2003 ft-k
Cd = 1.0
Lb = 10.3 ft = 124 in
ho = db − tf = 30.3 in − 1.0 in = 29.3 in
10(24 0355 kip i )(1.0)
β br = = 88.2 k/in
k
0.75(124 in)(29.3 i )
Ag E
K= cos2 θ
L
⎛ 30.3 in ⎞
a −1 ⎜
θ = tan = 13.7
⎝ 124 in ⎟⎠
⎛ ( .86 2 )(29,000 ksi) ⎞
K =⎜ ⎟(
2
.7) = 631 k/in
⎝ 124 in ⎠
K > βbr . . . OK.
L4 × 4 × 3⁄8 kickers provided at 7.5 feet on center to brace the beam bottom flange to the top flange of an
adjacent steel beam meet lateral bracing requirements.
The W30 × 132 beam meets stability and proportion criteria; next, check the design flexural strength
(LRFD) per AISC 360.
E
Lp 1.76ry = 7.95 ft > 7 5 ft ∴ M n M p = Fy Z x . AISC 360, Eq F2–5
Fy
Design Flexural Strength (conservative assumption): φbMp = 19,680 kip-in. AISC, T 3–6
4055 k-in
= 0 21
2 < 1.0 . . . OK.
19,680
6 k-in
Note: The W30 × 132 beam is larger than required by strength considerations as calculated from
prescriptive load combinations. However, given the constraints of meeting frame drift limits, it is a
reasonable choice for this design. Limitations related to beam-column connection design and reduced beam
section parameters guided the size of beam selected.
The column to be designed is the second-lift column of Frame 1 (line C) as shown in Figure 1–2 and
Figure 1–6. The maximum strong axis moments occur at the bottom of the column and are taken at the
top flange of the fifth-floor beam. For brevity, the example will look at critical conditions affecting design,
omitting the many different inconsequential demand values that are determined for the various analyses,
including out of plane bending loads, external wind forces, etc.
5TH
FLOOR
4TH
FLOOR
W33 X 318
For the fourth-story column at line 4, the maximum unfactored column forces generated by the frame
computer analysis are
Seismic forces identified above include both vertical and horizontal components Ev and Eh. The vertical
component, Ev, is added to the dead load in Equation 12.4–1 and subtracted from the dead load in
Equation 12.4–2:
Using the Seismic Load Combinations, Basic Combinations for Strength Design of Section 12.4.2.3:
b bf E 29,000 ksi
= ≤03 =03 = 7.22 AISC 341, T D1.1
t 2t f Fy 50 ksi
bf
For W33 × 221: = 6 2 < 7.22 . . . OK.
2t f
Pu 294
Ca = = = 0 10
φc Py 0 9 ⋅ 50 ksi ⋅ 65.3 in 2
h
tw
≤ 2.45
5
E
Fy
(1 − 0.93C
93Ca ) = 2.45
45
29,000 ksi
50 ksi
(1 − (0.93)()0.. 0) ) 53.5
for W33 × 211: h/tw = 38.5 < 53.5. AISC 341, T D1.1
Check column depth, weight, and span-to-depth ratio limits per AISC 358 Section 5.3:
Unbraced column height (taken from top of framing at bottom to mid-depth of beam at top):
As SMFs are usually governed by stiffness criteria, most of the frame stability checks are superfluous
related to the large members required to provide adequate stiffness. Much effort can be expended on frame
stability checks and column capacity checks, but in general these systems fall well within limits of stability
and strength. Other documents (e.g. AISC Seismic Design Manual) provide exhaustive treatment of these
issues, but generally checking the columns for combined flexure/compression is adequate. Therefore, the
combined stresses for the critical load combination is
Pr 386 k
= = 0 13 < 0.2
Pc 2939 k
Pr M 386 5587
+ rx = + = 0 22 < 1 0. AISC 360, Eq H1–1b
2 Pc M cx (2)(0.9)(2939) 38,520
h E 29,000 ksi
≤ 2.24 = 2.24 = 54.0
tw Fy 50 ksi
h
Since = 38.5
tw
Column flange bracing must also be considered and is addressed in Part 6 below.
Note: The W33 × 221 is not necessarily an optimum size based on strength and local or global stability.
The size was chosen to meet drift requirements with consideration toward connection design limitations
and costs associated with the beam-column connection. A more refined optimization could result from a
number of detailed iterations, but this size is adequate for illustration of the design example.
The column-beam relationship must satisfy limitations identified in AISC 358 Sections 5.4 through 5.7.
Section 5.4 requires that panel zones conform to the requirements of AISC 341 and that the column-beam
moment ratios are limited to conform to the requirements of AISC 341, with some prescriptive conditions
associated with calculating the ratio of column-beam moments. Section 5.5 requires that SMF beam flanges
are connected to column flanges using complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds and that the welds
and access hole geometry conform to the requirements of AISC 341 and AISC 360 respectively. Section 5.6
requires that the beam web provide the required shear strength according to Equation 5.8–9 and that the
SMF beam web be connected to the column flange using a CJP groove weld extending between weld access
holes. Section 5.7 defines some very specific conditions associated with the fabrication of flange cuts and
repair of gouges and notches. These requirements should be clearly identified in contract documents to
ensure that the quality of the connection is attained and maintained consistent with the AISC provisions.
The RBS connection is a pre-qualified connection type per AISC 358. This design example follows the
procedure outlined in AISC 358 with reference to AISC 341 and AISC 360.
The following calculations comprise a design methodology that is inherently iterative and requires some
experience to gain proficiency. After considering code drift limits and evaluating several combinations for
strong column-weak beam and panel zone strength criteria, the combination of a W30 × 132 beam and
W33 × 221 column was selected for use in this design example. Note that the “allowance” for using deep
columns is a relatively recent development based on various research (Ricles et al, 2004; Uang et al, 2001).
The chosen frame members were shown to have adequate strength to resist the factored load combinations
(Parts 5.3 and 5.4), and this combination of beam and column sizes in the computer analysis results
in overall frame drifts within the code limits (Part 4). The W33 × 221 column was chosen to elucidate
consideration of deep columns, while providing an efficient frame design (based on drift limits). However,
an increase in column size might be warranted to obviate the need for doubler plates and possibly reduce
the cost of the frame considering fabrication costs. The connection detailing might also give rise to consider
different frame elements. When given the option, steel fabricators often request to use heavier columns in
lieu of installing doubler plates for economy. But, in light of these requests, the designer must consider
the actual realized savings when replacing fame elements. For example, if a W14 shape is selected for this
frame (instead of the W33 proposed), the comparable column is W14 × 665, an element more than three
times heavier than the selected column. In addition to connection detailing, necessary preheat for all welds,
required inspection, and the fabrication and inspection associated with column-splice details would all
drastically increase. Column splices in SMFs must comply with AISC 341 Section D2.5 (which is beyond
the scope of this example). The detrimental effects of using very heavy columns might be most evident
when executing a very complicated and expensive CJP weld at the column splice. These types of system
considerations are important when determining the final sizes appropriate for a steel SMF. The focus for
the following section will be on the design of the reduced beam section (RBS) connection and associated
design details that are appropriate for the chosen sizes.
Establish plastic hinge configuration and location AISC 358, §5.8, Step 1
The fundamental design intent expressed in the AISC 358 design procedure for RBS is to move the
plastic hinge away from the weld between the beam flange and column flange. This physical relocation of
the plastic hinge region is accomplished by providing a defined reduced beam section located at a pre-
determined distance away from the column flange (Figure 1–7).
AISC 358 Section 5.8 identifies specific limitations for the dimensions associated with the radius cut for the
reduced beam section.
Sh
COL HINGE
bf FOR FLANGE
COMPACTNESS,
SEE PART 5a
center 2/3
a b
W30 × 132
and
The initial estimate for the depth of the cut, c, should be made such that 40 to 50 percent of the flange is
removed. This should limit the projection of moments at the face of the column to within 90 to 100 percent
of the plastic capacity of the full beam section.
c = 0.45 bf /2 = 2.36 in
= 23⁄8-in cut, (2.38 in/10.5 in) = 0.23bf < 0.25bf . . . OK.
Use c = 2.38 in
4c 2 b 2 4 ⋅ 2.382 + 24 2
R= = = 31.5 in (radius of the flange cut).
8c 8(2.38)
The plastic hinge may be assumed to occur at the center of the curved cut such that
Sh = a + b/2 = 7 + (24/2) = 19 in
and
L = 30.0 ft = 360 in
L′ = L − dc − 2(Sh); (this assumes columns are the same size at each end of beam)
L′ = (360 in) − 33.9 in − 2(19 in) = 288 in.
The length between the plastic hinges, L′ (see Figure 1–8), is used to determine forces at the critical
sections for connection analysis.
L'
PLASTIC DRIFT
HINGES ANGLE
Determine plastic section modulus at the reduced beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 2
The plastic section modulus at the center of the reduced beam section is calculated as
Determine probable maximum moment at the reduced beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 3
Next, the probable plastic moment at the reduced beam section, Mpr, is calculated as
The factor Cpr accounts for peak connection strength, including strain hardening, local restraint, additional
reinforcement, and other connection conditions.
Fy Fu
C pr = ≤ 1.2 AISC 358, Eq 2.4.3–2
Fy
50 ksi + 65 ksi
C pr = = 1.15
2 ⋅ 50 ksi
Mpr = (1.15)(1.1)(50)(298) = 18,849 kip-in.
The value for Mpr must be such that the projected moment demand at the face of the column Mf , is less than
the expected strength of the full beam section; this condition is verified in Part 6e below.
Compute the shear force at the center of each RBS AISC 358, §5.8, Step 4
Determine the shear force at the center of the reduced beam sections at each end of the beam. AISC 358
Section 5.8 requires that the shear force at the center of the reduced beam section is determined by a free-
body diagram of the portion of the beam between the centers of the reduced beam sections assuming the
moment at the center of each RBS is Mpr, and shall include gravity loads acting on the beam based on a
specific load combination: 1.2D + f1L + 0.2S (where f1 = 0.5). (Figure 1–9 and Figure 1–10)
L'
Mpr Mpr
Vpr Vpr
Figure 1–9. Beam equilibrium under the probable plastic moment Mpr
( )( M pr ) ( )( kip i )
Vpr = = = 131 kips
L′ 288 in
VRBS Vpr + Vp ′ = Vpr
d VRBS Vp
Vp = VD+L(L′/L)
Vp = 11.7 kips (288 in/360 in) = 9.36 kips
VRBS 131 kip 9 36 kip ′ S = 131
d VRBS 3 kips − 9 36 kips
VRBS 140 kip ′ = 122 kips.
d VRBS
Compute the probable maximum moment at the face of the column AISC 358, §5.8, Step 5
RBS
Vu
Mf Mf
Vu
VRBSMpr
Sh = a + 2b
Figure 1–10. Free-body diagram between center of RBS and face of column (AISC 358, Fig. 5.2)
In this example (as in many actual applications), the moment attributable to the gravity load applied
between the plastic hinge and the face of the column flange is negligible (< 0.5%): therefore, it is omitted
and only briefly considered when comparing Mpe to Mf .
Compute the expected plastic moment of the beam AISC 358, §5.8, Step 6
To compute the plastic moment of the beam based on the expected yield stress of the beam material,
compute Mpe as
Check that Mf does not exceed d Mpe AISC 358, §5.8, Step 7
If Mf exceeds φd Mpe, the depth of cut at the reduced beam section (c) should be increased, but not to
exceed a 50 percent total reduction of the beam flange. The difference between Mpe and Mf is greater than
0.5 percent, so the omission of the gravity load between the plastic hinge and the face of the column flange
is acceptable.
Determine the required shear strength of the beam and beam web-to-column connection from the following
equation:
( )( M pr )
Vu = + Vgrav AISC 358, Eq 5.8–9
L′ r ity
where
The design shear strength of the beam is checked in accordance with AISC 360, Chapter G. This calculation
was performed as part of the beam design (Part 5c). The shear strength of the W30 × 132 beam was
determined to be 559 kips. Therefore, the beam is adequate to resist the shear demand at any location along
the beam length, as the calculation considers the beam web only.
Design the beam web-to-column connection according to AISC 358 Section 5.6 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 9
This check references AISC 358 Section 5.6. Section 5.6 indicates that the strength of the beam web-to-
column connection strength must be determined in accordance with Equation 5.8–9. Furthermore, the
following description (from AISC 358) identifies the only allowable detailing for the beam web-to-column
connection:
For SMF systems, the beam web shall be connected to the column flange using a CJP groove
weld extending between weld access holes. The single plate shear connection shall be permitted
to be used as backing for the CJP groove weld. The thickness of the plate shall be at least 3⁄8 in
(10 mm). Weld tabs are not required at the ends of the CJP groove weld at the beam web. Bolt
holes in the beam web for the purpose of erection are permitted.
Because the beam web-to-column connection is made with a CJP groove weld, the shear capacity of the
weld is greater than or equal to the shear capacity of the beam, so no further checks are required to verify
the adequacy of this condition.
Check continuity plate requirements according to AISC 358 Chapter 2 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 10
This check references AISC 358 Chapter 2, 2.4.4. Section 2.4.4 identifies the following equation (via
AISC 341 Section E3.6f) for use in determining the need for continuity plates and the thickness of the
plates if they are required by calculation.
When the beam flange connects to the flange of a wide-flange or built-up I-shaped column having a
thickness that satisfies Equations 2.4.4–1 and 2.4.4–2, continuity plates need not be provided.
where tcf = minimum required thickness (inches) of column flange when no continuity plates are provided.
Per AISC 358 Section 2.4 (AISC 341 Section E3.6f) the thickness of the plates is determined as follows:
(a) For one-sided (exterior) connections, continuity plate thickness shall be at least one-half of the
thickness of the beam flange.
(b) For two-sided (interior) connections, the continuity plate thickness shall be at least equal to the
thicker of the two beam flanges on either side of the column.
Continuity plates shall also conform to the requirements of Section J10 of the AISC specification. The
requirements of AISC 360 Section J10 pertain to detailing/sizing of the continuity plates. The thickness
requirements listed above combined with the detailing requirements of AISC 360 Section J10 ensures that
the continuity plate has adequate strength.
The detailing for the continuity plates dictates some of the verifying calculations associated with the
continuity plate, including the welded connections between the continuity plate and the column flanges and
web. The following detailing provisions (AISC 358 Section 3.6) affect plate design:
Along the web, the corner clip shall be detailed so that the clip extends a distance of at least
11⁄2 in (38 mm) beyond the published kdet dimension for the rolled shape. Along the flange, the
plate shall be clipped to avoid interference with the fillet radius of the rolled shape and shall
be detailed so that the clip does not exceed a distance of 1⁄2 in (12 mm) beyond the published k1
dimension. The clip shall be detailed to facilitate suitable weld terminations for both the flange
weld and the web weld. When a curved corner clip is used, it shall have a minimum radius of
1
⁄2 in (12 mm).
Using these requirements, the projected contact area between the edge of the continuity plate and the
column flange and column web are
Apb = (Wpb)(tcont−pl)
Wpb = bcont−pl − (“k1col” + 0.25 in).
The continuity plate width (Wpb−flange) can be determined considering the required strength at the projected
bearing surface as identified in AISC 360 Section J7, using φ factors for nonductile limit states (φ = 0.9) per
AISC 358 Section 2.4.1:
If the width available within the column section (between the column web and the edge of the column
flange) limits the total available width for bearing, the following can be used to size the thickness of the
continuity plate:
bcf − tcw
Wpb (max) = = 7.51 in
2
Wpb = Wpb(max) − (“k1col” + 0.25 in) = 7.51 − (1.1875 + 0.25) = 6.07 in
Apb 9.06
Apb (Wpb )(tcont − pl ) tcont − pl = = 1.49 in; say tcont−pl = 1.5 in.
Wpb 6.07
Therefore, use two pairs of 11⁄2-inch × 71⁄2-inch continuity plates in the column aligned with the top and
bottom beam flanges.
In addition to the size of the continuity plate, the attachment/welding of the continuity plate shall meet the
criteria established in AISC 341, E3.6f(3):
Continuity shall be welded to column flanges using CJP groove welds. Continuity plates shall
be welded to column webs using groove welds or fillet welds. The required strength of the
sum of the welded joints of the continuity plates to the column web shall be the smallest of the
following:
(a) The sum of the design strengths in tension of the contact areas of the continuity plates
to the column flanges that have attached beam flanges
(b) The design strength in shear of the contact area of the plate with the column web
(d) The sum of the expected yield strengths of the beam flanges transmitting force to the
continuity plates
No design calculations are required for continuity plate to column flange portion of the connection.
However, the connection between the continuity plate and column web should be calculated to determine
an appropriate weld for this connection.
The maximum contact area between the continuity plate and the column web is
Apw = [dc − 2tcf − 2(k + 1.5 in)](1.5 in) = [33.9 − 2(1.28) − 2(2.06 + 1.5)](1.5 in) = 36.3 in2.
The tension strength of the continuity plate is limited by the connection strength between the edge of
the continuity plate and the face of the column flange. This condition is expressed in the limitations for
welding required between the continuity plate and the column web. The following calculations identify
the controlling case (minimum value of the four cases) for the required strength of the continuity plate-to-
column web welds.
The smallest value is 815 kips, which will be used to design the welds between the continuity plate and the
column web.
The minimum required double-sided fillet weld size to develop 815 kips follows.
Ru
Dmin =
( )( .392 k ) dc tccf k 1.5 in]
815
= = 10.19 (16ths fillet).
(2)(1.392 k ) /i 33.9 − (2)(1.28) − (2)(2.06) + 1.5 in
i ]
The designer could use double-sided 5⁄8-inch fillet welds (within 2 percent of required size) to connect
the continuity plates to the column web. However, PJP preparation costs are not significant and often less
expensive than filler metal placement, so it may be more economical to use an equivalently sized PJP weld
or a CJP groove weld between the continuity plate and the column web. The most economical solution can
be determined through a conversation with the project structural-steel fabricator.
Check column panel zone according to AISC 358, Section 5.4 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 11
The panel zone strength is calculated below using the provisions of AISC 341 SectionE3.6e. The panel
zone shear calculation is derived by projecting the expected moments at the beam plastic hinges to the face
of the column, assuming points of inflection at the column mid-height between floors. (Figure 1–11)
ΣM
Mf 38,040 kip-in
Ru = − Vc = − 264 kiips 03 kips
(d b tbbff (30.3 − 1.0) in
The panel zone shear strength is determined from AISC 360, J10.6 for Pr less than 0.75Pc
⎛ 3bcf tcf2 ⎞
φ φ0 6 Fy dc t w ⎜ 1 + ⎟ AISC 360, Eq J10–11
y
⎜⎝ d b dc t w ⎟⎠
where:
For the W33 × 221 column, the panel zone shear strength is
⎛ 3(( 5.8)(1.. 2 ) ⎞
φRy = ( .0)(0.6)(50)( .9)(0. ) 1 + = 870 kips
⎝ (30 7 ) ⎟⎠
3 .3)(33.9)(0.78
φRy < Ru = 870 kips < 1034 kips N G. Doubler plates or thicker column web indicated.
The W33 × 221 column panel zone strength (without doubler plates) is not adequate when matched with
the W30 × 132 beam. However, the panel zone is 84.1 percent of the required strength without doubler
plates. This difference may be adequate considering the anticipated behavior of the connection (balanced
yielding in beam and column panel zone), but it does not strictly comply with code regulations. If the
panel zone must be strengthened, and if doubler plates are used in lieu of increasing the column size, then
compliance with AISC 341 Section 6e(3) is required.
The minimum panel zone thickness, tz, is also checked per AISC Section 341, E3.6e.(2).
(d z wz )
T≥ AISC 341, Eq E3–7
90
where:
Check moment ratio according to AISC Section E3.4a AISC 358, §5.8, Step 12
The moment ratio is checked in accordance with AISC Section E3.4a, with special attention paid to the
definition of M *pc and how the engineer derives the summation of nominal beam and column flexural
strengths. Mpc is projected to the centerline of the beam to compute M *pc . The difference between Mpc and
M *pc is the column shear multipled by the distance from the flange of the beam to the centerline of the beam
(Figure 1–17). The cruciform is defined by the assumed inflection point in the column(s) and the center of
the beam(s) RBS (Figure 1–13).
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
V'RBS = 122k
VRBS = 140k
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
M'pb-I M'pb-r
M'RBS MRBS
V'RBS VRBS
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ 33.9 ⎞
M *pb −l M pr + (VRBS
′ ) Sh + c ⎟ = 18,849 kip i + (122 k) 19 in + in ⎟ = 23,2355 kip-in
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ 33.9 ⎞
M *pb −r = M pr + (VRBS ) Sh + c ⎟ = 18,849 kip i + (140 k ) ⎜ 19 in + in ⎟ = 23,882 kip-in
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Σ *pb = 23,235 + 23,882 = 47,117 kip-in
ΣM
M pc −t
Vcol−t =
db
ht −
2
M pc −t
Vcol− b =
db
hb −
2
⎛d ⎞ ⎛M ⎞ ⎛d ⎞
pc −t
M *pc −tt M pc t + Vcol −tt ⎜ b ⎟ = M pc −t + ⎜ ⎟ b
⎝ 2⎠ ⎜ d b ⎟ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
⎜⎝ht − 2 ⎟⎠
⎛M ⎞
⎛d ⎞ pc − b ⎛ d b ⎞
M *pc −bb M pc b + Vcol −bb ⎜ b ⎟ = M pc − b + ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2⎠ ⎜ d b ⎟ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
⎜⎝hb − 2 ⎟⎠
⎛ H ⎞
ΣM *pc = M *pc −tt + M *pc
Σ pc b
2 M pc ⎜ ⎟
⎝ H db ⎠
Mpc = 37,776in-k
M'pc
M'pc
Mpc = 37,776in-k
Vcol-t
ht – db
2
db
Mpc – b
hb – db
2
Vcol-b
ΣM *pc
Is > 1.0 ?
ΣM *pb
ΣM *pc 95,687
6 k-in
= = 2.03 . . . OK.
ΣM *pb
47,117 k-in
Per AISC 358 Section 5.3.2, lateral bracing of columns shall conform to requirements of AISC 341.
To preclude SMF column members from lateral torsional buckling AISC 341 Section E3.4c.(1)(1) specifies
requirements for column flange bracing. The W33 × 221 column has a perpendicular beam framing into
it at each level providing out-of-plane joint restraint. At the beam top flange, the concrete slab effectively
provides bracing for the column flange. The column flanges therefore need to be laterally braced at the
beam bottom flange only if AISC 341 Equation 3–1 is not greater than 2.0.
ΣM *pc
≥ 2.0
ΣM *pb
ΣM *pc 95,687
6 k-in
= = 2.03 . . . OK.
ΣM *pb
47,117 k-in
The column flanges, therefore, do not need lateral bracing at the beam bottom flange. If bracing were
required, it may be provided by perpendicular beams connected to full-depth stiffeners and column
continuity plates. When bracing is provided, it must be designed for a required strength that is equal to
2 percent of the available beam flange strength, as appropriate.
Welding parameters
Parameters for pre-qualified welded joints are presented in AISC 358 Chapter 3. The requirements
identified in AISC 358 reference AISC 341. The requirements for welding are clearly outlined in AISC 341
Chapter I Section I2.3, which references AWS D1.8.
Specific protocols associated with weld backing and weld tabs are described in AISC 358 Chapter 3 and
AISC 341 Section I2.3.
Quality control and quality assurance requirements are outlined in AISC 358 Section 3.7, which refers to
AISC 341. AISC 341 Chapter J covers quality control and quality assurance related to SMF fabrication and
erection. Specifications regarding the quality of RBS fabrication are provided in AISC Section 5.7.
A “protected zone” is established for the connection (AISC 358 Section 5.3.1(8)). The zone is defined
as the portion of the beam between the face of the column flange to the end of the RBS farthest from the
column.
The details shown in Figures 1–18 through 1–22 are representative SMF RBS details.
OVERVIEW
This example shows procedures for the design of Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) buildings.
It is intended to provide specific methods for the design of braced frames that comply with the International
Building Code and the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341), guiding
designers toward the careful consideration of the performance of concentrically braced frame structures
under severe seismic loading. Certain recommendations provided are considered best practice; nevertheless,
the calculation methods illustrated are applicable to a wide range of designs.
The SCBF system has been developed over several cycles of building codes as a moderately ductile system
that can withstand moderate inelastic drift while maintaining strength. In order to provide this performance,
SCBF braces must accommodate significant compression buckling demands. In addition, the system must
be able to realize the strength and stiffness of braces subject to tension as the strength and stiffness of
buckled braces in compression diminishes.
Thus SCBF are intended to have post-elastic behavior that differs significantly from the elastic distribution
of forces. A simple linear analysis of force distributions is insufficient, and an amplification factor is,
in many cases, insufficient as well. Design rules for SCBF have thus always contained some form of
requirement for consideration of post-elastic conditions.
The 2010 edition of AISC 341 has gone further than previous codes in making this latter requirement an
explicit requirement. The provisions require that beams and columns have sufficient strength to withstand
forces corresponding to two different conditions: the maximum forces the frame can resist (with frame
forces corresponding to braces reaching their expected buckling strength and expected tension strength),
and the post-buckled condition (with frame forces corresponding to braces reaching a low estimated
post-buckling strength and expected tension strength). These are essentially plastic-mechanism analysis
requirements and are illustrated in this example.
As important as determining design forces for frame members is the detailing of connections to
accommodate building drift and ductility demands. To accommodate building drift, the effect of gussets on
the beam-to-column connection and the column base-plate connection must be considered. These gusseted
connections should be considered fully rigid unless special detailing is used to allow for relative rotation.
(The use of typical “simple” connections in combination with a gusset plate is insufficient to guarantee
adequate rotation capacity.) Connections considered rigid will develop large moments at the design story
drift, and AISC 341 requires that the connection have flexural strength corresponding to the strength of the
beam or of the column.
In this example a fully rigid beam-to-column connection is employed. This connection is a combination
of the gusset plate with a Special Moment Frame WUF-W (Welded Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web)
connection. The design of alternative connections (including the accommodation of rotation) is illustrated
in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
Accommodating brace compression ductility demands entails detailing the gusset plate to allow for brace
rotations or designing the connection as a fixed end for the brace. In this example the former approach is
taken, with a hinge plate oriented to allow for in-plane rotation. Alternative designs are illustrated in the
AISC Seismic Design Manual.
This example does not include the design of a base-plate connection. However, Design Example 9
illustrates a base-plate design for a Buckling Restrained Braced Frame and can serve as a guide for SCBF
base plates.
For more information on the SCBF system see Blue Book article 08.03.050: “Concentric Braced Frames”;
August 2008.
OUTLINE
4. Brace Sizing
9. Additional Considerations
The building is a six-story office building located in San Francisco. The Seismic Design Category is D. See
Appendix 1 for the following information:
• Building dimensions,
• Soil type,
• Location of frames,
In this example the frames are located at the building perimeter, which is more efficient in controlling
building torsion and ensuring redundancy. The plan layout of frames at floors 1–4 is shown in Figure 2–1.
Frames are configured in a two-story X configuration, which is advantageous in limiting beam flexural
demands in the post-buckled condition. Additionally, the frames are offset at floors 5 and 6. This reduces
the column overturning demands, which is especially beneficial for column size (and consequently column-
splice demands), base-plate demands, and foundation demands. This constitutes an irregularity, but this
irregularity does not represent a dramatically different collector beam demand from those in similar regular
configurations. A typical frame elevation is shown in Figure 2–2.
B C D E
ROOF
6th FLR
5th FLR
4th FLR
3rd FLR
2nd FLR
1st FLR
Braces in this example are exposed. Thus, no special wall detailing is required to allow for brace buckling
deformation. However, braces are located within 8 inches of the exterior glass, potentially leading to a
falling hazard should braces buckle out of the plane of the frame, causing damage to the façade. Such a
hazard could be mitigated in several ways, including increasing the physical separation or treating the glass
to prevent falling debris. In this example the hazard is eliminated by configuring braces to buckle in the
plane of the frame by using a round section in combination with end detailing that favors in-plane over
out-of-plane rotation. The detail employed at the beam-to-column connection is shown schematically in
Figure 2–3.
This detail has many advantages over more typical single-gusset-plate details. In addition to avoiding
out-of-plane brace deformation, the detail avoids potential conflict between the composite deck and the
hinge plate as the latter bends as a result of brace buckling. The detail is also highly adaptable to special
conditions, including connections to sloped beams.
There are two options in Table 12.2–1 for using SCBF: a pure SCBF, and a SCBF/SMF dual system. For
the purposes of this example, a pure SCBF without the dual system will be used:
The building has a type 2 horizontal irregularity. This requires an increase in diaphragm-to-collector
transfer forces (as illustrated in Design Example 7), but does not affect the SCBF.
The building has type 3 and 4 vertical irregularities. The type 4 irregularity requires that the elements
supporting the braced frame be designed for the special seismic-load combinations (including the
“amplified seismic load”). This is a requirement for SCBF columns regardless of irregularity. It also
requires an increase in diaphragm-to-collector transfer forces, which is also required by the horizontal
irregularity.
The type 3 irregularity precludes the use of the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure per Table 12.6–1.
Because of the type 3 irregularity, the modal response spectrum (MRS) procedure is employed. For
preliminary design, the ELF procedure is employed, with the design to be confirmed using MRS.
Using the MRS procedure, ASCE 7 allows for a reduction in design base shear, with a minimum of 85
percent of the ELF base shear. Thus it is advantageous to utilize MRS. For preliminary ELF design, the
MRS base shear will be assumed to be scaled to 90 percent of the ELF base shear.
Ta = 0.49 sec
The calculation of seismic response coefficient CS is performed using four equations. These equations,
when presented together in a graph of the base shear coefficient versus building period, constitute the
response spectrum for the site. (See Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual
for further explanation.) The first equation defines the coefficient as:
S DS 1 00 g
Cs = = = 0.167 g . Eq 12.8–2
R /I e 6 0 /1
/1 0
S D1 0 60 g
Cs = = = 0.204 g . Eq 12.8–3
( R I e )T (6.0 /1.0)0 49
The value of seismic response coefficient, Cs, computed in Equation 12.8–1 must be at least equal to the
following
In addition, for buildings in Seismic Design Category E or F, and those buildings for which the 1.0-second
spectral response, S1, is equal to or greater than 0.6g, the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, must
be at least equal to the following value:
0 5S1 0.5(0.606 g)
Cs = = = 0 05g . Eq 12.8–6
R /I e 6 0 /1 0
Cs = 0.167
V = 1205 kips
The structure qualifies for a redundancy factor of 1.0 through calculation. See Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC
SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual for the calculation methodology.
The terms used in this table are defined in Section 12.8.3. The period is assumed to be 1.4 times the
approximate period: 1.4 * 0.49 sec = 0.69 sec; this should be confirmed or adjusted after member sizing.
Since the period = 0.69 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and
2.0 for T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.095. The distribution of story shear is carried out using:
wx hxk
Fx = CvxV, where, Cvx = n
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
The horizontal distribution of forces requires consideration of diaphragm torsion. This can be approximated
at this stage of design (prior to selection of brace sizes) by making rough assumptions to be confirmed at
a later stage. The frames on grids A and F are each assumed to resist 50 percent of the north-south seismic
forces, plus 80 percent of the accidental eccentricity. This results in a share of the north-south forces
equal to:
The frames on Grids 1 and 5 are designed with a similar assumption, such that each frame is designed for
54 percent of the base shear. This overestimates the effect of accidental eccentricity slightly.
This factor is applied to the force at each story. A more complex layout might require a more in-depth
analysis—possibly modeling—to distribute the forces to each frame for design purposes.
All four frames will be designed to resist the forces in Table 2–2:
The required strength of braces is calculated from the seismic forces in Table 2–2 above. It is common
for designers to neglect the gravity forces in braces, although that approach is not explicitly permitted for
SCBF. Where gravity forces are significant they should be considered. In this case the gravity forces, shared
by four braces and the beam, have been determined to be 4.5 kips for the typical floor condition for the
seismic load combinations. The tension effect of this gravity force is conservatively neglected for design.
Converting the frame shear into a brace shear considering the four braces and the brace angle of
ATAN(12/15) = 38.7 deg, the brace forces are calculated and presented below. The required strength in
compression is calculated adding the gravity force.
Level Brace Seismic Force (kips) Brace Gravity Force (kips) Pu (kips)
6th 36 0 36
5th 96 4.5 100
4th 142 0 142
3rd 176 4.5 181
2nd 198 0 198
1st 208 4.5 213
The same is done for Frame 1. At the top two stories there are only two braces, instead of the four in
Frame A.
Level Brace Seismic Force (kips) Brace Gravity Force (kips) Pu (kips)
6th 72 0 72
5th 191 2 193
4th 142 0 142
3rd 176 2 178
2nd 198 0 198
1st 208 2 210
The effective length of the braces is assumed to be the work-point length (19.2 feet), minus some distance
at each end to account for connection size. For member selection purposes the effective length will be
assumed to be 16 feet. To conform to the limit on brace slenderness, the minimum radius of gyration is:
Round HSS will be used. See Blue Book article 08.03.050 for a discussion of the behavior of brace section
types. The availability of sections should be verified. Round HSS must meet the requirements of AISC 341
for highly ductile members:
The following brace sizes are to be used for Frame A, based on design strengths tabulated in the Manual
(Table 4–5):
The sixth-floor brace is substantially oversized to limit unbalanced forces on the intersected beam.
Once the braces are sized, the maximum demands on the rest of the system can be calculated. Two
conditions are considered: the maximum forces that braces can deliver (in either tension or compression),
and the condition after some braces have buckled (which can be critical for certain members).
In order to perform these analyses, three values are required for each brace: the expected tension strength,
the expected compression strength, and the approximate post-buckling strength.
The expected compression strength is: 1.14Fcre Ag, where Fcre is calculated using the expected yield
strength, Ry Fy in the AISC 360 Chapter E equations in Section E.3.
The post-buckling strength is taken as 0.3 times the expected compression strength (as required in
Section F2.3): 0.3(1.14Fcre Ag) = 0.342Fcre Ag.
The values for these forces for the sections used are shown in Table 2–7.
Figure 2–4 shows the maximum-force condition for Frame A, with the braces removed and the capacity
forces substituted. Assuming a first-mode deformation, all braces in tension are assumed to reach their full
expected tension strength (Ry Fy Ag), and all braces in compression are assumed to reach their full expected
compression strength (1.14Fcre Ag). Lateral forces indicated do not correspond to the calculated base shear.
B C D E
1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag
1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14Fcre Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14Fcre Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag
Figure 2–5 shows the post-buckled condition for Frame A, with the braces removed and the capacity
forces substituted. Assuming a first-mode deformation, all braces in tension are assumed to reach their full
expected tension strength (Ry Fy Ag), and all braces in compression are assumed to have degraded to their
nominal post-buckling strength (0.342Fcre Ag).
B C D E
0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag
0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag
0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag
The seismic forces on this beam for Conditions 1 and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from the table above. Condition 1 will have larger axial force; Condition 2 will have a larger flexural
force. Figure 2–6 shows a free-body diagram of the beam.
The diagonal forces are converted to vertical and horizontal forces in order to obtain beam shear, flexure,
and axial forces.
6.1.1 CONDITION 1
QV1 = [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]6 sin (θ6)
= 12.5 kips.
QH1 = [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]6 cos (θ6)
= 76 kips.
Given the symmetry of the condition, the axial force in each segment of this beam can be taken as
Pu = 1⁄2QH1 = 38 kips.
6.1.2 CONDITION 2
QV2 = [Ry Fy Ag − 0.342Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag − 0.342Fcre Ag]6 sin (θ6)
= 15 kips.
QH2 = [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]6 cos (θ6)
= 42 kips.
Given the symmetry of the condition, the axial force in each segment of this beam can be taken as
⁄2QH1 = 21 kips.
1
Typically Condition 2 governs. In this case it is unclear which condition governs due to the selection
of similar brace sizes above and below the beam. Use of a significantly smaller brace size at the sixth
floor would result in a much larger vertical force on the beam and may be uneconomical. The forces
above combined with gravity forces are applied to the beam for design. The governing combination from
Appendix 1:
= 1.4 D + 0.5 L
= 1.4 (6 ft * 67.7 psf + 12 ft * 19 psf) + 0.5 (6 ft * 100 psf)
= 1.19 klf
Mu = wg L2/16
= 66.8 ft-kip.
All braced-frame beams are W18 × 50 to provide for uniformity of connections. For brevity, the design of
this beam will not be shown.
For this beam, Condition 2 governs by inspection. Figure 2–7 shows a free-body diagram of this beam. The
story force is assumed to be delivered two-thirds via shear along the beam and one-third via a collector
force on the right-hand side.
R y Fy A g
0.342 FcreA g
0.342 FcreA g
R y Fy A g
In order to calculate the axial force in the beam, the story force delivered to this portion of the frame
corresponding to the Condition 2 forces must be calculated:
F3 = [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]2 cos (θ2) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]3 cos (θ3)
= 43 kips.
0.342 FcreA g
F3R
Pu
R y Fy A g
Figure 2–8. Free-body diagram of the right-hand connection of the third-floor beam
The moment is the same as for the beam in the previous section:
Mu = wgL2/16
= 66.8 ft-kip.
The compressive strength can be calculated considering the restraint provided at the top flange by the slab.
As described in Example 7, constrained-axis flexural-torsional buckling is the limiting buckling mode for
this condition. The AISC Seismic Design Manual gives this expression for use in calculating constrained-
axis flexural-torsional buckling for a beam restrained at the top flange (Equation 8–3):
⎛ ⎛ ⎛d⎞ ⎞
2 ⎞
⎜ π E ⎜ Cw + I y ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
2
⎟
⎜ ⎜⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎟ 1
Fe = ⎜ + GJ⎟
⎝ (K L) 2 ⎠ 2
⎛d⎞
z
I x + I y + ⎜ ⎟ Ag
⎝ 2⎠
Using this equation in conjunction with Equation E3–1, the constrained-axis flexural-torsional buckling
strength for the W18 × 50 with top flange continuously braced and the bottom flange braced at 15 ft is
For this moment diagram and bracing condition Cb = 3.0. Thus the flexural strength is
The two examples above (the sixth-floor and third-floor beams) are representative of all the beams in Frame
A, with the even-numbered floors similar to the sixth floor and the odd-numbered floors (and roof) similar
to the third floor.
Frame 1 is similar, except for the in-plane offset at the fifth floor. Due to this, the three beams at the fifth
floor in Frame 1 should be analyzed in a single free-body diagram, as shown in Figure 2–9.
Condition 1:
1.14 FcreAg
Ry Fy Ag Condition 2:
0.342 FcreAg
Condition 1: Condition 1:
Ry Fy Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14 FcreAg 1.14 FcreAg
Condition 2: Condition 2:
0.342 FcreAg 0.342 FcreAg
The seismic forces on this beam for Conditions 1 and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from Table 2–7. Condition 1 will have larger axial force in the end beams; Condition 2 will have a
larger axial force in the middle beam.
6.3.1 CONDITION 1
QH1 = 2[Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]4 cos (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5)
= 474 kips.
This force is distributed axial force on each beam of 474 kips/3 = 158 kips. The right-hand beam has an
axial force at the right end of
At the left end of the right-hand beam, the axial force is 335 kips − 158 kips = 177 kips. This axial force
controls for the two outside beams (considering the load to be applicable in either direction).
6.3.2 CONDITION 2
QH2 = 2[Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]4 cos (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5)
= 348 kips.
This force is distributed axial force on each beam of 348 kips/3 = 116 kips. Recognizing the equal forces in
each bay, the center beam has an axial force at each end of 1⁄2(116 kips) = 58 kips.
7.1 CONDITION 1
Column seismic forces for Condition 1 are shown in Table 2–8. Four columns are shown, with compression
shown as positive forces and tension as negative. The forces are, of course, for one direction of loading.
Column B/1 Force Column C/1 Force Column D/1 Force Column E/1 Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th −172 268
5th −177 263
4th −172 −202 298 268
3rd −172 −202 298 268
2nd −647 263 −177 733
1st −647 263 −177 733
Base −941 470 −470 941
These column forces are obtained considering the brace forces from Figure 2–4. In addition, where a beam
supports an unbalanced vertical seismic force, the reactions from this force can be included. (If they are
not included, the summation of vertical seismic reactions may not equal zero.) Here the only beam with
an unbalanced vertical force is the sixth-floor beam, which has a small unbalanced vertical seismic force.
(Because of repetition of brace sizes and equal story heights, other beams have balanced seismic vertical
forces.) The vertical unbalanced force on the sixth-floor beam was calculated in the previous section on
beam forces.
Q = [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]4 sin (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5)
= 10 kips.
This results in a slight adjustment to the Column 2 and Column 3 forces below the sixth floor.
7.2 CONDITION 2
A similar process is used for Condition 2. (The vertical unbalanced force is shown in the section on beam
forces.) The resulting seismic forces are presented in Table 2–9.
Column B/1 Force Column C/1 Force Column D/1 Force Column E/1 Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th −45 268
5th −37 276
4th −45 −62 285 268
3rd −45 −62 285 268
2nd −368 276 −38 606
1st −368 276 −38 606
Base −661 330 −331 661
Columns should also consider the overstrength factor. These seismic forces are presented in Table 2–10.
Column B/1 Force Column C/1 Force Column D/1 Force Column E/1 Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th −91 91
5th −91 91 0
4th −178 −152 152 178
3rd −178 −152 152 178
2nd −646 316 −316 646
1st −646 316 −316 646
Base −906 576 −576 906
Columns B/1 and E/1 may use the overstrength forces as a maximum (and thus neglect Conditions 1 and
2). However, in this case the mechanism forces are lower. Thus Columns B/1 and E/1 should be designed
for the maximum of Condition 1 and 2, with the overstrength forces as a maximum. Columns C/1 and D/1
must be designed for the maximum of Condition 1, Condition 2, and the forces considering overstrength.
The seismic forces considered for design are shown in Table 2–11.
Column B/1 Force Column C/1 Force Column D/1 Force Column E/1 Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th −172 268
5th −177 272
4th −172 −202 298 172
3rd −172 −202 298 172
2nd −646 316 −316 646
1st −646 316 −316 646
Base −906 576 −576 906
Column sizes will be governed by compression design. The governing combination from Appendix 1:
The design forces for interior columns and the selected sizes (using Table 4–1 of the AISC Manual) are
shown in Table 2–12.
The connection of the HSS7 × 0.375 to the roof will be designed. Brace connections are designed to meet
three conditions: the brace yielding in tension, the brace reaching its maximum compression strength,
and the connection rotation associated with a brace buckling and undergoing large axial deformation.
Additionally, the connection must be detailed to accommodate a frame drift of 2.5 percent, either by
providing relative rotation capacity or moment capacity to allow beam or column yielding.
Figures 2–3 and 2–10 show the details of the connection. The gusset plate is slotted to receive the knife
plate. Also, the weld of the knife plate to the brace is wrapped around the end of the brace. This has been
shown to be effective in forestalling net-section rupture (Cheng and Kulak, 2000).
The required tension strength of the connection has been calculated previously:
Assume a 7⁄8-inch knife plate thickness (tKP). The required width is:
A 7⁄8-inch × 12-inch knife plate will be used. The plate may be rectangular or shaped as shown in the figure.
A 16-inch-long weld will be used for both welds. This is greater than 1.3 times the brace diameter
(1.3 * 7 in = 9.1 in), which permits U = 1.0 (AISC 360).
The weld of the knife plate to the gusset transfers the brace axial force into the gusset; it also provides
continuity of the gusset across the slot. Thus in lieu of the smaller weld size selected for the knife plate to
the brace, a size sufficient to provide gusset continuity will be used.
Assume a 1⁄2-inch gusset (tg). Based on recommendations by Lehman et al. (2008), the ratio of weld size
to plate thickness is derived considering the expected plate tension strength and the strength of fillet welds
loaded transverse to their axis:
The brace wall may be checked for shear rupture. However, as the weld size is less than the brace thickness,
by inspection this will not control.
Because the knife plate is welded around the end and U = 1.0, the limit state of brace net section rupture
does not apply.
At the end of the weld, the required gusset width is calculated using the assumed thickness:
To achieve this width, a rectangular gusset 21 inches horizontal by 13.5 inches vertical will be used. A
3-inch corner clip is made to provide a roughly orthogonal condition at the lap with the knife plate. This
plate provides for the required length of knife-plate-to-gusset weld.
If the gusset is adequate in tension at the end of the knife plate, checks of the vertical and horizontal
sections through the gusset at the beam and column face will show adequate demand-to-capacity ratios.
The gusset is analyzed in order to obtain design forces for checking web yielding. (Welds are designed to
match the gusset plate capacity.)
The gusset may be analyzed using any convenient methodology. Here the Ricker method is used for
simplicity; the resulting welds at the beam-to-column connection are small and can be neglected in the case
of the WUF-W connection.
These welds are designed to ensure that any ductility demands occur in the gusset plate (which has
substantial ductility) rather than in the welds.
Based on the proportioning rule discussed above for the knife-plate to gusset weld:
s ≥ 0.82tg
φRn = 1.0twFy(N + 5 k)
= 317 kips ≥ Huc = 94 kips . . . OK.
The required compression strength of the connection has been calculated previously:
This force is used to check web crippling in the beam and column. (By inspection, gusset buckling will not
occur for the gusset plate stiffened by the knife plate.)
The forces from the gusset analysis can be reduced by the factor:
Thus:
This condition is satisfied by the detailing of a hinge zone in the knife plate equal to three times the gusset
thickness. This approach has been demonstrated in recent tests (Thornton and Fortney, 2012).
Additionally, there are rotation-capacity requirements for gusseted beam-to-column connections. F2.6b
requires that gusseted beam-to-column connections be detailed to accommodate large drifts. The option
taken in this example is to use a fully welded moment connection (option “b” in the provision). The
beam-to-column portion of the moment connection follows the prescriptive requirements for the Welded
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web connection of AISC 358. The gusset, welded to both the beam and the
column, provides additional resistance but this is not explicitly considered.
9. Additional Considerations
Braces can be expected to undergo significant transverse displacement as a result of buckling and axial
deformation (Tremblay, 2001). In this design, the brace displacement is in the plane of the frame. Thus,
brace buckling will not affect the cladding system.
The braces are exposed, and thus no special detailing of partition walls enclosing the braces is required.
To minimize the chances of premature fracture, braces and gussets should be designated as protected zones,
with a restriction on fasteners and low-toughness welds. (There are regions of the brace that need not be
so designated; see AISC 341 for specific requirements.) The effect of fasteners in the protected zone is
currently being investigated.
Certain welds must be designated as demand-critical, with the corresponding toughness requirements per
AISC 341. These welds include:
• Column-to-base-plate welds.
A quality assurance plan is required for this structure. For the SCBF system, the plan should include
verification of the hinge-plate offset dimension complying with the detailing requirements and tolerance.
The following items are not addressed in this example but are nevertheless necessary for a complete design
of the seismic load resisting system:
OVERVIEW
Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a relatively new system. It was developed in the late 1990s
and has since gained acceptance in the United States as engineers look for a system with high ductility and
energy dissipation. Unlike conventional steel braces, buckling-restrained braces consist of a steel core that
is restrained from buckling by outer casing of concrete, steel, or both. As a result, the steel core will yield
in tension as well as compression. The purpose of the outer casing is to prevent global buckling of the core
only, and it must be kept free of axial forces. The methods to prevent transfer of axial forces to the casing
as well as to provide confinement to the core are fairly specialized. As a result, BRBF in the United States
consists of proprietary braces provided by a steel fabricator or a specialty manufacturer.
The 2005 edition of AISC 341 and ASCE 7 contained the first U.S. code provisions for the design as well as
testing requirements for BRBF. Subsequent editions of ASCE 7 (2010 edition) and AISC 341 (2010 edition)
introduced additional updates. For example, the 2010 edition of ASCE 7 added provisions to estimate
period (Method A) for BRBFs. In addition, the differentiation between BRBFs where beam-column
joints are fixed or pinned has been eliminated and replaced by a single value of R = 8. AISC 341 included
updates of beam-column joint requirements where the connection must either be able to allow rotation
(0.025 radians) or to be designed to resist expected flexural strength of the beams or sum of the columns.
OUTLINE
4. Preliminary Sizing
• Per Appendix A:
䡩 Office occupancy on all floors
䡩 Located in San Francisco, CA, at the latitude and longitude given
䡩 Site Class D
䡩 120 feet × 150 feet in plan with typical floor and roof framing shown in Figure 3–1
䡩 Six stories as shown in Figure 3–2.
Per Appendix A:
Ta = 0.74 sec
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long-period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long-period transition occurs at 12 sec
(from Figure 22–12).
1.2
TS=0.60 sec
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1 SDS=1.0g
0.6
Sa=0.4+5.0T
0.4
Calc'ed BRBF Period in
x-direction, Tx=0.97 sec,
Sa=0.62g
0.2
Sa=0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
As shown in Figure 3–3, the design spectral acceleration is greater than TS, so the design spectral
acceleration Sa is 0.81g. It is not required for the engineer to construct the design response spectrum when
using the equivalent lateral force procedure, since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cs
in Section 12.8.1.1.
The response spectrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of the building
period. Values of Ct = 0.03 and x = 0.75 were selected as specified for steel buckling-restrained braced
frames, which result in an approximate period Ta = 0.74 sec. As shown later in this example, drifts are close
to, if not at, the story drift limits of Section 12.12.
The period of the structure can be established through structural analysis of the BRBF. Section 12.8.2,
however, limits the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta,
where Cu is a factor found in Table 12.8–1. In this case, Tmax = 1.4 × 0.74 = 1.04 sec. For preliminary
design, the approximate period, Ta, will be used to design the BRBF, and the period of the building will
be verified later in the design process. The first mode period of the final design shown in Figure 4–14 was
calculated to be 0.97 sec and 0.87 sec in the longitudinal and transverse direction respectively; therefore,
the initial assumption of T = 0.74 sec is shown to not only be valid, but still quite conservative.
1a. and 1b. Torsional Irregularity—A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift.
Extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift computed including
accidental torsion is more than 1.4 times the average story drift. From the 3-D computer
analysis later in this example we can obtain the displacement at the corners of the building.
The following shows the calculation for earthquake load case in X-direction with positive
accidental eccentricity:
Table 3–2. Story displacements, line 1 and line 5, torsional irregularity check
2. Reentrant corner irregularity exists where both plan projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the
given direction. The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions are 30 feet.
The plan dimensions are 150 feet and 120 feet in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively:
3. to 5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural
irregularities.
1a. to 5b. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of the vertical structural irregularities.
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the structure is less than
160 ft and has only Type 2 horizontal irregularity—PERMITTED
S DS 1 00
Cs = = = 0.125 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.101 for T TL Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
0 74 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
and, for structures where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall not be less than
0 5S1 0 5× 0 6
= = 0.038 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Cs = 0.101
V CsW = 0.101
0 × 7231
3 = 730
30 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 730 kips
According to Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor should be calculated for each principal axis. The
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either 12.3.4.2(a) or 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true, in which case the
Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. 12.3.4.2(a) and Table 12.3–3 require that for each story resisting
more than 35 percent of the base shear, removal of an individual brace or connection thereto would not
result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does the resulting system have an extreme
torsional irregularity:
There are total of six BRBs and eight BRBs at each level in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively; thus, by inspection, removal of an individual BRB would not result in more than a 33 percent
reduction in story strength (1/6 = 17%). The second condition needs to be confirmed by rigid diaphragm
analyses by removing of individual braces and checking whether extreme torsional irregularity exists. By
inspection, since brace sizes will be designed to be identical for frames in each direction, the following two
conditions will result in highest torsion:
From 3-D computer analysis later in the example, the braces per above were removed and it was confirmed
that extreme torsional irregularity does not exist in either of the above cases. The following shows check of
extreme torsion:
Table 3–3. Story displacements, lines 1, 5, A, and F, extreme torsional irregularity check
See Appendix A for the derivation of combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2SDS = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the BRBF are §12.4.2.3
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the BRBFs (although they apply for collectors and at
other conditions outside the BRBFs).
The terms used in Table 3–4 are defined in Section 12.8.3. Since the period = 0.74 > 0.5 sec, the value for k
is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.12. The
distribution of story shear is carried out using
wx hxk
Fx = Cvx V, where, Cvx = n
. Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
As shown in Figure 3–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building in
the X direction, but the center of rigidity is 10 feet below the center of mass in the Y direction. This is due
to the layout of the braced frames. To distribute the load to each BRBF, the story shear, Fi, is applied in the
X and Y directions. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the story shear is offset 5 percent to
account for accidental eccentricity. For simplicity, all the BRBs in the X direction are the same, and all the
BRBs in the Y direction are the same. Since they are the same, a generic stiffness, K, is used for all braced
frames.
X-Direction
BF No. Dir Rx Ry d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Fdirect Ftorsion Facc. tors Ftotal
A1 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi −0.028Fi −0.017Fi −0.045Fi
A2 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi −0.028Fi −0.017Fi −0.045Fi
F1 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi 0.028Fi 0.017Fi 0.045Fi
F2 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi 0.028Fi 0.017Fi 0.045Fi
1 X 1K −50.00 −50 K 2500 K 0.333Fi −0.019Fi −0.011Fi 0.303Fi
3 X 1K 10.00 10 K 100 K 0.333Fi 0.004Fi 0.002Fi 0.339Fi
4 X 1K 40.00 40 K 1600 K 0.333Fi 0.015Fi 0.009Fi 0.357Fi
Sum 3K 4K 26,700 K
Y-Direction
BF No. Dir Rx Ry d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Fdirect Ftorsion Facc. tors Ftotal
A1 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi −0.021Fi 0.229Fi
A2 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi −0.021Fi 0.229Fi
F1 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi 0.021Fi 0.271Fi
F2 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi 0.021Fi 0.271Fi
1 X 1K −50.00 −50 K 2500 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi −0.014Fi −0.014Fi
3 X 1K 10.00 10 K 100 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi 0.003Fi 0.003Fi
4 X 1K 40.00 40 K 1600 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi 0.011Fi 0.011Fi
Sum 3K 4K 26,700 K
The following calculations find the force in BRB along line 4 for shear in the X-Direction:
Ry
Fdirect Fi = 0 33Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M acc. tor Rx y 6 Fi × 40 K
M acc. tors Fi × ( .05 × 120) = 6 Fi ; Facc. tors = = = 0.009 Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
26,700 K
M tor Rx y 10 Fi × 40 K
M tors Fi × 10 = 10 Fi ; Ftors = = = 0.015Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
26,700 K
Ftotala Fdiirect
r t
+ Facc. tor Fttorsion
i
= 0.357 Fi .
Table 3–6 shows that the maximum design shear for any frame line is 0.357 times the story shear. The rest
of this example focuses on the design of BRBF along line 4.
4. Preliminary Sizing
The layout of the lateral system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior as well as have
reasonable redundancy. However, many times the layout is constrained by architectural requirements.
For this example, the layout is to illustrate such constraint. Also, the layout of the BRBFs is used for the
diaphragm design example (Example 7). To illustrate the diaphragm design where the lateral system is not
symmetrical, the BRB frames in the X direction are located asymmetrically.
Typical BRB capacity ranges from a minimum of around 50 kips to a maximum capacity upwards of
1400 kips. While using larger BRB can potentially reduce the number of braced bays, larger BRB sizes
result in large overturning forces, which drive up the sizes of the columns, beams, and foundations. Thus,
aside from redundancy considerations, the layout of the BRB frames is often driven by these considerations.
In addition to well-distributed braced bays, AISC 341 commentaries also note that “engineers should
consider effects of configuration and proportioning of braces on the potential formation of building yield
mechanism.” Unlike conventional steel braces, the axial yield strength of BRBs can be set more precisely
by specifying core area as well as limiting the range of material yield strength, which are established by
coupon test. Thus engineers have more control in their design to distribution of yielding over the building
height.
Similar to the configuration of concentrically braced frames, configuration of the BRB frames can be
V-type, inverted V-type, or single diagonal configuration. Neither X-bracing nor K-bracing is an option for
BRBF.
For V-type and inverted-V-type braced frames, AISC 341 Section F4.4 lists special requirements. This will
be discussed further below.
For certain situations, e.g. tall story heights and wide bays, brace configuration may depend on maximum
lengths that the BRB manufacturers have tested. AISC 341 requires that the design of the BRB be based
on results from qualifying cyclic tests. Existing test data by manufacturers are often used for design, but
interpolation and extrapolation of existing test results needs to be justified. Where the length of the BRBs
exceeds the range of typical tested specimens, project specific tests may need to be performed.
where
Fysc = specified minimum yield stress of the steel core, or actual yield stress of the steel core as
determined from a coupon test.
Asc = net area of steel core.
For this example, an average Fysc = 42 ksi was used with a tolerance of +/−4 ksi. Thus for the required steel
core area for strength consideration, the lower bound Fysc = 38 ksi was used.
Pu = Vu /2 braces/cos (θ).
Required core area Asc req’d = Pu /φFysc = 167 kips/(0.9 × 38 ksi) = 4.9 in2. Use Asc = 5 in2.
Table 3–9 summarizes the preliminary core area for BRB frame along line 4:
The engineer should consult with the BRB manufacturer regarding typical range of yield stress for the steel
core. If the BRB manufacturer is pre-selected during the design phase, it is sometimes possible to procure
the material ahead of time and thus have less variability of the yield stress. However, more commonly, the
project is to be competitively bid by various BRB manufacturers; thus, a reasonable range of yield stress
should be used to permit procurement process for brace manufacturers. The range of 38 ksi to 46 ksi is
fairly standard for the industry.
As discussed later in Section 6.2, this material variability needs to be accounted for when the engineer
specifies requirements for the BRBs.
The adjusted brace strength in tension and compression is ωRy Pysc and βωRy Psyc respectively, where
ω and β, (the strain hardening adjustment factor and the compression strength adjustment factor)
are determined based on measurements from BRB qualification tests corresponding to two times the
design story drift or 2 percent of story height, whichever is larger. Brace deformations at the design
story drift can be obtained from computer analysis as discussed in the section below. Prior to running
a computer analysis, the engineer can estimate initial values for ω and β assuming braces are sized
such that φPysc = Pu, (assuming redundancy factor ρ = 1.0). The deformation of brace at design level
forces would then be Δbx = φ(Δby), where Δby is the deformation of the brace at first significant yield;
2Δbm = 2Cd Δbx = 2Cd(φ)(Δby) = (2)(5.0)(0.9)(Δby) = 9Δby. The corresponding core strain is approximately
9(εy) = 9(Fy /E) = 0.013. This is an approximate value only since the core strain is based on multiple
factors such as the length of core, the effective stiffness of braces, etc. Prior qualification tests by BRB
manufacturers show that β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 for a core strain of 1.3 percent. For preliminary beam and
column design, these values will be used. After the computer analysis has been performed, the core strain
and whether a minimum 2 percent inter-story drift requirement would control will be confirmed.
The beam in a BRB frame acts both as an axial load carrying member and as a flexural member. The axial
load arises because the beam acts as a collector transferring the diaphragm forces to the braces. The flexure
arises because the beam carries gravity loads from the floor and in special geometrical configurations
(chevron) carries the unbalanced load from the compression and tension braces. The beam at the second
floor in the braced-frame bay will be designed in this illustrative example.
The beam in the BRB frames needs to be seismically compact. The beam size at the second floor will be
assumed to be W18 × 65 and its adequacy will be checked.
λ ps ≤ 0 3 E /F
Fy = 7.22 for W18 × 65 λ ps = b f t f = 5 06 . . . OK. T D1.1
Since the axial load in the collector is not known yet, it is conservative to assume that Ca is greater than
0.125 and hence using the minimum limit on the h/tw ratio
The flexure in the beam arises because it carries the tributary gravity loading. In addition, for a chevron-
type configuration, Section 16.4(1) requires that the beam be designed for the net vertical component due to
the BRBs in tension and in compression.
For the current case, the tributary gravity load is wD = 5 ft × 77.7 psf = 388.5 plf. Add 15 psf of loading
from the elevator door as well as the self-weight of the beam. Thus the total dead load on the beam is
The ultimate uniformly distributed load under Load Case 5 on the beam is calculated as
u
( 2 0. S DDSS ) D 0.5 L = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1)) × .63 + 0.5 × 0.2 = 1 kip-ft.
If the brace is considered as a location of support for the beam, the ultimate beam moment at mid-span
using the beam formula for a two-span continuous beam is
The unbalanced load due to the unequal compression and tension capacity of the BRBs are calculated as
Punbaalanced (βωR
Ry Pysc ωRy Pysc ) sin((θ) .
Since the maximum yield is limited to 42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and will be confirmed from a coupon test,
Ry Pysc = 46 ksi × Asc. Also, assuming β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 as presented earlier with Asc = 5 in2 above and
below as shown in Table 3–9:
The unbalanced load will act in opposite to the gravity loading. Since the brace was considered as a
location of support, the negative support moment due to gravity will be additive to this moment. Thus the
net design moment is
4.9 CHECK BEAM FOR COMBINED AXIAL AND FLEXURE DUE TO COLLECTOR ACTION
A capacity based approach to calculate the axial force in the beam in the BRB bay will be followed. This is
done by assuming that the brace capacity in tension and compression are mobilized in the lowermost story
producing a net horizontal shear capacity of
Vu capacity
(β Ry Pysc + ωRy Pysc ) cos((θ) = (368.37 + 354
4.2) cos(38.66) = 287.5
.5 + 276.4 = 564.2 kips.
Part of the axial load in the brace at the lowermost story is due to the seismic inertia of the second floor
mass, while the large majority is due to the inertia of the upper floors, which is carried down through the
braces. If the same capacity-based approach is adopted for the upper floors, the shear immediately above
the second floor is also 564.2 kips since the same braces are used between the second and third level. This
would signify that no inertial load is generated at the second floor, which is incorrect.
While there could be various combinations as to how much of the total shear of 564.2 kips is due to the
inertia of the second floor, it will be seen that for the beam within the braced frame bay only, the maximum
axial load in the beam is unaffected since the axial load based on the brace capacity will finally need to
be delivered by the beam. For beams outside the braced frame bay, this ratio is important and needs to be
substantiated adequately so that the collectors are not under-designed.
For this illustration we will assume that the proportion of shear arising out of the inertia of the second
floor is in the same ratio as the distribution of the equivalent static lateral load presented earlier. Other
distributions such as a uniform distribution or that based on response spectrum analysis should be
considered to bound the axial force outside the braced fame bays.
Hence, the total capacity of 564.2 kips can be split into two parts. The first part has a magnitude of
(249/261) × (276.4 + 287.5) = 263.7 + 274.3 = 538 kips. The second part has a magnitude of 26.2 kips,
where 249 kips is the total shear above the second floor and 261 kips is the total shear below the second
floor obtained from Table 3–8. The 249 kips shear stays within the braced frame bay at the second floor
while the 26.2 kips is collected over the entire diaphragm width at the second floor. The resultant collector
force diagram is shown in Figure 3–5.
600
Force input from upper braces 538.0 kips
200
Collector Force Dgm.
0
Shear dragged from 2nd floor
@ 26.2k/150 ft = 0.17 k/ft
-200
287.4 kips
-600
0 30 60 90 120 150
Distance along Collector (ft)
From Figure 3–5 it can be seen that the maximum collector force is 287.4 kips. The beam for this axial load
and a net moment of 1134.1 kip-in presented earlier will be checked.
Determine beam flexural buckling stress (assume that the beam will be braced transversely at the location
of the chevron brace):
K x l x /rx / 7.49 = 48 06
360 /7
K y l y /ry //11 69 = 106.51 . . . governs.
From AISC Table 6–1 for W18 × 65 with an unbraced length about the Y axis equal to 15 ft:
p 10 3 2 67 p 1
φc Pn = 374.5 kips.
The torsional buckling length equals the minor-axis buckling length. Under these circumstances, torsional
buckling need not be checked for an I-shaped member as minor axis buckling has a lower value for design
strength. Also since the flange and web are seismically compact, Qs = Qa = 1.0 and thus will not affect the
nominal compression strength.
AISC design methodology utilizing constrained axis flexural-torsional buckling is illustrated in Examples 2
and 7. The reader is referred to those examples for alternative design approaches.
φ n
φ
φZ
Z x Fy = 0.9 × 133
33 × 50 = 5985 kip-in .
bx 3 1
b
M nx ) = 2.44 × 10 −3 .
Strength for members under combined loading is calculated in accordance with Chapter H, “Design of
Members for Combined Forces and Torsion” of AISC.
Pu /φPn φM n ) = p Pu + bx
/ ( M u //φ
/9 M u = (287.4 × 2.67 + 1134.1/(12) 2.44)10
)10 3
0.99 1.0 . . . OK.
A W18 × 65 section can adequately resist the combination of axial and flexural loads. The member is
assumed to have adequate shear strength.
In determining amplified seismic load, Emh is taken as the forces in all braces corresponding to their
adjusted braced strength. For this example, the column axial forces are based on the BRB reaching adjusted
brace strength at all levels.
Adjusted brace strength in compression is Pbr = βωRy Pysc. Since the maximum yield is limited to
42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and will be confirmed from a coupon test, Ry Pysc = 46 ksi × Asc.
The vertical component of this adjusted brace strength is Pbr sin (θ). For the chevron configuration, the
unbalance load at the mid-span of the beam is βωRy Pyscsin(θ) − ωRy Pysc sin (θ) = (β − 1)ωRy Pysc sin (θ)
acting upwards. Half of this unbalanced load is resisted at each end of the beam and reduces the axial force
in the column in compression (and increase the tension load in the column in tension). Thus the column
loads can be reduced by (β − 1)/2ωRy Pysc sin (θ).
Pysc Reaction
(From From
Brace PEmh = Pbr Unbal. Load Trib. Cum.
Asc Above) ωβRy Pysc sin θ at Beam Area DL L Lr P(1.4D+0.5L) P(1.4D+0.5L+Emh) ΣPu
Level in2 (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (sf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 2 0 0 0 −1.8 900 31 20.0 39.1 37.3 37.3
6th 2.5 92 147 92 −2.2 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 204.5 241.8
5th 3.5 115 184 115 −3.1 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 226.6 468.4
4th 4.5 161 258 161 −4.0 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 271.8 740.2
3rd 5 207 332 207 −4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 317.4 1057.6
2nd 5 230 368 230 −4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 340.4 1398.0
For a column at the first floor, select a W14 × 211 trial section. In accordance with AISC 341 Section F4.5a,
BRB columns shall comply with the width-to-thickness requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile
members.
Pu 1398
Ca = = = 0 50 T D1.1
φc Py 2790
λ hd ≤ 0.77
77 E Fy (2.93 − Ca ) = 45 h /tt w = 11.6 . . . OK. T D1.1
As discussed in later sections, a brace connection consists of gussets that are welded to beams and columns.
Additionally, beams flanges are fully welded to columns to resist high collector forces. For this example,
the beam-column joints are modeled to be momently connected. Per AISC, it is permitted to neglect
flexural forces resulting from seismic drift. Thus the moment in the columns will be from gravity and
vertical seismic (Ev) only. From previous sections under beam calculations, the uniform load from gravity
plus Ev at the second-floor beam:
For the “inverted-V” configuration, the unbalanced load from the BRBs counteracts the gravity loads. For
the column moments, this effect will be ignored. For a column at the first floor, the beam end moment will
be resisted by columns above and below. The column base is pinned, and assuming zero moment at the mid
height of second-floor column, the column shear and moment can be calculated as follows:
Mu 75 k-ft
V1u V2u = = = 4.17 kips
H1 0 5 H 2 12 + 6
M1u V1u H1 = (4.17 kips)(12 ) 50 k-ft .
Per AISC Steel Manual, Column Table 4–1, for W14 × 211, kL = 12 ft:
Per AISC Steel Manual, for W14 × 211 with unbraced length = 12 ft:
φM n = 1463 k-ft
M u //φM n ( 5 / 6 ) = 0.05 < 1.0 . . . OK.
Pu φPn Pu /φPn +
Level (kips) Size (kips) Pu /φPn Mu φMn Mu /φMn 8/9[Mu /φMn]
Roof 37 W14 × 68 700 0.06 37.8 431 0.09 0.13
6th 242 W14 × 68 700 0.35 37.5 431 0.09 0.42
5th 468 W14 × 132 1568 0.30 37.5 878 0.04 0.34
4th 740 W14 × 132 1568 0.48 37.5 878 0.04 0.51
3rd 1058 W14 × 211 2550 0.42 37.5 1463 0.03 0.44
2nd 1398 W14 × 211 2550 0.56 50.0 1463 0.03 0.60
The steel core of a BRB typically consists of a yielding segment, transition zones, and connection zones
where the core exits the casing. The effective stiffness of the BRB is based on these sections in series.
The yielding length, transition zones, and connection length vary among different manufacturers. It is
possible for the designer to control the stiffness by varying the proportions of yield length of the core to the
overall length of the brace. However, a shorter yield length, while increasing the stiffness of the brace, also
forces inelastic strain to occur at a shorter segment thus increasing the ductility demand and reducing the
cumulative energy dissipation capacity. Given the variation discussed above, the structural engineer should
consult with the manufacturer to obtain the effective stiffness of the braces. For this example, the effective
brace axial stiffness is Keff EAsc /Lwp , where Keff is the stiffness modification factor obtained from BRB
manufacturer, and Lwp is the distance between work points.
A three-dimensional computer model is created to analyze the building and to obtain story deflections.
Beam ends are modeled as fixed (see the discussion in a later section). Column bases are modeled as
pinned. The BRBs can be modeled as truss elements with area equals to the BRB core area (Asc) with a
stiffness modification factor (Keff) = 1.43 to capture the effective axial stiffness described above.
The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table 3–12. The elastic story drifts are the difference in the
elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The predicted inelastic story drift is given by the following
for the fourth floor:
Cd δ xe 5 0 × 0 28
x
= = 1.4 in . Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system and the occupancy category:
δx < Δa . . . DRIFT IS OK
Elastic Deflection Elastic Story Drift, δxe Inelastic Drift, δx Story Drift Limitation
Story (in) (in) (in) (in)
Roof 1.48 0.17 0.9 2.88
6th 1.31 0.27 1.4 2.88
5th 1.03 0.28 1.4 2.88
4th 0.75 0.26 1.3 2.88
3rd 0.49 0.25 1.3 2.88
2nd 0.23 0.23 1.2 2.88
The drifts were found to satisfy the story drift limits. However, if the inelastic story drift had exceeded the
story drift limit, it would have been necessary to either increase the size of cores to increase the stiffness of
BRBs or discuss with the manufacturer regarding shortening the yield length.
Depending on the analysis software, brace deformations Δb can be obtained directly from computer analysis
for seismic-load cases to compute drift. The seismic load for drift may be different than for strength since
the redundancy factor ρ = 1.0 for drift and there is no upper limit for period (CuTa) used to calculate drift.
Since the analysis performed is linear elastic, Δbm = Cd Δb where Cd = 5.0 for BRBFs. Corresponding strain
in the core at 2Δbm can be calculated based on ε = 2Δbm/Lysc = 2Cd Δb/Lysc or 10Δb/Lysc.
If braced deformations are not part of the computer analysis output, BRB deformation can be easily
calculated from brace forces Δb = PbraceLwp /Keff EAsc, where Lwp is the distance between work points and Keff
is the stiffness modification factor (discussed in the previous section). Pbrace are brace forces under load
combinations for drift.
BRB yield length, Lysc, and effective stiffness vary among BRB manufacturers, so the structural engineer
should consult with the BRB manufacturer prior to calculating BRB strains. For this example, the yield
length Lysc is based on 0.7 times length between work points, and the stiffness modifier is Keff = 1.43. For
our example, Lwp /Keff = Lysc, thus, ε @ 2Δm = 10[PbraceLwp /Keff EAsc]/Lysc = 10Pbrace/EAsc.
AISC also requires that story drift be based on a minimum of 2 percent of story height. This condition
needs to be checked with the results from computer analysis. Where two times the design story drift is less
than 2 percent of story height, one method to estimate ε at 0.02 times story height is to scale the brace strain
accordingly, i.e. scaled ε = 0.02/(2 × design story drift) × ε at design story drift.
β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 based on core strain of 1.3 percent is conservative for all floors.
Brace testing requirements are stated in Section K3 of AISC-341. There are two applicable tests: the first is
a subassemblage test that incorporates end rotations of the brace; the second test may be a uniaxial test.
Displacements are based on brace yield displacement Δby. The actual yield displacement of the brace
should be determined from the test, although an estimate of Δby can be calculated from properties of the
brace (yield strength, yield length, transition zone length, etc.). For this example, Δby is calculated to be
0.2 inches. Δbm is brace deformation taken from analysis and scaled to two times the design story drift or 2
percent, whichever is larger. See Table 3–14.
Is Drift
Ratio
Pbr Asc 2Δbm 2Cd × δxe Drift at Least Scale Scaled
Story (kips) (in2) Δb (in) (in) Ratio 2% Factor 2Δbm
6th 29.9 2.0 0.083 0.83 1.73 1.2% No 1.67 1.39
5th 72.0 2.5 0.160 1.60 2.73 1.9% No 1.05 1.69
4th 108.6 3.5 0.172 1.72 2.84 2.0% OK 1.01 1.75
3rd 135.0 4.5 0.167 1.67 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 1.83
2nd 151.0 5.0 0.168 1.68 2.51 1.7% No 1.15 1.93
1st 159.2 5.0 0.177 1.77 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 2.17
Table 3–15 summarizes the test protocol for the uniaxial test for brace at first floor.
Aside from brace axial deformations, the building drifts impose rotations to the ends of the BRBs. The
amount of rotational demand is required for sub-assemblage tests per AISC 341. Brace-end rotations may
be obtained from the computer model. Maximum end rotations of the lower and upper ends of the brace are
summarized in Table 3–16.
The period of the building can be obtained from the computer model and compared to the period based on
method A. Based on the computer analysis, the first-mode periods in longitudinal and transverse directions
are 0.87s and 0.97s respectively. As shown, the period of the building is higher than that computed by
method A. Since the building is at the descending branch of the spectrum, the resulting base shear will be
slightly less. The BRBs in the transverse direction can also be reduced in size based on the results from the
computer analysis. Iterations can be performed to reduce brace sizes and to optimize the design.
After optimization, the final brace design is shown in the figure below. (The numerical values adjacent to
braces represent the steel core area, Asc, i.e. BRB2 has a core area of 2 square inches):
Since BRBFs are proprietary items specified by the engineer and manufactured by the supplier, the engineer
must clearly specify the design requirements and assumptions to the supplier. Construction documents need
to clearly specify the following:
BRB required strength. There are several options to specify BRB. Option one involves specifying a steel
core area (Asc) and a range of acceptable Fysc. Option two involves specifying brace strength (Pysc) , thus
allowing the brace manufacturer to adjust Asc based on Fysc. While option two results in lower overstrength
in the brace, it results in a variation in brace stiffness from the one the engineer has in the computer model.
This may result in different load distribution than in the analysis. For this reason, in the opinion of the
author, it is preferable to use option one.
In addition to brace strength, construction documents should also show i) the permissible range of core
yield strength; ii) the permissible variability of brace stiffness (since brace stiffness is related to core
yielding length and can be manufacturer specific); and iii) the maximum strength adjustment factors (β, ω).
Connections are to be designed such that yielding occurs at the BRB cores. Thus, per AISC 341
Section F4.6c, the diagonal brace connections are designed for 1.1 times the adjusted braced strength
(Pu = 1.1RyβωPysc).
Since BRB-to-gusset connections are typically manufacturer-specific and can vary from welded, bolted,
or pinned-type connections, BRB manufacturers will typically design and detail the brace-to-gusset
connections. However, the gusset plate dimensions and subsequently the connections to beams and/or
columns will depend on this detail; thus, some amount of coordination will be required between the design
professional in responsible charge and the BRB manufacturer. At a minimum, the design professional
in responsible charge needs to convey information such as work-point locations and the beam/column
connection configuration in the design documents.
The design of gusset plate detail needs to consider local and overall buckling. In addition, lateral bracing of
the gusset plate needs to be consistent with that used in the specimen used in the assemblage test.
The design of the gusset plate and the connections to column/beams are sometimes delegated to the brace
manufacturer. This is because different manufacturers typically have different BRB end-connection details
that affect the geometry of the gusset. The design of the connection between the beam and the column
is usually the responsibility of the structural engineer of record. Since the design forces on the beam/
column joint typically depend on the assumptions in gusset plate design, the engineer of record needs to
coordinate with the brace manufacturer as well as review calculations by the manufacturer to make sure the
assumptions are consistent.
The gusset connection to beam and columns can be designed using various methods. The Uniform Force
Method is commonly used to design gusset connection and is not part of this example. The reader can refer
to the AISC Steel Manual Part 13 for a discussion of Uniform Force Method.
Per AISC 341 Section F4.6b, where a brace or gusset plate connects to both members at a beam-to-column
connection, the connection shall either be a) a simple connection that allows unrestrained relative rotation
of 0.025 radians between the framing elements being connected, or b) a fixed connection designed to resist
a moment equal to the lesser of 1.1 (LRFD) times expected beam flexural strength (Ry Mp) or 1.1 (LRFD)
times the sum of expected column flexural strengths (ΣRy Fy Z).
Unless collector loads are relatively small, it is often difficult to design the beam-to-column connection
without restraining rotation. In addition, typical welded gusset connection would not allow the relative
rotation described in AISC; thus, the connection is considered fixed. The connection for this example
between the beam and columns consisted of complete joint penetration welds at both beam flanges.
Additionally, the stiffener at the top of the gusset plate increased flexural capacity of the connection.
Per AISC 341 Section D2.5b, the required strength of column splices shall be greater of a) the required
strength of the columns, including that determined from Chapters E, F, G, and H and Section D1.4a or b)
the required strength determined using the load combination with an amplified seismic load. The required
strength need not exceed the maximum load that can be transferred to the splice by the system. In addition,
per AISC 341 Section F4.6d, column splices shall be designed to develop at least 50 percent of the lesser
available flexural strength of the connected member.
Column splices occur above the third floor where columns change sizes from W14 × 211 to W14 × 132.
The required column strength between the third and fourth floors is 740.2 kips. For W14 × 132:
Bf = 14.7 and tf = 1.03. φAf Fy = 681 kips per flange. The splice consists of a complete penetration
weld of the columns flanges. By inspection, the column’s splice is capable of resisting the required
axial load as well as 50 percent of the flexural strength of W14 × 132.
Per AISC 341 Equation F4–2a, the required shear strength of the splice is determined by Vu = ΣMpc /Hc
using LRFD.
φvVn = (φv)(0.6)(Fy)(tw)(d) = (1.0)(0.6)(50 ksi)(0.645 in)(14.7 in) = 284 kips > Vu . . . OK.
For V-type or inverted-V-type brace configurations, as a minimum, one set of lateral braces is required at
the point of intersection of the braces, unless the beam has sufficient out-of-plane strength and stiffness to
ensure stability between adjacent brace points. The design of stability bracing is beyond the scope of this
example.
The following items are not addressed in this example but are nevertheless necessary for a complete design
of the seismic load resisting system:
OVERVIEW
Special Plate Shear Walls (SPSW) consist of a plate bounded at the sides by columns, also referred to as
vertical boundary elements (VBE), and at the floor levels by beams, also referred to as horizontal boundary
elements (HBE). The alternate terms for beams (HBE) and columns (VBE) emphasize the boundary
element’s role of resisting the tension field developed in the plate.
Steel plate shear walls have been used as early as the 1970’s in the United States (Anon 1977, Anon 1978a,
Anon 1978b, Troy 1979). The early implementations of these walls in the U.S. were designed so that the
web plates did not buckle under shear loading. To prevent buckling, the web plates had to be thick and
stiffened at intermediate points across a shear panel. This type of system is commonly referred to as a
stiffened steel plate shear wall and is still the preferred behavior in Japan where buckling is not permitted
in the lateral-load-resisting system. Another manifestation of the stiffened steel plate shear wall is the
Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall (C-SPW), which uses concrete to brace the plate.
On the other hand, the fact that web plates have post-buckling capacity has been known and applied for
decades when it comes to plate girders (Basler 1961, Porter 1975). Upon buckling, a diagonal tension field
develops in the plate, which, along with the boundary members, creates a truss-like system that can resist
significant shear. In some ways, SPSW are similar to a plate girder turned vertical. The major difference
between plate girders and SPSW is the greater strength and stiffness of the SPSW column compared to the
plate girder flange (Berman and Bruneau 2004). Unstiffened SPSW design is focused around keeping the
boundary elements elastic while the web plate yields along an inclined tension field.
Since the 1980’s, tension field action has been utilized in steel plate shear walls and is the basis of the
AISC 341 provisions for SPSW. Since these systems allow thinner plates and do not require stiffeners,
they are commonly cheaper, and thus have become more popular than their stiffened counterparts in North
America. Steel plate shear walls that utilize the post-buckling capacity of the shear plate are commonly
referred to as thin or unstiffened. U.S. code provisions apply to unstiffened steel plate shear walls that
utilize the post-buckling capacity of the web plate.
Engineers can choose whether to design the SPSW as a dual system with special moment frames (SMF)
capable of resisting 25 percent of the lateral forces (R = 8.0) or as a SPSW with ordinary moment
connections (R = 7.0) (ASCE 7). AISC 341 requires moment connections between the HBE and VBE in
both cases, because they fill out the hysteresis loops (dissipate additional seismic energy), provide lateral
resistance during load reversal (while the tension field in the web plate reverses direction), and add lateral
stiffness.
One of the defining characteristics of SPSW is the significant amount of strength that can be developed
in a short length of wall. SPSW can be especially useful in building configurations with open floor plans
and little room to hide braced frames. Of course, with more slender lateral-resisting elements comes
correspondingly higher overturning forces and a greater likelihood that deflection will control the design.
This example is tailored to the use of unstiffened SPSW in high-seismic regions with all the ductile
detailing requirements implied therein. Stiffened SPSW, composite steel plate shear walls, and low seismic
applications for SPSW are not addressed. See the AISC Design Guide 20 (Sabelli and Bruneau 2006) for
more information on these topics. Other references of note are the MCEER report on design of perforated
steel plate shear walls (Purba and Bruneau 2007), the MCEER report by Vian and Bruneau (2007), which
gives test results for panels with perforations and low-yield-strength steel, the paper by Berman and
Bruneau (2008) which discusses capacity design of VBE’s, and the paper by Qu and Bruneau (2010) which
discusses HBE capacity design.
OUTLINE
The building is a six-story office building located in San Francisco. The Seismic Design Category is D. See
Appendix A for the following information:
• Building dimensions
• Soil type
• Spectral accelerations
Figure 4–1 shows the plan location of the shear walls. There are four shear walls oriented in each direction,
making eight walls in total. Figure 4–2 shows a typical wall elevation.
A B C D E F
5 @ 30'-0" = 150'-0"
5C 5D
5
4
A4 F4
4 @ 30'-0" = 120'-0"
Deck
A2 Span F2
2
1
1C 1D
4'-0"
A B C D E F
15'-0" 15'-0"
P AR AP E T
R OOF
6th F LR
5th F LR
6@ 12'-8"=76'-0"
4th F LR
3rd F LR
2nd F LR
1s t F LR
The floor and roof weights are given in Appendix A. The seismic weight is tabulated in Table 4–1.
W = 6634 kips
There are two options in ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1 for using special plate shear walls: a SPSW, and a SPSW/
SMF dual system. The two options are shown in Table 4–2 along with performance factors and height
limitations.
Table 4–2. System factors for SPSW from ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1
1. Dual system with Special Moment Frames capable of resisting at least 25 percent of prescribed seismic
forces.
2. IBC Section 2205.2 references AISC 341 for detailing requirements (note that IBC 2012 does not adopt
ASCE 7 Chapter 14 as stated in IBC Section 1613.1). In Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C, it is
not required to follow the provisions of AISC 341 if using R = 3, Ωo = 3, and Cd = 3 from part H of
Table 12.2–1.
For the purposes of this example, a special plate shear wall without the dual system will be used. The height
of the structure is 76 feet, 0 inches, which is less than the limit for Seismic Design Category D. The system
factors are:
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are calculated in Appendix A based on SS = 1.50g and
S1 = 0.60g to be
Ta = 0.51 sec
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for Ts < T < TL Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long period transition occurs at TL = 12 sec
(from Figure 22–12).
1.2
Approximate SPSW Building Period,
Ta=0.51 sec, Sa=1.0g
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1 SDS=1.0g
TS=0.60 sec
0.8
Too=0.12 sec
Tmax = 0.71 sec
0.6
Sa=0.4+5.0T
0.4
Calc’ed SPSW
Period, T = 0.92 sec
0.2
Sa=0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
As shown in Figure 4–3, the design spectral acceleration is between To and TS, so the design spectral
acceleration Sa is 1.0g. It is not required to construct the design response spectrum when using the
equivalent lateral force procedure, since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cs in
Section 12.8.1.1.
The response spectrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of building
period. The approximate fundamental period was computed above to be Ta = 0.51 sec. The period of the
structure can also be established through structural analysis of the SPSW. Section 12.8.2, however, limits
the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta, where Cu is a
factor found in Table 12.8–1. In this case Tmax = 1.4 × 0.51 = 0.71 sec. As shown later in this example, drifts
are close to, if not at, the story drift limits of Section 12.12. Therefore, the maximum period, Tmax, will be
used to design the SPSW and the actual period of the building be verified later in the design process. The
first mode period of the final design shown in Figure 4–15 was calculated to be 0.92 sec; therefore, the
initial assumption of T = 0.71 sec is shown to not only be valid, but still conservative.
1a. and 1b. Torsional Irregularity—A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift. An
extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift is more than 1.4 times the
average story drift. From the rigid diaphragm analysis presented later in this example:
Fi
δ max
a
= 0.26
K
Fi
δ avg = 0 25
K
F
δ max 0.26 i
a
= K = 1.04 < 1.2 → NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
δ avg Fi
0.25
K
where:
Fi = story shear
K = stiffness of one SPSW (assuming all SPSWs are identical).
2. Reentrant Corner Irregularity—This plan irregularity exists when a reentrant corner has
plan dimensions in both directions that are greater than 15 percent of the overall plan
dimension. The reentrant corner in this structure is 30 feet/150 feet = 20% of the plan width
and 30 feet/120 feet = 25 percent of the plan depth.
3.–5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these Horizontal Structural
Irregularities.
According to Section 12.3.3.4, because the structure has a horizontal irregularity of Type 2, the forces in
connections of diaphragms to vertical elements, connections of the diaphragm to collectors, connections
of collectors to the seismic-force-resisting system, and the collectors themselves shall be increased by 25
percent unless designed for seismic-load effects including overstrength factor.
By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of the Vertical Structural Irregularities.
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the building is less than
160 feet tall and only has plan irregularity 2—PERMITTED
S DS 1 00
Cs = = = 0 14 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 7 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
S D1 0 60
Cs ≤ = = 0 12. Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 7 0⎞
0 71 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Also,
Cs = 0.12
V CsW = 0.12
1 × 6634 = 796 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 796 kips
According to Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor should be calculated for each principal axis. The
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either Section 12.3.4.2(a) or Section 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true,
in which case the Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. Since Section 12.3.4.2(a) is satisfied, the
Redundancy Factor is 1.0 for both directions.
See Appendix A for the derivation of load combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2Sds = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the SPSW are §12.4.2.3
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the SPSW frame (although they apply for collectors
and at other conditions outside the SPSW frame).
The equation for distributing the shear along the height of the building is shown below. Since the period =
0.71 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for T = 2.5 sec.
In this example, k = 1.105. The other terms are defined in Section 12.8.3.
wx hxk
Fx = CvxV, where, Cvx = n
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
As shown in Figure 4–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building.
To distribute the load to each SPSW, the story shear, Fi, is applied in the X and Y directions. Per
Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the story shear is offset 5 percent to account for accidental
eccentricity. The 5 percent offset is 6 feet for the N-S plan dimension of 120 feet and 7.5 feet for the E-W
plan dimension of 150 feet.
5C 5D
A4 F4
6'-0"
S T OR Y
S HE AR ,
Fi
AC C .
C E NT E R OF T OR S ION
MAS S AND 7'-6"
C E NT E R OF
A2 F2
R IG IDIT Y
Y S T IF F NE S S ,
K, TYP
X
1C 1D
Since all of the SPSWs are the same, a generic stiffness, K, is assumed for all walls. Example calculations
of direct shear, Vdirect, the shear in each SPSW due to torsion, Vtors, and the total shear, Vtotal, are given below
SPSW 5D for shear in the X-Direction. The values associated with horizontal distribution of shear for other
walls and for forces in the Y-Direction are tabulated in Table 4–4. The distance from the center of mass in
the N-S direction, Ry, and E-W direct, Rx are used in these calculations.
Ry
Vdirect Fi = 0 25Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M Fi × ( .05 × 120) = 6 Fi
M Rx y 6 Fi × 60 K
Vtors = = = 0 01Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
36900 K
Vtotala Vdiirect
r t
+ Vtors 0 25Fi + 0.01Fi 0 26 Fi
X-Direction Y-Direction
Wall x y Ryx Rxy Rd 2 Vdirect Vtors Vtotal Vdirect Vtors Vtotal
A2 −75 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi 0 −0.015Fi −0.015Fi
A4 −75 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi 0 −0.015Fi −0.015Fi
F2 75 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi 0 0.015Fi 0.015Fi
F4 75 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi 0 0.015Fi 0.015Fi
1C −60 −60 K 3600 K 0 −0.01Fi −0.01Fi 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi
1D −60 −60 K 3600 K 0 −0.01Fi −0.01Fi 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi
5C 60 60 K 3600 K 0 0.01Fi 0.01Fi 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi
5D 60 60 K 3600 K 0 0.01Fi 0.01Fi 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi
ΣRd = 36,900 K
2
Table 4–4 shows that the maximum design shear for any wall is 0.26 times the story shear. The rest of this
example focuses on the design of SPSW 5D. The story shear and cumulative shears for SPSW 5D are given
in Table 4–5.
The web plate of a SPSW can develop especially large shear capacity even with thin web plates. However,
to promote uniform yielding in web plates along the height of the structure, it is preferred to proportion web
plates to have shear capacities that match the shear demands at each floor. This can result in very thin web
plates. For example, the thickness of the sixth-floor web plate was computed based on a solid web plate, the
computed shear demand, and the equation for shear capacity given in AISC 341-10:
φ n
φ 42 Fy t w Lccff i 2α ) = 2184t w with φ = 0.9
φ0 Eq F5–1
where,
( u
ki ) ( n w
)
t w ≥ 0.015 in required thickness for a solid web plate at the sixth floor.
It is shown above that a web plate as thin as 0.015 inches thick would be sufficient to resist the design shear
forces at the sixth floor. However, there are constructability issues associated with using plate material that
thin including weldability, handling, and obtaining suitable steel material. More information about using
thin web-plate material is included in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) and ICC/SEAOC (2012).
AISC 341 Chapter F5.7 presents two alternatives to the solid plate SPSW including a perforated SPSW
and a corner cut-out SPSW. These alternatives, especially the perforated SPSW, represent a method for
reducing the strength of the plate to allow the use of thicker plate that can be made with more commonly
available material. Furthermore, tests have shown larger buckling loads and improved energy dissipation in
perforated SPSWs as compared to similar strength solid-web SPSWs (Vian and Bruneau 2005). Perforated
SPSWs are selected for this design example.
Design of a perforated SPSW begins with selecting a hole diameter, D, the diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag,
and the angle of hole lines, α. The only restriction given is that the diagonal spacing, Sdiag, shall be at least
1.67D [Section F5.7a(2)]. However, there are some important considerations when selecting these variables.
The ratio of Sdiag/D is an important parameter as it defines the amount of strength reduction compared to the
solid plate. Smaller values of Sdiag/D result in closer-spaced holes and thus more strength reduction. For this
example, use the minimum ratio to maximize the plate thickness, Sdiag/D = 1.67.
Three criteria are considered here for selecting the hole diameter: the hole diameter used in experiments,
the cost of cutting the holes, and how well the holes can be configured in the wall geometry. The
hole diameter used in the one large-scale test (approximately half scale) of a perforated SPSW was
approximately 8 inches (200 mm) (Vian et al. 2009). Finite element models have been made of a perforated
SPSW with perforation diameters between 2 inches and 12 inches (Purba and Bruneau 2009). Tests on
smaller plates (12 inches × 12 inches or 18 inches × 12 inches) with single perforations were conducted
with hole diameters between 2.4 inches and 6 inches (Roberts and Sabouri-Ghomi 1992).
The cost of cutting the perforations is directly related to the length of cut. Figure 4–5 shows the variation in
the length of cut normalized to area of the web plate for varying hole diameter and spacing ratio. It is clear
that larger hole diameters result in shorter length of cut and thus more economical fabrication. However,
the layout of larger holes (D ≥ 20 inches) in the typical 15-foot-wide × 12-feet-8-inches-tall bay used in
this example can result in configurations that do not develop the tension strip concept illustrated in Figure
C-F5.7 in the commentary. Figure 4–6 shows the perforation layout for four different hole diameters in the
typical bay using a hole orientation angle of 45 degrees, spacing ratio of Sdiag/D = 1.67, and satisfy required
distance [Section F5.7a(2)] between edge holes and web-plate connection to boundary elements of between
D and D + 0.7Sdiag. With the goal of maximizing the hole diameter to improve economy, while selecting
a perforation layout capable of developing well-defined tension strips, a hole diameter of 16 inches is
selected for this example. The 16-inch diameter is also considered reasonable relative to large-scale testing
performed at half-scale on panels with 8-inch-diameter holes.
USE D = 16 in
Figure 4–5. Effect of hole diameter and S/D ratio on length of cut
Finally, the angle of the hole lines, α, needs to be selected. Although the specification does not explicitly
restrict the possible hole line angles, there are some good reasons to set the angle equal to 45 degrees.
First, the tension strip will be most effective when the angle is near the angle of inclination of a solid plate
as given by Eq F5–2. The web plate will naturally form a tension field at that orientation, which is usually
between 35 degrees and 45 degrees.
Second, the effective tension strip width, Seff , will reduce as the angle varies away from 45 degrees. This
is demonstrated in Figure 4–7 for angles of 30 degrees and 60 degrees, both of which have an effective
tension strip width, Seff , equal to 87 percent of the diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag. The effective tension strip
width is used in the literature (Purba and Bruneau 2009, Vian et al. 2009) to develop the strength and
stiffness of the panel, so if the angle is not 45 degrees, the effective strip width, Seff , should be used in place
of Sdiag to reduce the strength, stiffness, and expected tension stress in the specification. This is supported
in the literature (Purba and Bruneau 2009, Vian et al. 2009, Purba and Bruneau 2007) in which Sdiag is used
to represent the width of the effective tension strip in the finite element analyses. If the angle is 45 degrees,
the tension strip width is equal to Sdiag. The equation relating the effective tension strip width, Seff , to the
diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag, is given below and plotted for a range of Sdiag/D and angles in Figure 4–8.
Sefff ⎛ Sdiag ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ sin [2(( − )]
D ⎝ D ⎠
To maximize the efficiency of the perforated plate, use α = 45° for this example.
USE α = 45°
Sdiag Seff
Seff
Sdiag
60°
30°
α = 60° α = 30°
Figure 4–7. Possible variations in the angle of holes
Figure 4–8. Effect of varying the angle of holes on effective strip width
The layout of the perforations is now defined and is shown in Figure 4–6(c). Compute the required
thickness of the plates using the following equation. The web plate is designed to resist the full story shear
without consideration of the moment connections, and the equation below implicitly assumes an angle of
the hole lines of, α = 45°.
⎛ D ⎞
Vn 0 42 Fy t w Lccff ⎜ 1 − 0 7 ⎟ with φ = 0.9 Eq F5–3
⎝ Sdiag ⎠
where,
Fy and tw are the yield strength and thickness of the plate respectively
Lcf = clear distance between VBE = 15 ft × 12 in/ft − 17 in = 163 in (assuming dc = 17 in)
D and Sdiag are defined above as the hole diameter and the spacing of the holes along the diagonal
Plate and steel sheet materials that are allowed in AISC 341-10 Section A3.1 include A36 and A1011
Gr. 55. However, use of A1011 SS Gr. 55 may be undesirable because of the larger yield stress. A1011
SS Gr. 30 and A1011 SS Gr. 33 provide a good alternative even though they are not explicitly allowed in the
specification. A1011 SS Gr. 30 and A1011 SS Gr. 33 have been used in construction of SPSWs (Eatherton
2004) and are discussed further in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) and SEAOC/ICC (2006). For this design
example, it is assumed that A36 steel sheet is available in 1⁄16 inch (0.0625 inch), 14 gage (0.0747 inch),
12 gage (0.1046 inch), 1⁄8 inch (0.125 inch), 10 gage (0.1345 inch), and 3⁄16 inch (0.1875 inch) as suggested
in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006).
Size the web plate at the first floor. Try 3⁄16-inch-thick A36 plate with hole diameter, D = 16 inches,
Sdiag = 28 inches, and angle α = 45°.
3 ⎛ 16 ⎞
φVn = 0 9 × 0 42 × 36 × × 163 1 − 0.7 ⎟ = 250 kips → OK
16 ⎝ 28 ⎠
For boundary element design, AISC 341 Section F5.3 states that boundary members are to be designed for
the forces corresponding to the expected yield strength, in tension, of the web calculated at the angle α. The
definition of the expected yield strength of the web plate is Fy Ry and the expected flexural strength of the
HBE is 1.1Ry Mp (for LRFD). The values of Ry for different materials are given in Table A3.1 and is Ry = 1.3
for A36 plate and sheet.
Figure 4–9 shows the forces in the HBE and VBE due to the application of the expected yield strength of
the plate at angle α and the expected moment strength of the HBE.
Δ /sinα
Figure 4–10. Components of expected web strength applied to HBE and VBE
(based on Sabelli and Bruneau 2006)
For the design of the HBE and VBE, it is necessary to separate the force, F, into components. Figure 4–10
shows a representative strip of web plate acting at an angle α. Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) present a
derivation of the resulting horizontal and vertical forces acting on the HBE and VBE:
Force Ry Fy t w Δ cos α
F11 = = = Ry Fy t w cos2 α
Length
t Δ
cos α
Ry Fy t w Δ sin α ⎡1 ⎤
F12 = = Ry Fy t w i α α Ry Fy t w ⎢ sin ( )⎥
Δ ⎣2 ⎦
cos α
Ry Fy t w Δ cos α ⎡1 ⎤
F21 = = Ry Fy t w i α α Ry Fy t w ⎢ sin ( )⎥
Δ ⎣2 ⎦
sin α
Ry Fy t w Δ sin α
F22 = = Ry Fy t w sin 2 α .
Δ
sin α
For this design example, the perforations have the effect of reducing the web-plate strength and fixing the
angle of inclination, α. Since the angle of hole lines is 45 degrees, the trigonometric terms in the above
equations simplify to:
1 1
cos2 α sin
i ( ) = sin 2 α = .
2 2
The effect of the perforations on web-plate strength is to reduce the expected yield strength as follows:
⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Solid plate, F Ry Fy t w → perforated plate, F Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟.
⎝ Sdiag ⎠
1 ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F11 F12 = F21 F22 = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟.
2 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
For the sixth floor, the forces F and Fij are calculated below. All tension field components are given in
Table 4–7.
⎛ D6 ⎞ ⎛ 16 ⎞
F6 Ry 6 Fy 6 t w 6 ⎜ 1 0.7 2 ) 1 0.7 ⎟ = 1.76 kip-in
⎟ (1.3)(36)(0.0625
⎝ S diag −6 ⎠ ⎝ 28 ⎠
1 ⎛ D6 ⎞ 1 ⎛ 16 ⎞
Fij −6 Ry 6 Fy 6 t w 6 ⎜ 1 − 0.7 ⎟ = (1.3)(36)(0.0625
6 5) ⎜ 1 0.77 ⎟ = 0 88 kip-in
2 ⎝ Sdiag−6 ⎠ 2 ⎝ 28 ⎠
The HBEs are designed for the moments due to vertical force associated with the web-plate yielding, Fij,
and vertical forces associated with the gravity loads. The HBE resists axial compression due to the inward
pull applied to the columns by the yielding web plate in addition to the axial force due to collector forces.
The HBE resists shear associated with the web-plate yielding, expected plastic moment capacity at both
ends, and gravity loads. Figure 4–11 shows the forces acting on the roof HBE and the sixth-floor HBE.
Note the following:
• The roof HBE resists the force of the tension field on one side only. In some cases this will
result in a heavier top HBE than in floors below.
• At intermediate floors, if the plate is the same thickness above and below, the HBE does not
resist vertical forces other than gravity loads. When the plates are of different thickness above
and below, the HBE is designed for the forces associated with the difference.
• The HBE is not required to be designed for end moments unless using a dual system where the
moment frame is to be designed to resist 25 percent of the lateral forces.
For this example, the calculations for the roof HBE and sixth-floor HBE will be presented, then design
information will be presented for all the HBEs. The design process will consist of computing the required
flexural strength, Mu, calculating the required axial strength, Pu, calculating the design flexural strength,
φMn, calculating the design axial strength, φPn, checking the interaction equation of AISC 360-10
Section H1.1, then checking that the design shear strength, φVn, exceeds the required shear strength, Vu.
Assume that the HBE will be laterally braced at mid-span with a beam as shown in Figure 4–1. Find the
moment on the roof HBE for SPSW 5D:
⎧ w ⎫ ⎧⎪ 25 psf D ⎫⎪
⎪ D1 ⎪ 0.13
13 kip-ft D
⎨ ⎬ = 5 ft × ⎨ ⎬= Uniform load due to roof gravity loads
⎪⎩ wL ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ 20 psf Lr ⎪⎭ 0 10 kip-ft Lr
wD2 (6 33 f ll 4 f p p ) 20 0 21 kip f D Uniform load due to exterior wall
F11 6
0 88 12 10 6 kip f QE .
Using load combination number 5, the required design strength for the roof HBE is
L2cf
Mu [1 4( wD1 + wD 2 ) 1. ( F11−6 )] . Load Combo 5 (modified)
4
The equation Mu = wL2/4 to calculate the required moment due to a distributed load is based on work by
Bruneau et al. (2011) that shows that HBEs subjected to end moments and distributed load can develop
in-span plastic hinging unless the beam is designed to resist a maximum moment of wL2/4. The required
design strength for the roof HBE is therefore
(163 )2
M u = [1.4( .13 + 0. ) + 1.. (10.6)] = 511 kip-ft
f.
4
The required design strength for the sixth-floor HBE is similar. The differences are the inclusion of floor
live load per load combination 5 (no floor live load for the roof HBE) and the vertical force associated with
web-plate yielding. The vertical force associated with web-plate yielding is the difference in vertical force
applied by the sixth-floor web-plate yielding and the fifth-floor web-plate yielding. The required design
strength for the sixth-floor HBE is therefore
L2cf
Mu ⎡⎣1 4( wD1 + wD 2 ) + 0 5( wL ) + 1.0[( F11−6 fftt ⎤⎦
F1111−5 )12 in/ft]
4
⎧ w ⎫ ⎧⎪ 65 psf D ⎫⎪
⎪ D1 ⎪ 0.33 kip-ft D
⎨ ⎬ = 5 ft × ⎨ ⎬=
⎪⎩ wL ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ 65 psf L ⎪⎭ 0 33 kip-ft L
Next, find the compression force in the roof HBE for SPSW 5D. The roof HBE resists two components of
compression:
1. Compression from the story shear collected to the wall. This can be estimated as the larger
of the diaphragm collector force, Pcollector, or the maximum force that the web plate can
develop, P12.
2. Horizontal reaction from the VBE that resists the inward pull of the tension field, P22.
The compressive load from collecting load to the SPSW is limited by the shear that can be developed at the
top of the panel:
Fpx − roof
r
0 2 S DSS I e w px = 0 2 × 1 0 × 1 0 × 544 = 109 kips
Fpx− roof
r
= 127 kips
Fpx − roof
r 2 0 × 127
Pcollector = Ωo = = 63 kips .
4 frame
a s 4
The design collector load, Pcollector, is less than the force required to fully yield the web plate (neglecting the
moment connections), P12. The intent of the AISC 341 provisions is clear, in that the boundary elements are
to be able to resist the effects of the expected yield strength of the web plate. The HBE should, therefore, be
designed for the larger of Pcollector or P12 plus the horizontal reaction from the VBE calculated below.
The horizontal reaction from the VBE is the load required to resist the component F22 for the height of the
column tributary to the top beam. This force accounts for the tendency of the columns to bow inward from
tension field action. The HBEs brace the column against this inward pull.
The process for finding the axial compression force on the sixth-floor HBE is similar. The beam axial force
due to web-plate shear acting along the axis of the beam, P12, is found using the difference between the
web-plate forces above and below. Similarly, the beam axial forces due to the inward pull of the columns,
P22, has a portion due to the web plate above and the web plate below the sixth-floor level.
4.7 SELECT PRELIMINARY SECTION FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 341
W18 sections are used for the preliminary HBE sections in this example. Choose a W18 × 86 for the roof
HBE. Since the calculations are identical for the remaining HBEs, they are not repeated for the sixth floor
here. For this example it is desired to only have one point of lateral bracing between the columns. Check
the maximum spacing for lateral bracing for this section. Section F5.4c references Section D1.2a for the
lateral bracing requirements associated with moderately ductile members.
E
Lb 0 17ry §D1.2a
Fy
29,000
Lb− max
a
= 0.17 × 1.67 = 259.3 i = 21 ft-7 in
50
Since it is necessary for the HBEs to develop plastic hinges for the full mechanism to occur, Section F5.5a
requires that the HBEs meet the section compactness requirements associated with highly ductile members.
The following calculations verify that the roof HBE satisfies those compactness criteria.
⎛ E ⎞
λf ≤ ⎜0 3 = 7.22⎟ λ f = 7.2 . . . OK T D1.1
⎝ Fy ⎠
P 202
Ca = u = = 0 16 T D1.1
φPy 1265
⎡ E E ⎤
λ w ≤ ⎢ 0.7777 (2.93 − Ca ) ≥ 1.49 ⎥ = [51.4 ≥ 35.9] = 51.4
⎢⎣ Fy Fy ⎥
⎦
λ w = 33.4 ≤ 51.4 . . . OK. T D1.1
Another consideration for the HBE suggested in the AISC Design Guide for Steel Plate Shear Walls
(Sabelli and Bruneau 2006) is to provide an HBE with web that is stronger than the SPSW web plate. The
suggested equation is
t w Ry Fy
t wHBE
H
≥ .
FyHHBE
For A36 web plate and A992 roof HBE, this reduces to
t wHBE
H
≥ 0 94t w for the W18 × 86: 0.48 > [0.94 (0.0625) = 0.06].
Verify that the stiffness of the HBE is sufficient to develop uniform yielding in the web plate per
Section F5.4a:
t w L4
I b ≥ 0.0031
h
⎡ 6 5(155 * 12)4
0.0625
06 ⎤
1530 ≥ ⎢ 0.0031 = 1338 ⎥ .
⎣ (12.67 * 12) ⎦
4.8 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 360
KL 1.0 × (7.5 f × 12 i /f )
= = 34 for weak-axis buckling
ry 2 63
KL 1.0 × (12.67
6 f × 12 i f )
= = 20 for strong-axis buckling
rx 7.77
π2 E π 2 29000
Fe = 2
= = 244 ksi Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞ 34.222
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
E
Limit on inelastic buckling, 4.71 = 113
Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
KL E ⎢0.658 F ⎥ F = 45.9 ksi
Because < 4.71 ,F ⎣ ⎦ y Eq E3–2
r Fy cr
φPn 0 90 Fcr Ag = 0.90 × 45.99 × 25 3 = 1045 kips Eq E3–1
Pr 8 ⎛ M rx M ry ⎞
+ ⎜ + ⎟ ≤1 0 Eq H1-1a
Pc 9 ⎝ M cx M cy ⎠
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 202 8 511
+ = + = 0 84 . . . OK.
φPn 9 ⎜⎝ φMn ⎟⎠ 1045 9 698
The calculations for combined flexure and axial force for the sixth-floor HBE is similar to the roof HBE.
4.10 CHECK SHEAR FOR THE ROOF HBE AND SIXTH-FLOOR HBE AISC 360
The shear at the face of the column is the sum of the shears associated with plastic hinging in the beam,
gravity loads, and the effect of the expected yield strength of the tension field. The shear associated with
plastic hinging in the beams is taken from Equation E2.1 in AISC 341. The following calculations show
that the factored beam shear in the roof beam is less than the factored nominal shear capacity.
2 × 1.1Ry M p− roof
r
Lcf Lcf
Vu R
= + F11−6 + 1 4 ( w D1 + w D 2 )
Lcf 2 2
2(1.1)(1.1)(7755 × 12) 163 (0.13 + 0.21) 163
Vu R
= + 0 88 + 1.4
163 2 12 2
Vu R
= 138 + 72 + 3 = 213 kips.
h E
= 33.4 < 2.24 = 53.9 so: §G2.1
tw Fy
φ n
φ v 0 6 Fy AwCv = 1 0 × 0 6 × 50 × 18.4 × 0.48
48 × 1 0 = 265 kip . . . OK. Eq G2–1
The calculation for the sixth-floor HBE shear load and capacity is similar and is given by the following:
2 × 1.1Ry M p− roof
r
Lcf Lcf
Vu −6 = + ( F11−5 F11−6 ) + [1.4( wD1 + wD 2 ) + 0.5( wL )]
Lcf 2 2
2(1.1)(1.1)(554 × 12) 163 163 /12
Vu−6 = + (1.05 − 0.88) + [1.4(0.33 + 0.25) 0.5(0.33)]
163 2 2
Vu−6 = 99 + 14 + 7 = 119 kips.
Table 4–8 gives the preliminary sizes for the HBEs with key design information. The same calculations
as presented above were carried out for each HBE. Section compactness requirements, lateral bracing,
stiffness, web thickness, and shear were checked, but are not given in Table 4–8.
Similar to HBEs, the VBEs should be designed to resist the forces associated with the expected yield
strength of the plate (Fy Rytw) acting at an angle α (equal to 45 degrees for this example). A key difference is
that the VBE is subjected to six floors of web plates at their expected yield strength. This is not dissimilar to
the eccentrically braced frame or buckling-restrained braced frames that require the columns to be designed
for the loads associated with each floor’s energy-dissipating element at its capacity. Unlike those systems,
however, columns in SPSW are required to resist considerable moment due to the web-plate tension field
pulling inward, in addition to the overturning forces. In this sense, the columns are doing more work in
SPSW than in other systems, and larger structural sections are often required.
For VBE design, the moment and compression forces are separated and examined individually, and then
interaction is considered in accordance with Chapter H of AISC 360. The design checks for the VBE
include the following:
• Moment due to expected yield strength of the web plate acting at the angle α in addition to
plastic hinging of HBEs
The VBE is subjected to axial force, moment, and shear. The commentary for AISC 341 suggests three
methods for determining the forces acting on vertical boundary elements:
3. Combined Plastic and Linear Analysis—A capacity-design approach in which the maximum
forces that can be delivered by the HBE and web plates are applied to a model of the column.
The Combined Plastic and Linear Analysis method will be used in this example with some simplifications.
Forces and moments are calculated based on a complete mechanism with all web plates yielding and plastic
hinges at each beam-column connection.
The column compression calculated by the capacity-design approach consists of: downward components
of the web-plate tension field, F21; beam shear due to web-plate tension field, V11; and beam shear due to
plastic hinging, Vp, (shown in Figure 4–12). The forces applied at the roof and sixth floor are given by
F11−66 F21
21 6
= F22−6 = 0.88 kip-in
F11−6 Lcf 0 88 × 163
V11−r = = = 72 kips
2 2
1.1(1.1)(50)186
M pe −r 1.1Ry Fy Z x = = 938 kip-ft
ft
12 in/ft
f
2M p r 2 × 938 × 12 in/ft
f
Vp r
= = = 138 kips.
Lcf 163
The beam shear due to the web-plate tension field at the sixth floor is due to the difference in web-plate
thickness above and below the HBE and is given by
The rest of the applied loads and moments used for VBE design are given in Table 4–9.
Tension Field, HBE Plastic Beam Shear Due to Beam Shear Due to
F21 and F22 Hinge, Mpe Hinge, Vp Plate, V11
Level (k-in) (k-ft) (kips) (kips)
Roof — 938 138 72
6th 0.88 671 99 14
5th 1.05 938 138 48
4th 1.64 736 108 20
3rd 1.89 736 108 18
2nd 2.11 938 138 43
1st 2.63 — — —
V 11-6 M pe-6
V11-6
F F
21-5 21-5
V p-6 V p-6 F 22-5
V 11-5 M pe-5
F21-4 V 11-5 F
21-4
V p-5 V p-5 F 22-4
V 11-4 M pe-4
V11-4
F F
21-3 21-3
V p-4 F 22-3
V p-4
V 11-3 M pe-3
F V11-3
21-2
F
21-2 F22-2
V p-3 V p-3
V 11-2 M pe-2
F21-1 V 11-2
F
21-1
V p-2 V p-2 F 22-1
A 2D model of a single VBE as a continuous beam over interior supports at each floor was used to compute
shears and moments in the VBE. Figure 4–13 shows the resulting shears and moments associated with the
given loading on the 2D model, and Table 4–10 gives the values for moments at various heights along the
column.
M pe-r
163
938
F 22-6
M pe-6
129 390 -281
29
F 22-5
M pe-5 -266
186 710
-31
F 22-4
M pe-4 -164
200
676
F22-3 -64
M pe-3 -206
221
699
F22-2 -87
-268
M pe-2 268
864
-99
F 22-1
-275
-132
C OLUMN C OLUMN
2D MODE L
S HE AR (K IP S ) MOME NT (K -F T )
Figure 4–13. VBE shear and moment due to capacity-design forces
The axial compression forces can be computed as the sum of the applied axial forces shown in
Figure 4–12b. Table 4–12 tabulates the compression forces at the top of the column, the bottom of the
column, and at the location of maximum moment identified in Table 4–11.
Column Compression
Compression Incremental Compression at Location Compression
from Plate, Beam Shear, Column at Top of of Max at Bottom
P21 Vp + V11 Compression Column Moment of Column
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th 117 210 327 210 326 327
5th 140 113 253 440 552 580
4th 219 186 406 766 930 985
3rd 252 129 381 1114 1288 1366
2nd 282 126 408 1492 1687 1774
1st 352 181 532 1955 2190 2306
With the moments given in Table 4–10 and the compression forces given in Table 4–11, wide-flange
sections are chosen that satisfy the compactness criteria, that satisfy the minimum moment of inertia, and
that can resist the combined forces. The column is to be spliced above the fourth floor. Choose a W14 × 283
for the first three stories and a W14 × 159 for the upper three stories. The compactness requirements for the
W14 × 283 are verified below to satisfy the criteria for highly ductile members as specified in Section F5.5a
(the procedure for the W14 × 159 is identical):
⎛ E ⎞
λf ≤ ⎜0 3 = 7.22⎟ λ f = 3 89 . . . OK T D1.1
⎝ Fy ⎠
Pu 2306
Ca = = = 0 62 T D1.1
φPy 3749
E
λ w ≤ 1.12
1 (2.33 − Ca ) = 46.1 λ w = 8 84 . . . OK. T D1.1
Fy
VBE WIDTH-THICKNESS
RATIOS ARE OK
Section F5.4a places a minimum on the moment of inertia of the VBE. This limit is intended to require a
stiff enough VBE such that the tension field can develop uniformly across the panel.
0.0031t w h 4 0. (3 16)(12.6 )4
I min = =
L (15 )
I min 1726 i 4
I c = 3840 in 4 . . . OK. §5.4a
4.16 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FORCES ON VBE AISC 360
The column must be able to elastically resist the combined moments and axial forces computed above.
The design axial strength, φPn, and design moment strength, φMn, are computed, and then the interaction
equation is checked. This process is conducted for the top of the first-floor column (W14 × 283), and then a
summary of all the interaction equation values is presented in Table 4–13.
KL 1.0 × (12.67
6 f × 12 i /f )
= = 36.5 for minor axis
ry 4.17
π2 E π 2 29,000
Fe = 2
= = 215 ksi Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞ 36.52
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
E
Limit on inelastic buckling, 4.71 = 113
Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
KL E ⎢0.658 F ⎥ F = 45.4 ksi
Because < 4.71 ,F ⎣ ⎦ y Eq E3–2
r Fy cr
φPn 0 90 Fcr Ag = 0.90 × 45.44 × 83 3 = 3404 kips Eq E3–1
E
Lp 1.76ry = 14.7 ft Eq F2–5
Fy
(can also be found in AISC 13th T 3–2)
Lb = 12 ft-8 in, so Lb is less than Lp; therefore,
0 9 × 50 × 542
φM n 0 9 Fy Z x = = 2033 kip-ft Eq F2–1
12 in/ft
f
The worst case combined axial and flexure might occur at one of three locations: the base of the column,
the maximum moment in the in-span, or at top of the column. All locations were checked and are tabulated
in Table 4–12. The worst case was found to be the top of the first-floor column:
Pr 8 ⎛ M rx M ry ⎞
+ ⎜ + ⎟ ≤1 0 Eq H1–1a
Pc 9 ⎝ M cx M cy ⎠
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 1955 8 864
+ = + = 0 95 . . . OK.
φPn 9 ⎜⎝ φM n ⎟⎠ 3404 9 2033
Section F5.4b states that the strong-column/weak-beam provisions in Section E3.4a associated with
special moment frames shall be met neglecting the web plate. The capacity-design approach for the VBE
will develop more moment capacity in the VBE than required to satisfy the strong-column/weak-beam
provisions. However, a typical check for the connection of the first-floor HBE to the VBE is provided
below for completeness. The strong-column/weak-beam check can be more critical when column forces are
determined using methods other than the capacity-design approach.
The sum of the projections of column flexural strength to the beam centerline is given by
⎛ P ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1955 ⎞ ⎤
ΣM *pc ΣZc ⎜ Fyc − uc ⎟ = 2 ⎢542 50 − ⎥ = 28,760
6 k-in.
⎝ Ag ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ 83.3 ⎟⎠ ⎦
The shear on the first-floor HBE is given in Table 4–12 as 181 kips. The eccentricity between the shear
force and the column centerline is half the depth of the column because the moment connection selected is
the WUF-W connection, which uses a plastic hinge at the face of the column.
⎡ ⎛ 16..7 ⎞ ⎤
Σ * Σ( .1Ry Fybb Z b + M uv ) ⎢ .1( .1)(50)(186) + ⎜ 181 ⎥ = 12,764
6 k-in
pb
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎦
ΣM *pc 28,760
= = 2.3 > 1.0 .
ΣM *pb 12,764
Calculating deflection requires the use of a 2D computer model. There are multiple ways to model the web
plate, of which two of the most useful are shown in Figure 4–14. The Canadian Steel Code (CAN/CSA
S16-01) recommends the tension strip model. In this model, the web plate is divided into at least ten tension
strips per panel, oriented at the angle α. The tension strip section is merely the tributary width of plate
times the effective thickness of the plate and is pinned at each end. CAN/CSA S16-01 uses this model
to determine the design capacity of the wall as the shear that causes a strip to reach its factored tension
capacity. The elastic 2D model is not appropriate, however, for boundary element design. In order to use the
2D model to design the boundary elements, it would be necessary to account for nonlinearities such as the
plate yielding and plastic hinging of the beams.
Another modeling option is the orthotropic membrane model. The web plate is meshed into a number
of membrane elements. The local axes of these elements are rotated to the angle of inclination, α. The
modulus of elasticity along local axis 1 and the shear modulus are set to zero (or as near zero as the
modeling software allows). The modulus of elasticity along local axis 2 is set to 29,000 ksi for steel. The
membrane thickness is then set to the effective web-plate thickness. Advantages to this type of modeling
include:
1. The angle of inclination, α, can be adjusted without reconfiguring the model geometry.
2. The membrane can be meshed automatically whereas the tension strips have to be added
individually.
ME S H OF
ME MB R ANE
E LE ME NT S
R OT AT E
LOC AL
AXE S
T E NS ION
ONLY
S T R IP
(C AN/C S A
R E C OMME NDS
2 10 MIN)
S E T TO
ZE R O
S T IF F NE S S
OR T HOT R OP IC T E NS ION
ME MB R ANE S T R IP
MODE L MODE L
Figure 4–14. Modeling options to check deflection
For this example, the tension strip model will be used. Because the angle of inclination of the hole lines is
fixed at 45 degrees, it is possible to develop a model that does not need to be adjusted for changes in the
angle of inclination. Also, the 2D tension strip model facilitates nonlinear pushover analysis if desired.
Each panel was split into ten tension strips with the following properties:
π⎛ D ⎞
1− ⎜ ⎟
4 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
tefff = tw . Eq F5–4
π⎛ D ⎞⎛ N r D sin α ⎞
1− ⎜ ⎟ 1−
4 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎜⎝ Hc ⎟
⎠
For the first floor, the value of the effective plate thickness can be found as
π ⎛ 16 ⎞
1−
4 ⎜⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
tefff = 0.1875 = 0.139 in
π ⎛ 16 ⎞ ⎛ 5(16) 45° ⎞
1− 1−
4 ⎜⎝ 28 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 134
3 ⎟⎠
The effective plate thickness was calculated for the first through sixth floors as 0.139 inch, 0.112 inch,
0.100 inch, 0.087 inch, 0.056 inch, and 0.046 inch. The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table
4–13. The elastic story drifts are the difference in the elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The
predicted inelastic story drift is given by the following for the fifth floor:
Cd δ xe 6 0 × 0 43
δx = = = 2 58 in ASCE 7 Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system and the occupancy category:
δx > Δa → DRIFT IS OK
The drifts were found to satisfy the story drift limits. However, if the inelastic story drift had exceeded the
story-drift limit it would have been necessary to either increase the size of HBEs and VBEs to increase the
stiffness of the moment frame, or increase the web-plate thickness. If the capacity-design approach is used,
the column moments are the only parameter not easily calculated by closed-form equations (although they
can be estimated). It is possible, therefore, to create a spreadsheet or Mathcad sheet to carry out most, if not
all, of the required calculations. Using one of these computer tools can significantly simplify the iteration
process.
Since all design checks were satisfied, the final design for the web plate, HBEs, and VBE’s are shown in
Figure 4–15.
W18x86
1/16" A36
Plate and
Sdiag=28"
W18x65 14 ga A36
Plate and
W14x159
Sdiag=28"
W14x159
W18x86
Sdiag Typical 12 ga A36
Plate and
6@ 12'-8" = 76'-0"
W18x71
45° Angle 10 ga A36
Typical, Center Plate and
Pattern on Wall Sdiag=28"
W18x71 10 ga A36
Plate and
W14x283
W14x283
Sdiag=34"
W18x86
16" Diameter 3/16" A36
Holes Typical Plate and
Sdiag=28"
15'-0"
AISC 341 Section F5.6b(2) references Section E3.6e for a check of the panel-zone shear for the panel
zones next to the top and base HBE of the SPSW. The roof HBE and an HBE at the foundation are expected
to experience larger shear forces because there is web plate on only one side of the HBE. For this design
example, check the column panel zone at the roof HBE (W18 × 86) connection to the VBE (W14 × 159)
including a 1⁄2-inch-thick doubler plate in the column panel zone.
where,
M pr Ry Z x Fy 1.1(186)50
Ff = = = = 580 kips
p due to flange forces
ho db t fb 18.4 − 0.77
2 M pr 2 × 10,230
Vc = = = 126 kips due to plastic hinges
Lcf 163
F11−6 Lcf
V11 = = 72 kips due to web plate
2
Lcf
VG 1 4 ( w D1 + w D 2 ) = 3 kips due to gravity loads.
2
Pu 210
Since = = 0 09 < 0.75, then LRFD §J10.6
φPy 2335
⎡ 3b t 2 ⎤
0 9 0 60 Fy dc t w ⎢1 + ⎥
cf cf
φRn LRFD Eq J10–11
⎢⎣ d b dc t w ⎥⎦
⎡ 1 )2
3(15.6)(1.19 ⎤
φRn = 0 9 × 0 6 × 50 × 15.0 × (0.745 + 0 5) ⎢1 + ⎥ = 601 kips
⎣ 18 1 .4(15.0)(0.745 + 0.5) ⎦
and the minimum panel zone thickness is determined from Section E3.6e as
(d z wz ) ( .4 − 2 × 0.. ) + ( 5.0 − 2 × 1. )
tmin ≥ = = 0.33
3 in Eq 3–7
90 90
The doubler plate and the column web are both thicker than the minimum thickness.
Use 1⁄2-inch doubler plates following the requirements of Section E3.6e(3) at the panel zone of the VBE at
the connection of the roof HBE.
Section F5.6b requires that the HBE-to-VBE connections satisfy the requirements of Section E1.6b,
beam-to-column connections for ordinary moment frames. Welds shall be in accordance with AISC 358-10
including criteria for removal of backing bars, backgouging, and reinforcement with fillet welds. Weld
access holes shall be in accordance with AWS D1.8 Section 6.10.1.2. Additional requirements for the
connection are given in Section E1.6b.
For this example, the HBE web and flanges will get complete joint-penetration welds to the VBE flange.
Since the HBE web will get a complete joint-penetration weld to the VBE flange, a check of the HBE shear
will suffice. The shear in the HBE is checked in Section 4.10 of this design example.
In general, tolerances make it impractical to weld the plate directly to HBEs and VBEs. Either a plate
or angle is required to provide a flat surface against which the plate can be placed and welded. For this
example a plate will be used. The connecting plate is sometimes referred to as a “fish plate.” Section F5.6c
specifies that the connection of the plate to the HBE and VBE shall resist the forces associated with the
expected yield strength of the plate in tension, oriented at the angle α. In this case it is most convenient to
express this force in terms of the effect of the tension field F1 and F2 acting on the connection at the angle
α. Figure 4–16 and the following equations demonstrate the decomposition of the tension field force into
these components.
⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟Δ
force ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F1 = = = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟ cos α
length
t Δ ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
cos α
⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟Δ
force ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F2 = = = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟ sin α
length
t Δ ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
sin α
Because the angle is 45 degrees, the two components of force, F1 and F2, are the same. For the first-floor
plate, this becomes
⎛ 0.7(16) ⎞
F1 F2 = 1 3 × 36 × 0.1875 × 1 − cos(45) = 3.72
7 kip-in.
⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
Try a 3⁄16-inch continuous weld on one side and a 3⁄16-inch weld intermittent at 2 inches every 6 inches on the
other side. The equation for weld capacity comes from Section J2 of the LRFD specification and includes a
factor for the angle of loading relative to the longitudinal axis of the weld, θ, which effectively increases the
weld capacity.
15
n EXX
) Aefff Eq J2–5
φRn = 0 75 × 0.6 × 70 ×
1 ⎛ 3 6 3 2⎞
2
(
⎜⎝ 16 × 6 + 16 × 6 ⎟⎠ 1 + 0.5( n 45
45)1 5 ) 7.22 kip-in → OK
At the corners of the panels, it must be decided how to treat the intersection of the two fish plates.
Schumacher, et al. (1999), studied the effect of different ways of joining the fish plates. Figure 4–17 shows
the four types of corner connections tested. All four corner details exhibited similar response and were
found to be acceptable for use in the SPSW system.
Figure 4–17. Corner details tested by Schumacher et al. (1999)—All were found to be acceptable
AISC 341 Section F5.6d references Section D2.5 for splices in the VBE. As stated previously, columns
in the SPSW system do more work than other lateral resisting systems. As shown in Figure 4–13 there is
considerable moment that is developed in the VBE. Figure 4–13 also shows that the maximum moment
occurs at the floor levels, and although it is far from zero at a typical splice height, it should not be
subjected to inelastic demands. For this example the column splice is accomplished with complete joint-
penetration welds at the flanges and web, so the connection will have at least the strength of the smaller
section.
There are different approaches that can be used to anchor the first-floor web plate to the foundation. It is
sometimes preferable to use a wide-flange beam. See the AISC Design Guide 20 for an example (Sabelli
and Bruneau 2006). For this example, a WT is utilized to transfer the significant uplift and shear to the
foundation. The anchor bolts will be designed to resist the combined shear and tension. The AISC Design
Guide 1 (DeWolf and Ricker 1990) suggests that if anchor bolts are used to resist shear, that they either be
designed for friction or include a weld washer. The weld washer allows for the use of oversized holes in the
WT and tolerances in anchor bolt placement, while still encouraging uniform bearing on each bolt.
For an anchor bolt spacing of 12 inches determine the loads to each bolt:
1 ⎛ 0.7(16) ⎞
F11 F12 = 1 3 × 36 × 0.1875 ⎜ 1 − = 2 63 kipps-in
2 ⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
F11 × 12 in spacing
Bolt tension without prying action, Rut = = 15.8 kips
2 bolts
F12 × 12 in spacing
Bolt shear, Vu = = 15.8 kips
2 bolts
Prying action will amplify the bolt tension. Chapter 9 of the AISC Manual 13th Edition gives the method to
determine the added bolt tension due to prying action. A WT section with a 10-inch-wide flange is assumed
(such as the WT sections between WT7 × 30.5 and WT7 × 41).
Bolt gage, g = 6 in
WT flange width, bf = 10.0 in, so a = 2.0 in, and b = 2.8 in, Fu = 65 ksi AISC Manual Part 9
Using 1 ⁄8-inch bolts, a′ = 2.6 in and b′ = 2.2 in, p = 5.6 in.
1
Tb ′
4Tb′ 4 × 15.8 × 2.2
tmin = = = 0.65 in.
φpppFu 0.9 × 5.6 × 65
Choose a WT7 × 34 that has a flange thickness of 0.72 inch. Prying action can therefore be neglected.
Try two 11⁄8-inch F1554 Gr. 55 bolts at 12-inch spacing. Ab = 0.99 in2, Fu = 75 ksi. The nominal tensile and
shear stress are obtained from AISC 360 Table J3.2 for threaded parts with threads not excluded from the
shear planes.
WE B PL 3/16
WT 7X34
3/16 2-6
1/8" PL3"X3"
T WO 1-1/8" F 1554
G R 55@ 12"
1/4
F OUNDAT ION
Additional design checks for the WT that should be examined include ensuring the stem is stronger than the
SPSW web plate, bolt bearing, bending of the WT between bolts, and local bending of the flange.
Section E3.6f gives requirements for continuity plates. Check whether continuity plates are required at the
connection of the first floor HBE:
Since the flange thickness of the first floor VBE is, tcf = 2.1 inches, no continuity plates are required at the
first floor. If continuity plates are required, they should conform to the requirements of Section E3.6f .
The VBE, in addition to resisting considerable compression, will experience large uplift forces associated
with seismic forces. Uplift forces can be computed by the capacity-design approach similar to that
employed to determine compression and as shown in Figure 4–12a. It is shown in the AISC Design Guide
20 that tension forces are best calculated using this type of capacity-design approach because it can yield
less uplift than other methods (Sabelli and Bruneau 2006). Vertical forces on the tension column include the
beam shear from plastic hinging, Vp; beam shear from web plate yielding, V11; and the vertical component
of the expected web-plate strength acting on the column, V21. The capacity design approach produces the
uplifts given in Table 4–14.
Plate Uplift on Beam Shear due Beam Shear due Incremental Cumulative
Column, V21 to Plate, V11 to Hinge, Vp Uplift Uplift, T
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 0 72 −138 −66 −66
6th −117 14 −99 −202 −268
5th −140 48 −138 −230 −498
4th −219 20 −108 −307 −805
3rd −252 18 −108 −342 −1147
2nd −282 43 −138 −377 −1524
1st −352 0 0 −352 −1876
The uplift at the base of the column is found to be 1876 kips. A similar method can be used to estimate the
maximum shear at the base of the column as:
Try twelve 13⁄4-inch-diameter F1554 Gr. 105 bolts. The nominal tensile and shear stress are obtained from
AISC 360 Table J3.2 for threaded parts with threads not excluded from the shear planes.
The column base plate is designed not to resist moment as reflected by the zero moment at the base of the
column in Figure 4–13. Design checks for the base plate are required, but they are not shown here.
The following items are not addressed in this example but are nevertheless necessary for a complete design
of the seismic-load-resisting system:
OVERVIEW
This example presents design procedures for a six-story Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) office building.
Given its substantial capacity for inelastic energy dissipation, an EBF seismic-force-resisting system is
often used in buildings designed to resist severe earthquakes. This system can be considered a hybrid,
combining the stiffness of a concentrically braced frame with the ductility and energy dissipation capacity
of a moment-resisting frame.
The distinguishing characteristic of an EBF is that at least one end of every brace is connected so as
to isolate a segment of a beam called a link. The link is designed and detailed to sustain large inelastic
deformations without loss of strength. In a well-designed EBF, under severe seismic shaking, inelastic
activity is restricted primarily to the link. It acts as both a ductile fuse and an energy dissipator, limiting
the forces transmitted to the braces and other frame members and permitting development of stable and
predictable hysteretic behavior.
Design requirements for EBF systems are contained in a series of standards. ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, sets the basic loading criteria together with associated lateral
drift limits. ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, provides detailed design
requirements relating to materials, framing members, connections, and construction quality assurance
and control. AISC 341 is applied in conjunction with ANSI/AISC 360, Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, and AISC 303, Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges. AISC 360 is the
main specification that provides the design and detailing requirements for all steel buildings. In addition
to these standards, American Welding Society (AWS) standards D1.1, Structural Welding Code and D1.8,
Structural Welding Code Seismic present requirements for welding and fabrication that pertain to EBF
systems. Another useful document is the AISC Seismic Design Manual, which presents EBF design aids
and examples. The International Building Code or IBC refers to ASCE 7 by reference for the determination
of seismic loading and building drift determination.
Single bay EBF configurations can position the link at the ends of the beam as shown in Figure 5–1(a)
and (b), or at the center, as shown in Figure 5–1(c) and (d). For links positioned at the ends of the beam,
AISC 341 Section F3.2 requires the link-to-column connection be designed in accordance with Section
E3.6e. This example positions the links in the center using an inverted-V configuration (Figure 5–1(c))
in one of the primary orthogonal building directions and for comparison, a two-story X (Figure 5–1(d))
configuration in the other. The title figure on the previous page shows an isometric elevation of the selected
EBF configurations.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
To accommodate the expected inelastic drift, beam-to-column attachments are fully restrained moment
connections. At locations with an attaching diagonal brace, the connection also includes welded
gusset plates. Although not explicitly illustrated in this example, a similar beam-to-column connection
configuration for a Special Concentric Braced Frame (SCBF) is included in Design Example 2.
In order to reduce the moment in the beam outside of the link, the diagonal braces are connected to the
link with a fully restrained Bolted Flange Plate (BFP) moment connection. The flange plates facilitate
installation of the braces in the field. At the opposite end, away from the link, the brace attachment is
idealized as a pin with bolted connecting elements attaching braces to gussets.
To economize their size and facilitate erection, the columns are spliced at the third and fifth levels. At
the base, the column attachment to the foundation is also idealized as a pin. The column connects to
the foundation with a bolted base plate. Although not illustrated in this example, a similar base-plate
connection configuration for a buckling restrained brace frame is included in Design Example 9.
The beams, braces, and columns used in this example are all ASTM A992 rolled wide-flange sections.
Plates and built-up I-shaped sections are all ASTM A572 Grade 50 material. The beam segments outside of
the links are composite with the concrete slab. Within the link, the slab is not composite.
OUTLINE
The subject building is a six-story office located in San Francisco, California. See Appendix 1 for the
following information:
• General information including location latitude and longitude, site class, and risk category;
• Assembly weights;
The figure on the first page of this example and Figure 5–2 show the isometric and plan locations of the
frames, respectively. As shown, there are two frames oriented in each direction, for a total of four frames.
Figure 5–3 shows the typical frame elevations.
2 3 C D
30’-0” 30’-0”
Roof BM-5
12’-0”
6th BM-5 BM-4
12’-0”
5th BM-3
12’-0”
4th
12’-0”
3rd BM-6
12’-0”
2nd BM-1 BM-2
J-1 12’-0”
Base BR-1
C-1
-Indicates Hinge -Indicates Splice
(a) (b)
Figure 5–3. EBF elevations: (a) inverted-V along Grids A and F; (b) two-story X along Grids 1 and 5
As indicated in Table 12.2–1, “Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems,”
there are two options for using steel eccentrically braced frames. The first is listed under line B1, “Building
Frame Systems,” and the other is under line D1, “Dual Systems.” For this example, an EBF without a
dual system is used. The following are the listed EBF Response Modification Coefficient, R, Overstrength
Factor, Ωo, and Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd:
As derived in Appendix 1, the following are the example design spectral response acceleration parameters
for short periods, SDS and 1-sec period, SD1:
The approximate fundamental building period, Ta, is determined in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1 as
follows:
Ta = 0.74 sec
For assistance in illustrating the design response spectrum curve shown, the following parameters are
provided in accordance with Section 11.4.5:
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
Ts = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
As indicated in ASCE 7 Figure 22–12, the long period transition period, TL, occurs at 12.0 sec. Therefore,
the long period equation for Sa(T > Ts) does not apply.
As indicated in Section 12.8.2, the fundamental period of the structure, T, can be established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
frame analysis, or it is also permitted to use the approximate building period, Ta. Furthermore, the
maximum fundamental period, Tmax, shall not exceed the following:
As shown in Figure 5–4, the approximate fundamental building period, Ta, is greater than Ts, but less than
Tmax. At Tmax, the corresponding design spectral acceleration, Sa, is 0.58g. In accordance with Section
12.8.1.1, when using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure, it is not required to construct the design
response spectrum curve because the accelerations are implicit in the calculation of the seismic response
coefficient, Cs.
1.2
TS = 0.60 sec
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 1 SDS = 1.0g
Approximate EBF Building
0.8 Period, Ta= 0.74 sec, Sa= 0.81g
To= 0.12 sec
Tmax= 1.04 sec, Sa= 0.58g
0.6
Sa= 0.4+5.0T
0.4
Sa= 0.60/T
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 5–4. Design response spectrum curve for the EBF building
For this example, the fundamental period, T, as computed in the elastic model analysis (Section 4.8),
exceeds the maximum fundamental period, Tmax. Therefore, Tmax is used in the determination of the seismic
response coefficient, Cs.
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.2.1 and in conjunction with Table 12.3–1, structures having one or
more of the following shall be designated as having a horizontal structural irregularity:
Type 1a or 1b (Torsional Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the maximum story drift, δmax,
including accidental torsion, is greater than 1.2 times the average story drift, δavg. For this example, the
maximum story drift is assumed to conform with the requirement and then subsequently confirmed in the
rigid diaphragm analysis of Section 3.2.
Type 2 (Reentrant Corner Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the plan projection, pi is greater
than 15 percent of the plan dimension, Li, in the given direction as indicated:
or,
As indicated in Figure A1–1, the building has a plan projection of 30 feet in both orthogonal directions.
Therefore, the building is irregular and the provisions of Section 12.3.3.4 and Table 12.6–1 apply. For
this type of irregularity, Section 12.3.3.4 requires that diaphragm design forces be increased 25 percent
for diaphragm and collector connections. Also, Table 12.6–1 restricts the permitted structural analysis
analytical procedures.
Type 3 (Diaphragm Discontinuity Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if an open area is
greater than 50 percent of the gross enclosed diaphragm area or if a change in effective diaphragm
stiffness varies by more than 50 percent form one story to the next. As indicated in Appendix A, the gross
enclosed diaphragm area is 15,220 square feet. Per Figure A1–1, the open area at the building’s core is
approximately 600 square feet, much less than half the gross area.
As indicated in Appendix A, the floor is comprised of 31⁄4-inch-thick light-weight concrete fill on a 2-inch
metal deck (rigid), while the roof is simply metal deck (flexible). By inspection, the stiffness of the flexible
roof deck is less than 50 percent that of the rigid floors. Therefore, the building is irregular at the roof, and
as with the Type 2 irregularity, the provisions of Section 12.3.3.4 and Table 12.6–1 apply.
Type 4 (Out-of-Plane Offset Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if there is a discontinuity
in the lateral-force-resistance path. As indicated in Figure 5–2 and 5–3, the EBF configuration provides
vertical continuity with no out-of-plane offsets. Therefore, the building does not have an out-of-plane offset
irregularity.
Type 5 (Nonparallel System Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where vertical lateral-resisting
elements are not parallel to the to the system’s major orthogonal axes. As indicated in Figure 5–2, the
lateral-resisting frames are positioned parallel to the major orthogonal axes. Therefore, the building does
not have a nonparallel system irregularity.
In accordance with Section 12.3.2.2 and in conjunction with Table 12.3–2, structures having one or more of
the following shall be designated as having a vertical structural irregularity:
Type 1a or 1b (Stiffness-Soft Story Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the stiffness of any
story is less than 70 percent of the story above or less than 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three
stories above. For this example, the vertical stiffness of each story is assumed to conform to the requirement
and then subsequently confirmed in the story drift analysis of Section 4.8.
Type 2 (Weight Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where the effective mass (weight) of any
story is more than 150 percent of any adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need not be
considered. As indicated in Appendix 1, the weight is the same on each story except the roof. Therefore, the
building does not have a weight irregularity.
Type 3 (Vertical Geometric Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where the horizontal dimension
of the lateral-force-resisting system at any story is more than 130 percent of that for an adjacent story. As
indicated in Figure 5–3, the horizontal dimension (30-feet) of the frame is the same at each level. Therefore,
the building does not have a geometric irregularity.
In accordance with Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor, ρ, is calculated for each principal axis and is
1.3 unless either Section 12.3.4.2(a) or 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true, in which case it can be taken as
1.0. For braced frames, Section 12.3.4.2(a) in conjunction with Table 12.3–3 requires that the removal
of an individual brace would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity (horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
Alternatively, Section 12.3.4.2(b) requires at least two bays of framing on each side of the structure in each
orthogonal direction at each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
As indicated in Figures 5–2 and 5–3, one bay of framing is provided on each side of the structure. In each
bay, two braces resist seismic forces. For this example, the removal of one out of the four braces in either
of the two orthogonal directions will only result in a story strength reduction of approximately 25 percent.
Furthermore, the resulting system does not have an extreme torsional irregularity as determined by rigid
diaphragm analysis (Section 3.2). Therefore, in accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), the redundancy factor
is 1.0 for each orthogonal direction.
ρ = 1.0
In accordance with Section 12.6 and based on the Seismic Design Category (SDC), structural system,
dynamic properties, and building regularity, the structural analysis shall consist of one of the following
types as permitted in Table 12.6–1:
2. Spectrum Analysis
Using the importance factor, Ie, determined in Appendix 1, the seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 12.8.1.1, as follows:
S DS 10
Cs = = = 0.125 . Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.072. Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 04 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
And when S1 ≥ 0.6g, the coefficient shall not be less than the following:
Cs = 0.072
Using the effective seismic weight, W, determined in Appendix 1, the seismic base shear, V, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 12.8.1 as follows:
V = 521 kips
As derived in Appendix 1 and in consideration of ρ equal to 1.0, the basic seismic load combinations in
accordance with Section 12.4.2.3 are simplified as follows:
Also, as derived in Appendix 1 and in consideration of Ωo, the basic seismic load combinations with
overstrength factor in accordance with Section 12.4.3.2 simply as follows:
In accordance with Section 12.8.3, the lateral seismic force, Fx, and the vertical distribution factor, Cvx,
induced at any level shall be determined from the following equations:
wx hxk
Fx CvvxV d Cvx = n
Eqs 12.8–11 and 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
where the vertical weights, w, and heights, h, are summarized in Table 5–1 and the distribution exponent,
k, is interpolated in accordance with Section 12.8.3 as 1.27 for T = 1.04 sec. The corresponding vertical
distribution factors and lateral seismic forces are also summarized in Table 5–1 for each level.
In accordance with Section 12.8.4, the seismic design story shear in any story, Vx shall be determined from
the following equation:
n
Vx ∑ Fi Eq 12.8–13
i x
where the portion of seismic base shear, Fi, is distributed to the frames based on the relative lateral stiffness
of the frames and the diaphragm. With respect to the diaphragms, Section 12.3.1.2 permits a concrete-filled
metal deck to be idealized as rigid when there are no horizontal irregularities. As determined previously
in Section 2.4, the building does have a Type 2 reentrant corner horizontal irregularity. However, given
the symmetrical configuration and equivalent frame stiffness, a rigid diaphragm idealization is considered
acceptable.
In Figure 5–2 the center of mass and center of rigidity, by inspection, coincide at the middle of the building.
Therefore, in consideration of Section 12.8.4.1, there is essentially no eccentricity and no corresponding
inherent torsional moment, Mt. However, per Section 12.8.4.2, to account for accidental torsional moments,
Mta, the point of application of the story shear shall be offset a distance equal to 5.0 percent of the dimension
of the structure perpendicular to the direction of applied forces, Li, from the center of mass, as follows:
or,
To distribute the moment loads to each frame, the seismic base shear, Fxi, is applied in the building’s X and
Y directions. For any given story, each bay of framing has equivalent stiffness, and a generic stiffness, R,
is used to represent the rigidity. A fixed distance, di, is then measured from the respective centroidal axis to
each frame. The seismic design story shear, Vxi, can be determined by summing the direct story shear force,
Vi, inherent torsional force, Vti, and accidental torsional force, Vtai, as follows:
where,
Ri M Rd
Vi Fi , Vti = 0, and Vtai = tai i2 i .
ΣR
Ri ΣR
Rd
R
The corresponding story shear rigid diaphragm distributions are shown in Table 5–2. Table 5–3 shows the
corresponding design shear forces for each typical frame.
With respect to torsional irregularity and using the values from Table 5–2, the maximum and average story
drifts can be determined as follows:
( ) 0.52 Fi
δ max
a
= xi max
a
=
R R
[(Vxi )max + (Vxi )min ] (0.52 + 0. ) Fi 0.50FFi
δ avg = = =
2R 2R R
Therefore, the maximum to average story drift ratio can be determined as follows:
δ max 0.52
a
= = 1.04 < 1.2. T 12.3–1 Type 1a
δ avg 0.50
In accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), with the removal of an individual brace, in this case along Grid A,
the resulting frame stiffness, R, is reduced 50 percent. With that reduction, the corresponding modified story
shear rigid diaphragm distributions are shown in Table 5–4. Given the symmetrical nature of the frame, it
can likewise be shown that similar distributions occur with the removal of an individual brace along Grids
F, 1, or 5.
With respect to torsional irregularity, using the values from Table 5–4, the maximum and average story
drifts can be determined as follows:
( ) 0.53Fi
δ max
a
= xi max
a
=
R R
[(Vxi )max + (Vxi )min ] (0.53 + 0. ) Fi 0.50FFi
δ avg = = =
2R 2R R
Therefore, the maximum to average story drift ratio can be determined as follows:
δ max 0.53
a
= = 1.06 < 1.4. T 12.3–1 Type 1b
δ avg 0.50
In accordance with AISC 341 Section A3.1, the specified minimum yield stress of steel to be used for
members in which inelastic behavior is expected shall not exceed 50 ksi. For this design example, steel
material strengths are taken from the AISC Manual Table 2–4 as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi; Fu = 65 ksi
The material ratio of expected yield stress to the specified minimum stress, Ry, is taken from AISC 341
Table A3.1 as follows:
Ry = 1.1
Bolt material strengths are taken from the AISC 360 Table J3.2 as follows:
Shear tab bolts ASTM A325, Fnv = 68 ksi (threads excluded from shear planes)
Flange plate bolts ASTM A490, Fnv = 84 ksi (threads excluded from shear planes).
In an EBF system the primary design focus is the link. Optimizing the link can be a challenge due to
member local buckling requirements, geometric constraints, and considerations associated with the strength
of the beam outside of the link. Of primary importance is the link length, e, and its relationship to the
inelastic yielding behavior of the frame.
The design provisions set forth in AISC 341 Section F3 are intended to provide reliable and ductile link
behavior when the link is subjected to seismic loading. In the provisions, the nominal shear strength of
the link, Vn, is determined as the lesser of the shear yielding strength, Vp, or the shear associated with the
flexural yielding strength, 2Mp /e.
In general, when e = 2Mp /Vp, the yield condition is balanced between shear and flexure. For values less than
1.6Mp /Vp, the link behavior is generally controlled by shear, whereas for values greater than 2.6Mp /Vp it is
controlled by flexure. For link lengths between 1.6 Mp /Vp and 2.6Mp /Vp, a combination of shear and flexural
yielding occurs.
Because shear yielding is much more reliable than flexural yielding, it is generally considered advantageous
to keep link lengths short enough to be controlled by shear. With this in mind, a target value of 1.6Mp /Vp is
used for the link length. To achieve this, a lower design value of 1.3Mp /Vp is recommended by Engelhardt
and Popov (1989). This lower value allows some flexibility in changing the link beam size and frame
geometry while still maintaining a final link length consistent with the 1.6Mp /Vp target.
To derive the preliminary link beam shear force, Vr, refer to the inverted-V frame beam, BM-1, shown in
Figure 5–3(a). As shown in the frame free-body diagram of Figure 5–5 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the preliminary shear force, Vr, is estimated in consideration of the cumulative design seismic
shear force, Vi, story height, hst, and frame width, L, as follows:
For the two-story X configuration and BM-2 shown in Figure 5–3(b), the same preliminary force includes
the cumulative shear is estimated from the two associated stories as follows:
L/2
e/2
Vi /2 Vr
hst
Vi /2
Vr
Figure 5–5. Inverted-V free-body diagram (cut through the link centerline)
The preceding methodology is repeated for all the corresponding links with the resulting design shear force
summarized in Table 5–5.
For the beam BM-1, assuming a short link governed by shear yielding, the required link area, Atw, is
estimated in consideration of the link design shear strength, φvVn, as follows:
Vr 108 kips
Alw = = = 4 0 in 2 . Eq F3–2 (Modified)
φ v 0 6 Fy 0 9(0.6)50 ksi
Excess capacity in the link segment is an important economic consideration, as the other elements in the
frame are designed to develop the full inelastic link capacity. The beam-to-brace geometric constraint is
also a consideration in that the beam flange must be approximately equal to or wider than the brace flange.
In this example, the braces will be W10 rolled sections. Therefore, in consideration of the required link
area, flange width, and buckling requirements summarized in AISC Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3,
evaluate a W10 × 68 ASTM A992 wide-flange for the beam BM-1 as follows:
Alw = (d − 2tf)tw = [10.4 in − 2(0.77 in)](0.47 in) = 4.16 > 4.00 in2. Eq F3–4
Typically, the most efficient links are deeper sections. However, given the geometric constraints associated
with the fully restrained beam-to-brace moment connection in this example, only shallow W10 and W18
rolled sections have an adequate flange width for the brace attachment. Therefore, in consideration of W10
rolled sections for braces, the minimum required flange width in the second through fifth floors is bf > 10.0
inches. Above the fifth floor, where lighter braces are adequate, the minimum required flange width is
bf > 8.0 inches.
Per AISC 341 Section F3.5b(2), the nominal shear, Vp, and plastic flexural strengths, Mp, are determined
assuming Pr /Pc < 0.15, as follows:
The preliminary link length, e, which will optimize the W10 × 68, is determined as follows:
The preceding methodology is repeated for each link for both frame configurations with the selected link
sizes, nominal shear strength, Vp, and calculated link lengths, e, summarized in Table 5–6.
Table 5–6. Preliminary link sizes, shear strengths, and link lengths
Inverted-V Two-Story X
Level
Link Vp (kips) e (in) Link Vp (kips) e (in)
Roof W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
6th W10 × 68 125 48 W10 × 68 125 48
5th W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
4th W10 × 68 125 48 W18 × 86 243 50
3rd W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
2nd W10 × 68 125 48 W18 × 86 243 50
As indicated in Table 5–6, for the inverted-V, a preliminary link size of W10 × 68 is selected for all of the
floors. With a corresponding increase in floor height, somewhat lighter link sections might be expected.
However, for this example, in consideration of buckling width-to-thickness ratios, a lighter W10 × 60,
W10 × 54, or W10 × 49 rolled section cannot satisfy the highly ductile requirement of Section F3.5b(1).
As noted in AISC 341 Section F3.5(a), the diagonal brace and beam segment outside of the link are
intended to remain essentially elastic. Therefore, in accordance with Section F3.3, the link shear strength
is “adjusted” to include the amplification effect of both material overstrength and strain hardening. For the
shear-governed link of beam BM-1, the adjusted shear strength, Vmh, is determined as follows:
The preceding methodology is repeated for each story and each frame configuration with the adjusted
link shear strengths summarized in Table 5–7. As a measure of the link shear strength capacity, Table 5–7
also shows the ratio of the adjusted link shear strength to the design shear force, Vmh /Vr . In order to
economize the link member selection, the ratio should be as close to 1.25Ry as possible, which in this case
is approximately 1.4.
Table 5–7. Preliminary adjusted link shear strength and shear ratio
Inverted-V Two-Story X
Level
Vmh (kips) Vmh /Vr Ratio Vmh (kips) Vmh /Vr Ratio
Roof 172 8.4 No Link —
6th 172 3.3 172 2.4
5th 172 2.2 No Link —
4th 172 1.8 334 2.0
3rd 172 1.7 No Link —
2nd 172 1.6 334 1.6
As indicated in Table 5–7, several of the links significantly exceed the optimum ratio. This could
unnecessarily increase the size of the associated braces and columns. Given the limited selection of highly
ductile rolled wide-flange sections with a corresponding compatible flange width, this example considers
the use of built-up I-shaped sections as an effective alternative for these locations. However, the use of
built-up link sections is not without both code and economic considerations. For example, AISC 341
Section F3.5b.(1) requires Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) groove welds to connect the link web to the
flanges. In addition, Section F3.6a(5) classifies these CJP groove welds as demand critical. The AISC 341
demand-critical designation requires specific filler metals (Section A3.4b) and among other requirements, a
weld procedure specification in Section I2.3.
In terms of economy, in consideration of both the plate material and fabrication, the cost of the
built-up shapes can be three to four times that of a rolled wide-flange section (B. Manning, personal
communication). With these considerations in mind, built-up I-shaped link beam sections are deemed
necessary only where the indicated capacity ratios in Table 5–7 exceed 2.0.
As with rolled sections, the built-up I-shapes must satisfy both local buckling and geometric constraints.
For beam BM-3 shown in Figure 5-3(a), the required flange width for geometric compatibility with the
brace is approximately 10.0 inches. In accordance with the exception in AISC 341 Section F3.5b.(1),
the required flange thickness, tf , in consideration of a moderately ductile 10.0-inch flange width, bf , is
determined as follows:
bf 10 in
tf = = = 0 55 in . . . say 5⁄8 in. T D1.1 (modified)
2λ md .2(9.155)
For the same beam, assuming a short link governed by shear yielding, the required link area, Atw, is
estimated in consideration of the link design shear strength, φvVn, as follows:
Vr 77.2 kips
Alw = = = 2 86 in 2 Eq F3–2 (Modified)
φ v 0 6 Fy 0.90(0.6)(50
5 k i)
Using a web thickness, tw, of 1⁄4-inch, the required depth, d, can be determined as follows:
d = (Alw /tw) + 2tf = (2.86 in2/0.25 in) + 2(0.625 in) = 12.69 in . . . say 13.0 in. Eq F3–4 (Modified)
The preceding methodology is repeated for each targeted link in both frame configurations. The preliminary
built-up link beams designations are shown in Figure 5–3, and their associated parameters are summarized
in Table 5–8:
Additional built-up link beam design parameters including the link shear strength, Vp, moment strength, Mp,
and preliminary link length, e, are summarized in Table 5–9:
Beam Size Shear, Vp (kips) Flexure, Mp (kip-in) Length, e 1.3Mp /Vp (in)
BU13 × 53 88 4299 64
BU12 × 37 83 2678 42
BU9 × 34 60 1900 42
Table 5–10 shows the location and designation of the built-up link beams. In addition, the table indicates
the adjusted link shear strength, Vmh, and associated shear ratios. Although the inverted-V roof link beam
shear ratio exceeds 2.0, given the nominal plate sizes, a further adjustment is deemed unnecessary.
Table 5–10. Preliminary adjusted link shear strength and shear ratio
Inverted-V Two-Story X
Level Vmh /Vr Vmh /Vr
Beam Size Vmh (kips) Ratio Beam Size Vmh (kips) Ratio
Roof BU9 × 34 82.5 4.0 No Link — —
6th BU9 × 34 82.5 1.6 BU12 × 37 114 1.5
5th BU13 × 53 121 1.6 No Link — —
With respect to the Type 5 vertical irregularity provision outlined in the Section 2.5 base shear calculations,
Tables 5–7 and 5–10 show the adjusted link shear strengths either remain the same or increase when
compared with that of each story above. Therefore, for this example, there is no vertical discontinuity or
weakness in the frame’s lateral strength (Type 5 vertical irregularity).
As shown in the two-story X configuration of Figure 5–3(b), the beams at the third, fifth, and roof levels
have no associated link. Therefore, they are classified as a beam outside of the link. In accordance with
AISC 341 Section F3.5a, beams outside of the link need only satisfy the width-to-thickness limitations in
Section D1.1 for moderately ductile members.
For beam BM-6, shown in Figure 5–3(b), evaluate a W16 × 26 ASTM A992 wide-flange in consideration of
deflection and serviceability requirements. Determine the minimum beam deep, dmin, as follows:
The beam is designed as composite (except at the roof) in accordance with AISC 360 Section I5 and is
braced at the third points in accordance with AISC 341 Section D1.2a(a).
To derive the preliminary brace axial force, Pr, refer to the inverted-V brace, BR-1, shown in Figure
5–3(a). Using the beam shear and moment diagrams of Figure 5–6 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the downward vertical brace reaction, Rmh, and the moment at the end of the link, Mmh, are
determined as follows:
⎛ L ⎞ ⎛ 30 ft ⎞
Rmh Vmh ⎜ = 172 kips ⎜ = 198 ki
k ps
⎝ L e ⎟⎠ ⎝ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎟⎠
⎛ e⎞ ⎛ 4 ft ⎞
M mh Vmh ⎜ ⎟ = 172 kips ⎜ = 344 kip-ft.
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
Vmh M1 Mr Vmh
R1 Rmh R1
Rmh
V2 V2
V1 V1
Shear Shear
M1
(a) (b)
Figure 5–6. Beam shear and moment diagrams (cut through the link centerline) for (a) pin-
connected beam and brace connections (b) fully restrained beam and brace connections
Using the geometry shown in Figure 5–5 and the compatible beam and column depths, db and dc,
respectively, the diagonal brace unbraced length, Lb, and angle, β, are calculated by trigonometry as
follows:
2 2
⎛ L e − dc ⎞ ⎛ 30.0 f 4f 0.83 ft ⎞
Lb hstst − d b )2 + ⎜ ⎟⎠ = ( .0 f − 1. f ) + ⎜⎝
2
⎟⎠
⎝ 2 2
= 16.7 ft . . . say 17.0 ft
⎡ h ⎤ ⎡ 12 ft ⎤
a −1 ⎢
β = tan tan −1 ⎢
⎥ = tan ⎥ = 42.7 deg .
⎢⎛ L − e ⎞ ⎥ ⎢⎛ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎞ ⎥
⎢⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
The required preliminary diagonal brace axial force, Pr, for the brace is calculated using trigonometry as
follows:
In this example, the brace and brace end connections are fully restrained (fixed). Therefore, the moment
at the end of the link will be distributed in proportion to the relative stiffness of the diagonal brace and
the beam outside of the link as shown in Figure 5–6(b). For a preliminary estimation, this example uses
approximately 50 percent of the adjusted end moment for brace resistance. The exact brace end moment is
subsequently confirmed using an elastic computational analysis. Therefore, the preliminary required brace
flexural strength, Mr, in the brace BR-1 is determined as follows:
0 50 M mh 0.50
5 (344 kip-ft)
Mr = = = 191 kip-ft .
φb 0 90
Using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 for combined loading with unbraced length, Lb = 17 ft, and AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3 for local buckling requirements, a W10 × 77 ASTM A992 wide-flange
section is deemed adequate for the preliminary diagonal brace size. In the selection process, the flange
width of the brace, tbf , is confirmed geometrically compatible for attachment to the beam. The preceding
methodology is repeated for each story and each frame configuration with the selected brace sizes
summarized in Table 5–11.
Brace Size
Level
Inverted-V Two-Story X
6th W10 × 45 W10 × 45
5th W10 × 45 W10 × 45
4th W10 × 54 W10 × 54
3rd W10 × 77 W10 × 68
2nd W10 × 77 W10 × 68
1st W10 × 77 W10 × 68
As indicated in Table 5–11, the corresponding first-story brace for the two-story X is a size smaller than
that of the inverted-V frame. At this location, the correspondingly larger second-level link beam (W18 ×
86) reduces the moment distribution to the brace, allowing for the reduction in size.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3(1)(b), when a column receives force from at least three links,
the seismic force is permitted to be multiplied by 0.88. The reduction represents the diminished likelihood
of simultaneous strain hardening.
Given the configuration shown in Figure 5–3(a) for the inverted-V column C-1, the strain hardening
reduction factor is applicable. As with the downward vertical reaction of the first-floor brace, the first-floor
upward force, Rmh, from the second-floor link is determined as follows:
⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ 4 ft ⎞
Rmh Vmh ⎜ = 172 kips ⎜ = 26.5 kips (upward).
⎝ L e ⎟⎠ ⎝ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎟⎠
As shown in the mechanism model of Figure 5–7, the simultaneously downward column force resulting
from the overturning of the levels above column C-1 is determined from the adjusted link forces at those
levels. Therefore, the total first-floor required column axial load, PEmh, in consideration of the strain
hardening reduction factor, is determined as follows:
PEmh 0 88 (∑ r
roof
3 )
Vmh − Rmhh = 0.88(82.5 + 82 5 + 121 + 172 + 172 − 26.5) kips = 531 kips.
Roof Vmh
6th Vmh
5th Vmh
4th Vmh
3rd Vmh
2nd Vmh
roof
Rmh
3
VVmh
Figure 5–7. Column mechanism model (cut through the link centerline)
The seismic forces are combined with the appropriate proportion of gravity forces to determine the required
column axial load, Pr, as follows:
Pr = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(286 kips) + 0.5(98.0 kips) + 1.0(531 kips) = 980 kips.
Using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 for combined loading with unbraced length, Lb = 11.0 ft, and AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3 for local buckling requirements, a W12 × 96 ASTM A992 wide-flange
section for the preliminary column size is selected. In the selection process, the flange width of the column,
tcf , is confirmed to be geometrically compatible for the beam attachment. The preceding methodology is
repeated at each splice location with column sizes summarized in Table 5–12 for both frame configurations.
The preliminary frame configurations with the selected sizes are shown in Figure 5–8.
2 3 C D
30’-0” 30’-0”
Roof BU9x34 W16x26
W12x50
W10x45 12’-0”
W10x45 TYP.
BU12x37
6th BU9x34
(a) (b)
Figure 5–8. Preliminary EBF member sizes: (a) inverted-V along Grid A; (b) two-Story X along Grid 1
Using the preliminary beam, brace, and columns sizes, a two-dimensional computer model is generated
for the entire frame. An elastic computational analysis of the model is used to confirm the fundamental
structural period, and the link end moment distribution assumptions, and to determine the elastic deflections
of the frame.
From the analysis of the model, the fundamental period, T, is computed as 1.16 and 1.25 seconds for the
inverted-V and the two-story X, respectively. Both computed periods exceed the maximum fundamental
period, Tmax, confirming that it be used in the determination of the seismic response coefficient, Cs.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section B1, the design story drift and the allowable story drift limit are those
required by the applicable building code. From the analysis of the model, the elastic deflection, δxe, between
the first and second level is computed as 0.348-inch. The allowable story drift limit, Δa, as indicated in
ASCE 7 Table 12.12–1 is calculated in consideration of the story height, hst, as follows:
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6, the story deflection, δx, is calculated as follows:
Cd δ xe 4.0(0.348 i )
δ x = Δ 2 − Δ1 = = − 0 = 1.39
39 in < 2 88 in
n. Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level and each frame configuration with the story drifts
summarized in Table 5–13. Also included in Table 5–13 is the soft story vertical irregularity check.
Inverted-V Two-Story X
Level
Story Drift, δx (in) δx /0.70 (in) Story Drift, δx (in) δx /0.70 (in)
Roof 1.04 n.a. 1.57 n.a.
6th 1.66 2.37 1.85 2.64
5th 1.88 2.69 1.66 2.37
4th 1.66 2.37 1.44 2.06
3rd 1.60 2.29 1.61 2.30
2nd 1.39 n.a. 1.09 n.a.
As indicated in Table 5–13, the story-drift analysis confirms that there is no soft-story irregularity (Type 1a)
as set forth previously in Section 2.5 (i.e. δx < δx+1/0.7). In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.2.2
exception 1, the top two stories need not be evaluated.
If the story drift were to exceed allowable limits, ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6.1 provides an exception removing
lower limits on the seismic response coefficient, Cs. The exception as outlined in Section 12.8.6.2 allows
the use of seismic design forces based on the computed fundamental period, without the upper limit
specified in Section 12.8.2.
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.8.7, P-delta effects shall be considered on story shears, moments,
and drifts when the ratio of secondary moments to primary moments, defined as the stability coefficient, θ,
is greater than 0.10. The stability coefficient is determined as follows:
Px ΔII e
θ= ≤ 0 10 . Eq 12.8–16
Vx hssx Cd
Where, in accordance with Table 5–1, IBC Table 1607.1, and live load reductions specified in IBC Section
1607.10 and 1607.12, the total second floor vertical design loads are determined as follows:
P2 = ΣD + ΣL = 7231 kips + [5(0.035 ksf)(15,220 ft2) + 0.012 ksf(15,220 ft2)] = 10,077 kips.
Therefore:
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level with the total unfactored design loads and the
corresponding stability coefficient, θ, summarized in Table 5–14.
As the stability coefficient is less than 0.10 on all floors, in accordance with Section 12.8.7, P-delta
considerations (secondary effects) are not required.
Using the preliminary selected member sizes and output from the elastic model, specific design provisions
of the EBF are investigated.
For this example, refer to beam BM-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
link segment is a W10 × 68 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the
beam are shown in Table 5–15.
From the applied loads, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths, Mu, can be
determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(1), the link shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile members. However, for the flanges of short, shear
dominated links there is an exception for link lengths less than 1.6Mp /Vp. In this case, the flanges
need only satisfy the width-to-thickness requirements for moderately ductile members.
Because bf /2tf = 6.58 < λmd, the flanges meet the local buckling requirements.
Because ht /tw = 16.7 < λhd, the web satisfies the local buckling requirements.
Alternatively and in subsequent calculations, the width-to-thickness ratios are investigated using AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3.
Per AISC 341 Section F3.5b(2), the nominal shear, Vp, and plastic flexural strength, Mp, are determined in
consideration of the required axial strength as follows:
Therefore, use Vp and Mp as determined in the preliminary calculations. In accordance with Section
F3.5b(2), the link design shear strength, φvVn, shall be the lower of the value obtained in accordance with
the limit states of shear yielding in the web and flexural yielding in the gross section. Because for this
example Vp < Mp, shear yielding of the link controls and the design shear strength is determined as follows:
The link rotation angle is the primary variable used to describe link inelastic deformation. AISC 341 Figure
C-F3.4 defines the link rotation angle as the inelastic angle between the link and the beam outside of the
link under design story drift conditions. In accordance with Section F3.4a, the link rotation angle shall not
exceed 0.08 radians for link lengths of 1.6Mp /Vp or less and 0.02 radians for link lengths of 2.6Mp /Vp or
greater. Linear interpolation is required for link lengths between the two limits. As previously determined,
the second-floor link length for this example is approximately 1.3Mp /Vp. Therefore, the link rotation angle,
γp, in consideration of the plastic story drift angle, θp, is determined as follows:
L
γp θ where: θp = Δp /hst. F C-F3.4
e p
In accordance with Section F3.3, the inelastic link rotation angle is determined from the inelastic portion of
the design story drift as follows:
Therefore,
According to AISC 341 Section F3.3, the required strength of beam outside of the link must be “adjusted”
for both material overstrength and strain hardening. However, with respect to this segment, the adjusted
shear strength is allowed to be taken as 0.88 times the force to account for the increased strength provided
by a composite slab and recognizing the fact that limited yielding is unlikely to be detrimental to frame
behavior. If there is not a concrete composite slab, a strain-hardening factor of 1.25 should be used as
recommended by Section C-F3.3. As discussed in the overview, for this example, the beam outside of the
link is composite with the concrete slab.
Additional lateral bracing along the length of the beam, if required, is designed per AISC Specification
Appendix 6. If the beam outside of the link is a different section than the link, then it must also satisfy the
width-to-thickness requirements.
For this example, refer to beam BM-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
beam is a W10 × 68 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the beam
are shown in Table 5–16.
In accordance with Section F3.3, the “adjusted” required shear strength, Vmh, is calculated as follows:
As outlined in the overview, the brace-to-beam connection is detailed as a fully restrained connection.
Using the methodology described in AISC Seismic Design Manual Example 5.4.3, the adjusted link end
moment will be distributed into the beam outside of the link and the diagonal brace based on amplification
factors. The amplification factor, α, is determined by dividing the adjusted shear strength, Vmh, by the
required link shear force, VQE, reported in Table 5–15 as follows:
The seismic axial, shear, and moment forces in the beam outside of the link are multiplied by the
amplification factor as follows:
From the applied loads, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths, Mu, can be
determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = Pu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(0.0 kips) + 0.5(0.0 kips) + 1.0(204 kips) = 204 kips
Vr = Vu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(7.80 kips) + 0.5(6.70 kips) + 1.0(17.2 kips) = 31.5 kips
Mr = Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(11.6 kip-ft) + 0.5(7.60 kip-ft) + 1.0(170 kip-ft) = 190 kip-ft.
Because the beam outside of the link is the same section as the link, no additional local buckling checks are
required.
BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS
RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
Due to the large axial force and bending moment, the beam outside the link is designed as a beam-column
in accordance with the user note of AISC 341 Section F3.5a. The beam outside of the link will be braced at
the column and at the link. Therefore, the unbraced length, Lb, in consideration of the column depth, dc, is
determined as follows:
For the W10 × 68 beam, in accordance with AISC 360 Section F2.2, the limiting yielding unbraced length,
Lp, and the limiting lateral-torsional buckling unbraced length, Lr, in consideration that the coefficient,
c = 1, are determined as follows:
E 29,000 ksi
Lp 1.766ry = 1.76(2.59 in) = 110 in Eq F2–5
Fy 50 ksi
2 2
E Jc ⎛ Jc ⎞ ⎛ 0 7 Fy ⎞
Lr 1 95rtts + ⎜ ⎟ + 6 76 ⎜ ⎟ Eq F2–6
0 7 Fy S x ho ⎝ S x ho ⎠ ⎝ E ⎠
where
I yC w 134 in 4 (3100 in 6 )
rts = = = 2 92 in . Eq F2–7
Sx 75.7 in 3
Therefore:
2 2
29,000 ksi 3.56 4 (1.0) ⎛ 3.56 4 (1.0) ⎞ ⎛ 0.7(50 ksi) ⎞
Lr = 1.95(2.92 i ) + ⎜ ⎟ + 6 76 ⎜⎝ 29,000 ksi ⎟⎠ Eq F2–6
0.7(50 ksi) 75.7 i 3 (9.63
6 i ) ⎝ 75.7 i 3 (9.63 i ) ⎠
Lr = 487 in
Alternatively and in any subsequent calculations, Lp and Lr, are determined from the AISC Manual
Table 3–2, as follows:
In accordance with Section C3, the effective length factor, K, shall be taken as unity. The member
slenderness is determined in accordance with AISC 360 Section E2 as follows:
In accordance with Section E3, the elastic buckling stress, Fe, is determined as follows:
In accordance with Section E3, if the yield to elastic buckling stress ratio is less than or equal to 2.25, the
column buckling behavior is considered elastic. The stress ratio is determined as follows:
Alternatively and in any subsequent calculations, Fcr , is determined from the AISC Manual Table 4–22, as
follows:
In accordance with AISC 341 Section A3.2, the strength of the beam outside of the link can be increased
by the expected yield stress ratio, Ry, given the link and the beam are the same member. In accordance with
AISC 360 Section H1.1, the design axial strength of the beam, Pc, is determined as follows:
In accordance with AISC 360 Section F2.2, when Lp < Lb < Lr, then the nominal flexural strength, Mn, in
consideration that the lateral-torsional buckling modification factor, Cb = 1.0, is determined as follows:
⎡ ⎛ Lb Lp ⎞ ⎤
Mn Cb ⎢ M p ( M p − .7 Fy S x ) ⎜ ⎟⎥ ≤ Mp Eq F2–2
⎢⎣ ⎝ Lr Lp ⎠ ⎥
⎦
where
Therefore:
⎧ ⎛ 150 in − 110 in ⎞ ⎫
M n = 1.0 ⎨ 4265 kip i − [4265 kip-in − 0.7(50 ksi)(75.7 in 3 )]
)⎜ ⎬ Eq F2–2
⎩ ⎝ 487 in − 110 in ⎟⎠ ⎭
Mn = 4094 kip-in.
In accordance with Section H1.1, the design flexural strength, Mc, is determined as follows:
Because Pr /Pc > 0.2, the combined beam strength is limited as follows:
Pr /Pc + 8/9(Mr /Mc) = 0.26 + 8/9(190 kip-ft/338 kip-ft) = 0.76 < 1.0. Eq H1–1a
Alternatively and in subsequent calculations the combined strength equations are determined using the
AISC Manual Table 6–1, with Lb = 12 feet and Ry = 1.1, as follows:
Because pPr > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AISC Manual Equation 6–1 as follows:
pPr + bxMrx = 0.26 + 2.62 × 10−3(190 kip-ft) = 0.76 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
For this example, refer to beam BR-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
brace is a W10 × 77 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the brace
are shown in Table 5–17.
As with the beam outside of the link, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, the required strength
of brace is “adjusted” for both material overstrength and strain hardening. The adjusted required shear
strength, Vmh, is calculated as follows:
Using the amplification method described previously, the factor α is determined by dividing the adjusted
shear strength, Vmh, by the required link shear force, VQE, reported in Table 5–15 as follows:
The seismic axial, shear, and moment forces in the brace are multiplied by the amplification factor as
follows:
From the applied loads, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths, Mu, can be
determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = Pu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(10.8 kips) + 0.5(8.3 kips) + 1.0(308 kips) = 327 kips
Vr = Vu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(1.0 kips) + 0.5(1.0 kips) + 1.0(8.45 kips) = 10.4 kips
Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(4.10 kip-ft) + 0.5(3.20 kip-ft) + 1.0(171 kip-ft) = 178 kip-ft.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5a, EBF braces shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for moderately ductile members. As indicated in AISC Seismic Design
Manual Table 1–3, the W10 × 77 satisfies brace local buckling requirements.
As with the beam outside the link, the diagonal brace is designed as a beam-column in accordance with
the user note of AISC 341 Section F3.5a. As mentioned previously, the brace is hinged at the column and
fixed at the link. The combined strength equations are determined using the AISC Manual Table 6–1, with
Lb = 17 feet (as determined in the preliminary design), as follows:
Because pPr > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AISC Manual Equation 6–1 as follows:
pPr + bxMrx = 0.50 + 2.65 × 10−3 (kip-ft)−1 (178 kip-ft) = 0.97 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
In accordance with AISC 360 Section G2.1, the brace shear strength is determined in consideration of the
web width-to-thickness ratio. The width-to-thickness ratio is determined as follows:
Therefore, with the web shear coefficient, Cv = 1.0, the design shear strength, φvVn, is determined as follows:
φvVn = φv0.6Fy AwCv = 1.0(0.6)(50 ksi)(10.6 in)(0.53 in)(1.0) = 169 kips > 10.4 kips. Eq G2–1
Alternatively, the design shear strength, φvVn, is determined using the AISC Manual Table 3–6 as follows:
For this example, refer to column C-1 shown in Figure 5–3(a). As determined in the preliminary analysis,
the column is a W12 × 96 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the
column are shown in Table 5–18.
As with the beam and brace, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, the column strength must resist the
forces generated by the sum of the adjusted link shear strengths. In Section 4.7 of the preliminary design,
the adjusted column required axial load, PEmh, was determined to be 531 kips. The computational analysis
confirmed that 15 percent of the link end moment, MEmh, or 50.4 kip-ft is distributed to the column.
From the applied loads in axial compression, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths,
Mu, can be determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(286 kips) + 0.5(98.0 kips) + 1.0(531 kips) = 980 kips
Vr = Vu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(1.0 kips) + 0.5(0.12 kips) + 1.0(3.0 kips) = 4.50 kips
Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(4.2 kip-ft) + 0.5(2.2 kip-ft) + 1.0(50.4 kip-ft) = 57.4 kip-ft.
From applied loads in axial tension, the required axial, Pr, design strength can be determined using the
applicable load combination as follows:
By inspection, the governing load combination is that for axial compression. However, foundation and
anchorage design must also consider the applied loads in axial tension.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5a, EBF columns shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile members. As indicated in AISC Seismic Design Manual
Table 1–3, the W12 × 96 satisfies column local buckling requirements.
As mentioned previously, the column is idealized as a pin base. The combined strength equations for the
W12 × 96 column are determined using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 (Lb = 11.0 ft), as follows:
Because pPr > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AISC Manual Equation 6–1 as follows:
pPr + bxMrx = 0.88 + 1.61 × 10−3 (kip-ft)−1 (57.4 kip-ft) = 0.97 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4), full-depth, double-sided web stiffeners are required at the
diagonal brace ends of each link. The minimum required width, wmin, of each end stiffener is determined as
follows:
The minimum required thickness, tmin, of each end stiffener is determined as follows:
tmin = 0.75tw ≥ 3⁄8 in = 0.75(0.47 in) = 0.35 in < 3⁄8 in. §F3.5b(4)
In order to simplify detailing and fabrication, use the same stiffener thickness as required for the
intermediate stiffeners.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4), where e > 5Mp /Vp, full-depth intermediate (within the
link) web stiffeners are not required. For all other conditions, intermediate stiffeners are required, spaced
at intervals in accordance with Section F3.5b(4)(a through c). For this example, with e < 1.6Mp /Vp, the
required intermediate stiffener spacing, s, for a link rotation angle, γp, of 0.08 rad, is determined as follows:
For a link rotation angle of 0.02 rad or less, the required spacing is determined as follows:
Interpolating between these limits using the calculated link rotation angle of 0.05 rad, the maximum
spacing between stiffeners is 17.2 inches.
For links where d ≤ 25.0 inches, the stiffeners are required only on one side of the link web. Where
d > 25.0 inches, the stiffeners are required on both sides of the web. The minimum required width, wmin, of
each intermediate stiffener is determined as follows:
The minimum required thickness, tmin, of each intermediate stiffener is determined as follows:
For simplification purposes, both the end and intermediate stiffeners will use ½-inch-thick material.
With respect to the fillet welds connecting link stiffeners, AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4) requires the strength
in proportion to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the link stiffener, Ast. For welds connecting the
stiffener to the link web, the required strength is Fy Ast. For welds connecting the stiffener to the link flange,
the required strength is Fy Ast /4.
In accordance with AISC 360 Section J2.4, the connecting fillet weld strength, φRn, is determined, in
consideration of the weld size (in sixteenths of an inch), D, and weld length, l, as follows:
Alternatively, and in subsequent calculations, the fillet weld strength is determined using the AISC Manual
Part 8 as follows:
In accordance with AISC 341 Section C-F3.5b(4), welds in the k-area of the beam should be avoided.
Appropriately detailed stiffener corner clips avoid the k-area. In accordance with AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.1,
the required minimum corner clip length along the link web, lcw, is determined as follows:
lcw min = 1.5 in + kdes − tf = 1.5 in + 1.27 in − 0.77 in = 2.0 in. AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.1
In accordance with AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.2, the required maximum corner clip length along the link flange,
lcf , is determined as follows:
lcf max = k1 − 0.50tw + 1⁄2 in = 0.88 in − 0.50(0.47 in) + 0.50 in = 1.14 in. AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.2
Based on the AWS recommendations, 2.0-inch and 1.0-inch-wide clips are provided along the web and
flange, respectively. The link stiffener horizontal cross-sectional area, Ast, in consideration of the flange clip
is determined as follows:
Ast = (w − 1.0 in)t = (4.75 in − 1.0 in)(0.50 in) = 1.88 in2. §F3.5b(4)
The minimum thickness of double-sided fillet welds connecting the stiffener to the link web and flange are
determined as follows:
In accordance with AISC 360 Table J2.4, the minimum fillet weld size for a 1⁄2 inch thick plate is 3⁄16 inch.
For this example, refer to joint J-1 shown in Figure 5–4. As determined previously, the applied loads for the
connection are shown in Table 5–19.