Seaoc Vol 4 2018

®
VOLUME 4
EXAMPLES FOR STEEL -FRAMED BUILDINGS
Copyright
Copyright (0 2020 Str uctw-al Engin eers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication
or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form witho11t the written permission of the Struct\H'al
Engi neers Astlociation of Cnl iforniu.
Publisher
Strucrural Engineer.:; Association of California (SEAOC)

92 1 l i th Stl-eet, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 958 14
Telephone: (916) 447- 1198; Fnx: (916) 444- 150 1
E-mnil: sc-aoc@seaoc.org: Web address: www.scaoc.org
The Structurnl Engineers Association of Califomia (SEAOC) is a professional association offour regional
member orguniz.ntions (Southern Californi a, Northcm Ca liforni a, San Dkgo, and Central Ca li fo rnia).
SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in Californitl. This document is published in
keeping with SEAOC 's sTated mission:
To advance the struch1ral engineering profession; to provide tbe publi c with structures of
dependable performance through the application of state-of-the-art struchunl engi neering
principles: to assist the publ ic in obraining professional structural enginc.ering services; to
promote nah1ral hazard mit igation: to provide conrinuing education and encow·age research;
to provide structural engineers with tbc most cuncut infom1ation and tools to improve tbcir
practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.
Editor
International Code Counci l
Disclaimer
WbJJc the infonnation presented in this document is beHevcd to be conect, neither SEAOC nor its member
organizations, committees, w1;ters, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this pubLication make
any warranty, expressed or impl ied, or assume any legal liability or responsibi lity for the usc, application
of. and/or reference to opinions. iindjngs, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication.
The material presented in this publication should not be used for any speci.tic application without competent
examination and verification of its accuracy, sui tabil ity, and applicability. Users of infom1ation from this
publication assLtme all liability arising from such usc.
First Prin ting: May 2020
ISBN: 978- 1-60983-999-4
1'025185
..
II 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
Suggestions for Improvement
Comm~nts aud suggestions for lrl'lpmvcmcuts arc welcome and should be sent to the following:
Struch1ml Engineers Association of Ca lifornia (SBAOC)

Don St:hinske., Executive Director
921 l ith Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CaliJon.tia 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501
E-mai l: dschinske@scaoc.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC bas made a substa11tial effort to ensure that the information in this documcnr is accurate. In
the event that corrections or cladiications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC website at
www.seaor:.org nnd on the lCC website at ww1v. iccsafe.org.
SBAOC. at its sole discretiotl, Iliay issue wrineo en·ata.
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

.Ill..
•
IV 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4
Table of Contents
..
Preface to the 2018 IBC SEAOC Struclltrai/Seismic Design Manual . ........ . ... . ........ . .... . V II
.
Preface to Volu"me 4 .............. .. ...... . .............. . ....................... . ... . IX
Acknowlcdgttlents ... ..... , .. .. . .................... . . ...................... . ... . .. . . XI'
RcfoJ'eJ1ccs . , . .. . ... . ... . , ... , ..... , .. . . ... . .. , . , ... , ................ , . , . . ... . . , ... . XV
•
How to Usc 'fbis Docun1.cnt .... ....... ....... ...... ... . . ..... ....... . ..... ........ .... . XXI
D~sign Exarnpl~ 1
Special Mon1ot1t Fran1c . . , . . , . , ... , .. . .. .. . , . , ... . ... , .. . , .. . ... , . , .. . , . . . . . . . . 1
Design Example 2
Special Concentrically Braced frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Design Example 3
Buckling"Restt'ained Bt·aced frame I o 0 0 0 o o I o o o 0 o o f 0 0 o 0 0 o o I 0 o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o 0 0 o t 0 o o I 71
Design Example 4
Special Plate Shear Walls • • • • 0 • • 0 • • - • 0 • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 99
Design Example 5
Eccentricall y Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Design Example 6
Mul ti-Panel OCBF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Design E xample 7
Metal Deck Diaphragm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
7A. Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Di aphragm .................................. . .... 213

7B. Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm ...................................... 237
Design Example 8
Special Moment frame Base Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Design Example 9
Braced"Frame Base Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 V

Design Example 10
Cantilever Column Building ........... . ............................. . ......... . 293
Appcndi..x A: Geneml Bui lding Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 I
•
Vl 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4
Preface to the 2018 IBC SEAOC
Structural/ Seismic Design Manual
--------------------------------------~
The TBC SEAOC Struc/llra//Seismic Design Manual, throughout its many editions~ has served the purpose
of illustrating good seismic design and the correct applicmion of building code provisions. The manual hns
bridged the gnp bet\vccn the discursive treatment of topics in the SE!lOC Hlue Book (Recommended La1e1·a/
Force Requirements and Commenf(//:Y) nnd real-world decisions that dcsigm:rs face in their practice.
The examples il lustrate code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good performance under severe
seismic loadit1g. lt1 some eliSe.<; simply complying with bu il ding code requi rements does not enSllre good
seismic response. This manual rakes the approach of exceeding the minimum code requirement-s in such
cases, with discussion of the reasons for doing so.
This manual comprises four volumes:
• Volume J: Code Applicution Example!!

• Volume 2: Examples for Ligh t -Frame~ Tilt-Up. and Masonry Bui ldings
• Volume 3: Exrunplcs for Concrete Buildings
• Volume 4: Examples for Steel-Framed Buildings
In general, the provisions for developing the dcsi.gn base shc.nr, distributing the base-shear- fo rces vertically
and horizontally, checking for i rregularities~ etc., are illustrated in Volume I. The other volumes contain
more extensive design examples thar address the requirements of the material standards (for example. AO
318 and AJSC 341) that are adopted by the lBC. Bui Iding design examples do not i llustrare many of the
items addressed in Volume 1 in order to pe1mit the inclusion of less-redundant content.
Each volume has been produced by a small group of authors under the direction of a manager. The
manager.<S have assembled reviewers to ensure coordination with other SEAOC work and publications, most
notably the Blue Book, as weU as numerical accuracy.
This manual can serve as a valuable tool for cngiJlccrs seeking to design buUdi.ngs tor good seismic
response.
Rafael Sabell i and Knty Briggs

Project Man age~
..
2018 IBC SEAOC Structure//Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 VII
•••
Vlll 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
Preface to Volume 4
Volumt 4 of the 201 RJB C SEAOC Structural/Seismic DesigTI Manual uddre..t.;ses the de..'lign of steel building
systems for seismic loading. Examples include the illustration of the design requirements for braced fram es
and momenr ft·ames, ns wel'c illltstrated in previous editions, and also irnpot1ant interfaces with the rest of
the structure.
The de:..sign examples in this volume represent a range of steel structut·al systems. The J\1/anual includes a set
of examples that illustrate a more complere des ign: the design of diaphl'agms and collectors is illustrared,
as aro the design of base plates und anchorages for moment-frame and braced-frame columns. With the
addition of these ikms, this edition of the Manua l offers more extensive gui dance to engineers, addressing
the design of these criticul componenl.s of the seismic system.
The design of each of these systems is governed by standards developed by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AJSC). AlSC produces its own Seismic Design Manual to illustrate the correct application of
the AlSC Seismic Provisions (AlSC 341) and Lhc AISC Prequa/.ification Standard (ATSC 358). The AlSC
Seismic Design Manual is a valuable resout·ce for designer!l, and this volume is not intended to duplicate
AJSC 's etiortll. This manuaL for example, docs nor include tlle detailed range of options for gusscr"plate
design , as tbc AlSC Seismic Design Manua l nddrcsscs this design aspect thoroughly.
Nevertheless, there is a fundamental di fference in puq>ose and approach between Lhis manual and the AlSC
Seismic Design Manual. The AlSC Manual illustrutes the code requirett\ents. wh ile the SEAOC Structural/
Seismic D esign Manual illustrates SEAOC's recommended practices, whlcll traditiona lly bave gone beyond
the code (or i.n advance of it). The design examples for base plates arc 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 conven ient and va lunble altemntive med10dology. one that is not nn il lustrarion of expl icit code
requirements.
The methods ill ustrated herein represent approaches consistent witb the ductil ity expectations for each
system and with the desired seismic response. ln most cases there are several details or mechanisms that
can be utilized to achi eve the ductility and resistance requi red, and the author of each example has selected
an appropriate option. In many cases alternatives arc discussed. Thi s Manual is not intended to serve as a
bui lding 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 bas considered tbe buiJding code
requirements in conjunction with the optimal scismk response of the system. The examples foUow
the recommendations of the SEAOC Blue Book and other SEAOC recommendnlions. The examples
are intended to aid conscientious designen; in crafting des igns thut are likely to achieve good seism ic
performance cons istent with expectations inherent in the requirements for the sys-rems.
Rafael Sabelli
Volume 4 Manager
•
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 IX
X 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
Acknowledgments
Muny of the exumpk-'> in this volume were originally prepared for prev ious editions und have been updated
and revised for this edition bused on code changes and evolving practice. The authors of the origi nal
problems m-e high ly qualified stn1ctmal engineers. chosen for their knowledge and expedence with
struchlral cnglnccrlng practice and scismJc design.
Kevin S. Moore, S.E., ~"ECB, Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Hegcr-Examplte's 1 and 8
Keviu Moore is the Chair ofthe SEAOC Structuml Standards Committee. Past Chair of tlle SEAOC atld
SEAONC Seismology Com mittees and Pnst Chuir of tho NCSEA Seismic Subcommittee of the Code
Advisory Committee. Mr. Moore serves us on Associate Member on ASCE 7 Main Committee and Scismjc
Subcommittee, is u voting member of the AlSC Connection Prequuli licution Rev iew Paneland cwTently
Chuirs the NCSEA Resil ience Commit1ce. He has authored numerous papers on Special Steel Moment
Frames aud Structural Steel Design topics. Mr. Moore is also past-Chair of Issue Team 3 of the 20 15
NEI-IRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures and currently serves on
a number of Issue Teams for the 2020 version of these provisions . In his spare Limt:., Kevin rnccs his 1998
BMW M3 in Northern Cali fornia and other locations throughout the country.
Rafacl Sabelli, S.E., Principal, Director of Seismic Design, Walter P. Moore- Volume 4 Manager and
Example 2
Rafael Subell i is a member oflhe AlSC Task Commillce on the Seism ic Provisions for Structurul Steel
Buildings, Chair of the AISC Seismic Desigrt Manual committee. a member of the ASCE 7 Seismic
subcouunittce, and a member of tbe BSSC Provisions Update Conunrttee and Code Resource Support
Committee. He is the coauthor (with Michel Bruneau) of AlSC Design Guide 20: Steel Plate Shear Walls
as well as of numerous resc.arch papers on conventional and buckling-restrained braced fmmc.s. He has
served as Chair of the Seismology Comminee of the Strucmral Engineers Association of California and as
Pres ident ofthe Strucntral Engineet'S Association ofNorthem California. Rafael wns the co-recip ient of the
2008 AISC T. R. Higgins Lectureship and was the 2000 NEBRP Professional Fellow ln Earthquake Hazard
Reduction.
Auindya Dutta, S.E., Ph.D, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger-Example 3

Dr. Dut1a bas over 15 years of experience in structural and earthquake engineering. He has provided
analysis and design of a variety stmchlrcs in hi gh seismic zones. Dr. Dutta 's experience also includes
seismic evaluation and sLTengthening of low-rise to high-rise slructures. He has taught gmduate and
undergraduate level courses on conc rete design and structural analysis ar tbe State UniVc!'$ity ofNew York
at Bttilalo aud is a regular lecturer at the San Francisco State University's graduate progTam and at tbe
University of Califomia at Berkek-y's extension program. He has authored a number of technical reports
and journa l papers as well as served as a member of the review board for ASCE 's Structural Engineering
Journal.
Kenneth Tam, Simpson Gompertz & Heger- Example 3

Kenneth bas more than 20 years of experience in the field of structural and earthquake engineering. His
experience includes structural design and evaluation of variety of structures in high seismic zones. He has
co-authored various papers on design and analysis of buclding-rest:rained braced frames and has served on
tbe ASCE41 -13 Steel Subcommittee.
•
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic De sign Manual. Vol. 4 XI
Matthe,. r R. Eatherton, P h.D., S.E., Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech- Example 4
Malt hns seveM years of experieMce M a pt·acticing structmal engirteer cotlductil1g high-se ismic design i11 the
San Francisco Bay Area. Now he serves on the faculty at Virginia Tech where he teaches classes on steel
design, structutnl dyrtamics, and earthquake e11gineering. His research program includes both expel'imerHal
and computational investiga6ons of stee l-plate shear walls, sclf-centeriJlg seismic systems. steel connections,
and cnore. www.eathet'tort.cee.vt.edu
Scott M. Adau, Ph.D., P.R. , S.E., SECB, Principal, Adan Engineering-Example 5

AB a nationaUy recognized seismic and stn1ctural engineer, Dr. Adun has a long-standing career dedicated
to the design and investigation of buildings and stt·uctures. He has authOl'ed a number of engineering-related
journal and technical papers and is active in various professional engim:ering associations. He is ulso
actively involved i11 the reseat·ch and development of steel momem-re~isting connections. Over the course
of his career, he has practiced in nearly all earthq uake susceptible regions of the western United Stales. He
has also investigated damage from numemus earthquakes and lectured on their effects. In U1e past, he bas
chaixed the Structural Steel Suhcommit1ee for SEAONC. for AISC, he has served on both the Manual and
Specifications Committee and tbe Connection Prequalitication Review Panel. The StructW"al Engineers
Association of Washington has honored him with a Pres ident's Award for Outstanding Service.
www.adanengineer.com
Anna Dix, S.E., Associate, Liftet·h Consultants Inc.- Example 6

Ms. Dix is a registered structural engineer in California and has 14 years of experience in the design and
analysis of various steel and concrete stn1ctures. Her focus is on ship-to .. shore cranes and oth er
stmcmres that reside next to, in, or on top of the water, such as heavy-li ft and container-handling
equipment, wharves, and floating cranes. She likes earthquake and fatigue engineering topics and
working with clients. In her spare time, she enjoys managing difficult people_ . _her two young kids.
Katy Briggs, S.E., PrincipaJ, BASE Design-Example 7

Katy is a co-founder of BASE Design and has a wide range of experience working in tbe AEC industry.
She has managed the structura l design and analysis of new buildings, retrofi ts of ex isting buildings, and the
post-disaster evaluation of existing buildings. Katy is the former chair of SEAONC's Seismology Committee
and will be a member of the SEAONC Board for the 2019- 2020 year, and she bas been involved with
writing and ed iting design examples and techn ical papers related to steel and concrete design in high-seism ic
•
t·eg10ns.
Amit Kanvinde, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Civil and Envh·onmental Engiueeliug, University of
Californi a, Davis-Example 8
A mit's research heavily focuses on the seismic response of stee l structures and connections through
experimentation and simulation. Pertinent to the dc.sign example, he has conducted 33 large-scale tests on
column base connections and is U1e author of four major technical reports and several journal and confereuce
papers on the topic of base connections. His other recent research bas addressed the frncture of seismic
column splices in moment frames and braces in SCBF systems. He is the recipient of tbe 2008 ASCE
Norman Medal and the 2003 EER! Graduate Student Paper award addressing the collapse of structures.
David A. Grilli, Ph.D., Associate, Wiss, Janney, E lstner Associates, Inc.

David is an Associate Engineer with Wiss, Janney, Elstncr Associates, Inc. He earned his doctoral degree 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 connections. Pertinent to
the design example, he i5; 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 .
••
XII 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4
Lindsey Macli">c, Assoc.iutc., Forcll /Elscst1cr EnginccrR Inc.- Exumplc 9
Lindsey is currently an Associate with roreii!Elsesser Engineers, specializing in scismie design fo r both
new constl'uction and reu·ofiL She t'eceived her B.S. and M.S. ft'Oitl the Univ~wsity of California, Berkeley
and is an active member ofSEAONC, SEJ, and EERJ. She is au EERJ Bommer Fellow for her work in
Sustainable Seismic Design. www.fort:ll.com
Law·a Whitehw·st, Senior Project Engineer, Holmes Consulting-Example 10

Laura Wllitehmst is a structural engi neer in the Wellington, New Zealand office of Holmes Consulting
with more than a decade of design experience in Ca lifornia and New Zealand. Her work inclt1dcs design
with skcl, concrete, wood, and musonry, with on cmphusis on seismic design. She is actively involved in
many orgoni.zntions, including the StructW'al Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC), SEAONC,
SEAOC, EERf, and tl1e Engineers All iance fol' tile Arts. She has served as a Diroctor for SEAONC and as
Vice President of the Engineers Alliance for the Arts, and now serves as the liaison between SEAOC and
SESOC. She is a Struchm:s Specialist with FBMA's Urban Sesrch and Rescue progrum. She is a licensed
civi 1 and structural engineer in Cali fom ia, a Chartered Member of Engineering New Zealand, and ho lds a
B .S. from Cornell Utliversity and an M.S. from Sranford University.
Production aod arl was provided by tbc lnlt:rnotionol Code Coonci I.
...
2018 IBC SEAOC Sfruclumi!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 XIII
•
XIV 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
References
Standards
American Concrete lnslitutc. AC! 318: Building Code J<egularions for Reii(/OI'ced Concrete,
Farmington Hills, Michig~m , 20 14.
American Institute of Steel Construction. A!SC 341 : Seismic Provisions for Struc/ural Sleet
Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
American Institute of Steel Construe lion. A!SC 358: Prequal~fied Connections fo r Special and
lnlermediare Steel Mom enl Fromesfor Seismic App/lcalions, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
American Institute of Stcd Construction. A!SC 360: Specification for Stmctural Sreel Buildings,
Chicago, Il linois, 20 16.
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Bttlldings tmd Orher
S!ructures. Reston, Virginia, 2016.
International Code Council. International Building Code (TBC). Washington, DC, 2018.
Other References
American ln.s1itute of Steel ConS1ruction. Manual ofSteel Consr.rucrion, 15th edition, Chicago,
Il linois, 20 17.
American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic Design Manual, 3rd edition, Chicago, Ill inois,
2018.
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.
Astsneh-Asl, A. 2005. '·Design of Sbcar Tab Connections for Gmvity and Seismic Loads." Steel
Technicallnformalion and Produc/ Report. Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.
Bas let~ K. 1961. "Strcng1h of Plate Girders in Shear." Joumal ofthe Strucrur(d Division, ASCE,
Vol. 87, No. sn Octobcr.
Berman, J. W. and Bruneau, M. 2004. "Steel Plate Shear Walls Are Not Plate Girders." AISC
Engineering Joumal, Third Quarter.
2018 IBC SEAOC Structure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 XV

Bcmum, J. W. and Bnmcnu, M. 2008. "Capacity Dtsign ofVerticol Bound ~U)' Elements in Steel
Plntc Shear Wnlls." AISC Engineering Joumal, First Quurter.
Bozorgnia. Y. and Bcrtcro, Y. 2004. Eanhquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology ro

Pe1:(ormance-Based Engineering. CRC Press, LLC, Danvers, Massachusetts.
Bruneau, M., Uang, CM., arid Sabelli, R. Ductile Design ofSteel Structures. McGraw-Hill, 20 II.
CAN/CSA S 16-09 2009. "Limit States Design of Steel Stlllcturcs," publlshcd by Canadian
Stundurds AssociBtion.
Cheng, J.J.R. at1d Kulak. G.L 2000. Gusscr plate conuection to round HSS tension members.
Engineering Joumal, ATSC, 4th Quart or, 133-139.
Cl ifton, C., Bntneau, M. , MacRae, G., Leon, R. , and Russell, A. 20 II. "Stet: I Structures Damage
from the Clu·istchw·ch Earthquake of february 22, 2011." NZST; Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 44. No.4.
DeWol f, .T.T and Ricker, D.T 1990. A!SC Design Guide /-Column Base Plates, published by the
American Institute of Steel Construction, ATSC.
bngclbardt, M. and Popov, E. 1989. "On Design of Ecccntric.al ly Braced Frames." Earthquake
Spectra, EERJ, Vol. 5, No. 3, 495-5 I I.
Englehardt, M. Personal correspondence and notes. 2012.
Fisbc:r, J.M. and Kloiber, L.A. 2006. '·Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design," 2nd Ed., Stcc:l Design
Guide Series No. I , American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL
Gomez. I.R., Kanvinde, A.M., and Deierlein. G.G. 20 I 0. "Exposed Column Base Connections
Subjected to Axial Compression and Flexure." Report submitted to the American Institute of
Skcl Construction (AJSC), Chicago, JL.
Gomez. I.R., Kanvi.nde, A.M. , and Deierlein, G.G. 2011. "Experimental investigation of shear
transfer in exposed column base connections." Engineering Joumal, American J.nstitute of Steel
Construction, 4th Quarter, 246-264.
Hamburger, R.O., Krawinkler. H., Malley, J.O. , and Adan, S.M. 2009. Seismic Design ofSteel
Special Montelli Frames: A Guidefor Practicing Engineers. NlST GCR 09-917-3. NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 2. Nationallnstitutc of Standards and Technology.
TCC/SEAOC 2006. "Design Examp le 4 Steel Plate Shear Walls," 2006 !BC Structural/Seismic
Design Manual. Volume 3. Strucmral Engineers Association of California, Sacramento.
California.
Imanpour, A., Tremblay, R., and Davaran, A. "Seism ic Evaluation of Multi-Panel Steel
Concentrically Braced Frames." 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2012.
Lehman, D., Roeder, C., Johnston, S., Hcm1an, D. , and Kotulka, B. 2008. "Improved Seismic
Pcrfom1ance of Gusset Plate Connections." ASCE Journal ofSh-uclural Engineering, Vol. 134,
No.6. 181- 189.
xvi 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Luttrell, L.D. I967. "Strength and behavior of light-gage stee l shear diaphragms." Cornell Restarch
Bulletin 67- 1, sponsored by tlte American Iron und Steel Institute, lthacn, NY.
MoohJc, J.P.. Hooper, J.D .• Kelly. D.J .. and Meyer, T. 20 10. "Soism ic design of cust·]n .. placc
concrete diaphragms, chords, and co llectors: A guide for practici ng engineers," NEHRP Seis mic
Design Technical Britf Number 3, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a
partnership of t.he Applied Tecltnology Council and the Consortium of Utlivcrsitics for Research
in Earthquake Engineel'ing. for the National Institute of Standmds and Technology, Gnith ei'Sburg.
MD, NfST GCR I 0-917-4.
Moore, K.S., Feng. J.Y., June 2007. "Design ofRBS Connections for Special Moment Frames."
Steel Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council. Moraga, California.
Myers, A.T., Kanvindc, A.M. , Deicrlein , G.G., and Fetl, B.Y. 2009. "Effect of Weld Details on the
Ductility of Steel Column Basep late Connections," Joumal of Consh·uclional Steel Research,
Volume 65. Issue 6, June 2009, 1366 1373.
Porter, D.M., Rockey, K.C., and Evans, H.R. I 975. "The coiJupsc behavior of plate girders loaded in
shear." The Structural Engineer, London England, Vol. 53, No. 8., Aug.
Prasad. B.K.. Thompson, D.S.. and Sabel lL. R. 2009 . G·uide to the design ofdiaphragms, chords and
collecrors based on the 2006 JBC and ASCI:-I SEI 7-05. Intemational Code Council Publications,
Country Club Hills, IL.
Pu.rb!l, R. and Bn1neau, M. 2009. "Fin ite-Element Investigation and Design Recommendations
for Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls." Joumal ofStrucrural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. I I.
1367-1376.
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design Recommendations for PeJ:forated Steel Plate Shear Walls.
Technical Report MCEER-07· 00 II.
Qu, B. and Bruneau, M. 20 I0. "Capacity Design of lntermediatc Horizontal Bounda ry Elements of
Steel Plate Shear Walls." Joumal ofStruclural Engineering. Vol. 136, N o. 6.
Riclcs, J. and Popov, E. 1989. "Composite Action in Ecccnn·ical ly Braced Frames." Joumal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. II 5, No. 8, 204(~2065.
Roberts, T. M. and Sabouri-Ghorn i, S. 1991. "Hysteretic Characreristics of Unstitfeoed Pl ate Shear

Pauels.'' Thin -Walled Srructures . Elsevier Science Publishers, Great Britain, 1991.
Rogers, C.A. and Tn:.:mblay, R. 2008. " Impact of Diaphrngm Behavior on the Seismic De.sign of
Low-Rise Steel Building-s." AISC Engineering Journal, Finn Quarter.
Sabelli, R. and Arbcr, L. 2017. "Des ign of Chevron Gusset Plates." 2017 SEAOC Convention
Proceedings.
Sabelli. R. and Bruneau, M. 2006. A!SC Design Guide 20-Stee/ Plate Shear Walls, published by
the American Institute of Steel Construction, AlSC.
..
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 XVII
Sabclli, R. , Subol, T.A., nnd P.nstcrling, S.W. 2011. "St!ismic design of composite steel deck and
concrete-tilled diaphragmll: A guide for practicing cngin ~ers," NEHRP Seismic Design Technical
Bri~/Number 5. produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joirn Venture. a partnership of the
Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for R~carch in Eatibquake
Engineering, for the National Jnstitlt1c of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIS1'
GCR 10-91 7-10.
Schumacher, A.. Grondin, G.Y.. and Kul ak, G.L. 1999. "Connection of lntill Panefg in Steel Plate
Shcur Walls." Canadian Joumal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 26.
SDl 2004. Diaphragm D esign Manual. Third Edition (SDJ DDM03), Stee l Deck Institute, fox
Grove. IL.
SEAOC Blue Book, Recommended Lateml Porce Requirements and Commentm:y. Structurul
Engineers Association of Cali forn ia, Sacramento, Cali forniu.
SEAOC Seismology Committee 2007. "Development of System Factors,'' May 2007 , SEAOC
Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendalions, Stntctural Engineers Association of CaUfornia,
Sucrumento, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Commjttee 2008. "Concentrically Braced f rames." August, 2008, SEAOC
Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations, Stn tcntral Engineers Assoc iation of Calif omia,
Sacramento, CA. Accessible via the world wide web at: http://www.scaoc.org/blucbook/indcx.
hlml
SEAOC Seismology Committee, FEMA 350 Task Group, 2002. "Comm entary and
Recommendation s on FEMA 350-Appcndix D," Structura l Engineers Association of California,
Sucrumento, CA.
Stoakes. C. D. and Fahnestock , L.A. "Influence of Weak-axis fl exural Yielding on Strong-axis

Buck Iing Strength of Wide Flange Columns,'' Proceedings of the Annua l Stabi Iity Conference,
Structural Stabil.ity Research Council, April 2012.
Thornton. W.A. and Fortney. P. 2012. "Satisfyiug Inelastic Rotation Requirements for In-plane
CTitical Axis Brace Buckling for lligh Seismic Design." Enginee1ing Joumal, AlSC, VoL 49,
No. 3, 3rd Quarter.
Tremblay. R. 200 I . "Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrica lly Braced Steel Frames,"
Engineering Joumal. AJ.SC, Vol. 38, No.3 , Chicago. IL.
Tremblay, R. , Archambault , M.-H., and Filiatrnult, A. "Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced

Steel frames Made with Rectangular Hollow Bracing Members," December. 2003, Article 2003.
129: 1626-1636, .!oumal ofStrucnwal Engineering. American Sociery of Civil Engineers.
Tremblay, R., d al. "Seismic Design of Steel Structures .in Accordance with CSA-S 16-09," July 25-
29, 20 I 0, Paper No. 1768, Proceedings of the 9th US National and I Olh Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Toronto. Ontario, Canada.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2005. "Steel Plate Shear Wall s for Seismic Design and RctJofil of
Building Struct1.1rcs," Technical Report MCEER 05-00 I 0.
...
XVIII 2018 IBC SEAOC StructureYSeismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
Viun, D., Bnmenu, M. , Tsai, K.C., and Lin, Y.-C. 2009. "Special Perforated Steel Plule Shear Wulls
with Reduced Beum Scclion Anchor Beams I: Experimcntnllnvestigution." Journal of Slruclural
Engineering. Vol. 135, No.3 , 211 220.
Wong, AJfrcd F. "Multi-tier Brnclng Panels within a Storey." Advantage Steel, Canadiau lnstituk of
Steel Construction, No. 43, S ummer 2012.
Zayas, V.. Mahin, S., nnd Popov, E. "Cyclic Ine lastic Behavior of Steel Offshore Stntct11res."
August 1980, Report No. UCB/ EERC-80/27 to the American Peh·olcum Institute, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center & College of Engineering ut University of California, Berkeley.
•
2018 IBC SEAOC Struclurei!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 XIX
XX 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
How to Use This Document
Eqtwtion numbers in the right-hand margin refer to the one of the standards (e.g., AISC 341 , AlSC 358,
J\JSC 360, ASCE 7). The default standard is given in the heading of each section of euch example; cquution
munbers in that section 1-efer to that standnrd Wlless anothel' stnndard iH explicitly cited.
Abbrevintions used in the ''Code Reference" column nrc
*- Section T Table
F - Figure Eq - Equation
•
2018 IBC SEAOC Struclurei!Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 XX I
..
XXII 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4
Design Example 1
Special Moment Frame
II ~~~~
OVERVIEW
Structural !-\tee! speciul moment frames (SMF) are typically comprised of wide-flange beams, columns. and
beam-column connections. Conneclions 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 arc achieved tl1rougb localized yielding of the beam clement outside
of the beam-column connection. Special proportioning and dduiling of this connection is essential to
achieving the desired inelastil': behavior.
The anticipated seismic behavior of the SMF system is long-pcliod, high-displacement motion, with
well-distributed inelastic demand shared by all participating beam-column connections. System-yielding
mechan isms arc generally limi tL:d to frame beams with the intcnl to invoke yil':!ding at the base of fl·ame
colwnns. In many cases, engineers may model an SMF system with pin-based colwmts as significant
stillness 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 bruicd on imposed displacement/drift limits.
Design regulations for steel SMF arc promulgated in a sclics of standards: ASCE/SEI 7, ANSVAlSC 341. ,
ANSI/AISC 358, and ANSI/AISC 360. AISC 358 provides specific regulations related to prequalification
of certain SMF connection types that preclude project-specific testing required by AlSC 341. This design
example foiJows tile provisions of AISC 358 for the RBS connection type for the steel SMF seisrnic-force-
rcsisting system.
The six-story steel office structure depicted in the figure above has a lateral-force -resisting system
comprising s1rucrural 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 simplifyi_ng assumptions
2018 IBC SEAOC Slructurel!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 1

ooslgn £Example 1 • Spotlit/ Mom~Jnt Frome
for eut~c of culculution or computntional efficiency. Becnut~e buy sb:ts vary, the example frnmes c~m be
des igned with di1Tenmt purtidpnt:ing bu y~ in each direction, wh ich wiU result in different sizes ofbeums und
colllllH\S for each fr-ame, depending ott locution. This exampl e exp lores the design of a single fram e and a
single coiJJlcctiou of that frame. Assumption-Y r-elated to base··of·column rotational restraint (asHumed fixed),
appl ied forces (tnken from the base example assumptions), and applied wind force (not considered) arc all
incorpomtcd into the cxumplc in "silent" consideration. Be.um and column clement sizc.s were determined
using a linear elasti<:; computer model of the bui lding. These element sizes were determined through ircratiotl
such that code-required drift limits, element characteristics, and strength requirements wet-e met.
Whi le this example is occumtc ond appropriutc for the design of steel SMF structures, diffen:nt
methodologies for analysis, connection design, and inelastic behavior can be utilized, including the use of
prop1·ietary SMF cormcc1ion design. This example does not explore every possible option, nor is it i.nrcndcd
to be integrated with other examples in this document (i .e., base plate design).
OUTLINE
I. Building Geometry and Loads
2 . Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations
3. Vcrtic.al and Horizontal Distribution of Loud
4. SMF Frame
5. Element and RBS Connection Design
6. Detailing of RBS Connection
1. Building Geometry and Loads
1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION
• Per Appendix A
o Office occupancy on nil floors
o Located in San Francisco, CA, at the latimde and longirude given
o Site Class D
o 120 feet x 150 feet in plan with typical floor fr-ami ng shown in Figure 1-1
o Frame beam and column sizes for lines I and 5 (Figure 1-2)
• Beam and column sizes will vary from those on Lines A and F
o Six stories, as shown in figure 1-2
• Stntctural materials
o Wide--flange shape~ ASTM A992 (F'_,. = 50 ksi)
o Plates ASTM A572, Grade 50
o Weld electrodes E70X:X
2 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Dll51gn F!xMnp/o 1 • Spoc.:IJJI Momon/ Fromo
A B c 0 E F
5@ 3o' - o· = 150'- 0"
5 \
I'
- 4
I J
4 I l
1::: ~I
H
e
0
! l
I
•
0
C'\J
......
3 •
b
II
.. •• IC?<JI l
.0I
M
<§
'<:t
2 T I t
1 ' - li i -4
Figure 1-1. 1.\•pical floor framjng plan
I
A B c D E F 0
I
"it
TOP OF PARAPET
ROOF
' ''
W21 X 150 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W21 X 150
6th FLR W21 X 150

.....
(\j W30 X 116 .~ W30 X 116
.....
(\j W30 X 116
...
(\j W21 X 150
X X X X
(") 0') (") M
~ ~
(") M I
5th FLR W21 X 160 W30 X 132 W30 X 132 3: W30 X 132 5 W21 X 150 0
.NI
. -: :-
r--.
4th FLR F :F II
W21 X 160 W30 X 148 W30 X 148 W30 X 148 W21 X t50 -0
I
•
N
3rd FLR W30 X 173 W30 X 173 W30 X 178 ..-
W21 X 150 W21 X 150 @)
...co
pi)
...co
M
...coen M
...
(!()
(CJ
2nd FLR W21 X 150

X
,,., wao x 191 X W30 X 191 X W30 X 191 X
W21 X 150
"" M M
~ ~ 3 3
1st FLR
"
Figure 1-2. Fi'ame elevation- line 1 (line 2 in backgroutuO
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 3

Dos/gn 8<Mnp/o 1 • Spodnl Momon/ Fromv
1.2 FLOOR WEIGHTS
For development of seismi c forces per Appendix A:
Table 1-1 . Development ofseismic forces per Appendix A
Unir Weight Area Weight Floor Weight

Level Assembly (psi) (ttl) (kips) (kips)
Floor 78 15.220 1187
Typical floor 1315
Ext wall 19 6990 133
Roo f 36 15,220 548
Roof 656
Ext wall/pampct 19 5700 108
W= 5(1320 kips)+ 656 kips= 7256 kips
2. Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations ASCE 7
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE SPECTRAL

ACCELERATIONS
Per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 for special steel moment frame:
2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS
The spectral accelerations to be used in design arc derived in Appendix A:
[ S0 s = I.OOg S01 :::I 0.60g [
2.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Dcrem1in e the approximate fundamental building period, I:. usir.1g Section 12.8.2.1:
C, = 0.028 and x "" 0.8 T I 2.8-2

T0 =C,h; = 0.028 x 72°·8 = 0.86 sec (see the fo llowing discussion) Eq 12.8-7
T,, = 0.86 sec
SDI 0.60
T0 = 0.2 = 0.2 = 0.12 sec § 11.4.5
SDS 1.00

Doslgn e XIIrT1{JIO 1 • Sp01:IJJl Moment Framo
1'
sa=sos 0.4+0.6 y = 0.4 + 5.0T Eq 11 .4-5
0
Ts =
sD.l =
0.60
= 0.60 sec § I 1.4.5
SDS 1.00
S ~ SiJJ ~ 0.60 ForT > 1's

0
T T
The long-period equation for Sa docs not apply here because the long·poriod transition occurs at 12 seconds
(from ASCE 7 Figure 22-12).
1.2
~- Ts= 0.60 sec
1 - - - - S 0 5 = 1.0g
~
SMF Building Period
c Ta= 0.86 sec, Sa= 0.70g
0 0.8 T0 =0.12sec
·-ro
1....
Tmax= 1.20 sec, Sa= 0.50g
-~
Q)
(.)
<(
0.6
"---- Sa= 0.4+5.0 T I
ro 0.4
1....
t5
(1)
0.
(/)
Sa= 0.60/T
c 0.2
0>
·-
c.n
(1)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 1-3. Design response spectrum for I he example building
Figure 1-3 depicts the design spectral acceleration determined from T, wh ich is greater than Ts. so the
design spectra l acce leration sais 0.70g.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2 indicates that tht fu ndamental period of the struch1rc "cun 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 analy~is to sufftce. Section 12.8.2. however. limits
the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value ofTrmx = C11 x T,,, where C11 is
a factor found In Table 12.8-l. In this case rm..x = 1.4 X 0.86 = 1.20 seconds. For prelimjnary design,
the approximate period, ~, will be used to design the SMF. As SMF designs arc hcnvily dependent on
meeting drift requirements, rhe initial value (usually found to be much lower than the period found through
mathematical modeling) wiiJ suffice for the first design iteration.
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 5

Oosfgn 5xomp/e 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Frtmw
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T1 2.3·1
1n. at1d 1b. Torsional Irregulal'ity-A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story dt·ift
computed, iucludlng 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 thilrl 1.4 times the ave1·agc story dritt A static linc.ar elastic
three dimensional computer analys is is used to obtain the displacement at the comers of the
4
building. This buildh1g has no torsional response, so the differe11ec between the maximum
drift and avcrnge drift is 1.0. Table 1-2 provides un example of how one would cva luHte the
presence of a torsiomll irregularity for the earthquake loud CW)C in the longitudinal direction
witb positive accidental eccentricity and differences between max imum and average <lrift.
Table 1-2. StOIJ' disp/acemems, line 1 and line 5, 1o1·sional irregu/w•/Jy check
Story S_.at Line 5 (in) D.x at Line 1 (in) s~''8 (in) Srnj oll,'[.
Roof 15.8 11 .00 13.4 1.18
5 14.3 10.5 12.4 1.16

4 12.0 9.44 10.7 1.12
3 8.86 7.22 8.04 1.10

2 5.26 4.5 1 4.89 1.08
1 1.85 1.80 1.83 l. () 1
NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY: 8m,/ 8a"n < 1.2
2. Reentrant comer irregulat·ity exists where both plan projections of the strucrure beyond a
reentrant comer are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the strucrure in the
given direction . The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions arc 30 feet.
The plan dimensions arc 150 feet and 120 feet in the longitudinal and tnmsvcrse direction
respectively:
30 fect/150 feet= 20 percent in the longitudinal direction~

REENTRANT CORNER fRREGULARITY
30 feet/ 120 feet= 25 percent in the trunsvcrse direction~
REENTRANT CORNER IRREGULARITY
3. to 5. By inspection, the building docs not qualify for any of these horizontal sb-uctural
irregu Jaritie.s.
REENTRANT CORNER IRREGULARITY EXLSTS

Per Section 12.3.3 .4, forces for the connections of diaphragms to vertical
clements and collectors and the des ign of collectors and their connections
must be increased by 25 percent. If forces for the design of collectors and
their connections arc calculated using seismic load effects including the
ovcrstrengtb factor, the 25 percent increase is not required.
6 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol_4

OMI!:Jn c Xilnlf)IO 1 • SpOCIJJJ Mom€Jn/ f!tttrTW
2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T1 2.3·2
I a. to 5b. Calcularlon for Type l a, 1b, Sa, and Sb muy be required for less exptJl'ienced engineers.
These im:guluriti cs consider the stiffness and streng1h of one story relative to another. If
the story under consideration ill less than 70 percent (I o) or 60 percent (l b) of the story
above ot· 80 p~rcetlf ( l a) or 70 percent (I b) of the average of the three tHorics above, o
so ft~story itTegulariry will ex ist. This irregu larity does nor exist based on the element sizes/
sti ffness, identi cal sizes of fulmcs in each principal direction, tho height of the stories, and
the: simil arity of buy sizes. lfthc story under consideration is lt:ss than 80 percent (5u) or 65
percent (5b) of tbe story above, u wcnk-slot-y irregularity will exi ~t. This in·egulurity does
not ex ist based on the clement sizes, identical sizes of frames in eucb principal direction, the
relative lleight of each story. and the similarity of bay sizes. By inspection, the building docs
not qualify for any of the vertical stn1ctural irregularities, but the engineer is encouraged
to culculule the conditions identi fied here and dc~L.Tibcd in Table 12.3-" for thil> problem.
Other sections of the SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual cover general analysis and
irregularities in mot'<! detail.
NO VERTICAL STRUCf'URAL IRREGULARITIES
2.6 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T1 2.6-1
I. Simplified Alternative Structma l Design Criteria-According to Section 12. 14. 1.1 , tllis analysis
procedure cannot be used for buildings over 3 stories-NOT PERMlTTED
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis- According to Table 12.6- J, since the structure is k ss than
160 feet and has only Type 2 horizontal irregularity- PERMITTED
3. Modal Response Spectrum Anulysis-PERMlTTED
4. Seismic Response History Procedures -PERMJTTED
USE EQUIVALENT LATERAL fORCE ANALYSlS
2.7 BASE SHEAR
C= sOS_ I. 0 = 0.125 Eq 12.8-2

s oR o S
l~ l-u>
bur need to exceed
- Eq 12.8-3
0.861..!.
\1.0

Ooslgn FExvmp/o 1 • Spoclnl Momon/ Fromo
but liho ll be not less than
0.0445osf•. = 0.044 > 0.01 Eq I 2.8-5
and for structures where S1 is equnl to or greater thon O.Gg, C1 shall not be less thon
c = o.ss, = (0.5)(0.6) = 0.038

~ o R og)
l 1,. lTO
cs= 0.087
v= c(.w = (0.087)(7256) = 631 kips Eq 12.8· I
V = 631 kips
2.8 REDUNDANCY FACTOR
According to Section 12.3.4, th~: redundancy fuctor s hould b~: calculated for cnch principulaxi~. Th~:
redundancy factor is 1.3 unless either Section 12.3.4.2.a or J2.3.4.2.b is shown to be true. in wltich case
the redundancy factor can be rakeu as I .0. Section 12.3.4.2.a and Table 12.3· 3 require that for each
story resisting more than 35 percent of the base sbear, loss of moment resistance at the beam-to-column
connections at both ends of a single beam would not result in more than n 33 percent reduction in story
srrength, nor docs the resulting system have an extreme tor.sional irregularity.
Section 12.3.4.2.n can be satisfied by showing that coch story docs not resist more than 35 percent of the
base shear (a talkr, well-distributed frame design). Indeed, this is the cast: for this structure as evinced later
in the example; therefore, the redu.ndancy factor (p) can be taken as 1.0.
Section 12.3 .4.2.b can be considell!d as follows. There are a total of six boys of moment frume in the
longirudinal direction aud fo\lf bays of moment frame in the transverse direction; thus, by inspection,
re moval of an individual frallHJ beam and its rigid cormections will not result in more thau a 33 percent
reduction in story slrcngtb (1 /4 = 25 percent). The second condition needs to be confirmed by rigid
diaphragm analyses by removing individual momen t beams and checking whether an extreme torsional
in-egularity is produced. Frames can be designed with different elements in each di rection, reducing the
influence of this provision. From the three-dimensional linear elastic stati c computer analysis. single-beam
elements can be changed to "pinned'' to coJltirm that an extreme torsional irregularity docs not exist Since
the example sati sfies the requirement promulgated in Section 12.3.4.2.a, Table 1-3 is s uperfluous ond not
an actual repll!sentation of the building re..c:;ponse. but it provides an example for how one might check for
extreme torsion with the analysis result<> from a model with a singl e moment beam removed.

0{)6/gn c XIlmp/o 1 • SpOciJJJ Mom{)n/ Ftomo
Tahle 1-3. Sto1 y displa cements, lines / , 5, A, and F, extreme tol'sional in·egulal'ity check (illustrative)
O.Yllf 8 at
.{ 8.,. at oA' at
Lim: 1 Line 5 00\'~ Li.oc A Line F Ou"a
Story (in) (in) (in) o~J&IIItl Story (in) (in) (in) o,llU;sa-.\1
Story 6 10.1 7.G5 9.20 1.17 Story G I 5.8 I I .00 13.40 I. I 8
Story 5 9.82 6.48 8.15 1.20 Story 5 14.3 10.5 12.4 1.16
Story 4 8.27 5.35 6.81 1.21 Story 4 12.0 9.44 10.7 1.12
Story 3 6.15 4.89 5.52 1.1 I Srory 3 8.86 7.22 8.04 1.10
Story 2 3.69 3.0 I 3.35 1.10 Story 2 5.26 4.51 4.89 1.08
Story I 1.32 1.25 1.29 1.03 Story I 1.85 1.80 1.83 1.01
p = 1.0 FOR EAST-W EST DIRECTION

p = l .0 FOR NORTH-SOUTH DlRECTION
2.9 LOAD COMB INATIONS
Sec Appendix A for the derivation of combinations ba!icd on p = 1.0 and 0.2So.., =0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the SMF are
1.2D + 1.0£ + 0.5L =1.4D + 0.5L + I.OQH §2.3.6 (Comb. 6 modiiicd)

0.9D+ 1.0£ = 0.7D+ I.OQ8 §2.3.6 (Comb. 7 moditied)
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load ASCE7
3.1 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHEAR
Table 1-4. Vertical distribution ofshear § 12.8.3
Level w; (kips) h; (ft) k

IV/11 C,, F.. (kips)
Roof 656 72 101 ,356 0.18 I 14
6th 1315 60 163,890 0.29 185
5th 13 J 5 48 125,991 0.22 142
4tb 1315 36 89,762 0.16 I0 I
3rd 1315 24 55,662 0.10 62
2nd 1315 12 24.592 0.05 27
Total 723 1 561,254 631

Ooslgn FExomplo 1 • Spoclal Motrtont r:romu
The terms U!:lcd in Table 1-4 arc dcflncd in Section 12.8.3 and nrc presented in n rounded form taken from
spreadsheet culc.ulutions (values will not be duplicated by hand ~alcul ati on o f T't.~ble 1-4). Since the
period= 0 .86 > 0.5 sec, the va lue fo t' k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 forT = 0.5 sec and 2 .0 for
T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.18. The distri bution of srory shear is carried out usiug
l\1 h"
F.Y = C\!t V) where ' C lli = 11
/( u Eq 12.8-11 ond Eq 12.8- 12
0 w1I11A
1•1
3.2 HORIZONTAL DIST RIBUTION OF STORY SHEAR
A B c D E F
5@ 30'- ou== 150'- 0"
5 '' - •
I I
±6' - 0"
ACC.
TORSION,
H-..
4
•0
I
~
~
I
I ~ -.......
1
--- I l
t
0
C\J
~ ...- C.M.
~
II
.. ~- ~ C.R.
3 -b H I' I l ~
I I ... ~
-0
(")
@; II
-:t II ~
2 T I , " . ~
I
~ ±7'- 6u ACC.
TORSION ) TORSION
1 ' - •i i
Figure 1-4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute s to1 y shear to SMFs
As sllown in Figme 1-4, tile center of mass and cenrer of rigidity coinci de at the middle of the building.
(While not precisely true, the examp le building is very well bcb avcd and torsional response is nonexistent
so the coincident C.M. and C.R. is not an unrcnlistic assumption.) To distribute the load to each SMF, the
story s hear, F1, is applied in tbe X- and Y-direcl:lons. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the
story shear is offse t 5 percent to account for accidental eccentricity. This example designs all SMFs in th e
X -direction tJ1c same as the SMFs in the Y-di.rcclion. However, for tills illustration, a generic stiffness K is
used for all frames, and the assumption is made that frames have a different stiffness in each direction as
shovm. Each fra me bay is described in Table 1-5 by using the grid line locati on of the fra me (A, F, I, 5) and
the gri d line that inten;ects the frame line of interes t (23. 34, BC. CD, DE).
10 2018 IBC SEAOC Structu/731/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

0 115/gn t!xflrnp/o 1 • Spoc/411 Momon/ Framo
Table 1-5. Center-of-rigidity calculation
Frame Dir X y R.r R/1 xRY YRx

A23 y - 75 lK - 75 K OK
A3 4 y - 75 lK - 75 K OK
F23 y 75 lK 75 K OK
F34 y 75 lK 75K OK
- IB C X -60 0.8 K OK -48 K
lCD X -60 0.8 K OK -48 K

l OTI X - 60 0.8 K OK -48 K
5BC X ()0 0.8 K OK 48 K
5CD X 60 0.8K OK 48 K
SDE X 60 0.8 K OK 48K

Sum 4.8 K 4K OK OK
Center of rigidity: Xr = 0 KJ4 K = 0 fr , Y,.= 0 K/4.8 K = 0 ft (from center of mass)
Table 1-6. Rigid diaphragm ana~ys is to distribute shear to SMFs (X-direction)
X-Dirl!ction
Frame Dir ll , R, rl=x - x, d = y - .,., Rd kt/ 1 vdn'"' Jl,.,)l,. Vh ,, u:e: v,...,.
AD y IK - 75.0 - 75 K 5625 K O.OOF, 0.00/·j -0.0 II~ -0.0 1/·j
A34 y IK -75.0 -75 K 5625 K O.OOF, 0.00/·j -0.0 I Fj -0.01 F1
F23 y IK 75.0 75 K 5625 K O.OOFj O.OOF1 0.0 IF, 0.0 IF,
FJ4 y IK 75.0 75 K 5625K o.oor; O.OOF, 0.0 IF; 0.0 l F,
IBC X 0.8 K - 60.0 -48 K 2880 K 0. 17F; O.OOP, -0.0 IF, 0. 16P,
lCD X 0.8 K - 60.0 -48K 2880 K 0. 17 P, O.OOF, -0.0 I P, 0. 16F1
IDE X 0.8 K -60.0 -48 K 2880 K 0.17P, O.OOF, -0.0 IP, 0.16F,
5BC X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880K 0.17F; O.OOF, 0.0 IF; 0.17P,
5CD X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17P, O.OOP, 0.0 I I~ 0. 17F,
SDE X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.1 7 P, O.OOF, 0.0 I P, 0.1 7F,
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39,780 K
2018 IBC SEAOC Structure//Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 11

Doslgn 5xlJmp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Frome
Table 1-7. Rigid diaphragm anal;l<:is to dislribute slwar to SMFs (Y-direl:lion)
Y-Dit~c1iou
Pnli)IO Dir R., R, tl=x- x7 d=y-y, Rtf Rd! VLLJ.:il v,,..._u v...... lo$.
v.""'
A23 y IK -75.0 -75 K 5625 K 0.2 5 1·~ 0.00!-i -0.0 1/·i 0.14fi
A34 y lK -75.0 -75 K 5b25K 0.251~ O.OOF1 -O.OIF1 0.24~
1'23 y lK 75.0 75 K 5625K 0.25~ O.OOF1 0.0 1/·j 0.26~
FJ£1 y IK 75.0 75 K 562$ K 0.2SF; O.OOFj 0.0 It·; 0.26F;
JBC X 0.8 K - 60.0 -4~ K 2880K O.OOF; O.OOF1 -Q.OIF; - O.OlF,

lCD X 0.8 K - 60.0 -4H K 2880K o.oop; O.OOF1 0 . 01~ - 0.0lF1
IDB X 0.8 K - 60.0 -4B K 2880 K O.OOF; O.OOF; - 0.0 IF; - 0.0 I PI
SBC X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K O.OOF; O.OOF1 O.OOP, 0.0 IF,
SCD X 0.8 K 60.0 4S K 2880 K O.OOF; O.OOF1 O.OOF; O.OOF;

SDB X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 28ROK O.OOF; O.OOP1 o.oor; 0. 001~
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39.780 K
The fol lowing calculations tind the force in SMF along line F for shear in the X-direction:
R.
v...uo>.-. = F:, oR) = 0.25F,
y
Miler:, OJN = F, X (0.05 X 150) = 7 .5F,

M..,.~.._"'; xR"y 7.5F,x75K
F - =:! ~ 0.0 lF.
l.:>l.IN!l 'f.Rd 2 39,780K I
M t(lri =F.xO=OF.
, ,
F. = M tors x Rxy = OF, x 75 K = O.OOF.

II><~ r.Rd 2 39,780 K I
Fl>)ul =:: F~'I + F~u:. rot + Ft.:.-s!on !:::: 0. 26 F;
Table 1-7 shows that the maximum des ign force for any frame bay is 0.26 times the force at that level. The
rest of tltis example focuses ou the design of the SMF along line F.
Table 1-8. StOJy forces applied to SMF along line F
Level/Story F~Y O<:ips) F:nrF-F (kips) Vs:,·rF-F (kips)

Root/ 6th 114 30 30
6th/5th 185 49 79
5th/4th 142 38 116

4th/3rd 101 27 143
3rd/2nd 62 16 160
2nd/1st 27 3 163
12 2018 IBC SEAOC Struc/urai!Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4

De(;/gn t=xllmf)lo 1 • Spoc:IJJJ Momon/ Ftllmo
4. SMF Frame ASCE and AISC
4.1 SMF LAYOUT
The luyout of the latcrul system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior us well as provide
reusonuble redundancy. The layout for SMFs is constrained by the limitation of column alignment and uni-
axial conuect1ons (SMF bearnB al igrted along a single column cross-sectional axis). which cart sometimes
roquin : discreet bays and frame lines. This example lends itsclJ ro the layout sllown previously. whi ch
tends to obviate any torsional response and related forces and/or penalties for unbalanced layouts. In some
des ign~. it muy be de.simblc to design SMF connections in a bi-axial arrangement; only specific connection
types (prequaJi_fied or tested) rnuy be uti li zed for bi-axiuJ upplicat:ioruL Treatment of thit:: complicared
condition is beyond the scope of this example.
4.2 DEFLECTION LIMITS
SMF design is highly i_ntluenced by drift limits. Some augmentative stnlCtut·al elements can be used to help
keep drifts low (i.e., dumpers) or SMF can be used in conjunction with stiffer systems, increasing redundancy
'lltic r<:siJicncc while meeting sllict drift limits (i .e., dunl sys-tems). However, SMF can be designed to
and sei_&
meet required dri ft limits without the assistance of other structural elements. The engineer should consider
cost, construcrabiliry. anticipated perfonnance. and client influence when weighing the use of SMF with or
without supplemental systems. This exampl e examines only the design of SMF. The elusric story dri fts are
the dLffcrc ncc in the elastic doflcctions at the floor ubovc and below. The maximum predicted inelastic story
drift (bused on elustic story drift c.xtracted fi·om the linear elastic analysis model described earlier without any
moditic.ation of grou.nd motion) is given by Lhe followi ng for the second story along ILne F:
o ~ C/>~
.v f
and D. ::::J o
x
-o x-1
Eq 12.8-15 and F 12.8-2
,.
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12-l bused on building system (SMF), greater than four stories
in height, and the risk category (II):
D.II = 0.020/t.a T 12.1 2-1

D.= 5.05 in- 2.50 in= 2.55 in< D- 0 = (0.020)(144 in)= 2.9 iu T 1 ~9 and T 12.1 2- 1
I 6 < D.(} ~ DR1FT Ts 0 K I

When the engineer is calculating lateral deflections fo r drtft analysis, Section 12.8.6.1 provides an
exception that removes the lower limit on C:p specified in Section 12.8.1 .1 , in determining seismic design
forces. This exception allows a recalculation ofT without consideration of the upper limit on the period
(C,J;,). as required by Section 12.8.2 (per Section 12.8.6.2). Therefore. the period calculated in the linear
cl.ast.ic model descri bed above can be used without modi.fication (T:r and r;_).
Witllout the lower limit on C51 the design base shear per Equation 12.8-3 is
Longitudinal ()(-direction): Tx = 1.35 sec
C =
sDl -
06
· = 0.0556
oR Eq 12 .8-3
°~)
.<
rlI:" 1.35
l 1.0
v.r = csw = (0.0556)(7256 kips)= 403 kips Eq 12.8-1
2018 /BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 13

Doslgn FExomp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromo
Trnnsversc (Y-dircction): ~= 1.64 sec
5 0·6
c = m - = o.o457 Eq 12.8-3
$ rlo.!i 1.64lo~)
I It 1.0
V11 = C0 W = (0.0457)(7256 kip.s) = 332 kips Eq 12.8-1
U~ing thc~c modified design base shears, tho force di~oibution to cuch level is adjusted and applied to the
output from the computer modcl. The structure displacement, drift ratios, and stubility coefficients ure
derived u.s shown in Table 1-9.
4.3 STABILITY COEFFICIENT
The fo llowing calculation is used to develop the stability coefficient:
Eq 12.8-16
where
Px = the total vertil'..al design load at and above Level x

11 = tbe design story drift, as defined in Section 12.8.6, OCCUlTing simultaneously with v;c
V.~ = the seismic shear force acting between Levels x and x- 1
h"r =the story heiglll below Level x
C" = the deflection amplineation factor in Table 12.2- l
The stabil ity coefficient. e, shall not exceed erc.n: as detennined from
Eq 12.8-1 7
where ~ is the rntio of shear demand to shear capacity for the story between Levels x and x- 1, which
can be taken conservatively as 1.0. Where the stabi lity coefficient e exceeds 0.10 but is less than 8m1x,
the incremental factor related to P-11 effects on displacements and member forces shall be detennined by
rational analysis, or displacements and member forces cau be multiplied by 1.0/( I - 8). If e is greater than
elt!m' tbc structure is potentially unstable and shall be redesigned.
A review of drift rotios tabulated in Table 1-9 shows that all inrerstory drift ratios are Jess 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 0.1 0, so P-11~..-'ffcct s need not be considered. However, AISC 358 indicates tbat the !!lobal d1ift
~
consideration of reduced beam section (RBS) SMF design must consider tbc: reduced stiffness associated
with the reduced beam section. The actual reduction in stiffness could be calculated and included in the
matbemaLical model to determine "accw-ate" story drifcs based on increased beam ftexibility. However, a

O#Jiilgn c Xllmf)IO 1 • SpoclJJl Momon/ FttlmO
general vnlue ohystcm stiffness cnn be used to s imp I ify t h~: design nnd is allowed to be taken ns 1.1 times
Lhe elastic story drift for :1 50 percent Aange reduclion per AISC 358 Section 5.8, Step I. NlST (20 16)
recommends a 10 pet'Cent reduction in beurn stiffness fo t' the maximum RBS cut. Using th~ AISC approach
for the rnaximurn drLft ratio, the revised diift ratio ls
(LVh)(l.l) =(0.0 18)(1.1) = 0.0 198 < 0.020 ... OK

(8)( 1.1) = (0.04)(1.1) = 0.044 < 0.25 ... OK
Most published rcfcrcuce documcntt:; (Bozorgniu, 2004; Moore, 2007) recommend u mnth~:mntical model
using centerline-to-centerline dimension.s of framing memben; while also allowing for real istic assumptions
for the stifrt'les.s of panel zones or moditication of tl1e effective sport length for beams and colltmns to rnore
accumtely model frame stiffness. Many diffo t·cnt auulyscs using different computer software. bcam ..column
joint modols, and other puramc.tric considerations indicate that a centerl ine analysis (assuming no pancl
zone sli ffh<:.Ss) rcpre.scnts a reusonubk ~sumption fo r the majority of steel spcci~:tl moment frumc designs.
Tl:tis assumption allows for bal!lnced conneclio11 behav ior. Thi.s sit1iplitied analysis assumplion (center-to-
cenrct· modcliug of frame clements) witb a I 0 percent increase on expected clastic story dritl is gcneralJy
acceptable for the design of steel SMF LH the static linear clas6e anulyB"is/dcsign regime and bus been used
to dt:tcrmine the displucements and forces extracted for tl1is design example.
Table 1·9. lllferstory displacentellts and drijts
Longitudina l (X-direction) Displacements and Drifts

Height h o.l =8uCt1 D. Drift Drift Ratio Stabi lity
Story (in) (in) (in) (Nh) Coefficient 8
6th 144 9.52 0.82 0.006 0.0 I
5th 144 8.69 1.29 0.009 0.01
4th 144 7.41 1.67 0.01 2 0.02
3rd 144 5.74 2.35 0.016 0.03
2nd 144 3.39 1.61 0.01 1 0.02
I Sl 144 1.78 1.78 0.012 0.03
Transverse (Y-direetion) Displacements and Drift-s
Height h os = o-Lt"C11 D. Drift Drift Ratio Stability
Story (in) (in) (in) (LVh) Coefficient 8
6th 144 14.66 2.48 0.017 0.04
5th 144 12.18 2.16 0.015 0.02
4th 144 10.02 2.42 0.017 0.03
3rd 144 7.60 2.55 0.018 0.03
2nd 144 5.05 2.55 0.0 18 0.03
1st 144 2.50 2.50 0.017 0.04
2018 IBC SEAOC Structure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 15

Ooslgn fE.xamp/o 1 • Spoclal Momon/ Fromo
5. Element and RBS Connection Design AISC
5.1 ELEMENT SIZING
Tn this part of the des ign example, representative SMF beam und column members of Frome 1 ure designed
in accordance with ASCE/SEl 7. SMT structures assigned to Seismic Desibrn Category Dare to conform
to th0 requirements of the AJSC Seismic Provisions fo r Stntctural Steel Buildings (AISC 341 ). This des ig,u
example uses the RBS SMF connection type.
Steel moment fi·ame des igns arc typically drift controlled. Frnmc members are chosen to provide sufikient
stifrness to meet drift limits imposed by the model building code a.s described eul'lier, in this cllSe the
lBC. wbicb relies on lim its pronmlguted in ASCEISEI 7. The selected members are thon cllecked for
SM F member design requirements per A[SC 341. Tbc selection of beam-column combinations must also
conform to the connection limitations set forth in ATSC 358 and ATSC 360, us appropriate. After confirmi ng
that drift limitations were rea.~onubly satisfied through selection of bc.um and column members to determine
acceptable system petfonnance. the W30 x 132 beam n.t the fifth floor, line I, and the W33 x 221 colutnn
that comprise an intc!ior connection at lrnc C (sec box on connection in Figure 1·2) were chosen to
illustrate this design example.
5.2 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES
AfSC 34 1 Chapter A indic.atcs the material spcci tlcution and strength properties for steel members used in
seismic-force-resisting systems. Where the tem1 "expected strength" is us~d, the value is to he takcn as
The lower bound strength is the minimum spec ified yield strength, F_,-
For this design example, marerin.l st:reng1hs are taken as
W30 x 132 beam , A992

Fy= 50 ksi
F = 65 ksi
)I
W33 x 22 1 column, A992

F>,=50 ksi
F II = 65 ksi
Per AlSC 341, Table A3.1 , for ASTM A992
R>, = I. I
5.3 DESIGN TYPICAL BEAM
Tbe fiftb-ftoor beam in Frame 1 is selected to illustrate SMF beam design. This W30 x 132 beam is shown
in Figure 1-5.

0 €15/gn cxllmplo 1 • SpociJJl Mom€Jnl Fmmo
/c. /
D
30' - 0"
•
I I
v~
~ -. M[ - "
/
-
W30x 132
- - MR•
t
~~::-.'
5~H
FLOOR
~
1-
I I
Figure 1-5. Typical beam at fifth floor of Frame 1-CD
From a review of the computcr out-put prepared in support of this design cxample, the moments and shears
at the right end of the beam are greatest. The unfactored momerH.s and shears ar the face of the column at
line D are
MDL !::! 502 kip-in

Mu. = 288 kip-in
M~,,J = ±3208 kip-in
V0 L ~ 5.42 kjps
Vu = 3.23 kips
Vt-ci< = ± 17.8 kips
Seisrrnc forces identified above in clude both vertica l and horizontal components £ ,. and E,,. The vertical
component,£,. is added to the dead load in Equation 12.4-1 and subtracted from the dead loud in
Equation 12.4-2:
( 1.2 + 0.2S0 s)D + pQe + 0.5L + 0.2S ASCE 7, §2.3.6 Eq 6

E = pQE= +0.2S0 s(D) ASCE 7, §12.4.2.3
£ 1, = pQ5 = 1.OQ6 Eqs 12.4- 1, 12.4-3, 12.4-4
Ev= 0.2S0 / ) = 0.2(1.0g)D = 0.2D
Using the bnsic combinations of Section 2.3.2:
1.2D + l .6L: Mo+L ~ 1.2(502) + 1.6(288) ~ 1063.2 kip-in

V1>+1• = 1.2(5.42) + 1.6(3.23) = 11.7 kips
Using the seismic load combinations, basic combinations for strength design of Section 2.3.6:
( 1.2 + 0.2S0 s)D + pQE+ 0.5L + 0.2S:

M DTIAE = [ 1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](502) + 1.0(3208) + 0.5(288) + 0 = 4055 kip-i n
2018 /BC SEAOC Struc/urei!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 17

Ooslgn Sxamp/o 1 • Spot/Ill Momon/ r=romo
Vl>+IA /i =[1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](5.42) + 1.0(17.8) + 0.5(3.23) + 0 =27.0 kips

(0.9 - 0.2SDs)D - pQg- 1.6H:
M I>-E = (0 .9 - 0.2( 1.0)](502)- 1.0(320S)- 0 = -2857 kipaiu
Vo-..F. = [0.9 - 0.2( 1.0))(5.42) - 1.0( 17 .8) - 0 :::l - 14.0 kips
Prior to evaluating demancl/capaciry ratios for member strength. SMF beams must be checked for stab it ity
and proportions per AISC 358 Scl-'tion 5.3, which references AISC 34 1 for limiting width .. thickncss ratios
for c.:lcmcnts subjected to compression forces.
Check the flange widt.h-thickne.ss rnt.io:
!l. =!!L 0
0.32 E= 0.32 29,000 ksi = 7.35 ATSC341 , TDI.l
1 21 -
J
RF
)' .v 1.1 "' 50 ksi
b
For W30 x 132: f = 5.27 < 7.35 , .. OK
2tj
However, iftbc section did not pass bit criteria, then pt:r AISC 358 Section 5.3 .1 (6) for RBS connections,
b1 mny be measured at the end of the center two-thirds of the reduced beam section, provided that gruvity
loarus do not shi flt.h e plast.ic-hinge locnt.ion a sign ificant distance from t.he cent.er of the reduced section.
Check the web width-thickness ratio, conJ]mung thnt the beam is a highly ductile member:
for C < 0. 114; !:.._ ::;; 2.57 E (I - 1.04C ) AISC 341 , T 01.1
a l RF a
II' .l' y
P 66 kips .
C = " - 1
= 0.038 < 0.114, soC = 0 (Footnote d)
a <P~. Pr 0.9(50 ksi)(38 .8 in-) u
~ .
.!!.. s 2.57 E
2 57 29.000 ksi !::! .
59 0
f >I 1.1 • 50 k.si
h
For W30 x 132:- = 43.9 < 59.0 ... OK
l 11'
Check beam depth, weight, and span-to-depth mtio limits per AISC 358 Section 5.3:
Maximum beam depth: W36 > W30 ... OK

Maximum beam weight: 300 lb/ft > 132 Jb/ft ... OK
Maximum flange thickness: 1.75 in> 1.0 in . . . OK
Minimum span-to-depth ratio: 7 < (

30
]b' 2
) = 12 ... OK
Check beam lareral bracing requirements per AISC 358 Section 5.3.1 (7), which references AISC 341,
Section D 1.2b. Note that per the exception i11 AISC 358 Section 5.3.1 (7), beams supporting a concrete
slructura] slab that is connected between the protected zones with welded shear connectors spaced at a
maximum of 12 inches on center do nol require supplemental top and bottom flange bracing at the RBS .
18 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroclurai!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Dllt>lgn t:xllrnplo 1 • SJ>Oc:IJJJ Momllnt Framo
As thi:; is th~: case in mo~t conditions (und os~;umed for this cxtmlple), brncing wi ll be considered under the
auspices of Al SC 34 1, Scclion D 1.2b:
Maximum bmec spacing, L"
Lb =0.095J~1 Ef(R/') =(0.095)(2.25)(29,000 ksi)/(1 .1 $ 50 ksi) = 113 in or 9.4 ft
Place minimum bracing at quarter points: L = 30/4 = 7.5 ft on center
0
MC
P.br = 0,02 l d A ISC 360. Eq A~ 6- 7
hr
" AJSC 341 §D 1.2a and T A3.1
Usc z.,instead of Z~ for a conservative estimate of bracing

o 1. 1(437 in 3)(50 ksi) c 24,035 kip-in o 2003 kip- ft
Prb = 0.02M,Ciho
pro, (0.02 ) (24,035 kip"in)[I.O) ) ~ 16 .4 kips

6
l (30.3 - 1.0) in
The length of the brace is assumed to be measured from the centerline of the W30 x 132 to the centerline of
the adjacent gravity beam. Assuming 10-foot beam spacing, the length of the brace is
L= l
0
(1 0ft)~ ftin
12 ) 2
+(30.3 in) 2 = 124 in = 10.3 tl:
Based on the .M anual oJSt111ctural Stee l Construction, an L4 x 4 x ?'& as an ecccnttically loaded single angle
will be examined:
~J>.. ~ 16.3 kir-s ~ 16.4 kips (using 11-foot length and z. . instc.ud of Z..) AISC Manual T 4-12
AJSC 360 stares that a mi.u imum st iffness is also required ro provide adequate lnteml bracing (A"6- 8). This
type of brace is considered a nodal brace, providing a rigid brace support, so tbc rcqui.red brace sti.ffucss is
AISC 360, Eq A-6-8
where
M,. = R>Z ..~. (l10wever, Zx will be used to estimate bracing)

= 1.1 (437 in ~)(SO ksi) = 24,035 kip-in= 2003 kip-ft
cd~ 1.0
L" = I 0.3 ft = 124 in
h0 =db - If = 30.3 in- I .0 in= 29.3 in
~ = I 0(24,035 kip-iii)(l.O) ==
88 .2 k/in
IY 0.75(124 in)(29.3 in)
2018 /BC SEAOC Structure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 19

Oosfgn Sxamp/o 1 • Spochtl Mom<ml Frome
The bruce stiffness cnn be calculutcd as
AE
K= K cos2o
L
e= t:nn_1 (30Jin
124 in
__ 13 _7 o
K = lo (2.86 in 2)(29,000 ksi) (cos213. 7o) = 63 1 klin

124in
K>P~v .. -OK
lAx 4 x ~ kickers provided at 7.5 feet on center to brace the beam bortorn flange w the top flange of an
adjacent steel beam ml.:ct latera l bracing requirements.
T he W30 x 132 beam meet.'! stabi li ty and proportion criteria; next. check the design flexura l strength
(LRFD) per AlSC 360.
From AISC 360 (Chapter F2) for W30 x 132:
E
L = 1.76r - = 7.95 ft > 7.5 ft :. M = M ~ FZ ATSC 360, Eq F2-5
P y F n " .1' :r.
)'
Design Flexural Strength (conservative assumption): <j>1,MP = 19,680 kip-in AISC 360, T 3-6
Demand-capacity rntio: DIC =
4055 k-iTI = 0.21 < 1.0 ' 0 ' OK

19,680 k-in
Check nominal shear capacity
for W30 x 132: AISC 341, D l. 1
<l> V,, = ( 1.0)0.6F>,A, ,Cv AJSC 360, Eq G2- 1

C,. = 1.0 AlSC 360, Eq G2-3
E
43 .9 = !!._ 0 2.24 - = 53.95 ... <l> = 1.0 AJSC 360, §G2.1 (a)
(w
~-
<l>..VII :::l 1.0(0.6)(50)(0.615)(30.3)(1.0) = 559 kips
27
D IC = k = 0.048 < 1 .. . OK
559 k
I USE W30 X 132 BEAM I

Note: The W30 x 132 beam is larger than required by strength considerations as calculalcd from
prescriptive load combinations. However, given tbe constraints of meeting frame drift Iimits, it is a
reasonable choice for this design . Limitations r-elated to beam-column connection design and reduced beam
section parameters f,TUidcd tbc size of beam selected.
20 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctu/731/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4

Dm;l(}n cXilnlplo 1 • SpociJJJ MomfJnt Pramo
5.4 DESIGN TYPICAL COLUMN
The column to be designed is the secon d~ lift column of Fl'ame I (line C). ru; shown in Figure I-2 and
Figure 1-6. The muxlmum strong axJs moments occur at the bottom of the co lumn and arc taken at the top
flungc of the fifth-floor beum. For brevity, the example will look at critical conditions affecting design,
omitting the mony di t1crcnt im:onscquentinl demnnd values tbllt arc determined for the various analyses)
including ou t ~ ofplane bending loads, extet·Jull wind fot·ces, and so on.
/4
..
I
$5TH
. FLOOR - - -- ~
.../,
<
'1-
I
It
0
W33 X 22 1 ~ 4TH I
STORY •N
I .....
-0
I
•
~
$4TH - 1- -- -
FLOOR -.1
> .....
I ~ W3 3 X 318
.._
Fft,71.tre I -6. Typical second-st01y column at Frame 1
For the fou rth-story column at line 4, the maximum unfactored column forces gcnernted by the fra me
computer analysis arc
M01, = 15.4 kip-in

Mu, = 13.2 kip-in
M6,;s = ±5559 kip-in
Vor. = 0.22 k.ips
Vu. = 0.22 kips
v.ms : : ; +66 kips
Por.= 167 kips
Pu. = 116 kips
P ~W = +2.23 kips
2018 IBC SEAOC Structurei!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 21

Ooslg n Sxamp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromo
Seismic force_.; identified above include both vertical and holizontul componentt; Ev and EIJ. The vertical
component, Ev, is added to the dead loud in Equation 12.4- 1 and sublrocted from the dead load in
Equation I 2 .4-2:
( 1.2 + 0.2S1.w)D ·1- pQJi + O.SL + 0.25' ASGE 7, §2.3.6

E = pQJ! + 0.2SL1S(D) Eqs 12.4- 1, 12.4-3, 12.4-4
E1, = pQ8 = I .OQii
E,. ~ 0.2So.sD ~ 0.2(1.0g)D ~ 0.2D
U9ing lhc basic combinations of Section 2.3.1 :
1.20 + 1.6L: pD+L = 1.2( 167) + 1.6( 1J6) = 386 kips

M D+L = 1.2( 15.4) + 1.6( 13.2) = 39.6 kip-in
VD+L = 1.2(0.22) + 1.6(0.22) = 0.6 kips
Using tht: seismic loud combinations, basic combinations fo r strength dc.sign of Section 2.3 .6:
(1 .2 + 0.2S0 s)O + pQB+ 0.5L + 0.2S:
p f>~>IAE <::::. [ l.2 + 0.2( 1.0)](167) + 1.0(2.23) + 0.5(116) + 0 = 294 kipS

M D+L+£' = [ 1.2 + 0.2( 1.0)]( 15.4) + 1.0(5559) + 0.5( 13 .2) + 0 = 5587 kip-in
VD+tr~B = [ 1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](0.22) + 1.0(66) + 0.5(0.22) + 0 = 66 kips
(0.9 - 0.2Sos) 0 - pQE - 1.6H:
PD-E = [0 .9- 0.2(1 .0))(167) - 1.0(2.23)- 0 = 115 kips

MD-r. = (0.9- 0.2( l.O)]( I 5.4)- I .0(5559)- 0 = -5548 kip-in
V0 ·£ = [0.9 - 0.2( 1.0))(0.22) - 1.0(66) - 0 = - 66 kips
Try W33 x 221, ASTM A992 column.
Chcck the flange width-thickness ratio:
b- bl 0 0.32 E = 0.32 29,000 ksi = 7.35 ATSC 341. T DI. 1

r 2r R.f'v
. . 1. 1"' 50 ksi
1
b
For W33 x 221: ::J_ = 6.2 < 7.35 . . . OK
2l;
Check the web width-thickncss ratio:
c = ~I = 294 = 0.1 0
c~ (0.9)(50 ksi)(65.3 in 2 )
0
a
29 000
.!l... $ 2.57 E (I - 1.04C ) = 2.57 • ksi (I - 1.04 * 0.1 0) = 52.9
( 'r'l
Ry F)' II I . 1,. 50 ksi

De5/gn E:xtm1plo 1 • Spoc14JJ Moment Framo
For W33 X 211: hit,.= 38.5 < 52.9 AISC 34 1, TDI.I
Check column depth , weight. and spun·ro-dopth ratio limits per AJSC 358 Section 5.3 :
Maximum column depth: W36 > W33 .. . OK

Maximum column weight : tw limjted .. . OK
Maximum flu ngc thickness: compact per AISC 341 ... OK
Unbmced column height (tuke11 from top of ft·aming at bottom to mid· depth of beam ar rop):
Ll' o 12.7 ft, Lr o 38.2 ft AlSC Manual, T 3-6

H = 12.0- (2.5/2) = 10.8 ft
L0 = 10.8 ft < L1,
As SMFs arc usually governed by sriffrtess criteria, most of the frame stabiJiLy checks are superfluou s
related to the large members required to provide adequate stiffness. Much effort can be expended on fra me
stabil ity checks and co lumn capacity checks, but in general these systems fa ll well within limits of stnbi lity
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 combinatioli arc
P,. = 386k =0.13<0.2

p 2939 k
"
~ + Mrx = 386 + 5587 = 0.22 < l.O AJSC 360. Eq Hl - lb
2?, MC:I (2)(0.9)(2939) 38,520
Check column shear strength:
.E._= 2.24 29,000 ksi = .

54 0
Fv 50 ksi
Since.!!...= 38.5
r,,.
V, = 0.6F'_1.A..,Cv AISC 360, Eq G2-l
c,.= 1.0 AISC 360. Eq G2-2
q>Yn = 1.0(0.6)(50)(33.9)(0.775)( I .0) = 788 kips
V,, = 66 kips < ~,. V,, = 788 kips . .. OK
Column flange brncing must also be considered and is addressed in Part 6 of thi s design example.
I USE W33 X 221 COLUMN I

Note: The W33 x 221 is not necessari ly an optimliDl size based on sb·ength and local or g loba l stability.
The size was chosen lo meet drift requirements with consideration toward connection design limitations
and costs assoc iated with the beam-column connection . A more refined optimization could resu.lr from a
number of detailed iterations. but this size is adequate for illustration of the des ign example.

Ooslgn FExamplo 1 • Spoclttl Momon/ Fromo
5.5 RBS CONNECTION LIMITATIONS
The column· beam relationship mu st Hatisfy limitations identified in AlSC 358 Sections 5.4 through 5.7.
Section 5.4 requires tbat panel zon<.-s co11form to the requirements of AJSC 341 and thnt the column-bcnm
moment rntios nrc limited to conform to the requirements ofAISC 34 1, with some pr~criplive conditions
associated with calculating the ratio of column-beum moments. Section 5.5 rcquirts that SMF beam
ftarlges be cortnected to colwnn fl anges using complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds and that the
welds nnd access hole geometry confom1 to the requirements of Al SC 341 and AISC 360, respectively.
Section 5.6 requires that the beam web provide the required shear siTcngth according to Equation 5.8-9 and
thuttht SMF beam web be connected to the column fl ange using a CJP groove weld cxtcnding between
weld access holes. Section 5.7 deliues speci.tlt: cond.itions a.ssociated with the fabrkatio t\ of flange cuts and
repair of gouges and notches. These requirement!S slwuld be clearly identified in contract documents to
ensure thnt the quality of the connection is attained and maintained consistent with the ATSC provisions.
5.6 RBS CONNECTION DESIGN
'D1e RBS connection is a prcquulitied connection type per AlSC 358. Tbis design example foLlows the
procedure outlined in AISC 358 with reference to ATSC 341 and AISC 360.
The fo llowing calculations comprise a design methodology that is inhet·ently iterative and requires some
experience to gain proficiency. After considering code drift llnlits and evaluating several combinations tor
strong column-weak beam and panel zone strength criteria, tbc combi11ation of a W30 x 132 beam and
W33 X 221 column was sekctcd for use in this design examplc. The "allowance" fo r usi.ug d~ep columns
is based on research (Ricles et al. 2004: Uang et al, 200 I). The chosen frame members were shown to have
adequate stt·ength to resist the factored load combi nations (Pans 5.3 a.nd 5.4), and th is combination of beam
and column sizes in the computer analysis results in ovcmU frame drills witbin the code limits (Part 4). Tbc
W33 x 221 column was chosen to elucidate consideration of deep columns, while providing an efflcicnt
frame design (based on drift limits). However. an incrcase in column size might be warranted to obviate
the need for doubler plates and possibly reduce the cost of the frame. considering fubrication costs. The
connection detailing might also give rise to considering diifere nt frame clements. When given the option,
steel fabricators often reques t to usc heavier co lumns in Iicu of installing doubler plates for economy. But
in light of these requests, the designer must consider the actua l realized savings when replaci ng frame
elements. For example, if a Wl4 shape is sekctcd for this frame (insread of the W33 proposed), the
comparable column is Wl4 x 665, an clement more than three rimes heavier than the selected column . ln
addition to connection detailing, necessary preheat for all welds, required inspection, and the fa brication
and inspection associated with column-splice details would all drasticall y increase. Column splic ~
in SMFs musr comply with AlSC 341 Section 02.5 (which is beyond the scope oftbis example). The
detrimental effects of usi.ng very heavy columns might be most evident when executing a vety complicated
and expensive CJP weld at the column splice. These types of system considerations arc important when
dctcrmin.ing the fi nal sizes appropri ate for a steel SMF. The focus for the fo llowing section will bc on the
des ign of the RBS connection and associated design details that are appropri ate for the chosen sizes.
Establish plas1ic-hinge configuntion and location AlSC 358, §5.8, Step 1
The fu ndamental des ign intent expresst:d in the AJSC 358 design proccdure for RBS is to move the
plastic hinge away from lhe weld belween the beam fl ange and column flange. This physical relocation of
tbe 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).
24 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroclurai!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Dtu;/gn t=x11mp/o 1 • Spoc:IJJJ Moment Framo
AISC 358 Section 5.8 identifies specific limitntions for the dimension ~> nssociuted with the rudius cut fo r the
reduced beam section.
0.50b01 < a ~ 0.75bw ALSC 358, Eq 5.8- 1

0.65d s h s 0.85d ATSC 358, Eq 5.8-2
0. 1Obbf$ c $ 0.25bbf AlSC 358. Eq 5.8-3
{t_ COL .. sh . ct HINGE
I
btFOR FLANG E
COMPACTN ES s,
SEE PART 5a ((';
I
f.:)
~.
I
I
I
I - ~
-
center 2/3
a b
Figure 1-7. RBS geometry
W30 X 132
0.5bl= 0.5( 10.5) = 5.25 in

0.75b1 = 0.75(10.5) = 7.88 in
Use a= 7 in
and
0.65d == 0.65(30.3) == 19.7 in

0.85d = 0.85(30.3) =25.8 in
Try b = 24.0 in
The initi al 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 f-ace of the column to within 90 to I00 percent
of the plas tic capacity of the fu ll beam section.

Ooslgn lExlJmp/o 1 • Spoclnl Momon/ Fromo
With u 45 percent reduction in the flange urcu,
c = 0.45(b/2) - 0.45(1 0.5/2) = 2.36 in

= 2V~-i n cut, (2.38 in/ 10.5 in) = 0.23b1 < 0.25b1 ... OK
Usc c = 2.375 in
4c2 +b 2 (4X2.375 2 )+ 24 2 . •
R :::J :::J ::::: 3 1.5 10 (mdJUli of the Aunge cut)
8c 8(2.38)
Thl: plastic hinge muy be assumt:d to occur at tbc ct:ntt:r of the curved cut such that
s" =a+ b/2 = 7 + (24/ 2) = 19 in

and
L = 30.0 ft = 360 in
L1, = L- de - 2(Sh): (this assumes columns are the same size at each end of beam)
L,, = 360 in - 33.9 in - 2( l9 in) = 288 in
The length between the plastic hinges, L11 (see Figure 1-8). is used ro determine fon.:cs at the crit ical
sections for connection analysis.
PLASTIC DRIFT
HINGES ANGLE
Figure 1-8. Plastic-ltiJ1ge locations
Determine plastic section moduJus at the reduced beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 2
The plastic section modulus at the center of the reduced beam section is calcul ated as
Ztws = Zx - 2ctbf(d- fbi) AJSC 358. Eq 5.8-4
2c = 2(2.375) = 4 .75 in
ZRns = 437 - (4. 75( 1.0)(3 0.3 - 1.0)) = 298 in 3
26 2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

0lJ61gn c XflrTifJ/1) 1 • Spoc:IJJI Moment Ffftn10
Determine probable m~tximum moment at the rcduc.cd beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 3
Next, the probable plastic moment at the reduced bea1t1 section. JV",r is calculated as
AlSC 358, Eqs 2.4-1, 5.8-5
The factor Cfll uccouors for peak contlection strength, Lt!Cludi.ng strain hardening, local restrain~ additional
reinforcement. and other connection conditions.
F +F
c - \' II < 1.2 AlSC 358. Eq 2.4-2
w Fy
C =50 ksi +65 ,ksi = l.lS

111
(2)(50 ks1)
~v ~ ( 1.15)( 1.1 )(50)(298) =:l 18,849 kip-in
The value fOJ" Mpr must be such thut the proj ected moment demand a t the face of rhe column M,·. is less than
the expected strength oftbc fu ll beam section; this condition is veri.t:led in Step 7.
Compute the shear force at the center of earn RBS AISC 358, §5.8, Step 4
Determine the shear force at rhe center of d1e reduced beam sections at each end of the beam. AISC 358
Section 5.8 requires that the shear force at tbc center of tbc reduced beam section is detcm:Uned by a free-
body diagram oftbc portion oftbc beam bdwccn the centers oftbc n:duccd beam sections assuming the
moment at the center of each RBS is MP'. and shall include gravity loads aeliog on th~ beam based on a
specific load combination: 1.2D +.t;L + 0.2S (where ./1 = 0.5). (Figure 1-9 and Figure 1· 10)
Lll
Figure 1-9. Beam equlf/bJ·lum under rhe probable plastic momenJ Mpr
V = (2)(Mp) = (2)(18,849 kip-in)= kips

131
pr Lh 288in ·
VRV~
.,,, = vpr + vp and VR', ., = vpr - vp
nr
VP = Vl>+L(Lt/L)
vp= 11 .7 kips (288 in/360 in)= 9.36 kips
VRIJS =131 kips+9.36 kips and V/ms =131 kips - 9.36 kips
VRDS = 140 kips and V~ = 122 kips

Ooslgn fExllmp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromo
Compute the probable maximum moment at the f~acc of the column AISC 358, §5.8, Step 5
Mr= Mpr + VtuJ5(S,.) AJSC 358, Eq 5.8·6

M1 - 18,849 kip-in + (140 kips)( I9 in) ~ ;2 I .509 kip-in (positive sense)
M_~ = -18,849 kip·in + [( 122 k.ips X19 in)] = -16,53 I kip-iu (negative sense)
- .I\
<t_ RBS
"'>
-.....(' .. ..
Figure 1-10. Free-hoc~}' diagram be/ween center ofRBS and face of column (AISC 358. Fig. 5.2)
In this example (as in many actUIJl application:;), the moment attributable to the g:mvity load applied
between the plastic hinge and the face of the column flange is negligible(< 0.5%); therefore, it is omi l!ed
and only briefly considered when cornpa.ring MP... ro M1.
Compote the exp ected plastic moment of the beam AISC 358, §5.8, Step 6
To compute the plastic moment of the beam based on the expccied yield s~ss of the beam material ,
compute Mf"l as
M'"' = Zuf?>FY = ( 437)( 1.1 )(50) = 6}4,035 kip-i.u AJSC 358, Eq 5.8-7
AISC 358, §5.8, Step 7
M1 < c'p)'v"_~r = 21 ,509 < 24,035 ... OK AJSC 358, Eq 5.8-8
lf M1 excccds 9aMp, tbc 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 Mf" and M1 is gTcatcr than
0.5 percent, so the omission of the gravity load between the plastic hi nge and the face of the column flange
is acceptable.
Determine the reqoJrcd shear strength, V11 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 8
DctcmJi.nc tbc required shear strength of the beam and beam web-to-column connection from the following
equation:
V = (2)(MI',.) + V .
AISC 358, Eq 5.8-9
u L ~'IY
h
28 2018 IBC SEAOC Structu/73/!Seismic Design Menuat. Vol. 4

Design c XIIrTIJ>/0 1 • Spoc;IJJJ Moment Fr<tmo
where
V,, = required shear strength of beam and beam web- to~column connection
L, =dist·ance betw~cn the centers of tbe reduced beam sections
V~mo;ty = beam shc.ur force resul ting from 1.2D +.f;L + 0.2S (wherc.fi = 0.5)
V,, = VP,. + (VD+L) = 131 kips+ 11.7 kips = 143 kips
The d~sign shear strength of the beam js checked in accordance wi th AJSC 360 Chapter G. This calculation
was performed as part of the beam design (Part 5c). The shear strength of the W30 x 132 beam wus
determined to be 559 kips. The1-eforc_. the beam is adeq uate to resist the shear demand at any locatiott along
tbe beam longtb, as tbe calculation considers the beam web only.
D esign the beam web-to-column connection according to

AISC 358 Section 5.6 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 9
This check references AlSC 358 Section 5.6. Section 5.6 indicates tba.t tbc strength of the baam web-to-
column connection strength must he dct~m1incd in accordanct: with Equation 5.8-9. Furthcm1orc, the
following description (from ATSC 358) identifies the only al lowabl e detai ling for the beam web-to-column
connectiotl:
For SMF systems, the beam web shall be collOcctcd to tbc column fl ange osi.ng a CJP groove
weld extending between weld access holes. The single plate shc.ur connection shall be pc.m1ittt:d
to be used as backi ng for the CJP groove weld. Th e th ickness of the plate sha11 be at least % in
(I 0 nnn) . 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 arc pem:tit1cd.
Because the beam web-to-column connection is made with a CJP groove weld, the shear capacity of the
weld is grcatc•· than or equal to the shear capaciry of the bearn, so no further checks arc required to verify
the adequacy of this condition.
Chec.k if continuity plnte..-: ar c required accordlng to AISC 341 AISC 341 E 3.6f, Step 10
Tllis check fo llows AI.SC 341 E3.6f, whicb also requires compliance with AISC 360 J 10 for local
limit states. Where continuity plates arc required, this section bas minimum dimensional and welding
requirements.
> bbf = I0.5 = 1 75 . AJSC 341, Eq E3-8

l if - 6 6 . lJ1
fer= 1.28 in< 1.75 in
where t<f= minimum required thickness (inches) of column fl ange when no continuity plates are provided
CONT1NU1TY PLATES ARE REQUIRED

Ooslgn FExamplo 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromu
Check local limit state~ per AISC 360 .JlO
These checks ate made bll8ed on a concetmated flange force determined ftom the beam strength (as given
in a U~cr Note ln ALSC 341 E3 .6fJ):
__, 0.85ML ~ _ _ . . . _ . _ . .
P1 - - 0.85M11(d 1 tb,. ) - 0.85(2 1,509 k1p-m) I (30.3 m 1.0 m) - 624 k1ps
ad
•~ I
e ' ,
Ch eck web local yielding
The bearing length is taken us tho bcnm flange tblckncss.
<j)R 11 = <P(Sk + th1)F;, AISC 360, Eq J 10-2

<!>R, = (1 .OO)l5(2.06 in)+ 1.00 in](50 ksi)(0.775 in)= 438 kips
Check web crippling
<!>R,, = <)>0.80t~, AISC 360. Eq J I 0-4
1
29.000 ksi(SO ksi)(l .28 in) = kips
<j)R11 = (0.75)(0.80)(0.775 in) 2 l+ 3 ( l.Oin )(0.775 in ) _3
581
33.9 in I .28 in 0.775 in
Ch eck flange local bending
<j) R11 ~ <j)6.25t~ ~~.. ~ 0.9(6.25)(1.28 in) (50 ksi) 1::1 461 kips
2
Continuity plates are required based on all of the local limit s1atcs and the AISC 341 additional check. The
requirt?d strength is based on the least strength of the local limit states thus:
RuCP !!l P1 - ¢R" ~ 624 kips - 438 kips = 186 kips
Note that this req uired strength can be reduced based on the presence of a column-web doubler. Howevct·,
neither the fJange local bending nor the AISC 341 Equation E3-8 checks arc affected by the presence of a
doubler.
Per AISC 341 Section E3.6f.2b, the thickness of the plates is determined as fo llows:
(a) For one-sided (exterior) connections, continuity plate thickness sba!J be at least one-balfthc
thickness of the he.am flange.
(b) For two-sided (interior) connections, the continuity pl ate thickness shall be at least three-
fourths the thicker ofth c two beam flanges on eitbcr cide of the column.
30 2018 IBC SEAOC Struclurai!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

OMI(.Jtl c>Wmp/0 1 • SpOCIJJJ Mom€Jn/ Prttmo
Continui ty plates tilw ll nl:;o conform to the requirements of Section J I 0 of the AJSC specification. The
requirements of ATSC 360 Section J 10 pertain to detailing/sizing of the continuity plates. The Lhickne.ss
requirements listed in this section combined with the detailing requiretrtenrs of AJSC 360 Section J I 0
ensure that the continuity plato hns adequate strength.
The detail ing for tbe continuity plute.s diclnte.s some oft h<e verifYing culculutioM associated with the
continuity plate, ir1duding the welded connections between the conLinuity plate and the column flanges and
web. The fo llowing derailing provisions (AJSC 358 Section 3.6) affect plate design :
Along the web, tht: comer cl ip shall be dctnilt:d so thut th<e clip extends u distnnce of at least
I Y! in (38 mm) beyond the published k~ 1 dimension for the roll ed shape. Along the flan ge. t.he
plate shall be clipped to avoid interference with the tmet radius of the roll ed shape and shall
be detailed so thut the clip docs not exceed a distance of Yz in ( 12 mm) beyond tbc published k1
dimension . Th<e clip shall be detailed to fuci litutc su-itable we ld tcrminutions for both the Aungc
weld and the web weld. When a curved corner clip is used, it shall have u minimum radius of
Y2 ill ( 12 Oltll).
Using these requirements, the projected contact area between tbc edge of the continuity plate and tbc
column flungc and column web are
Api, = <wpo)U\)cw.-pt)
w. .v,"" b c.unl- 1'1 - ("/ctCI.ll'' + 0.25 in)
The continuity plate width ( Wf'-'-ilaJ{{J cUI! be detet·mined considering the required strength
~R, = 0.75wTF_v AlSC 360, Eq J4- l

~R11 = 0.75wTFv ~ 186 kips
'
W T>
_ l86kip =496'
. Ill2
0.75(50 ksi)
lf th<e width avai lable within the column section (between tbe column web and tbc edge of the co lumn
flange) limits the total available width for bearing, the following can be used to size the thickness of the
continuity plate:
b(( - 1lW ·
~)h(mn) = 2 = 7.5 1 Ill
~·''' = w. .,~<rru"~)- ("kl ml" + 0.25 in) = 7.51 - (1.1875 + 0.25) = 6.07 in
A 4 96. 11 1
A,""= (Wpb Xto:ot-rt): rront-rt.;;, = ·6 .0; = 0.8 1 in; say rront-rt = 0.875 in > 0.75(1.00 in) = 0.75 in
Therefore. use rwo pairs oni -inch x 7Yt-inch continuity plates in the column aligned wirh rhe top and
bottom beam flanges.

Oosfgn FExvmpto 1 • Spochtl Momon/ r=rome
In addition to the size of the continuity pllllte, thc atfnchment/welding of the continuity ph1te shu II meet the
criteria established in ATSC 341 Section E3.6f.2c:
ContiiiUity shall be welded to colurtlr\ fti\I\ ges using CJP g.roove welds. Continuity plates shall be
welded to co lumn webs ustng groove welds or tlUet welds. Tbc required Stl'{)ngtb of the sum of the
welded joint"S of the continuity plates to the columo web shall be the smallest of the following:
1. The sum of the des ign strengths in tension of tbc contact arcus of the continuity plates to
Lhe column fl<1nges that have attached beam flanges.
2. The design stl'ength in shear of the contact area of the plate with rhe column web.
3, The design strcugth i.n shear of the cohmm pane l zone.
4. Tht: sum of the expected yield strengths of the bcum flanges transmi tting force to the
continui ty plates.
No dc.-.'lgn calculations an:~ required fo r the continuity plate to column fl ange portion of the connection.
However, the connection between the continuity plate and column web shollld be calculuted to detennine
au appropriate weld for this connection.
The maximum contact area between the continuity plate and the column web Is
A"" ~ [de- 2t9 - 2(k + 1.5 in)](1.5 in) = [33.9- 2( 1.28)- 2(2.06 + 1.5)](1.5 in) ~ 36.3 in
2
The tension stTength of the continuity plate is limited by the connec tion slrength between the edge of
the continui ty plate and the fuce of Lhe column flange. This condition is expressed in the limitations for
welding required between the continuity plate and the column web. The fo llov.riug calculations identify
the control ling case (m.i.ninJum value of the four cases) for the required strcogtl1 of the continuity plate-
to-column web welds. The weld is required to res ist the minimum of thn:e fore~ per AISC 341 Section
E3.6f(2):
L~F,A~-~ = 2(0.9)(50)(9.06) = 815 kips

Y""' = Q>(0.6)F>'AP"' = (1.0)(0.6)(50)(36.3) = 1090 kips
Q>R,, =870 kips (panel zone shear strength; see calculations in the next section)
The small est value is 815 kips, which wi ll be used to design the welds between the continuity plate and the
column web.
The minimum required double-sided tiller weld size to develop 815 kips is
D . = --------! R"! . . - - - - - -
mn (2)(1.392 kips)[d, - 2rcf - 2k + l .5 in]
- 8 15 = 10 .19 (16thsti. ll et)

(2)(1.392 kips)[33.9 - (2)(1.28)- (2)(2 .06)+ 1.5 in]
The designer could use double-sided ~ -in ch fillet welds (within 2 percent of required size) to connect
the continuity plates to the column web. However, partial joint penetration (PIP) preparation costs arc
not significant and often less expensive than filler metal placement, so it may be more economical to use
an equivalently sized P JP weld or a CJP groove we ld between the continui ty plate and the column web.
The most economical solution can be determined through a conversation with the project slructural-steel
fabricator.

Def>lgn c Xflmp/0 1 • Spoc;IJJJ Moment FtM10
Check column puncl zone according to AISC 358 Section 5.4
The panel zone strength is calculated het•e using the provisiotls of ATSC 341 Section E3.6e. The pon e! zone
shcur calculution is derived by projecting tho cxpocred moments at rbe beam plastic hlngcs to the fa ce of the
column, assuming points of inflection at the column rn.id-hclgbt between floors (Figure 1-11).
--~ Vc A
- - - Vc
(
M'f (do-~) (<1,-~)
•
----Vc - ---Vc
Figure 1-11. Panel zone f orces
M1 = 21 ,509 kip-in
M[ == 16,53l kip-in
"Dol/I = M r + M( = 21.509 + 16,531 = 38,040 kip-in
V = 'i..lv/1 _ 38,040 kip-in =

264 ki s
" h6 +h, 144in p
R ::: LMI - V 5
38·040 kip-in - 264 kips ~ I 034 kips
" (d, -1/if ) c (30.3 - l.O)in
-----Vc
- - - ---3
M'f ...0
...c
--~Vc
Fig ure 1-12. Column she ar
2018/BC SEAOC Structure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 33

Ooslgn Sxvmp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromo
The pnncl zone shcnr strength is dct.cm1incd from ATSC 360 Section J I 0.6 fo r Pr k ss thnn 0.75? ,.
AISC 360, Eq J J0- 11
where
$ !:::! .1.0 per ATSC 34 I Section E3.6e.l

b(j = width of the column flange
d, = depth of the beam
ric:::J column depth
l<'r= th ic.krH~_-;s of Lhe column flange
'"' = tota l thickness of the pnncl zone, including doubler plates
For the W33 x 22 1 column, the pn.ncl zone shear strcngU1 is

1
l+ 3(15.8)(1.28 )
<PR.v = o.oxo.6)(so)(33.9)(0.78) = 870 kips
(30.3)(33.9)(0. 78)
$R, < R11 = 870 kips< I034 kips N.G. Doubler plates or thicker column web indicated.
The W33 X 221 column panel zone strength (without doubler plates) is not adequate when matched with the
W30 x 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 docs nor sn'ictly comply with code regulations. If the panel zone
must be sl:reng1bcncd, and if doub ler plates arc used in lieu of increasi ng the column size, then compliance
with AlSC 341 Section 6e(3) is required.
The minimum panel zone thickness,'=· is also checked per AlSC Section 341, E3.6c.2.
(d + w. )
I ";::. 1 - AISC 341, Eq E3-7
90
where
d. = d - 20-of the deeper beam at the connection

w! = panel zone widlh beLween column flanges
1 =thickness of column web or doubler p.late

30 ·3 - 2(l.O) = 0.314 ill
1= 0.775 in o
90
Check moment ratio according to AJSC Section E3.4a AISC 358, §5.8, Step 11
The moment ratio is checked in accordance with A1SC Section E3.4a, with special attention paid to the
delinjtion of M~. and how the engineer derives rhe summation of nomjnal beam and column flexural
strengths. M"' is projected to the centerLine of the beam to compute M~~. The difference between M~r and
M;" is the column shear multiplcd by the distance from the flange of the beam to the centerline of Lhe beam
(Ftgure 1-17). The cruciform is defi ned by the assumed inflection point in Lhe column(s) and Lhe center of
the beam(s) RBS (Figure 1- I3).
34 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctumi!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

0fJ51gn IExMnplo 1 • SpociJJI Momon/ Promo
'
II •
.
N
-.... ....
l()
•
.0 U)
II '0 ......
.... I
-'
- - f-
'
N ' I
II
II rn
..-
.0
.s::
--
N
.0
-o
•
1.1)
...... I I
35.95" 35.95"
<t_ RBS <t_ RBS
Figure 1· 13. Beam-column dimensions
V'RBS ::z 122 k

I
Mpr 1!!!1 18,849 kip-in (

' r- ) Mpr 1!!!1 18,849 kip-in
I
VRBS = 140 k
I I
35. 95" 35.95"
<t_ RBS <t_ RBS
Figure 1- 14. Demandsji'Oin beam
2018 IBC SEAOC Struclure//Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 35

0fJf51gn exMnplo 1 • SpociJJl MomfJnl f!ramo
,... .....
Mp0 = 37.ns klp-in
I
~~±' M'pc
M'pc
I
r-... ./
Mpc • 37,776 kip-In
Fig ure 1-16. Free-body diagram for M;b
. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---< r-- - - Vcol-t

•
Mpc-b
..0
..c
Vcol-b
g
Figure 1-17. Development of M'rx

Doslgn lExlJmp/o 1 • Spochtl Momon/ Fromu
'l.J\11.
Is -f > 1.0 ?
r.A1 p(l
(o
rM p 1- = 95,687 k-in = .
2 03 . .. OK
l.Jvt
p.b
47,117 k-in
EvuJnate lateral bracing of cohnnus AISC 358, §5.3.2
Per AJSC 358 Section 5.3.2, latoral bmciug of columns shall coufonn to requirements of AlSC 341.
To preclude SMF column members from lateral to!bional buck Iing, AlSC 341 Section E3.4c.J spcci nes
requirements for column flange bracing. The W33 x 22 l column has a perpendicular beam framing into
it ar each level, providing out-of-plane joint restraint At the beam top flan ge, the concrete slab effectively
provides braL·ing for the column flange . 111e column fl anges therefore need to be latet'ally braced at the
beam bottom flange only if ATSC 341 Equat·ion 3-1 is not greater than 2.0.
r.N/(o
--.!.P...:...
~" o 2 •Q
l.Jvl~
ph
From Step 12 of this design example:
D\t/ ~ .
P•' =
_-~:..:....
95,687 k-J.n = 2 .03 ... OK
~b 47,117 k-m
The column flanges, therefore. do not need lateral bracing at the bcum bottom flange. If bracing is required.
it may be provided by perpendicular beams connected to full-depth stitreners and column continuity plates.
Where bracing is provided, it nn1S1 be des igned for a required strength that is equal to 2 percent of the
avalluble beu.m tlnnge sn·ongth , as appropriate.
Welding parameters
Parameters for prequalified welded joints are presented in AJSC 358 Chapter 3. The requiremenl~ identified
in AISC 358 reference AJSC 341. The requirements for welding are clearly outlined in AlSC 341 Chapter I
Section 12.3, which references AWS D 1.8.
Specific protocols associated with weld bucking and weld tabs are described in AJSC 358 Chapter 3 and
AISC 34 1 Section 12.3.
Quality control and quality assurance
Quality control and quality a.ssnrance reqlLirernents are outlined in ATSC 358 Section 3.7, which refers to
AISC 34 1. AJSC 341 Chapter J covers quality control and quality assurance related to SMF fabrication and
erection. Speciiications regarding the quality ofRBS fabrication arc provided in AJSC 358 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 be tween the face of the column flange to the end of the RBS farthes t from the
column .
38 2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

Design cXIImp/v 1 • SpOc;IJJI MomOn/ Framo
6. Detailing of RBS Connection
The dotails shown in Figures l- 18 through 1-22 ar-c representative SMF RB S dc1ails.
BEAIA SIZE .0" "b" .

() " "RADIUS"
IV30x 116
\IJJOx 1.32 r 24. ~- .31)_f
IV30~148
\VJOx 173
V/.30~, 91
~DIUs"' SEE NOTES ON ffi

h r
1,.
/ \.)
I
1.1
BEAM PER PLAN W/

FULL DEPTH sn FF. ~
J"o¥~ "b"
J ~ &AM AND
cONNEGTION PER
PLATE TO COL PLAN
flANGE C\JT CONEIGUAADON - PLAN \AEW
.~zor
C.lP. DC ---stCS"PEC. .
SEE NOTE 2
CAP f( ,
SIT l( 6" BEGIN WElDED
f SlUDS, TYP.
fr=~=j~y£==~
CJP
__.---+ERECTION ft., Ot:SIONED BY
FABRICATOR, ~· THIOK MIN
~-+REDUC£0 BEAM SECTION,
;:::±=~=a~:d;::::::==:b.=~ T&B
SEE NOTE 1.
CJP, DC
SEE NOTE 1&2..
NOIES;
1. REMOVE BACKING AT BOTTOM FLANOf. ROOT PASS SHALL BE BACKGOUG£D TO
SOUND VltLD METAL AND BAOKWELDED ~lTH A REINFORCING Flll£T AS SHOWN
2. BACKING AT BEAM FLANGE TO COL FLANGE SHALL NOT BE VIELOE.D TO TI-E
UIIDERSIDE OF THE BE:fo<\4 FLANGE. NOR SHALL TACK YIELDS BE PERMfTTED AT
n-us LOCATION
.3. WELD ACCESS HOLE GEOMETRY SHALL BE PER DETAIL ~
EB
stlOIIN ON P~
DETAIL THUS: H ...-
SCAi.£.: 3/4"co1'-0"
RBS CONNECTION
Figure 1-18. RBS connection
2018 IBC SEAOC Struc/ure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 39

Ooslgn /Exomplo 1 • SpQc/nl Momont FttJme
6~ BEGJN WELDED
S ~ 'I:.C. sruos. w.
IRI
OON1WUITY
t , !it£{ X"""
, - .,~
I / +
... ~
r
~ +
DOUBlrR rt , A
\\!HERE OCCURS.
SEE El..£VA110NS;
Sffx SHCJIIN ON PLANS mUS: FOR INfOR IJllliN
, - _~
H •llll--
SC£0
SHOWN BUT NOr
NOTED
DETAIL
RBS CONNECTION
Figure 1- 19. RES conn.ecrion
CONTINUflY +
It, SEE X
!----..!:'-+--+"~-- +
+
SHO\VN ON PLANS ll{U9: FOR 1NFOR>UA11N

- --IIIIHI!Il---- SHOVIN BUT NOT
NOTED S£Ef f i
DETAIL
SCio.l.E: 3/4"o1'-o•
RBS CONNECTION
Figure 1-20. RBS connection

Oer;/gn c XM11plv 1 • Spoc.:IJJJ Mom(Jn/ Ftomo
;u
,
b. J'
'[.1
~vJ 'll. l
...
fi.AliOE. QUI CONOOUAAJION - Pl&J lllE'fl
6• BfOIN 6• 8£01N
sm'Wil'IYP1 ~E~~NE r r·E~kON£~ rsriJ~~."

r=~==~~====~~==~~
CO~InNUITY
flsrr
-
DOUBL.ml
il S ,-X-...
-
_ . ,. H._.-
SHOWN ON PLAAS THUS! fOR lfl.'l'OIW'ATlN
S££8
SHO\IW BlJT NOT
NOTED
DETAIL
9CAl.E: 3/• ·- 1'-o·
RBS CONNECTION
Figure I -2 1. RBS connection
2018/BC SEAOC Structurs/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 41

Doslgn 15xamplo 1 • Spoclnl Momon/ Fromu
HOLD BACK WELD

W TYP.
CJP., DC. TYP.,
SEE NOTE 2
~..,--- R£MOVE VIELD TABS TO ~ .
~ % MAX. FROM EDG£ Or
CONTINUITY ft TYP. ; GRfND
EDGE OF WELD SMOOTH
)f RADIUS, MIN., TYP ..._._.... NOT FLUSH; DO NO GOUGE
COL. FLANGE
DOUBLtR It
WHERE OCCURS - - - - ' - - - '
NQID;
1. CONTINUITY PLATES SHALL BE )f TI-IICKER lHAN TI-lE lHICKNESS OF' THE

THICKEST MOMENT FRAME BEM1 FLAN~ FRAMING INTO THE COLUMN BUT NOT
LESS THAN !)!•.
2. STEEL BACKING AT CON11NUITY PLATES NfED NOT BE REMOV£0 EXCEPT FOR
INSTALlATION OF DOUI:lLER PlATES, ElADKING LEFT IN PI.A<:E SHALL BE WELDED
TO COLUMN FLANGE USING A CONTINUOUS ~e. f'lll.E.T VIELD ON 11-IE EDGE
BELOW THt CJP GROOVE VIELD.
3. REFER TO TABLES IN THE NSC MANUAL FOR VALUES OF keeL AND f<.t cal.
DETAIL
CONTINUITY PLATE
l·'igure 1-22. Continuity plate

Design Example 2
Special Concentrically Braced Frame
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 brnced frames that comply with the International
Building Code and the ATSC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (A ISC 341). guiding
designers toward the careful considernlion of the peTfom1ance of concentrically braced frame structures
under scv<::rc seismic loading. Ctrtain recommendations provided arc considered best practice; nevertbckss,
the calculation methods illustrated are applicable to u 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 mainl<~ining strength. In order to provide tJ1is perfom1ance,
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 comj:)ression diminishes.
T hus, SCBF arc intended to have post-clastic behavior that differs significantly from the clastic distribution
of forces . A simpk linear analysis of force distributions is insuflkient. and an amplification factor is,
in many cases. insufficient as well. Design ntles for SCBF have thus always contained some fom1 of
requirement for consideration of post-elastic conditions.

Oosi(Jn FExamp/o 2 • Spot/~/ Corwontrlc olly 8 ft)CO d Fromo
Th ~: 2016 edi tion of AISC 34 I ha:; gone furthe r thon previous codes in making this lutkr requirement an
explicit requiremen t The prov isions require that beam11 and columns have suftidenl st.re.ngtb to withs lund
forces corresponding to rwo different conditiom;: the maximum fot·ce!l the thune cur\ resist (with frame
forc es coJTCspondiug to braces reaching their cx pocred buckling strength ami expected tension strength)
and tbc post-buckled condition (with frame forcc!l corresponding to braces rcocbing a low estimated
post-buckling sl:n!nt,rth und expected tension strength). These arc essenti ally plastic-mechanism nnulysis
r-equircri:h!nts artd arc illustrated in this examp le.
As important as dctcm1ining design forces for iTI.tmc members is the detai ling of connections to
accommodote bui Iding dti ft Hnd ducti Iity dcmonds. To uccommodutt building drift, the effect of guS$d S on
the beam-to-column connection artd the column bnse-plute connection mllit be considered. These gusseted
connections should be consid~:wed fully l'igid Ul)lcss special detailing is used to allow for relative rotation.
(The use of typical "siinple" connections in combinutiou with a gusset plate is insufficient to guarantee
adequate rotation capac ity. ) Conncclions considered ri gid will devdop large moments at the design story
dri ft, and A ISC 34 I requires that the connc.ction have flexural strength corresponding to the strength of the
beam or of the columrt
Jn thi s exampk, a fully rigid beam-to-column connection is employed. Tbi s connection is a combinatlon of
the gusset platt with an SMF wdded unreinforccd flange-welded web (WUF-W) connection. The design of
alternative connections (including the accommodation of rotation) is illustrated in the AlSC Seismic Design
Manual.
Accommodnting brace compression ductility demands t ntails detailing the gusset plate to allow for brace
rotations or designing the connection as a fixed end for tht brace. In this example, the former approach is
taken. with a hinge pl ate oriented to allow for in-plane rotation. Alternative designs are illustrated in the
AISC Seismic Design Manual.
This cxampk docs not include the design of a bru;c-plalc connection. However, Des ign Example 9
illustrates a base-plate des ign for a buckli ng restrained brnced frame and can serve as a guide for SCBF
base plates.
For more information on the SCBF sys-tem, Stt SEAOC Blue Book article 08.03.050: "Conctntri c Bruced
Frames"; August 2008.
44 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

Ooslun Examplo 2 • SptJclal Conconlrlcally Broc<td Framo
OUTLINE
1. Bullding Geometry and Loads
2. De.llign BMe Shear nnd Lond Combinations
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load
4. Brace Sizing
5. Plastic Mechanism Analysis
6. Beam Seismic Forces
7. Column Seismic Forces
8. Detai ling and Design of Connections
9. Additional Considerations
10. Items Not Addressed in This Example
The building is a six-story office buildi.ug located in San Francisco, CA, in Seismic Design Category D. Sec
Appendix A for the fo llowing infom1ntion:
• Building dimensions.
• Floor and roof wcigbts.
• Lutirude and longitude.
• Soil type.
• Speclral accelerations.
• Load combinations including the vertical seismic- load effect.
1.2 FRAME LAYOUT
Early design decisions that sbould be made include:
• Location of flumes.
• Contiguration of frames.
• Relationship of braces to the architecture.
2018 IBC SEAOC Structurs/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 45

Dosfgn 5xamp/o 2 • Spotlit/ ConcY.Jntrlc olly BrtJcod Fromo
1.2.1 LOCATION OF FRAMES
In this example. the ft·ames are located ar the bui lding perimeter. which is n1ore efticient in controlling
bui lding torsion and ensuring redundancy. The plan layout of frnrne.s at floors 1-4 ls shown in Figure 2-1.
.
A B c D E F
5@ 30'- 0" = 150' - 0"
~ }'
5 ~
- -
I'
I ~ I? "':; ? I
..
4 H z :z: z
--
0
-0 I
I\ I><J \
('J
...-
3
II
•0
It H J:><t z 'I!
J
I
1\ \
•
0
("')
@)
2 "'" It :z: z :z: z

I
'"
1 - ·%· ·~
"{> ~ ?> ~
Figure 2-1 . Plan

OQS/gn t=.xiJmpi#J 2 • S(>(Jclol CotlOentr/c(ll/y Broc&d Frarr10
1.2.2 CONFIGURATION OF FRAMES
Frames are contlgmed in u two-story X contigw'lltion. whit:h is advantageous in limiting beam flexural
demands in the post-buckled condition . Additionally, the fram~:s arc offset ut floors 5 and 6. This reduces
the column overturning dt!munck;, which is especially beneticiuJ for column size (ttnd conscguently column-
splice d~mands) , base-plate dcrtlandH, and fourldation dcmandll. This consti tutes an irregularity. bur this
irregularity docs nor represenr a dmtt latical ly different col lector beam demand ft' OtTI those in simi lar regular
contigurntions. A typical frame elevation is shown in Figure 2·2.
B c D E
ROOF
6th FLR
5th FLR --0

I
-N,..._
4th FLR II
--0
I
-N
3rd FLR -.r-
(§)
<0
2nd FLR
1st FLR
Figure 2-2. Frame 1 elevation

Ooslgn FExamp/o 2 • Spotlit/ ConcY.Jntrlcolly Bnit od Fromo
1.2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF BRACES TO THE ARCHITECTURE
Braces in this example a1-e exposed. Thus, no special wall detai ling is required to allow for bmce buckling
dcfonmtion. However, braces arc located within 8 Inches of the exterior glass, potentially leading to a
fu lling hazard should braces buckle out of the plane of the frame, causing damage to the fus:ude. Such a
lu:tznrd could be mitigated in several ways. including im:relliling the physical separation or trcatihg the glass
to prevetH fallin g debris. In this ex!unple, the hazard is elimiunted by coutiguring bmces to buckle in the
plano of tho frnmo by using a round section in combi11arion with end detailing that favors in .. planc over
out-of-plane rotation . The dctnil employed at the bcum-to-column connection is shown schematically in
Fi gure 2-3.
0
r•
Figure 2-3. Typical gusset configuration
Th is detail has many advantages over more typical single-gusset-plate detai ls. Jn addition to avoiding
out-of-plane brace deformation, the detail avoids potentia.! conflict between the composile deck and the
hinge plate as the Iauer bends as a result of brace buckling. The detail is also highly adapmble to special
conditions, including connections to sloped beams.

Ooslgn /Exvmplo 2 • SpfJcltll Conoontrlcally Broc&d Fromo
2. Design Base Shear and Load Combinations ASCE 7
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM T12.2·1
There are two options in Table 12.2-1 for using SCBF: a pun: SCBF and a SCBF/SMF dual system. For the
purpos~.:s of this example, a pure SCBF wi thout the dual system will be used.
I R = 6.0 no= 2.0 ctl = 5.0

'
Tht.: spcdnu accelcration.'l to be \lscd irt dcsi!,m arc derived in Appendix A.
I S0 s = l.OOg SIJI = 0.60g
2. 3 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3-1
The building has a Type 2 horiz.ontol irreglllai'ity. This •·equires art increase in diaphragnHo-collectot·
transfer forces (as iiJustratcd in Design Example 7). but doos not atfect the SCBF.
2.4 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3·2
The bui lding hilS Type 3 and 4 vertical irregularities. The Type 4 irregularity requires that the elements
supporting the braced frame be designed for tbc special seismic-load combinations (including the
"amplincd seismic load"). This is a requirement for SCBF columns regardless of irregularity. It also
require_,; an increase in diaphrngm-to-collcctor transfer forces , which is also required by the horizontal
irregularity.
Tl1c Type 3 irregularity precludes the usc of the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure per Table l 2.6-1 .
2.5 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T12.6-1
Because of the Type 3 irregularity, the modal response spectrum (MRS) procedure is employed. For
preliminary design, the ELF procedure is employed, with the des ign 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 uri lize MRS. For preliminary ELF design, the
MRS base shear will be assumed to be scaled to 90 percent of the ELF base shear.
2.6 BASE SHEAR
Determine the approximate fundamental bui lding period using Section 12.8.2. l:
C, = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8-2
T =C,h;; =0.02 x 72°·75 = 0.49 sec (see the following discussion)

0
Eq 12.8-7
~= 0.49 sec

Ooslgn /Examp/o 2 • Spocl~tl Corwon/rlcolly Br&cod Fromo
The culculution of seismic rcS"ponse coefficient, ~~" is performed using four equations. These equations,
when presented together in u grnph of the b!l.'le shear coefficient vcr::~u.s building period, consti tu te the
response spcctrt.un for rhe site. (See Volume 1 oi' the 2018 IBC SE!IOC Slructw·ai!Selsmlc Design Manual
for further cxplanutiou.) TI.Je tina equation defu1es tbe coeftlcient as:
5
C = m· = l.OOg =0 167g &] 12,8·2
~ RIJ, 6.0/1.0 .
•
The coeftkient need not exceed:
0 ·60 g = 0.204g Eq 12.8-3

(6.0/ J .0)0.49
The value of seismic re...'>ponsc coefl1cicnt, C,., computed in Equation 12.8-1 mU.!:>t be at least equal to the
fo llowing vu lue:
Ct = 0.044SDS = 0.044(1.00g) = 0.044g Eq 12.8· 5
Tn addition, for bui ldings in Seismic Design Category E or f , and those buildings for which the 1.0-second
spectral response, S1, is equal to or greater thar1 0.6g, rbe value of the seismic response coefficient. Cp must
be at least equal to tbc fo Uowing value:
c = o.ss, = 0.5(0.60g) = 0.05g &] 12.8-6

~ Rll c, 6.0/ 1.0
Equation 12.8-2 controls.
V = C,.W = 0.167(7231 kips)= 1205 kips Eq 12.8· 1
V = 1205 kips
The strucrure qualifies for a redwtdancy factor of I .0 through calculation. Sec Volume I of the 20 18 !BC
SEAOC Sn·ucfu/'{/1/Seismic Design Manual for ti.Je calculation methodology.
2.8 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations are addressed in Appendix A of this volwne.

Ooslgn t=xomplo 2 • SpfJclol Conoontrlcl1/ly Broc<M Fromo
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load ASCE 7
Table 2-1. Vertica l distribution ofshear § 12.8.3
Level w1 (kips) h, (ft) w,h: c.u F, (kips)
Roof 656 72 70,906 0.174 210

6tb 13 15 60 116,413 0.286 344
5th 1315 48 91, 177 0.224 269
4rh 13 15 36 661539 0.163 197

3rd 1315 24 42,683 0.105 126
2nd 1315 12 19,982 0.049 59
Total 723 1 407,700 1205
Tbc terms used in this tnblc u.rc dctin cd in Section 12.8.3. Tbc period is assumed to be 1.4 times the
approximate period: 1.4 * 0.49 sec = 0.69 sec; this shou ld be confirmed or adjusted after member sizing.
Since the period= 0.69 > 0.5 sec. the val ue fork is irHerpoluted between a value of 1.0 for T= 0.5 sec and
2.0 tot· T= 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.095. TI1e distribution of story shear is can·ied out using:
\V h!
F.x = C.~ V, where Crr = .x .x Eq 12.8- 11 and Eq 12.8-12
" · n
o w, I11I:
/= 1
3.2 HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF STORY SHEAR
T he horizontal distribution of forces requires consideration of diaphragm torsion. TI1is can be approximated
at this slllge of de.sign (prior to selection of brace sizes) by making rough assumption..; to be confirmed at
a later s1age. The frames on gri ds A and F are each assumed to resis1 50 percent oftbe nortb .. south seismic
forces, plus 80 percent of the accidental eccentricity. This results in a sbarc of the north-south forces
equal to:
RA= 0.5V + 0.8[V(0.05L)IL] = 0.54V
The frames on gtids 1 and 5 arc designed will1 a sirnjlar assumplion, such that c.ocb fram e is designed for 54
perct:nt of the base shear. This overestimates the effect of accidental eccentricity slightly.
This factor is appli ed to the force at each story. A more complex layout might require a more in-depth
analysis- possibly modcUng-to distribute the forces to eacb frame for design purp~cs.

Doslgn /Examp/() 2 • Special Conr:on trlcolly Bttltod Froml)
All four ftnme::; will be designed to resist the forces in Tobie 2-2.
Table 2-2. Vertical dislribution ofshear
Level F,., (kips) Frame Force (kips) Frame Shear (kips)

6th 2 10 113 113
5th 344 186 299
4th 269 146 444
3rd 197 106 551

2nd 126 68 619
I st 59 32 651
4. Brace Sizing AISC 341
4.1 REQUIRED STRENGTH
The required sttengtll ofbra~es is calculated from the seismi c forc es i.n Table 2~2 . 1t is common for
designers to n~..:g lcct the gTavity forces in braces, although that approach is not explicitly pellllittcd for
SCBF. Where gravity forces arc signiflc.unt, they should be considered. In Lhis case the gravity forces ,
shared by four bmces and the beam, have been determined to be 4.5 kips for the typical floor condition
for the seismic load combLnations. The rensioo effect of this gravity force is conservatively neglected for
design.
Converting the fmme shear into a brace shear considering the four braces and the bruce angle of
ATAN( 12/15) = 38.7 deg, the brace forces are calculated and presented in Table 2-J_ The required strength
in compression is calculated adding the gravity force.
Table 2-3. Brace design forces for Frame A
Level Brace Scismjc 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

Ooslgn ExDmplo 2 • S{>(Jcltl/ Conoontrlcally Broc<Jd Promo
The some is done fo r Frome I. At the top h¥0 lltorics, thcrc are only two bmccs im;tcud of the four in
Frome A.
Table 2-4. Brace design forces for Fmme 1
Level Brace Seismic force (kips) Bruce Gravity Force (kips) P11 (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
4.2 SECTION SELECTION
The effective length of the bmces is assumed to be the work-point 1engrh (I 9.2 feet) minus some diBtancc
at each end to account for connection size. For member sclcc1ion purposes, th~; effective length will be
assumed to be 16 fed. To conform to the limit on brace slenderness, tht! minimum radius of gyration is:
r > 16 ft(l2 itl/ft)/200 = 0.960 iu
Round HSS A I 085 will be used. See SEAOC Blue Book article 08.03.050 for a discussion of the behavior
of brace section ty pes. The availability of sections should be verified. Round HSS must meet the
requirements of AISC 341 for highly ductile members:
29 000
Dlt < 0.053 E = 0.053 • ksi = 24.6
R_,Fr 1.25 $50 ksi
The following brace sizes are to be used for Frame A, based on design strengths tabulated in the Manual
(Table 4-5):
Table 2-5. Brace designs for Frame A
Level Brace Size r (in) kL/r Dlt (pP11 (kips)
6th HSS 5.563 X 0.250 1.88 104 22.3 85

5th HSS 5.563 X 0.375 I .84 106 14.8 120
4tb H.SS 6.625 X 0.313 2.23 88 21.2 159
3rd H.SS 6.625 X 0.375 2.21 88 17.7 187
2nd HSS 6.625 x 0.500 2.17 90 13.3 23 9
I st HSS 6.625 x 0.500 2. 17 90 13.3 239
2018/BC SEAOC Struclurei/Seismic Design MB11ual. Vol. 4 53

Doslgn IExl.unplo 2 • Spoclnl Concuntrlcolly Bf()cod Fromo
The fo llowing bruce sizes nrc to be Ul>ed for Frome I:
Table 2-6. Brace designs for Frame 1
Level Brace Size r (in) kL/r Dlt P, (kips)

6th HSS 6.625 X 0.313 2.23 88 21.2 159
5th I ISS 6.625 x 0.375 2.2 1 88 17.7 187
4th HSS 6.625 x 0.313 2.23 88 2 1.2 159
3rd HSS 6.625 x 0.375 2.21 88 17.7 187
2nd HSS 6.625 x 0.500 2.17 90 13.3 239
1st HSS 6.625 x 0.500 2.17 90 13.3 239
The sixth-floor brace is s ub~t<lntially oversitcd to limit unbalanced forces on the intersected beam.
5. Plastic Mechanism Analysis AISC 341
Once the braces arc sized, tbe maximwn demands on tl1c n:st oftbc system can be calcularcd. Two
conditions arc considered: the maximum forces that braces can deliver (in either tenS"ion or compression)
and the condition after some braces have buckled (which con be criticul for certain mt:mbcrs).
In order to perfonn these analyses, three values are required for each bmce: the expected tension stt·ength,
the expected compression strcngtb, and the approximate post-buckliug strcngtb.
The expected tension strength is RYFYA8 .
Tlle expected compression strength is 1/0.877Fr.nA~ =I . l4F,,....AT where Fcrt' is calculated uslng tJlC
expected yield strcogtb, RJ.F_,. in tbc AJSC 360 Chapter E equations in Section E.3.
T he post-buckling strength is taken as 0.3 times the expected compress ion strength (as required in
Section F2.3): 0.3(1.14FC1<A~) = 0.342F~A~.
Tht: values for these forces for tht: st:ctions used are shown in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7. Brace capaciLy .forces
Expected Tension Expected Compression Post-Buckling Strength

Brace Size Strength (kips) Strength (kips) (kips)
HSS 5.563 X 0.250 261 II 0 29
HSS 5.563 X 0.375 382 154 41
H.SS 6.625 X 0.313 387 219 58
HSS 6.625 x 0.375 460 257 68
HSS 6.625 x 0.500 601 327 86
54 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctura/!Seismic Design Menual, Vol. 4

Ot:Jslgn C.xompi#J 2 • SpfJclt>l Corwentrlcally Broc<id Ftamo
5.1 CONDITION 1: MAXIMUM TENSION FORCE AND MAXIMUM COMPRESSION FORCE
Figure 2~4 show ~ the maximum-force condition for Frame A, with the braces removed and the ca!)acity
forces substitutod. Assuming a tlfit-modo deforma tion, aU braces in tomrion arc n~s umcd to reach their full
expected tension strength (R>,P.,A
. li
.), and ul l braces in compression arc ussumcd to reach their full expected
comprtssion strength ( l. l4FCJ" A8 ). Lotcral forces indicated do not correspond to the cnlculotcd bose shear.
Fig ure 2-4. Maxim tim-force condition fo r Frame I
5.2. CONDITION 2: MAXIMUM TENSION FORCE AND POST-BUCKLING COMPRESSION

FORCE
Figure 2-5 shows the post-buckled condition for Frame A, \vith the braces removed and tbe capacity
forces substituted. Assuming a first-mode deformation, all bnttt!S in tension are assumed to reach their full
expected tension strength (R~v A;,) , and all braces in compression are assumed to have degraded to their
nominal post-buckling strength (0.342Fm A!').

Oosfgn /ExfJmplo 2 • Spoclnl Conc-ontrlcolly Btt~cod Fromo
~I
I I
I
>
I >
0 .342Fc.-.o ~
I
> 0.342FO\J 0.342Fc," ~~~
I
> r/ ' 0.342F CTII-\ 0.342Fml A;,
I
> 0.342Fc,\l ~~'\ 0.342F~
~~"\
I
> r/
~
'
~Fy ftv 0.342Fm•t\ ~FyAg 0.342Fm.A,.,
Fig11re 2-5. Po.sl-bucklecl condition.for Frame I
6. Beam Seismic Forces AISC 341
6.1 INTERSECTED BEAM (SIXTH FLOOR, Frame 1)
T he seismic forces on this beam for Conditions I and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from Table 2-7. Condition I wil l have larger axial force; Condition 2 wi ll have a larger flexural force.
Figure 2-6 shows a free-body diagmm of the beam.
Condl11on 1 : 1.14 Fern A9

Condition 2: 0.342 FcraAg
I
~;<
>
'
r/ " 0' >
RyFyAg Condition 1: 1.14 Fc18 A9
Cond ition 2: 0.342 FQf0 A9
Fig ure 2-6. F'ree-boc(v diagram of the s ix /It -floor beam
T he diagonal forces are converted to vertical and horizontal forces in order to obtain beam shear. flexure,
aud axial forces.

Doslgn Exvmplo 2 • Spoclt~l Conconlrlcolly Broc&<.l Framo
6.1.1 CONDITION 1
The vertical forc e on the beam is
Q,,- [R.)~.A «- 1. 14F,.".AK]s sin (95) - [R.v ~vA 6 - I .14F,,,.A8 ]6 sin (96 )
= 22 kips
The horizontal force on the beam is
Q111 = [~~1 .A
8 + 1.14Fu. . Ag]5 cos (81) - [RyFyA8 + 1.14F,.,'l'A;J 6 cos (8cJ
= 86 kips
G iv~n the symmetry of the condition, the uxiul fore~ in each segment of this beam cnn be token as
Pu = Yl QJ./1 = 43 k.ips.
6.1.2 CONDITION 2
The vertical force on the beam is
Q 112 = [R>F>'A9 - 0.342Fmr1srls sin (85) - [R>,FYAz - 0.342F.-n,Az)1; sin (86 )

= 39 kips
The horizontal force on the beam is
Q112 = [~.F>A 11 + 0.342F~ 1,:1 5 cos (95) - [R.f >AK+ 0.342Fcn.A1J, cos (96 )
= 65 kips
Given the symmetry of tbe condition, the axial force in each segment of this beam can be taken as
Pu == Y1QH 1 == 32 kips.
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 sign.iticantly s maller brace size at the sixth
floor would result in a much larger vertical force on the beam and may be uneconomjcul. TI1c forces
above combined with gravity forces arc applied to the beam for dc.sign. The govcming combination from
Appendix A:
1.2 + 1.0£ + 0.5L = 1.4D + 0.5L + QF. (Comb. 6, modified; sec Appendix A)
The grnvity moment is based on
=1.4D+0.5L
~t. 4(6ft *67 .7psf+l2ft* 19pst)+0.5(6ft* lOOps-f)
= 1.19 kif
M, = w9 L2116
~ 66.8 kip-ft
All braced-frame beams are W 18 x 50 (except for the redistribution beam below) to provide for uniformity
of connections. For brevity, the desig11 of this beam wi ll not be sbown.

Ooslgn t:xamp/o 2 • Special Concontrlc olly Bltlcod Fromo
6.2 REDISTRIBUTION BEAM (THIRD FLOOR, Frame 1)
For th is beam. Condition 2 govems by inspection. Figure 2·7 ~bows a free- body diagttlm of this beam. The
story force is assumed to be dciJvcn:d two-thirds vlu shear along the beam and one-third via a collector
fo rce on the right-hand side.
0.342FcroAg
;> ~
>
I
I I
>
Figure 2-7. Free-body diagram c~(lhe third-floor beam
In order to calculate the ax ial force in the b~m, the story force ddivcrcd to this portion of the frame
comsponding to the Condition 2 forces must be calculated:
F:. = [~FyA,q + 0.342F~gh cos (8 2) - [R) f~.Ag + 0.342F~gh cos (8~)

== 125 kips
At the right-hand connection, one-third of this force is delivered:
Fi gure 2-8 shows a free-body diagram of the right-hand connection.
Figure 2-8. Free-body diagram o,(the rlghL-hand connection o,(the third-floor beam

Design t=xfJmplo 2 • Speclt~l Conconlrlcally Broc<J<l Framo
The axial force in the beam is
P, = F~ 11 + [0.342Fm.AK] ~ COS (8_J- [R>,FYA11h cos (82,)

= 375 kips
The mom~nt is the sam!! os for the b~u.rtt in thl! previous s<:t:tion:
M" = w,!}'/ 16
= 66.8 kip-ft
The compressive strcog1ll carl be calculated considering the restraint provided at the top Bange by tbe slab.
As described in Design Example 7, constrai ned-axJs flexural-torsional buckling is the limiting buckling
mode for this condition. The AlSC Seisrnic Design Manual gives this expression for use in cu lculoting
construined-axill flexural-torsional buckling for a beam restrained at the top flange (Equntion 8-2):
2
12-E C +1y -2
\1' (d) 0.9
F=
(!
---....::..----~+
2
GJ
(K=L)
Using this equation in conj unction with Equation E3-l , tbc constrained-axis flexural-torsional buckling
strength for theW 18 x 50 with top flun gc continuously bruccd and the bottom Aunge brnccd nt I 0 feet is
~P,, = 465 kips

Pj<PP" = 375/465 = 0.807
From Table 3- 10 of the Manual. the flexural strength is
<PM"= 324 ki~
M )¢M,, = 66.8 kip-ft/324 kips = 0.21

Pnl<PP11 + 8/9Mui~M11 = 0.99 ... OK
6.3 FIFTH-FLOOR BEAM (Frame 1)
The previous two examples (the sixLh-tloor and third-floor beams) are representative of all the beams in
Frame A. with the even-numbered floors si milar to the sixth floor and the odd-numbered floors (and roof)
similar to the third floor.
Frnme I is similar except for the in-plane otfser at the fifth tloor. Due lo this, the three beams at lhe fifth
fl.oor iu Frame 1 should be analyzed in a single free-body diagram. as sbown in Figw·e 2-9.
The seismic forces on this beam for Conditions I and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from Table 2-7. Condition I wi ll have larger axial force in the end beams; Condition 2 will have a
larger axial force in rhe middle beam.

Ooslgn /Exomp/o 2 • Spoclnl Conc:ontrlcolly 8r{lt od Fromo
Condition 1:
1.14FcreAg
Cohdition 2:
0.342 FcreA 9
> > >
I I
" I
Condition 1: Condition 1:
1.14FcreAg 1.14FcreAg
Condition 2: Condition 2:
0.342 FcreAg 0.342 FcreAg
Figure 2-9. Free-body diagram offifrh-j loor beams (Frame I)
For brevity, the design of tbcsc beams wiiJ not be shown .
6.3.1 CONDITION 1
The force entering the frame at level 5 is
Qfl l = 2[R>'F> 4x + 1. 14F,w A...J,1 cos (84) - [R7 F_r-i J! + 1. 14Fcn-"1J!] 5 cos (8 5)
= 387 kips
This force is distributed axial force on each beam of 387/3 = 129 kips. The righr-haud boam bas an axial
force at the right end of
At the left end of the 1ight-hand bc.am, the axial force is 302- 129 "" 173 kips. This axial force controls for
the two outs ide beams (considering tbe load to be applicable in eit'her direction).
6.3.2 CONDITION 2
The force entering the frame at level 5 is
Qm = 2[R>F>.AK+ 0.342Fri¥ Ae]4 cos (9")- [Ry~v A c + 0.342FmA eJs cos (9s,)
= 283 kips
This force is distri buted ax ial force on each bc.am of 283/3 = 94 kips. Recognizing the equal forces in each
buy, the center beam has an axial force at each end of Y2(94 kips) = 47 kips.

Ooslgn t=xomplo 2 • Spoc/t)/ Conoontrlcally Broc&d Ftttmo
7. Column Seismic Forces AISC 341
7.1 CONDITION 1
Column seismic forces for Condition I are shown in Table 2-8. Four co lumns arc shown, with compression
shown U..'\ pos itive forces and tension as negative. The forces are. of course, for one direction of loadi ng.
Table 2-8. Column seisrnicforcesfor Condition J (Fram e J)
Colu.rml B/ 1 Force Column C/ 1 For·ce Colum11 D/1 Force Column Ell Force
Lovol (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th -137 242

5th ~ 126 253
4th - 137 - 171 277 242
3rd - 126 - 160 287 253
2nd -617 376 - 204 789
I st - 617 376 - 204 789
Base -993 580 -580 993
These column forces u.re obrained considering the brace forces from Figure 2-4. In addition, where a beu.m
supports an unbalanced vertical seismic forc e, the reactions fro m this forc e can be included. (lf they an:: not
included, tbc summation of vertical seismic reactions may not equal zero.) The vertical unba lanced force on
the sixth-floor bc.am was calculated in the previous section on bet~m forces.
7.2 CONDITION 2
A similar process is used for Condi tion 2. (The vertical unbalanced force is shown in the scclion on beam
forces.) The resulting seismic forces are presented in Table 2-9.

Doslgn Sxomp/() 2 • Spociltl Conc'Ontrlcolly Brocod Fromo
Table 2-9. Column seismic forces for Condition 2
Column B/ 1 Force Cohunrl C/1 Force Column D/ 1 Fot'CC Columu EJl Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th -36 242
5th -16 262
4th -42 - 23 268 242
3rd ~23 -3 287 262
2nd -364 415 - 54 679
I st -364 415 - 54 679
Base -739 469 -429 733
7.3 OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
Because the mechanisms conside.red have opposi ng force.s on the interior columns, overstrength forces
should be considered or1 those columns. Th ey need not be considered on the end columns offrames;
capacity-des ign procedures supersede overstrcogtb loads in those cases. Thes e seismic forces arc presented
in Tabk 2- 10.
Table 2-10. Column seismic forces considering the overstrength factor
Column B/l Force Column C/ 1 Force Column D/ 1 Force Column E/ 1 Force

Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th
5th
4th - 152 152

3rd - 152 152
2nd 316 -316
I st 316 -316
Base 576 -576
7.4 DESIGN SE ISMIC FORCES
Columns B/ I and Ell may use the overstrength forces as a ma:x imum (and thus neglect Conditions I and
2). However. in this case the mechanism forces are lower. Thus. Columns B/J and El l should be designed
for the maximum of Conditions 1 and 2, with the ovcrstrcngth forces as a maximum. Col umns C/ 1 and D/ 1
must be designed for the maximum of Conditi on I, Condition 2, and the forces considering overslrcnglh.
The seismic forces considered for design are shown in Table 2-11 .
62 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctura/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

008/gn Exomplo 2 • S(>(Jc/~1/ Conoontrlcally Broc&d Framo
Table 2-11. Column s eismic/orcas used for design
Column B/ 1 Force Colnlllll C/1 Force Colwntl D/ 1 Force Column E/ 1 Force

Level (ki ps) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th -137 242
5th -1 26 262
4th - 137 - 171 277 242
3rd - 126 - 160 287 262
2nd -617 41 5 - 316 789
I st - 6 17 415 - 316 789
Base -993 580 -580 993
Column sizes wi ll be governed by compression design. The govern ing combination from Appendix A:
1.2 + l.OE + 0.5L ~ 1.4D + 0.5L + QP. (Comb. 6, modified)
The design forces for interiot· columns and the selected sizes (usir1g Tabl e 4-1 of the AlSC Mamwf) are
shown iu Table 2· 12.
Table 2-12. Column design .forces and sizes
Exterior Column Exterior Column interior Colunm Interior Column

Level Force (kips) Size Force (kips) Size
6th 21 275
5th 69 WJ2 X 50 411 W12 X 96
4th 358 53 1
3rd 424 W l2 X 96 622 W12 X 96
2nd 996 787
l st 1044 Wl 2 x I 06 867 W1 2 X 106
8. Detailing and Design of Connections AISC 341
The connection of the HSS 6.625 x 0.313 to the roof will be des igned. Brace connections are des igned to
meet d1ree conditions: the brace yieldi.ng in tension, the brace reaching its maximum compression strength.
and the connection rotatjon associated with a brace buckling and undergoing large axial deformation .
Additionally, the connection must be detailed to accommodate a fTILnle drift of2.5 percent, either by
providing relative rotation capacity or moment capacity to allow beam or column yielding.

Dos/gn FE.xomp/o 2 • Specht/ COtwontrlcMiy Bt&cod From()
Figures 2-3 and 2-1 0 show the ddnils of t h ~ connection. The knife plute is Hlottcd to fit on the gul\set plutc.
Also, the weld of the kni fc plate to the brace is wn1ppcd around the end of the brace. This hllil been shown
to be efrective in fot·estall ing net-secti on t•upture (Cheng und Kulak. 2000).
,_.. Gusset plate

slot to receive
knife plate
Weld
around
end
----- ----- ={
'-- Knife
plate
Figure 2· 10. Connection detail
8.1 CONDITION 1: BRACE YIELDING
Th ~ rcqujrcd tension strength of the conn ection has been calculated previously:

D~slgn £x1Jmplo 2 • S{>(Jclol Conoontrlcally Broc<id Framo
8.1.1 SELECT KNIFE PLATE
Assume a %-inch knife plate thickness (rKP). The required width is
A Yt-inch x 12-inch lmife plate wil l be used . TI1e plate may be rectangular or shaped as showu in the tigu_re.
A Yt.-inch slot is required to receive the gusset.
8.1.2 BRACE TO KNIFE-PLATE WELD
Assume a -YI6·inch weld size (s). The length (L,.,) is
L1, 2 Rj[4~0.6F£rx (0.707 s)] c 14 in
A 16-inch-long weld wil l be used for both wolds. Tltis is greater tlum 1.3 times rhe brace diameter
(1.3 x 6.625 in= 8.6 in), wllicb pcm1its U = 1.0 (AJSC 360).
8.1.3 KNIFE PLATE TO GUSSET WELD
The weld of the k.11ifc plate to tbc gusset transfers the brace axial force blto the gusset; it also provides
conti_nuity of the gusset ac.ross the slot. Thus, in Jjcu of the smaUcr weld size selected for the knife plate to
the brace, u size sufficient to provide gusset continuity will be used.
Assume a 1h-i nch gusset (rJ:). Based on t•ecommendarions by Lehman et al. (2008) , the ratio of weld size
to plate thickness is de1ivcd considcling the expected plate tension strength and tbc strength of ti!Jet welds
loaded transverse to their axis:
s > (R>~.Tii)/(2 * 1.5<j>0.6F~Z;YX 0.707)

s2 0 .82 r~:
s = Y.o in
The length (L.,) is
A 12-iJlch weld will be used, providing a moderate over-capacity.
8.1 .4 BRACE CHECKS
The brace wall may be checked for shear rupntre. However, as the weld size is less than the brace thickness,
it can be inferred tbat tbe weld is the control ling element.
Because the knifc plate is welded around the end and U = 1.0, the lim it state of brace net section rupture
does not apply.

Ooslgn Sxamp/o 2 • Spocllll Conr:on trlc olly Bt11cod Fromo
8.1.5 GUSSETTHICKNESS, WIDTH , AND DIMENSIONS
At the end of the weld, the l'e(jui red gusset width is calculated using the assumed thickness:
This is less than the maximum WhitJ'nore width (45 degrees):
[2 * L., tan (45°)] - 24 in
To achieve this width, a rectangular gusset 21 inches horizon raJ by 13.5 inches vertical wiJ I be used. A
3-inch corner cUp is made to provide a roughly orthogonal condiriou at the lap with tbc kniic plate. This
plate provides for the required length of knife-plate-to-gusset weld.
If the gw:set is adequate in tension at the end of the kni fe plate, checks of the vertical and horizontal
sections tllrough the gusset at the beam and colwnn face wiU show adequate demand-to-capacity ratios.
8.1.6 GUSSET ANALYSIS
The gusset is analyzed in order to obtain design forces for checking web yi elding. (Welds are de signed to
match tbe gusset plate capacity.)
The gusset may be nnalyzcd 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 irt the case
ofthe WUF·W connection.
Using the Ricker method, the followin g forces are obtained:
v;,b = 174 kips
V,,r = 68 kips
H ..~= 212 kips
J-!11" = 85 kips
8.1.7 GUSSET TO BEAM AND COLUMN WELDS
Tbese 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 ru le previously discussed for the knife-plate to gusset weld:
s > 0.8211.'
Two Y.rrtncb fillet welds wlll be usc.d.
8.1.8 BEAM WEB YIELDING
<!>R, = l.OtJ.(N + 2.5k)

1
=461 kips> V,,~= 174 kips ... OK

D~slan £xompl~ 2 • Spec/til Conoontrlcally Broc<id Fmmo
8.1.9 COLUMN WEB YIELDING
~R" = I. Ot,,F_,(N + 5 k)
!::l 3 I 7 kips 2 H•. , =85 kips .. . OK
8.2 CONDITION 2: BRACE BUCKLING (MAXIMUM COMPRESSION FORCE)
The requin:d t:ompn:s!lioo slrengtb of tbc t:onrtcction has been t.:nlculuted prev iously:
This force is used to checl< web cl'ippling in the beam illld colwnn. (By inspection, gusset buckling wil l not
occur for the gusset plate stiffened by the knife pl ate.)
The fort:cs from the gusset analysis can be redut:cd by the factor:
J . 14F,nr A/R/'_, ~; = 225 kips/387 kips = 0.58 1
Thus:
~:6 = 0.58 1(174 kips)= 156 kips
H:'" = 0.581(85 kips)= 76 kips

8.2.1 BEAM WEB CRIPPLING
The beam wob crippling stl\;nglh is
-2~ EF)
1+3-
N !L > I
d r.,. l ..,
¢R,, =I84 kips ~ ~;o = I56 kips . . . OK
8.2.2 COLUMN WEB CRIPPLING
The column web crippling strength is
(r,R
y ,, = 264 kips> H'
lr.'C
= 76 kips . .. OK
8.3 CONDITION 3: BRACE BUCKLING (ROTATIONAL DEMANDS)
This conclition 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 i_n recent tests (Thornton and Fortney. 20 12).
8.4 ACCOMMODATION OF FRAME DRIFT
Additionally, there arc 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
2018 IBC SEAOC Structurei/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 67

Ooslgn t:xamplo 2 • Spoclal Cotwontrlcolly Bt&cod Fromo
Iuken in this exnmplc is to usc H fully wtld~:d moment connection (option "b" in the provision). The
beam-to-column pot'lion of the moment connection fo ll ow ~ the prescriptive requiremeni.S for the WUF-W
connection ofAISC 358. Tite gusset, welded to both the beam and the column. provides additional
rcsis1ancc but this is not explicitly considered.
Figures 2- 11 and 2-1 2 show tbe completed connection detail.
1'-9" . - - - < CJP
Work-point -----. ~· fillet 4" long

at edgo o1
ftJ 16 gusset near brace
I
\I
1" gap
Weld
around
16 ond
Figure 2· 11. Completed connecTion detail

Ooslgn ExiJmplv 2 • Spoclol Concontrlcal/y Brocoo Frttmo
G usset Kife
n
plate plate
I r- -
'_r-
Weld Weld
around r--1-r--< around
end 2" Min. end
-~
3" Max
---- ,. ---
-
-{ ,_.)___~
L--- Gusset '------ Knife

plate plate
Figure 2-12. Connecrion derail
9. Additional Considerations
9.1. BRACE T RANSVERSE DISPLACEMENT
Braces can be expected to undergo significanllran.sverse displacement as a result of buckling and axial
defonnation (Tremblay. 200 l ). In this design, the brace displacement is in tlle plane of the frame. Tb\ls,
brace buckling wil l not affect tllc cladding system.
The braces are exposed, and thus no special detailing of partition walls enclosing the brnce.s is required.
9.2 PROTECTED ZONES
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 AlSC 341 for specific requirements.) The effect offasreners in the p1·orec1ed zone is
currently being investigated.

Oosfgn t:xompfo 2 • Spotlit/ Conr:ontrlcolly 8r(JCOd Fromo
9.3 DEMAND-CRITICAL WELDS
Certain welds must be designated as demand-cri tical. with the corresponding toughness J-eqnirements per
AlSC 34 1. 'fhcsc welds include:
• Beam-flange to column-ft<inge weld!\.
• Column splice welds.
• Column-to-bu.sc-platc welds.
9.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A quo lily at!sUrnncc plan is required for this sh·ucture. For the SCBF :;yslem, the plan shou ld include
verification of the hinge-plate offscr dimension complyihg with the detai ling requirements and tolerance.
The fo llowing items are not addressed in this example but arc ncvcn.hclcss noeessary for a complete design
oftbc seismic loud resisting system:
• Comparison of wind and seismic forces.
• ASCE 7 stability check (ASCE 7 Eq 12.8-16).
• Design of the colwnn base plate connection.
• Design of the colwur1 spike.
• Design of lateral brac ing of the bracing connection at beam mid-span.
• Design of the founda tions.
• Des ign or the diaphragm system.

Design Example 3
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame
OVERVIEW
Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a relatively new system. It was developed in tbe late 1990s
and has since gained acceptance in tbe Uilltcd States as engineers look for a system with h.igb ductility aDd
energy dissipation. Unlike conventional steel braces, buckling-rcstrnined brnccs consist of a steel core that
is restnli ncd 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 cas ing is to prevetH global buckling of the core
only. aDd ir must be kept free of axial forces. The methods to J>reveut transfer of axial forces to the casing
as well as to provide confinement to the core arc fair ly special.i.zed. As a result, BRBF in the United States
consists of proprietary brnccs provided by a sled f-abricator or a specialty manufacturer.
The 2005 edition of AJSC 341 and ASCB 7 courained the first US code provisions for the design as well as
testing requirements for BRBF. Subsequent editions ofASCE 7 (20 I 0 edition) and AISC 34 1 (20 10 edition)
introduced addilional updates. For example, tl1e 20 I 0 edition of ASCE 7 added provisions to estimate
period (Method A) for BRBFs. In addition, the difrerentiation between BRBFs where beam-column
joints are fixed or pinned has been eliminated and replaced by a single value of R = 8. AJSC 341 included
updates of beam-column joint rcquireme11ts where the connection must either be able to al low rot ation
(0.025 radians) or to be designed to resist expected flcxurnl strength of the beams or sum of the columns.
AJSC 341-16 has onl y modest changes for BRBF. The most important is the addition of the "mu lti-tiered"
BRBF. Additionally, column compactness requirements were reduced from "highly ductile'' to ·~moderately
ducti lc."

Ooslgn IExomp/o 3 • Bucltllng·R06l11Jinod Brtrcod f!rvmCJ
OUTLINE
2. Calculation of the Design Bose Shear and Load Combinations
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Loud
4. Preliminary Sizing
5. Preliminary Analysis aud Brace Deformations
6. Itcmlion and Final Design
7. Detai ling and Design of Connections
8. ltcms Not Addressed in This Example
• Per Appendix A:
o Office occupancy on all floors
o Located in San Francisco. CA , at the latimdc and longimde given
o Site Class D
o 120 feet x 150 feet in plan wilh typical floor and roof framjng shown in Figure 3-1
o Six stories as shown in Figure 3-2

Doslgn ~X(Impl<t 3 • Buckl/ng·R(t.S/rolnod Broc&d Promo
® c QD
5 0 30'- 0" • 150'- 0"'
& -----~======~======~======~
I I
&
0
l
0
;
---- ---
~... ~ ~ ~
T
Jl
3 I
I
0
I
'g
~ ; ~
I'
1'\.Y
2
.
0
II
"
I -
........
---lb==d~;;;;;;;;;~~==dJ
Figure 3-1. T,vplcal floor and roofJi'amlng plan
30'-o" 30'-o" 30'- o"'

ROOF
6TH
-0
-NI 5TH
I'-
II
4TH
'0
•
I
N
'<"""
3RD
@
tO 2ND
1ST
X-DIRECTION Y-DIRECTION
BRACED FRAME BRACED FRAME
Figure 3-2. Braced-frame elevations

Doslon 5xamp/o 3 • Bucltllng·Rostrolnod Brtrcod Fr'bmo
1.2 FLOOR WEIGHTS
Per· Appendix A:
Table 3-1. Floor weights per App endix A
Unit Weight Area Weight Floor Weight

Level Assembly (psi) ( ftl ) (kips) (k ips)
Floor 77.7 15.220 1183

Typical floor 1315
Ext wall 19 6990 133
Roof 36 15.220 548

Roo f 656
Ext wo.JI/ parapct 19 5700 108
W= 5(1315 kips) + 656 kips= 723 1 kips

ACCELERATIONS
Per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 for steel buckling-restrained braced frame:
The spectra l accelerations to be used in des ign an: derived in Appendix A:
I S0 s = 1.00g S01 = 0.60g I
Detem1ine the approximate fu ndamenta l building period using Section 12.8.2. 1:
C, =0.03 and x =0.75 T 12.8-2

Ta = C,h; = 0.03 x 72°' 75 = 0. 74 sec (see the following discussion) Eq 12.8-7

Doslgn EExtimplu 3 • Buck/lng·R<Miro/n()d Broc&<.J Framo
T = 0.2 S D.l = 0.2 O.GO = 0.1 2 sec § I 1.4.5

0
Sos 1.00
S0 =SDS 0.4+ 0.6 !, =0.4 +5.0T forT < To Eq 11 .4- 5

r;,
Ts =
sDJ = 0.60 = 0.60 sec § 11.4.5
SDS 1.00
S
lJ
~ sm.
T
= 0 60
'
T
forT> 1'
II
Eq 11 .4-6
The long-period equation for S" docs not apply here because the long-period trnnsition occurs at 12 seconds
(from Figure 22-12).
1.2
Ts = 0.60 sec
o;
._..
1 S00 • 1.0g
vi'
c:• ~ Approximate BRBF building period,
0
:c T0 • 0.74 sec, Su• 0.81g
...ro 0.8
T0 = 0.12 soc
~
(1) Calc'ed BRBF period in Y·direclion,
L>
L>
<(
Ty =0.87 sec, s.
c 0.69g
0.8
5a.
(1)
sa . o.4+5.oT
(f)
c 0.4
Cl
·-Ill
(1)
Calc'ed BRBF petlod In
0 X·dirnction, 7;.. = 0.97 soc,
S 4 =0.62g
0.2
So• 0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 3-3. Design re..'>ponse spec/rum for lhe example building
As shown in Figure 3-3, the design spectral acce leration is greater than T5, so the design spectral
acceleration Su is 0.81g. It is not required for the engineer to construct the design response spectrum wben
using the equivalent lateral force procedure, since Lhe response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of C.~
in Section 12.8. 1.1.
The response spcclrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of the bui lding
=
period . Values of C, 0.03 and x = 0.75 were selected as specified for steel buckling-restrnined braced
frames) which result in an approximate period I:= 0.74 sec. As shown later in th is example, drif1s are close
to, if not at. tbe story drift limirs of Section 12 .1 2.

Ooslgn fExllmp/o 3 • Buclillng·Rost11J.ItWd Brtwod FrtJtn(j
The period of the stmch1rc can be tStnblished through struch1rnl nnnlysio of the BRBF. Sec lion 12.8.2,
however, limits the period tl1at can be used to culcu lute spcctnl l uccelerution to u value ofTmn: = eu x J;11
where e11 is a facrorfound in Table 12.8· 1. In this case. Tm,.x= 1.4 x 0.74 = 1.04 sec. Fo1· prelimirlaty desigtl.
the approximate period, 1;,. wilJ be used to design the BRBF. and the period of the building will be verlnocl
later in the design process. The first mode period of the fi nal design shown in Figure 4-14 wns calculntcd
to be 0.97 second and 0.87 second in the longitudi.nul and trllns wrse dircct:ioru;, respectively; therefore, the
initial MSLl1T'lptiot'l ofT= 0.74 sec is shown ro not only be valid, bur stiLl quite cotl.scrvativc.
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES
I a. and I b. Torsional lrregulu.rity- A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story dri fr
computed. i.ucludi.ng aecidemal torsion, is more that\ 1.2 times the average srory dritf.
Extreme torsional im::gularlty exist's when the maximum story drift computed, including
accidental torsion, is more than 1.4 times the average s-tory drift. The 3D computer analysis
later in this example provide-s the displacemeht at the comers of the bui !ding. The fo llowing
shows tlte calculation fo1· earthquake load case in X-directiou with positive accidemal
eccentricity:
Table 3-2. Slmy displacements. line l and line 5. torsional iJTegularily check
Story 8-"@ Li.uc 5 8_,.@ Line I 8"'\! 8m,) 8""l

Roof 1.35 1.10 1.22 1.10
6th I . 19 0.97 1.08 1.10
5th 0.94 0.76 0.85 1.10
4th 0.68 0. 55 0.62 I. I I
3rd 0.44 0.36 0.40 1.11
2nd 0.22 0. 18 0.20 I. 11
NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY: om,/Oa,•g < 1.2
2. Rcentmnt corner irregularity exists where both plan projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant comer are gTcater than 15 percent of !'he pl ~tn dimension of the structure in the
given direction. The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions are 30 feet.
The plan dimensions are ISO feet and 120 feet in tbe longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively:
30 ft/1 50ft= 20% in the longitudinal direction~ REENTRANT CORNER

IRREGULARITY EXISTS
30 fVI20 ft = 25% in the transverse direction~ REENTRANT CORNER
IRREGULARITY EXISTS

Oos/gn r=xampl~ 3 • Buck/lnfJ·R<Miroln€Jd Broc&d Ftttmo
3. to 5. By inspection, the bui lding docs not qualify fo r nny of thesc horizontnl slructural
irregularities.
REENTRANI' CORNER fR_REGULARlTY EXISTS

Per Sec tion 12.3.3.4, forces fo r tbe co nn ecti on.!~ of diaphragms to vertical
0lemouts and collectors and the des ie:n of collectors and their coMcctiotls
~
must be increased by 25 pcrccnr. If forces for the dC!llg-n of coll ectors and
their coJmcctions arc calculated using seismic-loud effects including tbc
oversttcngth factor, the 25 percent increase i:; nol required.
2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3-2
la.to5b. By inspection, the build ing docs not qualify for any of tbc vertical stn1ctural irregularities.
NO VERTICAL STRUCI'URAL IRREGULARITIES
2.6 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T12.6-1
I. Simplified Alkmative Structura l Design Criteria- According to Section 12.14.1 .1 , this unulysis
procedure can be u.sed for BRBF, but not for bu ildings over three stories- NOT PERMITTED
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis-According to Table 12.6- 1, since tbc structure is less than
160 fed and has only Type 2 horizontal inegulurity- PERMTTTED
3. Modal Response Spectrum Analysis- PERMITTED
4. Seismic Res ponse History Proccdurcs-PERMJI1'BD
USE EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS
2.7 BASE SHEAR
c = s,JS = t.oo = o.t 25

, oR o 8.0 ) Eq 12.8-2
l~ lTD
but need not exceed
C =
sD l
-----:- Eq 12.8-3
s oR
0.74 l0~ '
TlJ:" 1.0

Ooslgn FE.xvmp/o 3 • But ll/lng·Rostl1Jfnod Br<Jcod Fmmo
but !~ha ll be not less than
0.044SDS! q = 0.044 ° 0.0 I
and for structures where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Ct shall be not less than
0.5S1 0.5 X 0.6 .

Eq 12.8-6
R = ( 8.0 ) = 0.038
(- -
I 1.0
"
c~ = o.to 1
V = C,'/ W = 0.10 l x 7231 = 730 kips Eq 12.8-l
V = 730 k.ips
According to Section 12.3.4, tht redundancy factor should bt calculated for each principal ax is. The
redundancy factor is I .3 unless either Section l ?.3.4.2(a) or Section l2.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true, in
which case the redundancy factor can be taken as 1.0. Section 12.3.4.2(a) and Table 12.3· 3 require that for
each story resisting more thau 35 percent of the bose sbear, removal of an iudividual brace or councction
thereto would not result in more tban a 33 percent reduction in story slTcng1h, nor docs the rcsulti_ng system
have an extreme torsional irregularity.
There are a tota l of six BRBs and eight BRBs at each level in the longitudinal and transverse directions.
respectively; tbus, by inspection, removal of an individual BRB wou ld not result in more than a 33 percent
rcduclion in story strength ( 1/6 = 17%). The second condition needs to be con.firme.d by rigid diaphragm
analyses by removing of individual brace~ and checking whether extreme tol"$ionul irregularity exists. By
inspection, since brace sizes wi U be dcsigued to be identical for frames ill each direction, tbe fo llowing two
conditions will resu lt in highest torsion:
l. Removal of bmce along line 4.
2. Removal of brace along either line A or line F.

Ooslgn ~xflmpl& 3 • Buckl/nfj·RM/r{J/ncd Broc<td Ft~tmo
From 3D computer analysis later in this example, the bmc c~ in conditions I and 2 were removed and it was
confirmed thut extreme torsional irregularity docs not exist in either of those case£. The roll owing shows
chock of extreme rorsion :
Table 3-3. Story displacements, lines I. 5, A, and F. exlreme torsional irregularity check
Story 8.<at Line 1 (in) 8x at Line 5 (ill) 8, 11 (in) 8n,/ 8~vu

Roof 1.40 1.11 1.25 1.11
6th 1.25 0.98 1.1 2 1. 12
5th 1.0 I 0.79 0.90 1.1 2
4th 0.77 0.59 0.68 1.13

3rd 0.54 0.41 0.4~ J.l4
2nd 0.32 0.23 0.28 J.l 6
Story o,. at LineA (in) 8.v at Line F (in) 8,~ (in) 8m,.J8~vJl
Roof 0.89 1.07 0.98 1.09
6th 0.80 0.96 0.88 1.09
Stb 0.64 0.77 0.70 I .09
4th 0.47 0.56 0.52 1.09

3rd 0.31 0.37 0.34 1.09
2nd 0.16 0.19 0.17 1.09
p = l .0 FOR EAST-WBST DIRECTION

p = l .0 FOR NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION
Altematively, the designer can elect to use p = 1.3 for sirnplic.iry.
See Appendix A for the derivation of combinations based on p = 1.0 aud 0.2Sos = 0.2.
Load combinations of conscqucocc for the design of the BRBF arc
1.2D + 1.0£ + 0.5L = 1.4D + 0.5L + I.OQ£ §2.3.6 (Comb. 6 modified)

0.9D+ I .0£ = 0.7 D+ 1.0Q6 §2.3.6 (Comb. 7 modiiied)
Load combinations with overstreogth are not u.sed for the BRBFs (although they apply for collectors and at
other conditions outside the BRBFs) .
2018 /BC SEAOC Structure//Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 79

Oos/gn &Mnplo 3 • Bucltllng·Rostrolnod BrtJtX>d Fr'fJmo
Table 3-4. Verlical dislribulion ofs hear
1
Level w 1 (kips) h, (ft) wI hI ' e VA F_, (kips)
Roof 656 72 78,907 0.18 128
6tll 1315 GO 128,960 0.29 21 0
Sth 1315 4~ 100,442 0.22 164
4th 1315 36 72.775 0.16 118
3rd 1315 24 46,2 13 0.10 75

2nd 1315 12 2 1,262 0.05 35
Total 723 1 448,559 730
The terms used in Table 3-4 urc dcliocd in Section 12.8.3. Since lbc period= 0.74 > 0. 5 sec, tbe value fork
is interpolated bdwel!n a value of 1.0 forT = 0.5 sec and 2.0 forT = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.12. The
distribution of story shear is carried out using
w h it
F.l" = C
CI
V: where t C\ 1/
,
= H
x x Eq 12.8-11 and Eq 12.8- 12
O W/1:
i" I

Ooslgn Cxffmpl() 3 • Buckl/ng·R<Miro/n()d Broc&d Framo
B C D E
!p @ 30 '-0" = 150'-0"
5 -
I I
±6'- 0"
ACC.
TORSION-
4 \. "
.- .....
--
-RI
~
0 ~ ------ ~
I ~ ------- -:::-.
~
0
N
..--
,' ~ -c.M.
~
II ~\ ~
3 ., "
J
lit
0 C.R.
-0 I / =£::
I")
@
: I ~
~
2 rl< I " lit " '\ \

~
lit
TORSION _/ ~ ± 7 '-6" AC c.
TORSION
"
........
1 - ~
Figure 3-4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to dish·ibute st01y shear to BRBFs
As shown in Figure 3-4, the cc:ntcr of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the buildi11g in
the X-direcl1on, but the center of rigidity is I 0 feet below the center of mass in theY-direction. This is due
to the layout of the brnced frames. To distribute the load to each BRBF. the story sheaT, F1• is applied in the
X · andY-directions. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of rbe story shear is offset 5 percent to
account for accidental eccentricity. For simplicity, all the BRBs in the X-dircction arc the same, and aU the
BRBs in theY-direction arc the same. Since tbey are the same, a generic sti tfuess, K, is used for all brnced
framc.'l.

Oosfgn 5xvmp/o 3 • Bucltllng·RO&trolnod Brac(X} f!mmo
Table S-5. Center ofrigidity cal<:ulation
BF No. Dir -~ y R}. Ry xR.v . vR:l

AI y - 75 IK - 75 K OK
A2 y - 75 1K - 75 K OK
Fl y 75 lK 75 K OK
F2 y 75 lK 75K OK
I X -60 IK OK -60 K
3 X 0 IK OK OK
4 X 30 JK OK 30 K
Sum 3K 4K OK -30K
Ce11ter of ri gidity: /~= 0 ft, .Y,. = -30 K/3 K =-I 0 ft
Table 3-6. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to BRBFs (X-direction)
X-Dircction
BFNo. Dir R, R, tl • x - x, d• •1
1
- ) 'r Rd Rtf F,,...., Ft<n::£<1 F~.P:a FUJ. al
/d y IK -75.00 -75 K 5625 K 0.000~ -0.028~ -0.017F, -0.045P1
A2 y IK -75.00 -75 K 5625 K O.OOOF1 -0.028F, -0.017F1 -0.045~
Fl y lK 75.00 75 K 562.5 K 0.000~ 0.028~ 0.017F, 0.04SF,

1-'2 y IK 75.00 75K 5625 K O.OOOF1 o.o2sr; o.onr; 0.045P1
I X JK -50.00 -SOK 2500 K 0.333F1 -o.019F1 -0.0 ll!·j 0.303F1

3 X IK 10.00 10 K I 00 K 0.333F1 0.0041-j 0.002F1 0.3391-'1
4 X JK 40.00 40K 1600 K 0.333F, 0.0 ISF1 0.009F1 0. 357~
Sum JK 4K 26,700 K
Table 3-7. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to BRBFs (Y-direc/Jon)
Y-Din:ction
BfNo. Dir R, ~ d • x - x, d ,I' - 'I' r Rd Rtf Fu= Ft:c., • «1 F~. ):r.) Frx>. ol
AI y IK - 75.00 - 75 K 5625 K 0.250F, O.OOOF, -0.021 F, 0.22'.>F,
A2 y IK -75.00 -75 K 5625 K 0.250F, O.OOOF, -0.02 lF, 0.229F,
Fl y lK 75.00 75 K 562.5 K 0.25 0~ O.OOOF, 0.02 1 /~ 0.271 ~
F2 y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.250F, O.OOOF, 0.02 1F, 0.271 F1
I X 1K -50.00 -SOK 2500 K O.OOOF, O.OOOF, -0.014F, -0.0 1 4~
3 X JK I0.00 10 K 100 K O.OOOF, O.OOOF, 0.003.F, 0.003.F,

4 X JK 40.00 40K 1600 K O.OOOF, O.OOOF1 O.O II fi O.O I Ifi
Sum 3K 4K 26,700 K
82 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroct.urai!Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

Ooslgn tXnmpl& 3 • Buckllnf}·R<Mira/n()d Broc<Jd Framo
The fo llowing calculutions find the force in BRB nlong line 4 for shear in the X-dircction:
Rl,
Fdrl,\.'1 =FI 0 R = 0.33F1
)'
M..,.:,, tor X R,.y 6F; X 40 K

MIJX.II.-c.! =F;X(0.05 X l20)=6F; ;~C{',l\J~ = r.Rd2 = 26,700K =0.009~
M !:J FxlO :=d OF· F =::! M 1WX R,f ~ 10i[x 40K : : :l 0.015F
IIlii> I I' flll'l1 'f..Rd 2 26'7 00 K I
Table 3-6 shows that th~:

maximum design shear for any frumc line is 0.357 times the story shear. n1c rest
of this cxumple focuses on the design of BRBr ulong line 4.
Table 3-8. StO!y .forces applied ro BRBF along line 4
Level Fs,Oly (kips) FBl-'-1 (kips) VBJ.'-1 (kip.s)

Roof 128 46 46
6th 210 75 121
5th 164 58 179

4th ] 18 42 222
3rd 75 27 249
2nd 35 12 261
4.1 BRB LAYOUT
The layout of the latcrnl system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior as wdl as have
reasonable redundancy. However, many time,S rhe layout is constrained by architectural requirements.
For this example. tbe layout is to illustrate such constrai nt. Also, the layout of the BRBFs is used for the
d]aphragm design example (Dc.sign Example 7). To iUustrate the diaphragm design where the lateral system
is not symmcLTic.al, the BRB frames in the X-dircclion arc located asymmetrically.
Typical BRB capaciry ranges from a minimum of approximately 50 kips to a maximum capacity upwat·d
of 1400 kips. While using larger BRB can potentially reduce the number of braced bays, larger BRB sizes
result in large overturning forc.c.;s, which drive up the sizes of the co lumns, beams, and foundations. Thus,
aside from redundancy considerations, the layout of the BRB frames is often driven by thc,;se considerations.
ln addition ro well-distributed braced bays, AlSC 341 commentaries also note that "engineers should
consider effects of configuration and proportioning of braces on the potential fom1ation of build.ing yield
mechanism." Unlike conventional steel bracc,;s, the axial yiel d strength of BRBs can be set more precisely
by specifying core area as well as limiting the mnge of material yield strength, which are established by
coupon test. Tbus, engineers have more control in their desig11to distribution of yielding over the building
height.

Ooslgn fExomp/o 3 • Bucltllng·RestriJ/nod Brt!cod Fram&
4.2 BRB CONFIGURATION
Similar to the configuration of concentTicu.lJy braced frames, configuration of the l3RB frames CllD be
V-typc, invcrtcd-V-typc, or si ngle d1agonal conflgurntion. Neither X-brudng nor K-bmclng i~:> an option for
BRBf.
For Y.·typc and inverted-V-type braced frames, A1SC 341 Sect-ion F4.4 lists special requirements. Thls will
be discussed further in the following section.
for certain situations (e.g., tall story heights and wide bays), brace configuration may depend on maximum
lengths that the BRB manufacturers have tested. AJSC 341 rcqui rc.y that the design of the BRB be based
on results from qunlifying cyclic k'>ts. Ex isting test dutn by mHnufuclmcrs an:: often used for des ign, but
interpolation and extrapolation of existing test results need to be justitiecL Wbere the length of t11e BRBs
exceeds the range of typical tesced specimens. proj ect-specific tesrs may need to be performed.
4.3 REQUIRED BRACE AREA AISC 341
Required steel core area of a BRB is given by
Eq F4-l
where
F>',... = specified min imum yield stress of tbe steel core. or actual yield stress of the steel core as
d\.1crmincd from a coupon test
A = net orca of slcel core
J. ~~
for this exan1ple, an average F>.''" = 42 ksi was used with a tolerance of ±4 ksi. Thus, for the required steel
core area for strengtb consideration, the lower bound F~."' = 38 ksi was used.
Preliminary core area can be designed.
P11 =V:/2 braces/cos (8)
For fu--st-floor brace, P, = 261 kips/2/ cos (38.7) = 167 kips.
Required core area A.,. req 'd = P11 I~F_~'!o<· = 167 l<ips/(0.9 x 38 ksi) = 4.9 in 2. Use A,"- = 5 in2 .
Table 3-9 summarizes the preliminary core area for BRB frame along line 4.
Table 3-9. BRB core area along line 4
Level vu pu AS\' Rcq 'd AJ\' Used

Roof 46 29 0.9 2
6th 121 77 2.3 2.5
5th 179 115 3.4 3.5
4th 222 142 4.2 4.5
3rd 249 159 4.7 5
2nd 261 167 4.9 5
84 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctura/!Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4

4.4 A NOTE ABOUT MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Tbc engineer should consult with the BRB manufactu rer regarding typical range of yield stress for the steel
core. If the BRB manufacturer is preselected during the design phase, it is somctime.s possible to procure
the materia l uheud of time and thus have less variability of the yield stross. However, more commonly, the
project is to be competirlvoly bid by various BRB munufactur·c rs: thus. a reasonable ran go of yield stTcss
sbould bt used to permit procurement proces,s for brace manufachm:rs. The range of 38 ksi to 46 ksi is
fairly stnndard for the industry.
As discussed later in Section 6.2, this material voriubi lity needs to be accounted fo r when the engi neer
~ p ccifies requirements for the BRBs.
4.5 COMPUTATION OF ADJUSTED BRACE STRENGTH
The adjusted brace srrcngth in tension and compression is wR.,.P>'n.· and ~WR/',,>,-• respectively, where
Wand~ . (tbe strain hardening adjustml!nt fucto r and the compression strength adjustml!nt factor) are
detennined buJ>t:d on measurements from BRB qual ification test..'l corresponding to two times the design
story drift or 2 percent of story height. whichever is larger. Brace detonnations at tlle design stot')'
drift can be obtained from comp11ter analysis, as discussed in the following section. Prior to running
a computer analysis, the engineer can estimate initial valuc:s fo r wand ~assuming braces are sized
= =
such that 4>P>,,. P11 (as.suming redundancy f-actor p 1.0). The defommtion of brace at design level
forces would then be 1:!.1J.I = 4>(1:lbv). . where 1:!..0.,. is the deformation of the brace at first significant yield:
21:!.~:~., = 2Crli:!./1J; = 2CI4>)(1:lt,y) = (2)(5.0)(0.9)(1:!.0,) = 91:!..~>.'·· The corresponding core strai n is approximately
9(t..1.) = 9(P/E) = 0.013. This ls an approximate va lue only since the core strain is based on multiple
factors sucb as the length of core, the dfcctive stifrness of braces, etc. Prior qmui fication tests by BRB
manufacturers show that~= 1.04 and co= 1.54 for a core strnin of 1.3 pet·cent. for preliminary beam and
column design, these values will be used. After the computer anal ysis has been pctformed, the core stmLll
and whether a minimum 2 percent inter-story drift requirement would control will be confumed.
4.6 BEAM DESIGN

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 diaplu<~gm forces to the braces. ll1e flexure
a~iscs because the beam canies gravity loads fTom tho floor and in special gcomotTical configurations
(chevron), carries thl! unbalanced load from the compression and tension bmces. Tl1<! beam at the second
floor in the braced-frame b<lY will be designed in this illustrative example.
4.7 CHECK WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO
The beam in the BRB frames needs to be seismically compact. The beam size at the second floor will be
assumed to be: W 18 x 65 and its adequacy wi ll be checked.
o 29,000 ksi
A 0.32 = 7.35 for W 18 x 65, A = b1.!211 = 5.06 . .. OK T 01.1
ps ] • I 41 50 ksi 1-u
Since the axial loud in the collector is not known yet, it is conservative to assume tbat C11 is greater than
0. J25 and hence, using the minimum limit on the hit., rotio,
Per AISC 360 TableD 1.1
E
AP'. o 1.57 - - = 36.1 forW18x65,A = hit = 35.7 ... OK T Dl.l
RF P' Ill
)' y
B EAM WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE OK
2018 /BC SEAOC Structure//Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 85

Doslgn FE.xamplo 3 • Buclt/lng·RostriJinod 811Jvod Fr'fJmo
4.8 FIND MOMENT IN BEAM
The fl exure in the beam uri~:~es bccuusc it cun·ics the tributary gmvity loading. ln nddit1on, forti chevron-
type configmation. AJSC 34 1 F4.3 requires thilt the beam be des igrted for the net vertical component due ro
the BRBs in tension and in compression.
For the currout case. the tributary gravity load j g w0 = 5 ft x 77.7 psf= 38g,5 pi f. Add 15 psf of loading
from the elevator door as well as the self-weight of the beam. Thus, the total dend loud on the beam is
388.5 + 15 psfx 12ft+ 65 plf, 633.5 plf
Similarly, the live loud is estimated to be 40 p.sfx 5 ft ~ 200 plf.
The ultimate unifom1ly distributed loud undt.!r r.ond Cnse 6 on the bcnm is calculated us
\Vu = (1.2 + 0.2SDS )D + 0.5L = (1.2 + 0.2 X '\) X 0.63 + 0.5 X 0.2 = I kip-ft
If the brace is considered as u locution of support for the beam, U1c ultimate beam moment at mid-spun
tt~ing the beam fom1ulu for a two-spun continuous beam is
M 11 = - w 11 (/ / 2) 2 / 8 = I x 15 2 / 8 = 28. 13 l<ip-ft = 337.5 kip-in
The unbalanced loud due to the unequal compression and tension capacity of the BRBs are calculated as
Since the maximwtt yield is limi ted to 42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and wi ll be confim1ed from a coupon test,
R?_,ost· = 46 ksi x A5\' ' Also. assuming ~ = 1.04 and w = 1.54, as presented earlier, with A,.,. = 5 in2 above and
bdow, as shown in Table 3-9:
pur.,<t'.LIIto:l :::= (1.04 X 1.54 X 46 X 5-1.54 X 46 X 5)sin(38.66) = 8.85 kjps
Tllis produces a moment of 8.85 kips x 30 ft/4 = 66.38 kip-ft.
The unbalanced load will act in opposite to the gravity loading. Since the brace was considered as a
location of support, the negntivc support moment due to gravity will be additive to this moment. Thus, tht:
net design moment is
M 11 = 66.38 + 28. 13 = 94.5 kjp-ft = 1134.1 kip-in
4.9 CHECK BEAM FOR COMBINED AXIAL AND FLEXURE DUE TO COLLECTOR ACTION
A capacity-based approach ro calculate the axial force in the beam in the BRB bay will be followed. This is
done by assuming that tbe brace capacity in tension and compression is mobilized in the lowennost story,
producing a net horizont-al shear capacity of
Part of the axial load in tJ1c brace at the lowcm1ost 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 b.races are used between the second and third levels. This
would signjfy that no inertial load is generated at the second floor, which is incorrect.
86 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design MenuBI, Vol. 4

Do~/gn cXtlrnpl<t 3 • Buckllrt(J·R(N)/ro/ncd Broc&d f!tamo
While then: cou ld be various combination:> as to how much of the totnl :>heur of 564.2 kips iti due to the
inertia of the second floor, it will be seen that lor tbe beam within the braced frame buy on ly, the maximum
axial load in the beurn is unaffected since the axiuJ loud based ou the brace capacity will finally need to
be delivered by the beam. For baams outside tbo braced frame bay. this ratio io important aud neods to be
substantiated adequately so that the coLlectors arc not under-dcRigncd.
For this illustration. it i~ assumed that the proportion of shear arising our of the inettia of lhe second floo1' is
in the same ratio as the di stribution of tlte equiva lent static lateral load presented earlier. Other distriburions.
such as n unifom1 distribtltlon or t hnt bused on response spcclrum anulysis, should be considered to
rcprc.scnt n bound on the axial force outside the braced frame buys.
Hence. the tot·aJ capacity of 564.2 kips cau be split iuto rwo parts. The first part has a magnil1tde of
(249/261) x (276.4 + 2875) = 538 kips. The second part has a magnitude of26.2 kips, where 249 kips is
the total shc.ur above the second Aoor and 261 kip~ is the totul shear below the second Aoor, obtained from
Table 3-8. The 249 kips shear stays within the brnced fr~1me bay at th e second floor while the 26.2 kips
is co Uecred over the e11tire diaphragm width at the second floor. The 1·esultant collector force diagm.tn is
shown in Figure 3· 5,
600
r- •--o ---- ---- ----• -
I
- Force input from upper braoes --'~ 1 53B.O kips
400
-- I
I
276.5 k = 263.7 k + 0.17 k/ft X 75ft ~ I
--
-
----· I
200 -
--
......... Collector Foroe Dgm. - -
(/) --
·-a. 0
--
- Shear dragged from 2nd floor\ /~"'
: "'-
- @ 2621</150 ft = 0.17 kfft I
-200 - I
I
-- 2B7 .4 kips L---~
I
- Force coming out from lower braoos I
-400 -- I
I
-- I
I
564.2 klps
-600
-
I I I I
· ------------------------
I I I I I
0 30 60 90 120 150
Distance along Collector (ft)
Figure 3-5. Collectorj'orce diagram along line 4 m second floor
From Figure 3-5 it can be seen that the maximum co1Iec1or force is 287.4 kips. The beam for th is axial load
and a net moment of 1134.1 k.ip-in presented earlier will be checked.

Ooslgn !Exvmp/o 3 • Bucll/lng·Rosti1Jinod 811Jcod Framo
Determine bcnm flcxum l buckling S"IJess (uBsume that the beum will bt bruccd lnmsversely at the location
of the chevron bruce):
K .YIK lrX = 1.0 X 360/7.49 = 48.06

K)/'~· = 1.0 x 180/ 1.69 = 106.5 I . . . governs
From AISC Table 6-1 for W 18 x 65 with an unbraccd length about theY-axis equal to 15 feet:
px103 =2 .67 kip- 1 ~¢\. P11 =374.5 kips
The torsional buckling length cquniBrhe minor-axis buckling length. Under these circumst·ances. torsionul
buckJjng need not be checked for an I-sbapcd member as mjnor axJs buckling bas a lower value for design
strcngU1. Also, since the flange and web are seismically compm:L, Q. = Q, = 1.0 und tbus wi ll not affect the
Mmioal compression strer1gth.
AISC design methodology utilizi.ng constnlined axis flexural-torsional buckling is illustn1ted irt Design
Examples 2 and 7. Tbe reactor is referred to rhose examples for alternative design approaches.
Calculate the flexlll-al strength of the beam.
Check beam yielding:
"'M 't' ~t Fy
'f n = "'Z = 0.9 x 133 x 50= 5985 kip-in
From Table 6-1 of the AJSC Manual:
Strength for members under combined loading is calculated in accordance with AJSC 360 Chapter H,
"Design of Members for Combined Forces and Torsion."
P)¢~, = 287.4/374.5 = 0.77 > 0.2
Therefore, usi ng Equation H 1-1 a
4.10 SUMMARY OF BEAM DESIGN
A W 18 x 65 seclion can adequately resist the combination of axial and flexural loads. The member is
assumed ro have adequate shear strength.
4.11 COLUMN DESIGN
Column strength is based on the fol lowing load combinations, as lisred in Appendix A:
1.2 D + 1.0£'" + 0.5L = 1.4D + O.SL + I .OEm~

0.9D+I.O£ =0.7D+I.O£ ,,
1M AI
In dctem1ining amplined seismic loud, Emr, 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.
88 2018 IBC SEAOC Stroctumi!Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4

lJo-s/gn E!xampl& 3 • Buck/lnfJ•R<M/r(J/twd Broc<Jd Pt/lrT10
Adjusted bruce strength in compression it> Pllr = ~3 roRJ ,P>,11 , . Since the maximum yield is limit ed to
42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and wiLl be contl rmcd from a coupon test. RYP)I,.. = 46 ksi x A tc ·
The vertical component oftbls adjusted bmco strcngtu is Pl.., sin (9). For tbc chevron configuration. the
unbalance loud at the mid-span of tbc beam is ~(J)/?.)\...-..sin(8)- wR.1P>"" si n (9) ~ (~- l )WR/)>"". sio (9)
acting upward. Hulf of this unbalanced loud is resisted ut e.uch end of the beam and reduces the uxiul force
in the colun1n in compression (and inc1·eases the tens ion load in the column in tension). ThuB, the co lumn
londs can be reduced by ( ~ - I)/2ooRJP J1'>1" sin (8).
Table 3- l 0 summarizes the des ign uxiul forces in tht! columns.
Table 3-10. S111nmmy of bruce core strain ca/c:ulat/on
p~ Rt!notion
(From Prom
BtOC I) P10,..1 = Ptv Unlxl\1. Loatl 1'rlb. Cum.
Le1•cl
A.,
.
m-
~
Abovo)
(kips)
f.\)13n, p
(kips
r sin e
(kips)
at 131ll!m
(kips)
ArM
(sO
DL
(p&l)
L
(j)3()
/.r
(pill)
P, IrUM\ !J-l
(kips)
p l l t llh\\lMlinl)
(kips)
!.P
"
(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
Sth 3.5 li S 184 11 5 - 3. 1 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 226.6 468.4

4th 4.5 16 1 258 161 -4.0 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 27Ul 740.2
3rd 5 207 332 207 -4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 317.4 1057.6
2ntl 5 230 368 DO -4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 340.4 1398.0
4.12 CHECK WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO
For a column at the iirst floor, select a W 14 x 2 11 trial section. In accordance witJ1 A1SC 341 Section F4.5a,
BRB co lumns shall comply with the width-to-thickness requirements of Section D 1. 1 fo r highly ductile
members.
Flanges ofrollcd !-shaped sections:
E
/... 1..1 o 0.32 R F = 7.35 b1 12t1 =5.06 ... OK T D l. l
y )'
Webs of rolled 1-shaped sections:
c 0
= P,, = 1398 = 0.50 TDl.l
0
p
c y
2790
A llll o 0.88 E (2.68- C ) = 44 hitII' = 11.6 . .. OK T D l. l

Ry Fy o
COLUMN WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE OK

Oosfgn fExampfo 3 • Bucll/lng·Rosl11JftWd Broc()(} Framo
4.13 FIND MOMENT IN COLUMN
As di scussed in later sect-Ions. a bt'ilce connection consls1s of gussets that are weldod to beams and columns.
Additiouully, bcums flungcs arc fully welded to columns to resist high collector forces. for this example,
the beam-column joints arc modeled to be momcntly connected. Per AISC, it is permitted to neglect
ftexurill forces resulting fro m seismic drift. Tbus, the moment in the columns will be from gravity artd
vertical seism ic (E) on ly. Ft·om, previous sections under beam calculations, the uniform load fmm gmvity
plus£,. at the second-floor beam:
wu = (1.2 + 0.2SDs)D + O.SL = (1 .2 + 0.2 X I) X 0.63 + 0.5 X 0.2 = 1 kip-fl
Ca lculate negative moment at beam ends (tixed-tixcd) condition:
Mu = wIt 12 / 12 = I X 302 / 12 =75 kip-ft =900 kip-in
For the "inverted-V" contigmation, the unba.lanced load fro m rhe BRBs counteracts the gravity loads. For
tbc colutrul moments, this effect will be ignored. For u column at the first tloor, the beam cud moment will
be resisted by columns above and bdow. The column bast: is pinned, and assuming zero moment at the mid
height of second-floor column, the column s hear and moment ran be calculated liE follows:
V = V. = M11 _ 75 kip-ft4 7 k'

lu 2u HI + 0.5H1 12 + 6 = , } IpS
M 111 = ~ 11 H1 = (4.17 kips)( 12 ft) = 50 kip-ft
4.14 CHECK COLUMN FOR COMBINED AXIAL AND MOMENT
Check axial strength:
Per AISC Steel Manual, Column Table 4- 1, for W 14 X 211. kL = 12 tl :
4>~, = 2550 kips

P)¢~, = (1398/ 2550) = 0.55 < 1.0 ... OK
Check flexural strength:
Per AJSC Steel Manual, for Wl4 x 2 11 with unbraced length = 12 ft:
4>M 11
~ 1463 kip-fi
Mui¢M-n = (75/1463) = 0.05 < 1.0 ... OK
Using AJSC 360 .Equation I-I 1- 1a for combined axial and moment:
PU 16P
• II
+ 8/ 9(M II
ft~.M
~ II
) = 0.60 < 1.0 . . . OK
4.15 SUMMARY OF COLUMN DESIGN
Column des ign is summarized in Table 3-11.

Doslgn E!xompl<t 3 • Buckl/ng·Rwlro/n()d Broc&d Ftamo
Table 3-11. Swnmmy ofcolumn check
P, ¢Pn P,,I¢P,. +
Level (kips) Size (kips) P,,f¢>?, M, ¢M,. M) $M,. 819[M,/4>Mn]
Roof 37 Wl4 X 68 700 0.06 37.8 431 0.09 0.13
6th 242 Wl4 X 68 700 0.35 37.5 431 0.09 0.42
5th 468 Wl4x 132 1568 0.30 37.5 878 0.04 0.34
4th 740 W14 X 132 1568 0.48 37.5 878 0.04 0.51
3rd 1058 Wt4x211 2550 0.42 37.5 1463 0.03 0.44
2nd 1398 W14 x21 I 2550 0.56 50.0 1463 0.03 0.60
5. Preliminary Analysis and Brace Deformations
5.1 BRACE EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS AISC 341
The steel core of a BRB typil:ally consists of a yielding segment, transition zones, and connection zones
wbcrc the cort) ex_its the casing. The effective stiffness of the BRB is based on tllese sections in series.
The yielding length, transition zones, and connection length vary among different manufacturers. It is
possibk for the dcsigntr to contToltht stiffness by varying tht proport·ions ofyidd k ngth of the con: to
the overall length of the brace. However. a shorter yield length. whi le increasing the stiffne.'ls of the brace,
also forces inelastic strain to occur at a sbo.rtcr segment. tbus inct'easing the ductility demand and reducing
tbe cumulative energy dissipation capacity. Given tbc variation in brace sizing based on measuJXd yield
sh·engtb, the structural engineer should consult with tbe manuft~chm:r to obtnin the effective stiffness of
the braces. For this example, the efreclive brace axial stiffness is K,.11 EA ,)L,,, , where Kif! is the sLifFness
modification facror obrained from the BRB manufacntrer. and L," is the distar1ce between work points.
5.2 ANALYSIS ASCE 7
A three-dimensional computer model is created to analyze the building and to obtain story deflections.
Beam ends arc modeled as fixed (sec the discussion in a later scc~ion). Column bases arc modekd as
pinned. Tht BRBs can be modeled as lnrss demtnts with arta equal to the BRB core area (A,.J with a
stiffness modification factor (K,1r= 1.43) to capmre the effective axial stiffness described in Section 5.1.
5.3 CHECK DEFLECTION
The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table 3-12. Tile elastic story dri fls are the diffet'ettce i11 the
elastic deflections at. the floor above and below. The predicted inelastic story drift is given by the following
for the fourth floor:
C/)fi! =5.0 x 0.28 =1.4 in Eq 12.8-15

I~ 1.0
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12-1 based on the building system and the occupancy category:
!}. a = 0.020hsr = 0.020 x 144 = 2.88 in T 12. 12- 1
8., < t}.n ... DRIFT IS OK

Ooslgn &amp/o 3 • Buclt/lng·Rost.rnlnod Bracod f!r()mo
Table 3-12. Summmy of brace core strain calculation
Elo.stic Deflection Elastic Srot·y Drift. 8,~,. inelastic Drift, o_y Story Dritr Limitation• .1.,
Story (in) (in) (in) (iJ1)
Roof 1.48 0, I7 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 I .3 2.88

3rd 0.49 0.25 1.3 2.88
2nd 0.23 0.23 1.2 2.88
5.4 ITERATE TO SATISFY DEFLECTION
The drifls were found to satisfy the story dri ft limits. However, if the inelastic story drift had exceeded the
srory drift Iimit, it would have been necessary to either increase the size of cores to increase the stiffness of
BRBs or discuss shortenJng the ykld length with the manufacturer.
5.5 BRACE DEFORMATIONS AND CONFIRMATION OF EXPECTED BRACE STRENGTH
Depending 011 the analysis software. brace defonnations. £:10 , can be obtained directly from computer
analysis for seismic- load c<~ses to compute drift. The seismic load for drift may be different than for
slrenglh si nce the redundancy factor is p ~ 1.0 for drift and there is no upper limit for period (C, T;.) used
to c.alt:ulate drift. Since the analysis performed is linear cl astic, L\11,i = CdL\h> where C,1 = 5.0 for BRBFs.
Corresponding strain in the core at 2~'"' can be cakulated based onE= 2L\1NjLJSI' = 2Cdl1J L,.ru• or !OL\,)L_uc
ff braced dcfom1ations arc not part of the computer analysis output, BRB dcfom1ation can be easily
calculated from brace forces Llb =PL'(uL"L".,JK,,11EA to:> where L)j, is the distance between work points and K"/f
is the stiffness modification facto1· (discussed in lhc previous section). P bru.-v: arc brace forces under load
combtnations for drift.
BRB yidd length, L,~,.., and cfll!clive stiffness vury among BRB manufacturers, so the structuml engineer
should consult with the BRB manufacturer prior to calculating BRB strains. For this example. the yield
length Lyre is based on 0.7 times length between work points. and the stiffness modifier is K df= 1.43. For
this example, L,/ Kw = L_,.,,; thus, E @ U ,... = 1O(Pbrrtof-,r/Kff!EA n.l/L_1 ~ = 1OPtvu) EA~,-·
ATSC 34 1 F4.2 also requires that story dri n be based on a minimum of 2 percent of story height This
condition needs to be checked with the resulrs from computer analysis. Where two times the design story
drift is less than 2 percent of story height. one method to estimate Eat 0.02 times story height is to scale the
brace strain accordingly (i.e., scaled €. = 0.02/(2 x design story drift) x €. at design story drift].

Ooslgn r=xt~mplo 3 • Buckl/nfJ·RIM/rolncd Broc&<l Framo
Table 3-13. Stm1111m:v of brace core slmin calculation
p brnru Eat 2x Story Drift

from Design (o.,J from Is Ddft
ETABS 11,.... Story ETABS 2C" X 8.... Drift Ratio at Scale Scaled
Story (kips) (in 2 ) Drift (in) (in) Rutio Leust 2% factor £
6th 29.9 2.0 0.5% 0.17 1. 73 1.2% No 1.67 0.9%

Stb 72.0 2.5 I .0% 0.27 2. 73 1.9% No 1.05 1.0%
4th 108.6 3.5 I .1 % 0.28 2.84 2.0% OK 1.00 1.1 %
3rd 135.0 4.5 1.0% 0.26 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 1.1%
2nd 15 I. 0 5.0 1.0% 0.25 2.51 1.7% No I. I 5 1.2%
I st 159.2 5.0 1.1 % 0.23 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 1.3%
p= 1.04 and oo = 1.54 bused on core strnin of 1.3 percent is conservntive for nil floors.
5.6 BRACE CONFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
Bruce testing requirements arc stntcd in Section K3 of ATSC 341. There arc two upplicoblc tests: the first is
a subasscmblage test that incorporates end rorotions of the brace; the second test may be a uniu.xia1tcst.
Displacements are based on brace yield displacement D.~,· The actual yield displacement of the brace sho\l ld
be dcterm.incd from the test, although an estimate of D.,,Y can be calculated from properties of the brace
(yield strength, yield length, transition zone length, etc.). for this example, D.,,y is calculated to be 0.2 inch.
6.1" 1 is brace deformation taken from analysis and scaled to rwo times the design story drift or 2 percent.
whichever is larger. See Table 3w14.
Table 3-14. Stmlllla!Y of brace core strain calculation
Is Drift
Ratio
p !v A~ ~ 2.!\Aw 2C" X 8..,. Drift at Lcnsl Scak Scaled
Story (kips) (in 2) D., (in) (in) Ratio 2% Factor 26.111~
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 ] 51.0 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

Dos/gn /Exvmp/o 3 • Bucltllng·Rostrolnod BrocO<J Fmmo
Table 3-1 5 summurizcs the test protocol for the uninxiul test for bruce nt fi rst floor.
Table 3-15. Summary of brace core strain cnlculalion
Cycle Deformation (in) Deformation as Ratio of llt.>'
2@ /10)' 0.2 I. 0/10)'

2@ 0.5Ll1.w 0.54 2.7.ill\\••
2 @ L\1\" 1.08 5.4.6.,,.1'

2 @ l .56/;w 1.63 8.26,,)'
2@ 2illlfl 2. 17 l 0.9L\b)•
Aside from bruce a.'<ial deformations, the building drift'S impose rowtions to the ends of the BRBs. The
amount of rotational demand is required fo r· sub-assemblage tests per AJSC 341. Brace-end rotations may
be obtained from the computer model. Maximum end rotations ofth e lower and upper ends of the brace are
summarized in Tabl e 3-1 G.
J(:~ble 3- 16. Summary ofbrace end rotations
Rotation@ Story Drift Rotation at

Rotadon 2x Design (o-n) frorn Is Drift 2x Design
@ 8JQ Story D1ift ETABS 2C,, X 8.<~ Drift Ratio at Scale Drift or 2%
Story (rod inns) (rndiuns) (in) (in) Ratio Least 2% Factor radians
6th 0.0006 0.006 0.17 1.73 1.2% No 1.67 0.010
Sth 0.009 0.009 0.27 2.73 1.9% No 1.05 0.009
4th 0.0012 0.012 0.28 2.84 2.0% OK 1.00 0.01 2
3rd 0.0011 0.0 II 0.26 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 0.012
2nd 0.0011 0.0 I I 0.25 2.51 1.7% No 1.1 5 0.01 3
Ist 0.001 I 0.0 ll 0.23 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 0.0 14
6. Iteration and Final Design
The period of the building can be obtained from the computer model and compared to tbe period based
on the approximate period r:.
Based on the computer analysis, the first-mode periocL<; in longitudinal and
transverse directions are 0.87s and 0.97s. respectively. As shown, the period oftbe bui lding is higher than
that computed by the approximate period Y:· Since the building is at the descending branch of the spectrum,
the resulting base shear wi ll be slightly less. The BRBs in the l:ransvcrse dire-ction can also be reduced in
size based on the results from the computer analysis. Iterations can be performed to reduce brace siz es and
to optimize the design .
94 2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Ooslgn e X(Imp/() 3 • BUGkl/ng·R(N;/rtJ/II()d Broc<ld Ftamo
6.1 MEMBER SIZES
After optimization. the final bt·ace design is showrl in Figur-e 3·6. [The numerical va lues adj acent to bmces
rcprc.scnt the stee l core arcn, A"_(i.e .. BRB2 bas a core area of2 square incbcs)]:
1 I1 1 2- 3 4
c D A I A lA
W18X85 W18X65 W18X65

~ 00
~ ~
00
~~"" ~'),
~~"" ~~
f()
19~<~
<0
X .,.
-
X
~<~
<ot"
3: -
3:
~
W18X65
.... ~
W18X65
...
.,.,...~ ~ ~
00
.,.
CD
~</)"" 19~<~
-
X
~
~
3: W18X85 3: W18X85
N N N
...X
~
....
M {:)
~'}.·
~~ M
.,.
X ~<f ~~~
-
<It
!:
N
....
!:
N
W18X65 -
M
....- ~~ ~ ....MX fO":> ~~ ~
.,.
X
,... ~~
r ...!:.,. ~~ ~~
--
W18X65
-.,.....
3:
~ ~~~
W18X65
...
.....
~
.,. ~~
~? ~~
~<f
~ ....
~~\? ~
~ ·$-V
..- r
~ ... W18X65
-
3: W18X65
...
~<:>
~<f
~~
.......
~&3,... ~-.,. fO"'->~
~<f
~~
~v•$-V
~
.....
'I"
X-Direction Y-Direction
Figure 3-6. Final braced-frame elevations
6.2 BRACE SPECIFICATION
Since BRBFs arc proprietary items specified by the engi neer and manufactured by the supplier, the engi neer
must clearly specify the des ign requirements and assumptions to the s upplier. Cons truction documents need
to clearly specify the following:
BRB required SO"ength. There arc several options to spec ify BRB. Option one involves specifying a stee l
core area (A,,) and a range of acceptable F>~T· Opti on two involves specifyi ng brace strength (P,",J , tbus
allowing the brace manufacturer to adj ust A,.., based on F_,,.,.. While option two results in lower overslrcngth
in the brace. it results in a variation in brace sti tfn~ ss (rom the one the engineer has in the compU!er model.
This may result in different load distribution than in the analysis. For this reason, in the opinion oftl1e
author, it is preferable to usc option one.
In addition to brace strength, conslnlct:ion documents should also show (I) the pennissiblc range of core
yield strength. (2) the pennissible variability of brace stiffness (since brace stiffness is related to core
yielding length and can be manufacturer spedtic), and (3) tbe maxi mum strength adjusm1ent fac tors( ~. (l)) .
2018 IBC SEAOC Structurei/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 95

Dosfgn FExamp/o 3 • Bucltllng · Ro~tr()/nod BrtuxxJ Fr'1Jtn(j
7. Detailing and Design of Connections
Connections arc to be designed such thar yielding occurs nt the BRB cores. Thus, per AJSC 34 1
ScctJon F4.6c , tbc diagonal bruce connections arc designed for 1.1 times the adjusted braced strcng11l
(P, ~ l .l R-'Pu>P>"".).
7.1 BRB-TO-GUSSET CONNECTION
Since BRB-to-gusset coDJJcctions arc typically manufacturer speci fi c and can vary fi·orn wddcd, bolted,
or pinned-type connections, BRB mumrfucturers will typically design and detai l the bruce-to-gusset
connections. Jlowevet·, the gusset plate dim ens i on ~, and subsequently the connections to beams ar1d/or
columns. will depend ou this detai l; thus, some amount of coord ination wil l be required between the design
profcssiounl in responsible churgc and the BRB manufacturer. At a minimum, the design professional
in responsible charge needs to convey information such as work-point locutions and the bc.urn-column
connection colifigurntion in the design documents.
7.2 GUSSET PLATE REQUIREMENTS
The design of gusset plate detail nee<h; to consider local and ovcrull buckling. In addition, lateral brucing of
tuc gusset plate needs to be consisterH with tbar used in tue specimen used in tlle a.ssembluge test.
7.3 GUSSET CONNECTION TO BEAM AND COLUMN AISC 360
CJP
t1 L1
t3
......
____ + +
...
++
- - - <,-
BM WEB
VI.P.
CJP
T&B FLANGE
Figure 3-7. Brace connection details
96 201 8 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Do-sign cxomp/(t 3 • Buckllng·R<Mtrolncd Brac<t<f Ftt~mo
The dt:.sign of the gusset plute and it" connections to thl! beam and co lumn an; sometimes dckgatcd to the
bruce mnnufacLurcr. This is because di fl'ercnt manufacturers typically have di frere nt BRB end-connection
detai Is that affect the geometry of the gllilset. The design ofthe conrlection between the beam and the
column is usually the responsibility of tuo structural engineer of record. Since tbc design forces on the
beam-column joint typically depend on the assumptions in gusset plate design, the engineer of record needs
to coordimttc with the bruce manu fact urer as well as review culculutions by tbc munufud urcr to mukc sure
the assumptiot:ls ate cot:lsistent
The gusset connection to beam and co lumn can be designed using various methods. Tlle Unifonn Force
Method is commonly used ro design gusset connection und is not part of this example. The reader can refer
to the AISC Steel MCinual Part 13 for a discussion ofUnifom1 Force Mt:thod.
Per AJSC 34 I Scclion F4.6b, when! a brace or gussd plate connects to both members at a beam-to-column
corHicctiorl, the co!tt\ectiotl shall either be (I) a simple connection that allows unrestrait:lcd relative rotation
of 0.025 rad ians between Lbe fram ing elements being connected or (2) a fixed connection designed to resist
a moment equal to the lesser of 1.1 (LRFD) times expected bcnro flexural strength (R_,MP) or 1.1 (LRFD)
timcs the sum of expected column flexural slrength ('£R>.F>'Z).
Unless collc.ctor loads are relatively small. it is often difficult to de$ign the beam-co-columrl connection
without restraining rotation. lt1 addition, a typical welded gusset connection wottld not allow the relative
rotation described in AlSC 341 F4.6b; thus, the connection i.s considered fixed. The con nection for thi s
example between the beam nnd column consisted of complete joint penetration welds flt both beam flan ges.
Additionally, the sti frener at the top of the gusset plate increased tlexurnl capacity of the connection.
7.4 COLUMN SPLICES
Per AJSC 341 Section D2.5b, the required strength of column splices shall be greater of (I) the required
strength of the columns, including tbat determined from Chnptc.rs E. F, G, and Hand Section D I Aa or (2)
the required strength determined using the load combination with an amplified seismic load. Tbe required
strength need not exceed tlle maximum load tbnt cau be transferred to tbe splice by tbe system. lu addition,
per AJSC 341 Section F4.6d, column sp lices 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 W l4 x 21 1 to W l4 x 132.
The requi.rcd column strength between rhe third aud fourth floors is 740.2 kips. For W 14 x 132: B1 =
14.7 and 0·= 1.03. ¢A1F_,.= 681 kips per flange. The splice consists of a complete penetration weld ofthc
columns flanges . By in spection, the column 's spli ce is capable of rc.sisling the required axial load as well as
50 percent of the flexural strength ofW 14 x 132.
Per AJSC 34 I Equation F4-2, the required shear strength of the splice is determined by ~ = L.J\t!P'/ Hc using
LRFD .
MJX for W 14 x 211 =50 ksi x 390 in~/ 1 2 = I625 k:ip-ft

M1\t for W 14 X I32 =50 ksi X 234 in'/ I2 =975 kip-ft
He = Story height- beam depth - slab thickness= 12 ft- ( 18 in + 4.5 in)/12 = I 0. 13 tr
V,, = ( 1625 k-ft + 975 k-ft)/1 0. 13 ft = 257 kips
Check shear sb·cngth of web ofWl4 x 132:
<l>.V,, = (<!>.)(0.6)(Fy)(t,,J(d) = (1 .0)(0.6)(50 ksi)(0.645 in)(l4.7 in) = 284 kips> V,, ... OK

Oosfgn t:xompfo 3 • Buclt/lng·Rostr'IJfnod BrtJvod Framo
7.5 STABILITY BRACING AISC 360
For Y· type or invet·ted-V-type brace configurations, as a minimum, one set of lateral braces is required at
tbc point of intersecti on of the braces unles.'l the beam hu.s suf ficient out-of-pl ane strength and stiffness to
ensure stubi lity bctv,c-cn ndjnccnt brncc points. The design of stability bmcing is beyond the scope of this
example.
Tbe fo llowing items arc not addressed i11 this example but arc nevertheless necessary fo r a complete dcsig11
of the scismk-lond-rcsisting system:
• Comparison of wind and seismk forces.
• Des ign of Lhc column bose plate connection.
• Design of the foundations.
• Dc..<>ign of Ll1c dit:tphrngm system.

Design Example 4
Special Plate Shear Walls
------------------------------------------------~
DD~
l ~lDD
:=:=:lOOt . IDD
,::==:=:lDDII IDD
:=lDDil IDD
lll-lDD~ IDD
OVERVIEW
Special plate shear walls (SPSW) consist of a plate bounded at the sides by columns, also referred to as
vertical boundary elemeuts (VBE), and at the floor levels by beams, also referred to as horizontal boundary
ekm~.;nts (HBE). The alternate tcm1s for beams (HBE) and columns (VBE) emphasize the boundary
clement's role of resisting the tension field developed in the plate.
Steel plate shear walls have been used as early as the 1970s i.n the United Stares (Anon I 977. Anon 1978n.
Anon 1978b, Troy 1979). The early implementations of these walls in the US were designed so that the web
plates did not buckle under shear loading. To pn:"Vcnt
. 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 rhe preferred behavior in Japan where buckling is not permitted in the lateral-
load-resisting system. Another manifestation of the sliffcned steel plate shear wall is the composite steel
plate shear wal l (C-SPW), wbjcb uses concrete to brncc the plate.
On the other hand. the fact that web plates have post-buckling capacity bas 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 so m~ ways, SPSW arc si milar to a plate gi rder turned vertical. The major difference
between plate g;rders and SPSW is the greater s trength and stiffuess of the SPSW column compared to the
plate girder flan ge (Berman and Bruneau 2004). Unstiffened SPSW design is fo cused around keeping the
boundary elements elastic while the web-plate yields along an inclined tension field.

Oosfgn fExampfo 4 • Spoclal Pinto Shci!r W&lls
Si nce the 1980s, lens ion flcld action hns been utilized in steel plate shear walls nnd is the basis of the
AlSC J4 1 provisions for SPSW. Since these systems ullow thinner plates and do not require s ti ffencn~,
they are commonly cheaper. and thus have become mot·e popul ar thru1 their stiffened counterparts in North
America . Steel plate shear walls tbnt utilize tbc post ~ buckl ing cupucity of the !ihear plate arc conunonly
referred to as thin or unstiffcncd. US code provisi ons apply to unstiffcncd steel plate shear wulls that uti Iizc
the po11t-buckling cupucity of the web plate.
Engin eers can choose whether to design the SPSW as a dual system with spec ial moment frames (SMF)
capable of resisting 25 percent of the lutt:ral forces (R = 8.0) or as an SPSW with ordinary moment
conneclions (R = 7.0) (ASCE 7). AI SC 34 1 requires moment connections betwctn the HBE and VBE in
both cases because they flU out the hysteres is loops (diss ipate additional seismic energy), provide lateral
rc.sistancc during load reversal (while Lhe tension 1ield iu Lhe web plale reverses direction), and add lareral
sti'ff'ness.
One of the defining churucteristics 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 conJigunlliOtL'> witll open l'loor plans
and little room to bide braced frames. Of co\u'Sc, with more slender lateral-l'esisting elements comes
correspondingly higher overturn ing forces and a greater likelihood that deflection wiJl control the design .
This example is tuilored to the use ofun.stifrened S PSW in high-seismic regions with all the ductile
detailing requirements implied therein . Stiffened SPSW, composite steel plnte shear wal ls, a.ud low seismic
applications for SPSW arc not addressed. Sec the AJSC Design Guide 20 (SabeW and Bruneau 2006) for
more information on these topicll. Other references of note an.: the MCEER report on design of pcrfornted
s t~el plate shear walls (Purbu and Bruneau 2007), the MCEER report by Vian and Brune.au (2007), which
gives test results for panels with perforations and low-yield-strength steel. the paper by Berman and
Bruneau (2008) that discusses capacity design ofVBEs. and the paper by Qu and Bruneau (20 I0) that
discusses HBE capacity design.
OUTLINE
1. Building and Special Plate Shear Wall Layout
2. CalculaLion of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations
4. Preliminary Sizing of the W!.!b Plate and Boundary Members
5. Analysis and Design (lterative)
6. Detailing and Dc:s ign of Connections
7. Irems Not Addressed in This Example

OMign exomplo 4 • Sp<;cllll PIMO Sh<NJf WlfiiS
1. Building and Special Plate Shear Wall Layout

--------------------------~
The building is a six-stol'y office building located in San Francisco. CA (Seismic Design Category D). Sec
Appendix A for the following infom1ntion:
• B\lllding dim~;nslons.
• Floor and roof weigh t ~.
• Lntitudc and lonrr:itudc. ~
• Soil type.
• Spectral accelerations.
• Load combinations, including the vertical seismic-l oad effect.
1.2 LAYOUT OF SHEAR WALLS
Figure 4-l shows the plan location of the shear walls. There nrc fou r shear walls oriented in each dire-Ction,
making eight walls in totaL Figure 4-2 shows a typical wall elevation.
A B c D E F
5 @l 30'-0' i"' 1 50'· 0"
~
~ ~' "
"'
5 '':' ':' .
4 H
"
•0
.0'
t0-
v t><l I~
X
l~l
N
~
II
3 lt ll lt
<
0 "
-,.,..,'
0
@J ~ -~
<t Deck
<fp Span
2 ll
• ' •
I
"
1 "'
0 ~
Figure 4-1. Plan layour ofshear walls
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 101

Doslgn /Examplo 4 • Spcf:iltl Pllllo ShoDr Walls
A B c D E F •0
,
I
15'-0 ' 15'-0'

.. PARAPET • "'" ~
R OOF
~ ~
6th FLR
~ ~
5th FLR -0
I
~ ~ •
\0
4th FLR "II

;:
00
~ ~ •
I
N
.--
3rd FLR
- @J
\0
~ ~
2nd FLR
~ ~
1st FLR ~
L I
Figure 4-2. Typical wall elevation
The floor and roof weights are given in Appendix A. The seismic weight is tabulated in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Building seismic weight calculation
Unit Wcitrht~
Area Weight Floor Weight
Lcvd Asscmbly (ps-f) (fr) (kips) (kips)
Floor 75 14,400 1080

Sewnd to Sixth 1218
Ext Wall 20 6885 138
Roof 30 14,400 432

Roof 544
Ext Wall/Parapet 20 5603 t 12
Total Building Wcight, W ~ 5 X 1218 + 544 ~ 6634 kips
W= 6634 kips

Da.slgn Examplo 4 • Sp<Jclnl PIMo Sh<.~r Wlllls

ACCELERATIONS
There arc two options in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 for using special plate shear walls: an SPSW und un SPSW/
SMF dual system. The two optjons ore shown in Table 4·2 along with perfonnnnce factors and height
limitations.
Table 4-2. System factors for SPSWjro111 ASCE 7 Table 12.2- 1
Height Limits by Seismic Design

Response Over- Category
Scismic-Force- Mod. Strength Deft.
Resisting System Coef.. R Factor. Du 1\mp.. cd B c D E F
B26 SPSW2 7.0 2.0 6.0 NL NL 160 160 100
0 13 SPSW/SMF 8.0 2.5 6.5 NL NL NL NL NL
Dual System 1• 2
1. Dual system with special moment frames capable of resisting nt least 25 percent of prescribed seismic
forces.
2. IBC Section 2205 .2 references AlSC 341 for detailing requirements (note that the 2018 lBC docs not
adopt ASCE 7 Chapkr 14 for steel requirements, as stated in lBC Section 161 3. 1). ln Seismic Design
Categories A, R nnd C, it is not required to follow the provisions of AJSC 341 if using R = 3, Q 0 = 3,
and Cd = 3 from Part H of Table I 2.2· I.
For the purposes of this example, a special p.late shear wall without the dual system will be used. Tbc height of
the sh1Jcturc is 76 feet 0 inches, which is less than the limit fo r Seismic DL-sign Category D. The system fuctors
are
R=7.0 n 0 =2.0 c,, =G.o
The spectral accelerations to be used i_n design are calculated in Appendix A bnsed on Ss = I .50g and
sl = 0.60g to be
Sf)S= .I.OOg SDI = 0.60g
2.2 RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Deterrni11e the approximate fundamental bui lding period using Section 12.8.2.1 :
C, = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8-2

T = C,h;;· = 0.02 x 76°·-,.; = 0.51 sec (see the following discussion)
0
Eq 12.8-7
I;, = 0.51 sec ]
2018 IBC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 103

Ooslgn FExamp/o 4 • Spoclltl Pllllo SileDr Wb/18
Devdop the design response spectrum using Section 1 1.4.5:
T
o
= 0.2 Sm
SDS
= 0.2 °·l .0060 = 0.12 sec § IJ.4 .5
T
S11 = SDS 0.4 + 0.6 - = 0.4 + 5.0T forT< T,1 Eq I 1.4-5
Tu
. _ sm o.6o _ .
1S' - - - 0•60 St.'C § 11.4.5
- SDS 1.00
Sl = SDI = 0.60 t'or T• <

_ T<
_ Tl Eq 11.4- 6
I T T , -
The long period equation for S0 does not apply here because the long period transition occurs at TL = 12 sec
(from fi gure 22- 12).
1.2
Approximate SPSW Bulkfng Period,
-
-Ol
(/)~
.
1
T0 • 0.51 sec, S., • 1.Og
Sos = 1.0g
c
0
Ts = 0.60 soc
'. 0
~ 0.8
-Q)
T0 <=> 0.12 '
s~c
§ TI'Tl!JX = 0.71 sec
<(
CIJ 0.6
tl
Q)
S0 = 0.4+5.0T
a.
(f)
c: 0.4
Ol
Vl Calc'ed SPSW
Q)
0 Period, T ~ 0.92 sec
02
S11 = 0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 4-3. Design response spectrum for the example but/ding
As shown in Figure 4-3, the design spectral acceleration is between and TSf so tbc design spectral r:
acceleration S0 is I .Og. It is not required to construct the design response speclrum when using the
equivalent lateral force procedure since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cr in
Section 12.8. 1. 1.
The response spectrum demonstrate-s the effect ofthe assumptions used in the calculation of building
period. The approximate fundamental period was computed earlier to be ~ 0. 5 1 sec. The period of the =
structure can also be established through structural analysis of the SPSW. Seclion 12.8 .2, however, limits
the period lhat can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value ofTrts.!..' = C 11 x ~.where C,, is a

OtMign t=xamplo 4 • Sp&CIM Plllle ShC'fJr WliiiS
factor found in Table 12.8-1. In this cnse, T0 11 x = 1.4 X 0.5 1 = 0.71 sec. As shown Iuter in this example, dri fls
are close to, ir not at, the story dri n Iimi ts of Section 12. I?. There fore, the maxi mum period, T'frill.' wi II be
used ro design the SPSW arld the acrual pol'iod of the building will be verified later in the design p roce~Ss.
The first mode period of the tiuul design shown in FlgLtre 4- 15 was ca lculated to be 0.92 seconds; tucrcfore,
tbc initial at~s umption of 1' == 0.71 sec is shown to not only be valid, but stiII conservative.
2.3 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3-1
Determ ine lithe stlllctmc has horizontal irregu larities.
I a. and I b. Torsional Irregularity- A tOI"$ionuJ irregularity exists when the maximum story drift
computed, including accidental torsion1 is more than 1.2 times the average story drift. An
extrvmc torsional irregularity exists whon the mu~lrnum story drift is more thun 1.4 times the
ave-rngc story drift. From the rigid diaphragm analysis presented later in this example:
om,,
F;K
' v=0. 26-
F
0.26--k.
0
TTm ~ _ _,K""" ~ 1.04 < I.2 --7 N O TORSIONAL fRREGULARJTY
8
a\'J 0.25 !i
K
wl1t:re
F1 = story shear
K =stiffness of one SPSW (assuming all SPSWs arc identic-al)
2. Reentmht Corner Irregularity- This plan irregularity exists when a reentrant comet' has
plan dimensions in both directions rhat are greater tban 15 percent of the overall plan
dimension. Tbe reentrant corner in this st:rucn1rc is 30 fect/150 feet = 20 percent of the plan
width and 30 feet/ 120 feet ~ 25 percent of thc plan depth .
REENTRANT CO RNER TRREGULARTTY EXISTS
3.-5. By inspection, the buil ding does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural
incgularitics.
HORIZONTAL lRREGULARJTY TYPE 2
According to Section 12.3.3.4, because the strucrW'e bus a hori zonral irregularity ofType 2, the forces in
coiiDcctions of diaphragms to vertical clements, connections of tbc diaphragm to collectors, coiiDcctions
of co ll ectors to the seismic-force-resisting system, and the colkctors themselves shall be increased by 25
percent unless designed for seismic-load effects, including overstrength factor.
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 105

Doslgn FExomp/o 4 • Spochtl Ploto Shonr WtJIIS
2.4 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3-2
By inspection. the building does not qualify for any of the vertical stntctural irregularities.
I NO VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARJTfES I
2.5 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T12 .6-1
Dctcnninc whkh lateral force procedure to usc :
I. Simpli fied alternative slnlctural d<!Si!:,rn critcriu- According to Section 12.14.1.1 , this unu lys1s
pro<;edure can be used for SPSW, but not for buildings over three srorics- NOT PER1\t11TTED.
2. Equivalent lateral force ana lysis-According to Table 12.6-1, since th e building is less than 160
fed tnll and bas only plan irregularity 2-PERMJTTED.
3. Modal response spectrum analysis-PERMIITED.
4. Seismic response history procedures-PERMITTED .
USE EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS
2.6 BASE SHEAR
Compute the seismic base shcnr using Section 12.8.
C = SIA~ = 1.00 = 0.14 Eq 12.8-2

0 0
J R 7.0 )
l~ l~
= 0.60 = 0.12 Eq 12.8-3
0.71 07.0 )
ll.o
Also.
cJ ;: : o.o44So.s'c=0.044( 1.ox 1.0) =0.044 Eq 12.8-5

ct > o.o 1
C > 0.5S1 = 0.5 X 0.60 = 0.044 Eq 12.8-6
t OR 07.0 )
lI: l 1.0

DMign ex&mp/0 4 • Sp(}C/Oi Plllto ShCJ-ar W(l/18
v = c, w = 0.12 x 6634 = 796 kips Eq 12.8- 1
[V = 796 !<ips
According to Section 12.3.4, the redundancy factor should be calculated for cnch 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 I .0. Since Section l2.3.4.2(a) is satis fi ed, the redundancy
factor is I .0 fo r both dir-ccrions.
p = 1.0 fOR EAST-WEST DIREC I'ION

p ~ 1. 0 fOR NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION
See Appendix A for the derivation of load combinations bnsed on p = 1.0 and 0. 2Sd, = 0.2.
load combinations of consequence fo r the design of the SPSW are
1.2D + 1.0£ + 0.5L ~ 1.4 D + 0.5L + l .OQt: §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, moditicd)

0.9D + l.OE = 0.7D + 1.00,
_,, §2.3.6 Comb. 7, modi fied)
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the SPSW frame (a lthough they apply for collectors
and at other conditions outside the SPSW frame).
The equation for distributing the shear along the height of the bnilding is shown below. Since the period=
0.71 > 0.5 sec, the value fork is interpolated between a value of 1.0 forT= 0.5 sec and 2.0 forT= 2.5 sec.
In this example, k = I. 1OS . The o£bcr tcm1s are defined in Section 12.8.3.
w hl
F:1 = CV.\:Y . where Crr = ,
-l .( Eq 12.8- 11 and Eq 12.8- 12
0 \II fl
I I
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 107

Dosfgn Sxomplo 4 • Sp<>thtl Pluto SilvtJr Wo/ls
Table 4-3. Verlical dislribution ofshear
Level w1 (kips) h, (ft) wI J/I c.• Fx (kips)

Roof 544 76.0 65,148 0.16 127
6 121H 63.3 119.248 0.29 232
5 1218 50.7 93, 189 0.23 I 81
4 1218 38.0 67,812 O. l7 132
3 12 18 25.3 43,324 0. 1 I 84
2 1218 12.7 20,14 1 0.05 39

Total 6634 408,862 1.00 796
As shown in Figure 4-4, the centet· of mass and center ofrigidiry coincide at the m1ddle ofthe bui ldi ng.
To di stribute the load ro each SPSW. the story shear, F1, is appli ed in the X- and Y-direcrions. Per
Section 12.8.4.2, tbc point of application of the story shear is offset 5 percent to account for accidental
eccent.ricity. The 5 percent offset is 6 feet for the N-S plnn dimension of 120 feet und 7.5 feet fo r the E-W
plan dimension of 150 feet.
""'
~~&========~M ---------z --------- z --------- ~~======~
~I z
~
\0 ___..STORY
~
~--------M----~ z -~ L .l. z- - - - -z- - - - - - - -
ACC.
CENTER OF -+--' TORS ION
't,l
~A7
v
MASS AND
CENTER OF
R IGIDfTY
~
.,
~ 7'-6'
I~
F2
~========~ ----- z ------z -------~========~
·•
y r STIFFNESS,
K, TYP
' X
Figure 4-4. Rigid diaphragm analysis lo dislrlbute stOJy shear To SPSW
1 08 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4

Q(}s/gn ex&mpi<J 4 • Sp&ciM Pllllt!> Shc'iJr Wll/18
Since; all of the SPSWs urc the same, u generi c st iffn es~. K, is assumed for ull walls. The following example
calculutions are for shear in the X-direction for SPSW SD for direct shear, Vd11,,11 ; the shear in each SPSW
due to torsion, Vton.: and the total ~She a r. V tutLI ' The values a ~sociarcd with hot·izonml distributi ort of shear for
other walls and for forces in the Y·dircctiou aro tabulated in Table 4· 4. ·n1c distance from tho contor of mass
in tbc N-S direction, R,., and E-W direction, J(,, nrc used in these culculstions.
Rv
V.I . == Fl 0 R
u I CC(
=0.25 FI
.r
M = F; X (0.05 X I20) = GF,
V = Mx Rvy = 6T-;x60 K=O.Ol F.
OOn< 'J:.,Rd 2 36900 K I
Vl\lul = ~IIC>ft + ~rm = 0.25F; + 0.0 IT-; = 0.26F;
Table 4-4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to SPSW
X-Diroction Y-Din:ction
Wull X y R)x R.,y Rd 2 vtl= v,= v"", VJI=I v,"" v.....,
11.2 - 75 - 75 K 5625 K 0.25F, -0.0 l2F, 0.24P, 0 -0.0 l5F, -0.0 15F1
A4 -75 - 75 K 5625 K 0.25F, -O.Ol2P, 0.24P, 0 -0.0 15F, -0.0 15P,
P2 75 75 K 5625 K 0.25/·~ 0.0 1 2 /~ 0.26F, 0 0.0 1 5/-~ 0.0 15F1
F4 75 75K 5625 K 025Fj 0.0 12Fj 0.26F1 0 0.0 15F, 0.0 15/·j
IC -60 -fJO K 3600 K 0 -Q.O l F1 -o.o IF1 <U5~ -o.o 1 2~ 02tlfj
ID -fJO -60K 3600 K 0 -Q .Ol F1 -Q.OI F1 ().25Fj -o.o 12Fj 0.2tlfj
sc 60 60K 3600 K 0 0.0 l F, 0.0 I F1 0.25Fj 0.012F, 0.26Fj

SD 60 60K 3600 K 0 0.0 I F1 O.Olfj 0.2SF, 0.0 l2F, 0.26F,
'f.Rd 2 :::! 36,900 K
Tabl e 4-4 shows that the maximum design shear for any wall is 0.26 times the story shear. TI1e resr of this
example focuses on the design of SPSW SD. Tbc story shear and cumulative shears for SPSW SD arc given
in Tabk 4-5.
Table 4-5. Sto!Jiforces applied to SPSW 5D
Level Incremental Shear (kips) Cumulative Shear (kips)

Roof 33 33
6th 60 93
5th 47 140
4th 34 175
3rd 22 197
2nd 10 207
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismlc Design Menual, Vol. 4 109

Oosfgn FExampto 4 • Spocfal Pflllo ShODr Wolfs
4. Preliminary Sizing of the Web Plate and Boundary Members
4.1 PRELIMINARYWEB·PLATE DESIGN AN D CONSIDERATIONS AISC 341
The web plnte of an SPSW can develop cspeci~1lly large shct~ r cup.acity even with thin web plates. However,
to promote uniform yielding in web plutcs along the hdght of the structure, it is preferred to proportion web
plates to have shear capacities that match the shear demands at eu~h floor. This can result in very thin web
plates. For example, the tl1ick:ness of the sixili.. floor web plute was computed based on a solid wob plate, the
computed sbenr demand, and the equation for sbenr capacity given in AJSC 341:
Eq FS-1
wbcre
Fy =web-plate yield strength (assumed to be 36 ksi)

r"' =thickness of the plate to be computed
Lc('"' clear distance between VBE =: 15 ft X 12 in/ft- 17 in "" J 63 in (assuming d,. ~ 17 in)
a= angle of inclination of tension lield relative to vertical (assumed to be 40°)
(Y:, = 33 kips) 0 (<j>Vn = 2l84t,.)

11, ~ 0.015 in reguired thickness for u solid web plate at the sixth floor
It is stared above that a web pl ate as thin as 0.015 inches thick would be sufficient ro resist the design shear
forces at the sixth floor. However, there arc constructability issues associated with using plate material that
thin , including wcldability, handling, and obt-aining suitnbk steel material. More information about using
thin web-plate material is included in Sabclli and Bruneau (2006).
AISC 34 1 Chapter F5. 7 presents t\vo altomatives to the so tid plate SPSW, including a pcrtoratcd SPSW
and a corner cut-out SPS W. These a1t<.:mativcs, especially tbc perforated SPSW, represent a method for
reducing thc sln:ngth of the plate lo allow the usc of thicker plale that can bc made with more commonly
available material. FU.t'thermore, tests have shown larger buckling loads and improved energy dissipation in
perforated SPSWs as compared to similar stt·ength solid-web SPSWs (Vian and Bmneau 2005). Perforated
SPSWs arc selected for this design example.
Design of a perforated SPSW begins with sckcting a hole diameter, D; the diagonal hole spacing, SdiJA;
and the angle of hole lines, a. The only restriction given is that the diagonal spacing. S diJ £' shall bear least
1.67 D [Section FS. 7a(2)]. However, there arc some important considerations when selecting these variables.
The rntio of Sd 1 ~r.../D is an importa.nt prumneler as il defines the amount of strength reduction compared to the
solid plate. Smaller values of Sd1,..J D result in closer-spaced holes and tbus more strength reduction. For this
example, use the rninimW1) ratio to maximize the plate thickness, Sdr.,JD = 1.67.
USE Sd1.JD = 1.67

(OR SLIGHTLY LARGER AS NECESSARY)

O<Mign C.X~mplo 4 • Sp&Cilll PhilO ShO·JJf' Wlllls
Three criteria nrc con.,.idcrcd here fo r selecting the hole diameter: the hok diameter used in experiments,
the cost of culling the holes, and how well the holes can be confi gured in the wall geometry. The
hole diumetet' nsed in the one l at'ge~ scn l e tesr (approximately half scale) of a petforared SPSW was
approximntoly 8 inches (200 mm) (Vi an ct al. 2009). Finite clement models have been made of a perforated
SPSW with pcrforution diamdcrs between 2 inches and 12 inches (Purba and Brunc.uu 2009). Tests on
smaller plutt:S ( 12 inches x 12 inches or 18 inches x 12 inches) with single perforutiorw were con dueled
with hole diameters between 2.4 inches and 6 inches (Roben·s at1d Sabout'i-Ohomi 1992).
The cost of cutting the petforntions is directly related to the length of cut. Figure 4-S shows the variation in
the length of cut nomutlizcd to area of the web plate fo r varying hole diameter and spucing ratios. It is ck.ar
that larger bole diameters result in shot'tcr length of cut and thus more economical fabrication. However,
the layout of larger holes (D > 20 inches) in the typical 15-foot-wide x J2 .. fcet-8-inches-tall bay UBcd in
this example can result in conngurutions thut do not develop the tension strip concept illustnt.cd in Figure
C-F5.7 in the commentary. Figure 4-<> shows the perforation layout for four different hok diameters in the
typical bay using a hole orientation angle of 45 degrees, a spacing ratio of Sdm/ D = 1.67, and the required
distance [Section F5.7u(2)] between edge holes and web-plate connection to boundary elemetlts of between
D and D + 0.7Stli•a· With the goal of maximizing the hole diameter to improve economy whi.lc selccti.ng
a perforatioo layout c.upublc of developing wcll-denncd tension strips , a hole diameter of 16 incbcs is
selected for this example. The I 6-inch diameter is also conside.red reasonable relatiw to large-scale testing
performed at half-scale on punels with 8-inch-diumeter holes.
USED~ 16 in
0.10
0.09 SID= 1.67

SID= 2.0
0.08 SID = 2.33
SID= 2.67
-c:
:.::::
0.07 SID= 3.0
SID= 4 .0
-
~
co
Q)
0.06 SID= 6.0
~ 0.05
-....
D
:J
0.04
._
0
-5 0.03
0>
c:
Q)
_J 0.02
0.01
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Hole Diameter, D (In)
Figure 4-5. Effect of hole diameter and SID ratio on leng th ofeLl!
201818C SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 111

ooslgn £xamp/o 4 • Spoclnl Pluto ShoDr Walls
v v
0 DO D
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 DO D
v v
(a) D = 24" (b) D = 20"
v v
0 DO D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 DO D
v
(c) 0=16" (d) D = 12"
Figure 4-6. Four possible !tole arrangements .for the pe1forated SPSW wilh a = 45°
Finally, the angle of the hole lines, a.. needs to be selected. Alrhough the specification does not explicitly
restrict the poss.ible bole line angles, tbcrc arc some good reasons to set the angle equal to 45 degrees.
First, the tension strip wiU be most dfcclive when the angle is ncar the angle of inclination of a solid plate,
as given by Equation FS-2. The web plate will naturally form a tension field aLLhal orientation. which is
usually between 35 degrees and 45 degrees.

O<Mign exampiO 4 • SpOCilli PIMe Sho.JJr WliiiS
s~cond, the eAcct:ive tension strip width, Self' wi ll reduce as the unglc vurie1> away from 45 degree~>. This is
demonstt·atcd in 1'igure 4-7 for angle$ of 30 degrees and 60 degrees, both of which hove an e n·cclive tension
.suip width, S01 . equal to 87 pc1·cent of the diagonal hole spaci ng, So.~;llf · The etJectivc tension su·ip width is
used in tbc literature (PLLrba and Bruneau 2009, Via.u ct aL 2009) to develop the strength and stit.li1css of
the panel, so if the angle is not 45 degrees, tbc effective sn·ip width, S,1j) should be used in place of So.~inll
to reduce the strength, stiffness, and expected tension stress in the specification. This is supported in the
litemture (Purba and Bmneau 2009, Vian er al. 2009. Purba and Brurteau 2007) in which Sdinil is used to
represent the width ofthe effective tension strip in the tinlte element analy:>es. lfd1e angle is 45 degr ees.
tbe tension strip width is equal to S<~ll u · The equation relating the <.;:ficctivt: tension strip width, Srrf!', to tbc
diagona l hole spacing, Sd11~, is given here and plotted for a range of S,u 1.jD und angles in Figure 4-8.
s
~ = l•~\J:l.
0 )
sin [2(90 - a)]
To muxi mizc the efficiency of the perforated plate, use a. ~ 45° for Lhis example.
USE a = 45o
0 1 -11---fi---ti-110 0
0~ ~-~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -11- IID 0
Figure 4- 7. Possible variations in the angle of/tales
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismlc Design Manual. Vol. 4 113

Ooslgn t:xomplo 4 • Special Plato ShoDr Walls
3.5
-
a
~<ll
3 ~ SdlaJD =3.0
(/)
........ ~ Sd111gfD = 2.67
t....
Q) - SdiaJD = 2.33
~ 2.5 .n- SdiosfD = 2.0
E SdlogiD = 1.67
ro
·-
a
~ 2
0
Minimum Saff/D = 1.67
-~
I
- 1.5
sa.
:s(/) 1
~ Shaded Area Repres nts
:.::1 Conflgur~tlons With o
~ 0.5 VIable Diagonal Strw
~
w
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Angle of Holes, a {degrees)
Figure 4-8. E.ffecl 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 res ist the full story shear without
consideratior\ of the moment connections, and the equation below implicitly assumes an angle of the hole
lines ofu=45°.
1- 0.7 D with cp = 0.9 Eq FS-3

sd.>Jll
where
F>. and t,. are the yield strength and thickness of rhe plate, respectively
L,1 = clear distance bctvveen VBE = 15 ft x 12 in/ tt. - J 7 in = 163 in (assuming d, = 17 in)
D and Sd1!(5 are den ned as the hole diameter and the spacing of the holes along the di agonal
Plate and steel sheet materials that are aU owed in Al.S C 341 Section AJ.I include A36 and A I 0 II Gr. 55.
However, usc of Al 011 SS Gr. 55 may be undesirable because of the larger yield slrcss. AI 011 SS Gr.
30 and A I 011 SS Or. 33 provide a good alternative even though they are not explicitly allowed in the
specification. A I0 II SS Or. 30 and A I0 II SS Gr. 33 have been used in constnlction of SPSWs (Eatherron
2004) and are discussed further in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006). For this design example. it is asswned that
A36 steel sheet is available in Yl6 inch (0.0625 inch). 14 gage (0.0747 inch), 12 gage (0.1046 inch), Y~ i.nch
(0. 125 inch), I 0 gage (0.1 345 inch), and .y.,. inch (0.1875 inch), as suggested in Sabdli and Bruncnu (2006).

OMign Examplo 4 • Sp()Cilll Pluto Sh<NJf' W(l/18
Size the web plate nt the fir!:lt Aoor. Try ·Yar,-inch-thick A36 plate with holt: di ameter D == 16 inches,
s clut: ;::: 28 inches, and angle ('}. = 45°.
V, 1
= 207 kips hom T 4-5
.!2.) 250 kips ~OK

3
yAVn !:: 0.9 X 0.42X 36X -16 X 163 1- 0.7 28
=
~V,, = 250 kips
The rest of the web-p late designs arc tabu lated in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6. Prelim/n(IIJ' web-plate design at each level
Design Hok Hole Shear Demand-

Thick., Diameter, Spacing, Capacity, to-
Plate Plate l\1' D sdiltz Sllear• Vu <P v,l Capacity
Love! Marl Thick. (in) (in) (in) (kips) (kips) Ratio
6th A36 1/ 16 0.0625 16 28 33 83 0.40
5th A36 14 ga 0.0747 16 28 93 99 0.94
4th A36 12 ga 0. 1046 16 34 140 156 0.90
3rd A36 10 ga 0.1345 16 28 175 179 0.98

2nd A36 10 ga 0.1345 16 34 197 200 0.98
1st A36 3/ 16 0.1875 16 28 207 250 0.83
4.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARY ELEMENT DESIGN
For boundary clement design, AISC 34 1 Section F5. 3 states that boundary members are to be designed for
the forces corresponding to the expected yield slrength, in tension, of the web calculated at angle a.. The
defi nition of the expected yield strength of the web plate is F_~- and the ex pe~t ed flexural strength oftbe
HBE is l.l~MP (for LRFD). The values of R_,. for different materials arc given in Table A3.l and is R_,. = 1.3
for A36 plate and sheet.
Figure 4-9 shows the forces in rhe HBE and VBE due to the application of the expected yie ld strength of
the plate at angle CJ. and tbc expected moment strength of the HBE.
F = Fy R t _1' 11'
~ Expected web-plate yield strenntb
0
at angle a.
M 1"-' : : : 1.1 R)' MJl ~ Expected mom ent strengnh of the HBE
201818C SEAOC Strocturai/Seismlc Design Manual. Vol. 4 115

Ooslgn IExlJmp/() 4 • Spoclltl Pllllo SlloDr Wolls
r-- TOP HBE RE SISTS

FORCE OF WEB ft.
ON ONE 5 IDE
APPLIED
~-- EXPECTED
STORY
STRENGTH OF
FORC ES
PLAT E IN T ENS ION
F=R y F y t w
.-L-:.M-H--- P LA ST IC
HINGING OF
HB E, Mpo
, . - - SHEAR AT JOINT
DUE TO 1.1 RyM P
+EFFECT OF
TENSION FIELD
' - - - - - - - HB E'S AT
INTERMEDIATE
FLOORS RESIST
FORCES FROM
DIFFERENCES IN
WEB It THICKNESS
r--- NOTE THAT VBE

SHEARATBASEIS
RESISTING THE
TENSION FIELD.
WHEREAS
BASE SHEAR IS
v:f Vvbe R E S I5 T E D BY Jt.
Fig ure 4-9. SPSW divided into parts to showforces

Do-sign &omplo 4 • Sp()C/t.tl PIMO Sh6'lJf Walls
D /cos o,
11. / COS a
'r
F, t
D. /sino. J:=~-==~~~~~ Fn
a
F
12
'-TE NS ION
F STRIP AT
ANG LE, a
F
·-
-
<l EXPECTED YIELD
STRENGTH IN
TENS ION,
F=R ly
tw
TOTAL TENS ION

F 0 R CE = R y Fy t 1., ~
Figure 4- 10. Components o.f exp ected weh strength applied Ia HBE and VBE
(hosed on Sabe/11 and Bruneau 2006)
For the design of the HBE and VBE, it is necessary to scpnrote the force, F, into components. Fi gure 4-10
shows a reprcscntutivc strip of web plate acting ar angle fL. Sabdli and Bruneau (2006) present a derivation
of the resulting horizontal and vertical forces actir1g on the HBE and VBE:
Fo.,..... R F t o cos a
F.11 = """" = >' .r· , . = l'\ F.. l cos2 (J,
Length o Y .v "
cos a
0
F.12 = RY F; J,.0 si11 a = R) ' F.v t sin a cos a = R F_rt , . [ -21 sin (2o:)
>I )'
l
cos a
R1 F J o cos a [1
E; 1 = > "~ = R_~.F),. sin a. cos a = R.v~.1 ,. sin (2a.)
2
Sin (J,
RFt o sin a
)' y " 2
F.21 = 1 sin a,
= Ry F)'"'
0
sm a

Ooslgn t:xamp/o 4 • Spociltl Plllto SllMr W.vlls
fo r this d~s i gn exumpk, the perfomtions huve the eff~ct of reducing the web-plate strength und fixi ng the
angle of in<.:lination, a. Since the angle of hole lines jg 45 degrees, the trigonomclric tem1s in tl1e prev ious
equations simplify to:
cos-., ex ::::1 -1 s.(2) , .,

m o. ::::1 s m- a
1
::::1 -
2 2
The dicct of tbc perforations on w~b-plate s-trength is to reduce the expected yield s1reogth as follow s:
So the components of the yielding web-plate tension si mp! ify to:
1
F.11 = F , = F, 1 = F2, =- R F) .
l- - - 2 ,V ) "
fo r the sixth floor, the forces F and FIJ arc calculuted here. All tension fi e.ld components urc given in
Table 4-7.
= ( 1.3)(36)(0.062 5{ I = 0. 7 ¥s-)= 1.76 kip-in
Table 4-7. Components ofthe expected strength of the tension field
Level F (k/in) F 11 , F 12• Fn, F 2 1 (klin)

6th 1.76 0.88
5th 2.10 1.05
4th 3.28 1.64
3rd 3.78 1.89
2nd 4.22 2. 11
1st 5.27 2.63
4.4 OVERVIEW OF ROOF AND SIXTH-FLOOR HBE DESIGN
The 1-TBEs are designed for the moments due ro vertical force associated with the web-plate yielding, F11 ,
and vet·tical forces associated 'ivi th the gravity loads. TI1e HBE res ists axial compression due to the inward
pull applied to the columns by the yielding web pl ate in addition to the axial force due to collector forces.
The J-fBE resists shear associated with the web-plate yi elding, expected plastic moment capacity at both

O<Mign t X8tnpiO 4 • Sp&CIM Plllle ShO·iJr' W(IJ/S
ends, and gravity louds. figure 4-11 showl\ the force~; acting on the roof HBE und the sixth-floor HBE. Note
the following:
• The roof HBE resists tlle force of the tension tield on one side onJy. ln some cuscs, tills will
res ult in a bcuvic.r top HBE than in floors below.
• At intermediate floors. if t11e plate is the same tllickne.ss above !ltld below, the HBE docs not
resist ver!"icul forces other than gravity loads. Where the plates are of diiferent thickness above
und below, the HBE is designed for the forces associated with the difference.
• The I-IDE is nor required to be designed for end moments unless u~ing u dual system where the
moment frame is to be designed to resist 25 percent of the lateral forces.
, . - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - CO LLECTOR FORCE - ASSUME ALL

COLLECTOR LOAD IS APPLIED AS
COMPRESSION FORCE.
ROOF ***~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:+.-~- G R A V ITY L 0 ADS
VBE REACTION
v
F 11-6
GRAVITY LOADS
6TH FLR ~ ,~SINCE R=7.0 IS USED, BEAMS

.. ARE NOT DESIGNED TO RESIST
A PORTION OF LATERAL LOAD
AS A MOMENT FRAME, BUT
NEED TO CONSIDER END
F12-s-J MOMENT S FOR SHEAR CHECK
F11-s
Figure 4-11. HBE design .forces
For this example. the c.alculations for the roofl-1BE and sixth-floor HBE will be presented. thc.n design
infonnation will be presented for all the HBEs. The design process wi ll consist of computing the
required flexural strength, M 11 ; calculating the required axia l strength, P11 ; calculating the design flexura l
strcngtb, ~M,; calculating the design axial strength, Q>P"; checking tbc interaction equation ofAJSC 360
Section H 1. 1; and then checking thot the design shear strength, <!> ~~> exceeds the required shear slrength, VK'
4.5 FIND THE HBE MOMENT
Assume that the HBE will be laterally bmccd at mid-span with a beam, as shown in Figure 4-1. Find the
moment on the roof HBE for SPSW 50:
=5ftx I 25 psf D
l 20psfLr
0.13 kip-ft D
O.IOkip-ftLr
Unifonn load due to roof gravity loads
·wD2 =(6.33 ft wan + 4 ft pampet) X 20 =0.21 kip-fl: D Unifom1 load due to exterior wall
F; 1_6 = 0.88 X 12 = I 0.6 kip-ft Q£
2018 IBC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 119

Ooslgn FExamplo 4 • Spoclal Pluto ShoJ)r W&lls
Using ASCE 7 Section 2.3.6 loud combinution number 6, the required design strength for the roofHBE is
(Comb. 6, modified)
The equation M 11 = w£ 2/4 to calculate the required moment due to a distributed load is based Oll ~vork by
Bruneau ct al. (20 11) that shows tJ1nt HBEs subjected to end moments and distributed loud can develop
in-spun plastic hinging unle:;s tht: bc-Um ill designed to resist u maximum moment ofwL 2/4. Tht: required
des ign strength for the roof HBE is therefore
Mu "" [1.4(0.13+0.21) + 1.0(10.6)](

163 12
~ ) ~ s J 1kip-ft
2
[ Mil = 511 KIP-IT ROOF HBE I

The required des ign strength for the s-ixth-floor HBE is imi lar. The difl'erences are the inclusion of floor
live loud per loud combination 6 (no floor live loud for the roofHBE) and the vertical force associated with
web-p late yielding. The vertical force associated with web-plate yielding is tl1e difrerencc in vertiCl:ll force
applied by the sixtJ1-f100r web-plate yielding and the fifth -floor web-plate yielcting. The required design
strenglb for the si.xth-floor HB E is therefore
L2f
Mu = [ 1.4( wDl + IVD2 ) + 0.5(wL) + l.O[(F; 1_6 - F; H )12 in/ft]] ;
I wDI r::
5
ft x J65 ps f D _ 0.33 kip-ft D
l WL l 65 psf L 0.33 kip-ft L
w D2 = 12.67 ft wall x 20 ps f = 0.25 kip-ft D

(163/ 12)2 .
Mu =::1 [1.4(0.33 + 0.25) + 0.5(0.33) + L.0(2.04)] :::c 139 k1p-ft
4
I Mit = 139 KlP-FT 6TH F LOOR J-IBE [
4.6 FIND THE HBE COMPRESSION FORCE ASCE7
Next, find the compression force in the roof HBE for SPSW 50 . 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, P,., 11 "<>:-~> or the ma.ximum force that the web plate can
develop, P 12.
2. Horizontal reaction from the VBE that resists tbe inward pull of the tension field, P21.
The compressive load from collecting load to the SPSW is limited by the shear that can be developed ar the
top of the pan el:
~2 =F; 2_6 Lcf =0.88 X 163 ::: 143 kips

120 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4
DMign £xomplo 4 • Sp()c/ol Ph1l0 Sh(-'/Jt W(II/S
Compare this loud to the collector force: §12. 10.1. 1

II
Lr-;
1":1
Frn-rto.1f = 11
\V
fl1
=127kln<;!
pv
Eq 12.10- 1
I, w,
, ,..~
Frrt-ro~r 0.2S{)s'qw,,r ~ 0.2 X 1.0 X 1.0 X 544 = I09 kips

0
Fra-roo1 = 127 kips
_ n ~w -root' 2.0 X 127 _ 63 J . ,

P l - ~~ 0 - - <tps
OOt i'CIOJ 4 frames 4
The design collector load, P(l)llt~ tw iti kss thnn the force required to fully yield the wt:b plate (neglecting the
moment conm:cLions ), ? 12 • The intent of the ATSC 34 1 provisions is clear, in thnr the boundary clements arc
to be able to resist the effects of the expected yield strength of tbe web plate. The HBE should , therefore. be
designed for dlC larger of P collcctw or ? 12 plus tho horizontal reaction from the YBE calculated here.
Tht: horizontal reaction from the VBE is the load requiTed to resist the component F12 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 1ield action . The HBEs brace the column against this inward pull.
Fn -c, = 0.88 kip-in from Tabk 4-8

h - d 11 1267xl2 - 18
P22 = F22 = 0.88 x · =59 kips (assuming a W 18 beam)
2 2
P,, =max {?, 2 .PoJI1 ro(l7} + P21 = 143 +59= 202 ldps
I P, = 202 KTPS ROOF HBE I

Tht: process fo r fi nding the uxiul compres.sion force on the sixth-floor HBE is si milar. The beam axial force
due to web-plate shear acting along the ~" i s of the beam, ? 12, is found using the difference bel\.veen the
web .. plate forces above and below. Similarly, the beam axial forces due to the inward pull of the columns.
Pn_, bas a portion due to the web plate above and the web plate below the sixtb-tloor level.
?, 2 = (F; 2 _s- F; 2-6 )Lr( = (1.05 - 0.88) X 163 = 28 kipS

n
F{·11 -0 =
I0 ·w = 248 .kips
/=.¥
II fl~
Eq 12.10-1
I,w;
/-.Y
F ~..o
1 0.2Soslcw~w = 0.2 X 1.0 X 1.0 X 1218 = 244 kips
0
Fra-6 = 248 kips

F 2.0x248 = 1? 4 k'
p =Q p.r;-6
- IpS
rull!Cl(l7 I) 4 frames 4
h-d6 h-db 12.67 x 12- 18 . .
P22 = F22 _ 6 +F21 _5 = (0.88+1.05)x = l29ktps(assummgWI8Bcam)
2 2 2
P,, =max {?, 2 , Prone~'"'} + P21 = 124 + 129 = 253 kips
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 121

Oos/gn 5xomplo 4 • Spochtl Pluto Silof)r W&lls
[PI/= 253 KIPS 6TH FLOOR HBE I

4.7 SELECT PRELIMINARY SECTION FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 341
W 18 sections are used for the preliminary HBE sections in this cxample. Choose a W 18 X 86 fo r the roof
HBE. Since the calculations ore identkal fo r rhe remaining HBEs. they are not repeaLed for lhe sixth fl oor
here. For thjs examplel iris desired to have only one point of lateral bracing between the colwnns. Check
the mnxlmum spacing for lateral bmcing for tbJs section. Section F5.4c references Section D 1.2a for the
lutcral brac ing requirements associated with moderate(v ductile members.
L" = 0.!9J>E I(R/~.v ) §D 1.2a

29 000
L = 0.19( 1.67 in) • ksi = 167 in = 13.9 ft
b-am 1.1(50 ksi)
The HBE is latcrnUy braced at 7 feet 6 inches . .. OK
ROOF 1-IBE LATERAL BRACING IS OK
Since it is necessary for the HBEs to develop plastic hinges for the fu ll mechanism to occu1', Section F5.5a
requires that tho HBBs moor the section compactness rcquiromcnts associated with higlt~y ductile members.
The fo ll owing calculations verify that the roof HBE satisfies those compactness criteria.
0
E b
')..I 0.32 - f = 7.35. /..I = 7.2 ... OK T D I.l
R.,FY 2t1
202
c 0
=
0
P,, = = 0.16 T Dl.l
Pv 1265
A.,, 0
0.88 E (2.68- C0 ) 2 1.57 I-R-EF_· = [50.9 2 36.1] = 50.9
R.• ~· )' .v
f.... = .!:_ = 33.4 < 50.9 ... OK T Dl.l

"' l
w
ROOF HBE Wl DTH-TI-JTCKNESS RATIOS ARE OK
Another consideration for the HBE suggested in the AlSC Design Guide for Steel Plate Shear Walls
(Sabelli and Bnmeau 2006) is to provide an HBE with web tbat is stronger than the SPSW web plate. The
suggested equation is:
For A36 web pl ate and A992 roof HBE. this reduces to:
t>~J.IU£ 2 0.94t,. for theW 18 X 86: 0.48 > [0.94(0.0625) = 0.06]

Do-sign examplo 4 • Sp()C/af Pluto Sh<NJr' Walls
ROOF HBE WEB THICKNESS LS OK
Verify tllut the stJ.ffuess of the HBE is sufficient to develop uuifonn yielding in tbc web plate per
Section F5.4a:
t11 L4
1 2 0.0031-"'' --
b h
1530 2l
0
0.0031 °• 0625 12 1
(JS., )'
(12.67 8 12)
:::= 1338
I ROOF HBE STIFFNESS IS OK I

4.8 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 360
For a W 18 x 86 roof HBE:
KL I.Ox (7.5ftx12in/ft)
= = 34 ..10t' we ak . b kl '
· -ax1s uc ' mg
':,. 2.63
KL I.O x(12.67ftxl2 inlft) O~ . b kl'
- ""' ~ 2 tor strong-ax1s uc 111g
I~ 7.77
F = rr!E
2
='1229,000 =244 ksi
2
Eq E3-4
" ° KL ) 34.22
l ,.
E
Limit on inelastic buckling, 4.71 - !:::: 11 3
F)'
~.658 " F=45.9ksi

P,
KL E' f'
Because <4.71 - F = Eq E3-2
,. F ' o' Y
y
¢?,, =0.90 X ~, Ai-l =0.90 X 45.9 X 25.3 =I045 kips Eq E3-l
<!>Po= I 045 KlPS
Eq F2-5 and Eq F2-6

(can also be found in AJSC 13th T 3-2)
Lh = 7 ft-6 in, so Lh is less than L"; therefore,
M n =Zs F)' =775 Eq F2-2
¢M r. = 0.9 X 775 = 698 kips
<!JM11 = 698 KJP-FT

Oosfgn Sxamp/o 4 • Spoc/nl Pluto Silo.Dr Wo/ls
Since P,JP•. > 0.2:
Eq Hl -lu
COMBINED AXJAL AND FLEXUl~E ~ 0.84
The cuJculationt> for combined flexure and uxiul force for the sixth-floor HBE urc t>l miJur to the roof HBE.
4.10 CHECK SHEAR FOR THE ROOF HBE AND SIXTH -FLOOR HBE AISC 360
The shear at the fnce of the column is the sum of the shear.:; associated v.-iLh plastic hinging in the beam,
gnwity load.s, and the efrect of the expected yield strength of the tension field. The shear associated with
plastic blnging in the beams is taken from Equation E2-l in AlSC 341. The following calculations show
that the foctorcd beam sbcar in the roof bcttm is lcs.s than the factored nomjnal shear cnpocity.
_ 2 x 1.1 R1,M e-rooi Lc:! L<'f

~~-~~- L +F; I-6 2+1.4(wDI+wD2 ) 2
if
V = 2(1.1)(1.1)(775 X 12) + 0. 88 (J63)+ 1.4 (0.13 + 0.21) ( 163) = 213 ki g
u-R 163 2 12 2 p
For theW 18 x 86:
h E
- ~ 33.4 < 2.24 - ~ 53.9 so: AlSC 360 §G2.1
f ~I F)'
qJ Vn = qJ,, 0.6F,_A,,.C. = 1.0 X 0.6 X 50 X 18.4 X 0.48 X 1.0 = 265 kip .. . OK Eq G2- 1
vu--R::::J 213 kips<¢ VII ::::J 265 kips

ROOF HBE SHEAR lS OK
The calculation for the sixth -floor HBE shear load and capaciry is simil ar and is given by the following:
_ 2 x 1.1 Ry Mp-roof _ • L if L <:l

~~-6 - L +(F,,_s F;l-6) +[1.4(wDI +wo2)+0.5(w,)]
cf
2 2
2 1 554 12 163 163112
V
6
= (1.1Xl. X x ) + (1.05- 0.88) + [1.4(0.33 + 0.25) + 0.5(0.33)) = 120 kips
u- 163 2 2
Use a W 18 x 65 for Lhe sixth-ftoor HBE:
V,,_6 = 120 kips< q>Va = 248 kips

6Lh-FLOOR HBE SHEAR IS OK

O<Mign c xamplo 4 • SpOCilli P/Me ShC'JJr W(II/S
4.11 SIZE THE REMAINING HBEs
Table 4· 8 gives the preliminary sizes for the HBEs with key design infonnution. The same calcnlations
presented earlier were earned out for encb HBB. Section compactness requirements, laternl brucing,
stiftbess, web thicknc.ss, and sheur were checked but are not given in Tabk 4-8.
Table 4-8. Summwy q(prelimlnw:v HBE designs
VBE Mnx of Combined

R~-ac1 ion P.-..Jtcorr or ? 1 ~ P. At/, 9P. (l.M. Axial and Shear Demand
1
L c\ltll (klp.i) (kip!!) (kip~) (k-ft) SI-ze (kip~) (k-f't) Flll'Xuro to C:tp11clty
Roof 59 143 202 51 I \V I 8 >< 86 1045 698 0.84 O.HO
6th 129 124 253 140 \VJ8 >< 65 699 476 0.62 0.48
Sth 180 122 302 n3 \V I 8><86 1045 698 0.76 0.73
41h 2..16 122 :!58 182 \V l 8X 71 766 524 0.77 0.49

3rd 267 122 389 168 W l 8x7 1 766 524 0.79 0.48
2nd 317 122 439 334 \V I8 X 86 1045 698 O.l!5 0. 71
I. Usit1g Eq H 1-I a of AJSC 360-10.
4.12 VBE DESIGN
Simi.lar to HBEs. the VBEs should be designed to rcsisr rhe forces associated with the expected yield
sh·cngth of the plate (PYR..)") acting at an angle a. (equ.al to 45 degrees for this example). A key difference is
that the VBE is subjected to six floors of web plates at their expected yit:ld slrength. This is not dissim ilar to
the eccentrically braced frame or buckling-restrained broced frames that require Lhe columns to be designed
for the loads associated with each floor's euergy-dissipating element at its capacity. Uuli.ke those systems,
however, columns in SPSW aJ\':! required to resist considerable moment due to the web-plate tension field
pulling inward, in addition to the overturni ng forces. In this sense, the columns arc doing more work in
SPSW than in other systems, and larger slruclural sections are often required.
For VBE design , the moment and compressiou forces are separated and examiued individual ly. and then
iotcrnction is considered in accordance with Cbapter H of AISC 360. The design cbecks for tbc VBE
include the following:
I. Combined axiaJ and flexure considering (AISC 341 Section F5.3).
• Moment due to expected yield strength of the web plate acting at tbe angle ct in addition to
plastic hinging ofHBEs.
• Compression/tension due to overturning loads.
2. Compactness criteria (AISC 341 Section F5.5a).
3. Minimum moment of inertia requirement (AISC 341 Section F5.4a).
4. Strong column-weak beam check (AISC 341 Section F5.4b, which references Section E3.4a).

Ooslgn FExomp/o 4 • Spothtl Pllllo ShCflr W&lls
The VBE it> subjected to nxiul force, moment, and shcur. The commentary for ATSC 34 1 sugges t ~> three
methods for determini ng the force.'! acting on vet·ticul boundary elements:
I. Nonlim:ur pushover unulysis-Dcvdop a nonl inear 2D model and conduct pushover analysis to
lind maximum axial forces. moment!!, and shear force~.
2. Indirect capacity design approach.
3. Combined plastic and lineur analysis-A capacity~dc8 lgn approach in which the maximum
forces tbat can be delivered by the HBE and web pl ates are app lied to a model of the column.
The combined plastic and linear analysis method wil l be used in this example with some simpliticarions .
Forces and moments nrc calculated bused on a complete mechanism with all web plates yi elding and plastic
hinges at tach be-am-column connection.
The column compression calculated by tht: cupucity-dcsign approach consists of downward components of
the web-plate tension fie ld, F 21 ; bcum shear due to the web-plate tension field, V11; ond benm shear due to
plastic hinging, VP (shown in Figure 4-12). The forces applied aLLhe roof and sixth tloor are given by
M ~ l. lR F Z :::1 1. 1(l.l)(SO)I 86 :::1 938 ki -ft

f·\J " 1 y y .X 12 irllft p
2Mp-r 2x938xl2in/ft I '~Sk'lpS

V ~ ::t :::J . ,J
p·•· Lif 163
The; beam shear due to the web-plate tension fi dd at the sixth floor is due to the difference in web-plate
thicknc:ss above and below the J-IBE and is given by
V. = (F, H - F,,_6) XL<f = (1.05-0.88)xl63 = 14 ki

11-6 2 2 ps
The rest of the applied loads and moments used for VBE design are given in Tabl e 4-9.
Table 4-9. Loads on VBE due to web plate and HBE
Tension Field, HBE Plastic Beam Shear Due to Beam Shear Due to
F21 and F22 Hinge, M1.13 Hinge, Vp Plate, V11
Level (k-in) (k-fl) (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. l l 938 138 43
1st 2.63 - - -

Do-sign exomplo 4 • Sp&clttl PIMO Sh<:·8r Walls
V 11-r v1 l · r M pe-r
F F
21-6
vp-r ~
21-6
F n~6
~ Vp-r
~ v11-6 v1 1· 6 ', M pc -6
F
21-5
~ vp-6 , F
21 · 5
F 22·5
~ V p·o
~
~ v11 -5 , M pe-5
F21 · 4 v11-5 F
~ vp-5 ~
21 -4
~
vp -5 , M pe-4
F 22·4
~ v11-4 v11-4
F F
~
21 -3 21-3
vp-4 vp·4 F22-3
~ M pe ·3
~ v1 1-3 v11-3
F F
21 · 2 21-2
vp-3 vp-3 F22 -2
~ M pe-2
~ v11-2 v11 -2
F F
~
21 -1
~
21-1
vp-2 vp-2 F 22-1
~
~ '
'
(a) Axia l Loads (b) Axial Loads (c) Loads
on Column on Column Contributing to
Experiencing Experiencing Shear and
Tension Compression Moment
Figure 4-72. VB E jj"ee-body diagrams for the capacity-design approach

OtMign exomplo 4 • Sp<JC!tll PIMO Sho.v r WliiiS
Table 4-10. Ma..-imum moments at three locations for each floor
Moment m Top Max Moment Location of Max Moment at Bottom

of Colunm, M,rr In-Span, M.M In· Span Moment of Column., M118
Level (k-ft) (k-ft) (fh1ction of L) (k-ft)
6th 938 - 281 0.00 - 28 1
5th
- 390 -266 0.20 - 228
4th 710 -1 64 0.25 -60
3rd 676 - 206 0.31 - 37
2nd 699 - 268 0.3 1 - 73
1st 864 -275 0.33 0
The axjaJ compression forces can be computed as the sum oftbc applied axial forces shown in
Figure 4-12b. Table 4-12 tabulates the compression forces at tbc top of Lbe column, the bottom of the
column. and aLLhe location of maximum momenL identified in Table 4-1 1.
Table 4-11 . Axialforces applied to the VBE
Column Compression
Compression lncr()mcuta I Compression at Location Compression
from Plate, Beam Shear, Column at Top of of Max at Bottom
p 21 v,,+ v,, Compression Column Moment of Column
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (I< ips) (kips) (kips)
6th 11 7 2 10 327 210 326 327
5th 140 11 3 253 440 552 580

4th 2 19 186 406 766 930 985
3rd 252 129 38 1 1114 1288 1366
2nd 282 126 408 1492 1687 1774
I st 352 181 532 1955 2 190 2306
4.14 SELECT VBE SECTIONS AISC 341
Witb the moments given in Tabl e 4- 10 and the compression forces given in Table 4-11 , wide- fl ange sections
arc chosen that satisfy the compactness criteri a, satisfy the minimum moment of inertia, and can resis1 the
combined forces. The column is to be spliced above Lhe fourth floor. Choose a Wl4 x 283 for lhe firsl Lhree
stories aud a Wl4 x 159 for the upper three stories. The compactness reqttircments fortbe Wl4 x 283 arc

Ooslgn FExomp/o 4 • Spoclnl Plato Sho.Dr W811S
verified here to satisfy the criteri u for highly ductile members us llpccified in Section F5.5u (the procedure
for the W 14 x !59 is identi cal):
E
A. 1. o 0.32 = 7.35, A. . = 3.89 ... OK T Dl.l
RF 1
y y
c = P,,
0
= 2306 - · 0.62 T Dl.l
0
p}I 3749
0
E .
A.., 0.88 REF (2.68- C) 2 1.57 R F = [34.6 > 36.1] = 36.1. A.,. = 8.84 ... OK T Dl.l
.I y .1' )I
VBE WlDTH·THICKNESS
RATIOS ARB OK
Section F5.4a plncc::s a minimum on the moment of inertia of the: VBE. Thi s limit is intended to require a
s t~ fr enough VBE such that the tension fidd can devt:fop uniform ly across the punel.
4
0.0031t 11 0.0031(3/ 16)(12.67xl2)4
I
mh
= L
I =
--...:....-~---~
(15 x 12)
4
!"'11 = 1726 in < 1~ = 3840 i.n
4
••• OK §5.4a
VBE MOMENT OF INERTIA JS OK
4.16 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FORCES ON VBE AISC 360
The column mus t be: able to elastically resist the combined moments and axia l forces computed in Section
4.15. The design axial strength, ~p'" and design moment strength, ~M1~> are computed, and then the
interaction equation is checked. This process is conducted for the top of the first-floor colurtw (W 14 x 283),
and then a sununary of all the interaction equation values is presented in Table 4- 13.
KL l.O x (l2.67ftxl 2in/ ft) " . .

- = = 365
. ,or mmor a..x1s
I~ 4. 17
F = 1t2 E - 1t229.000 ~ 215 ksi Eq E3-4

" o KL )2 36.52
lr
Limit on inelastic buck! inrr,
~
4.71 !!_
F = I 13
)I
F"
KL E [ T .
Because < 4.71 - , F = :0.658 ' F = 45.4 kSl Eq E3-2
r F c.r Y
y
<!JP,., = 0.90 x Frr Ae = 0.90 x 45.4 x 83.3 = 3404 kips Eq E3-l
I ~p" = 3404 kips I

Do-sign GwmpiO 4 • Sp()c/01 PIMo ShGVJt W(l!ls
L p = l , 76r)I _£_
F = 14.7 ft Eq F2-5
v
(can also be found in AISC 13th T 3-2)
L1, ~ 12 ft-8 in, l!O L 11 is less thnn L1,; therefore,
AM = 0.9P z ~ 0 '9 X 50 X 542 c: 2033 ki -ft Eq F2-l

'f' II )' .'t 12 in/It p
I ¢M,- 2033 kip-ft I

The worst case combined uxiuJ and flexure might occur at one of tl1ree locations: the base of the column,
the maximum moment in the in-sp<.tn, or ut the top of the column. All locutions were checked und arc
mbuJatcd in Table 4-12. The worst case was fo und to be the top of the first-floor column:
Since P ) P. > 0.2:
P 8°M M .
...1:.+-l
PC 9 M
t:'(
(! (
+MlY I) ::; 1.0 Eq HI - l a
P.,
$~,
+
8 M"
9 <PMn
= 1955
3404
+~ ( 864
9 203 3
)= 0 .95 ... OK
COMBfNED AXJAL AND FLEXURE= 0.95
Table 4-12. Interaction equation values
Des ign Design Interaction Lntcrnclion at 1nteraction

Compression Moment at Top of Location of at Bonom of
Capacity, Q>P11 Strength, q>M11 Colwm1 Max Moment Colwnn
Level (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6tb 1~9 1 1076 0.89 0.40 0.40

5th 189 1 1076 0.55 0.51 0.49
4th 189 1 1076 0.99 0.63 0.57
3rd 3404 2033 0.62 0.47 0.42
2nd 3404 2033 0.74 0.6 1 0.55

1st 3404 2033 0.95 0.76 0.68
201818C SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 131

Ooslgn FExamp/o 4 • Spotlit/ Philo S/IQllr W&lls
4.17 STRONG COLUMN -WEAK BEAM CHECK
Section F5.4b states that the strong column-weak beam provisions in Section E3.4a associated with
special moment frames sha ll be met neglecting tbe web plate. Tbc capacity-design approach for tbc VBE
will develop more moment capacity in tbc VBE than required to satisfy the strong column-weak benm
provisions. However. a typical check for the connection of t.hc fin>t-f!Obr HBE to the VBE is provided here
for completeness. TI1e st1'0ng column-weak beam check cart be more critical whe1-e column forces are
dctcm1incd using methods other than the capacity-dcslg11 approach.
The sum of the projections of column flexurul l>irength to the beum centerline is given by
"iM. = LZ
!b' c
F11
· '
-~
A
= 2 542 ( 5o -
1955
83 •3
) = 28.760ki -in
. p
ll
The shear on the first-fl oor HBE is given In Table 4-1 1 as 181 kips. The eccentricity between the shear
force nnd the co lumn centerline is half the depth of the column becnusc the moment connection sclected is
the WUF-W connection, wh ich uses a plastic hin g~ at the face of the column.
w;, ~ L(l. 1Ryr;~>zl> + M ~

0 111
,) 1.1(1.1)(50)(1 86) + ( 181 l ~· )
7
- 12,764 kip-in
"iM .
_ ,'--,. = 28,760 = 2.3 > 1.0
LM~ 12,764
The column and beam sutisfy the strong coltLmn-weak bcnm moment ratio.
5. Analysis and Design (Iterative)
5.1 CHECK DEFLECTION ASCE 7
Cn.lculating deflection requi.res the use of a 2D compurer model. There an~ mult iple ways to model the web
plate, ofwhicb two oftbc most useful are shown in Figure 4- 14. The Canadian Steel Code (CAN/CSA
S 16-01) recommends tbe tension strip model. In tbjs model, the web plate is divided into at least ten tension
strips per panel, oricnl~d at the angle cY- The tension strip section is merely the tributary width of the plate
times the effective thickness of the plate and i.s pinned ar each end. CAN/CSA S 16-0 I uses this model
to detennine the design capacity oftbe wall as the shear that causes a strip to reach its fac tored tension
capacity. The clastic 2D model Is not appropriate, however, for boundary clement design. In order to usc the
2D model to design the boundary clements, it would be necessary to account for nonJincaritics 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 clements. The local axes of these clements arc rotated to the angle of inclination, a. The
modulus of elasticity along local axis I and the shear modulus arc 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 tben set to the etTecrive web-plate tllickness. Advantages to this type of modeling
include:
I. The angle of inclination, a~ can be adjusted wiLhout reconfiguring the model geometry.
2. Tbc membrane can be meshed automatical ly, whereas tbc tension strips have to be added
individually.

O<Mign t=.xompto 4 • Sp(Jc/al PIMo Sh6o..JJr Walls
f-
+
I MESH OF
MEMBRANE
/ ELEMENTS
-
I~
- -
ROTATE
I LOCAL
AXES
_.- TENSION
-~ ONLY
STRIP
I
(CAN/CS A
,_ RECOMME NDS
I / 10 MIN)
I / 2
I
·1 1
' "' ........
SET TO -
ZERO
ST IFF NESS
ORTHOTROP IC TENSION
MEMBRANE 5 TR IP
MODE L MODEL
Figure 4-14. Modeling options to check deflection
For this example, the tension strip model will be W)ed. 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 inc!ination. Also. the 20 tension strip model fac iliTates non!in ear pushover analysis. i.f desired.
Each panel was spLit into ten tension strips with the following properties:
Width= spacing between strips= 20.75 inches

Angle= 45°
~
2018/BC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 133

Oosfgn FExmnp/o 4 • Spoc/nl Pllllo Sil ollr WtJIIS
The drcctivc plate thickne.ss i1> given by:

\
1-~ D
4 sdll~
l df = / . , r, AlSC 341 Eq F5 -4
I_~ D l _ N,.D Sill a.
4 \. sdhu ' I
For the first floor, the val ue of the cllective plarc thickness can be found us:
I-~(~) 0 8 5 0 -9 ,
I Yf =
I I - ~ ( .1i)( I - 5(16) SLil 45 ° ) .1 7 = . J3 m
4 28 134
The effective plate thickucss was calculated for the ti_rst through sixth floor s as 0.139 wch. 0.1 12 illd1,
0.100 inch, 0.087 inch, 0.056 inch, and 0.046 inch. The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table
4-13. The clnstic story driftti are tht: difference in the clastic deflections ut the floor above and below. Tht:
predicted inel~tic story drift is given by the following for the fifth floor:
o =C/',f! =6.0 X 0.43 = 2.58 in ASCE7Eq 12.8- 15

X Ie I ,0
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12. 12-1 based on building system and the occupancy cntcgory:
~ II = 0.02011 = 0.020 x 152 = 3.04 in

.~
T 12.12-1
o.r < .1., --) DRIFT IS OK
Table 4~ 1 3. Calcu/ared deflection for preliminmy design
Elastic Story Predicted Inelastic Story Drift

Elastic Deflection Drift, o.x.- Story Drift, 8_,. Limitation, ~a
Level (in) (in) (in) (in)
Roof 2.26 0.34 2. 04 3.04
6th 1.92 0.43 2.58 3.04
5tb 1.49 0.43 2.58 3_04
4th 1.06 0.42 2.52 3.04
3rd 0.64 0.36 2.16 3.04

2ud 0.28 0.28 1.68 3.04

CJ<Mign t X&tnplo 4 • Sp&CIM Pllllo ShO·fJf' WliiiS
5.2 ITERATE TO SATISFY DEFLECTION
The dt1fts 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 dther iucrcasc tbc size ofHBEs and VBEs to increase the
stiffness of the moment frame or increase the web-plutc thickness. If the capacity-design approach is used,
tbe column moments arc the only parameter not easi ly calculated by dosed-form ~quations (although they
can be estirnnted). Iris possible. rheretore. to create a spreadsheet or Mathcnd sheet to carry out most, if not
niL of the required calculations. Using one of these computer tools can signi.licnntl y simpiJfy the iteration
process.
5. 3 FINAL PLATE THICKNESSES AND BOUNDARY MEMBERS
Since nJI design checks were sntjsficd, the tlonl design for tbc wob plate, J-IBEs, and VBEs arc shown in
Figure 4-1 5.
0 W1Bx86 t
0 000 0 1/16" A36
0 0
0000000~ / Plate and
s di1g-28.
0 0 0 0
0 W18x65 t.-- 14gaA36
Plate and
0\
1./) 0 0 0 0 ~ Sdug=28a
~~~~~~~
...... 1./)
.....
~
...... ~
X
.....
s s
0 W18x86 t
Sdug Typica I 12 ga A36
~ 0 0 ~ Plate and
_& 0 A
sd,,g-34.
-,......
1.0
VBE Spllce r-
~ uo
0
.,II
co 0 W18x71 t
-
N
I
45° An gfe
tw..< D~, o o 10 ga A36
Typical, Center 0 0 Plate and
Pattern on Wall ~ 0 0 0- Sdog=;28"
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
t_ W18X71 _..;:r 10 ga A36
Plate and
('f)
co 0 0 OA ('f)
co Sd3fP34"
r;;! 0 0 r;;!
'<':t '<':t
...... 0 0 0 ,.-
s 0 0 s
0 W18x86 t
16n Dlamete r---. 0 0 0 0 3/16" A36
Plate and
Holes Typlca I "l'o~0 0 0 0 0- sd ..g=28"
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
L L
1 15'-0" 1
Figure 4-15. Final plate and boundwy -member design
201818C SEAOC StructuraVSeismic Design Manuel, Vol. 4 135

Ooslgn fExlJmp/o 4 • Spoclnl Pluto S/l(N)r Walls
6. Detailing and Design of Connections
6.1 PANEL ZONE AISC 341
AJSC 34 1 Section F5.6b.2 references Section E3.6c for u check of the panel-zone shear for the punel zones
next to Lhe top und b:ll1e HBE of the SPSW. The mofHBE and an HBE at the foundation are expected to
experience lnrger shear forces because there is web plate on only one side of the HBE. Fot· this desi gn
cxnmplc, check the colunm panel zone at the roof HBE (Wl8 x 86) connection to tho VBE (W 14 x I 59),
i.ncluding a 112-inch-th.ick doubler plate in the column panel zone.
V,, == F1 - ~ + v; 1 + V0 = 580- l 26 + 72 + 3 == 529 kips
where
F = M pr = R>,Z,/ , = 1.1(186)50 = 580 kips due to flange forces

dh - r ~>
r /z0 1 18.4 - 0.77
t-:. = 2Mrr; == 2x 10.230 == 126 kips due to plastic h.inges

L<f 163
F. L
v; l :::: II~ ([ =72kips due to web plate
due to gravity loads
p 210
Since$~. = = 0.09 < 0.75, tben AlSC 360 §Jl0.6
2335
2
3b .1
tt-.R = 0.9x 0.60F d t 1+ (j'if AlSC 360 Bq Jl0- 11
'l'tt ycu· ddt
b ( h'
2
I+ 3(15.6XI.19)
<j>R" = 0.9 X 0.6 X 50 X 15.0 X (0.745 + 0.5) = 601 kips
18.4(15.0)(0.745 + 0.5)
and the minimum panel zone thickness is determined from AJSC 341 Section E3.6e as
. > (d=+ w) = (18.4-2x0.77)+(15.0-2x1.19) = . in

1 0 33 Eq 3-7
~~~ 90 90
T he doubler plate and the column web are both thicker than the m inimum thickness.
Vu = 529 kips <j>R11 = 60 I kips
110111 ::::: 0.33 in t""':::::: 0. 745 in
Use 1/...._inch doubler plates following the requiremenls of Section E3.6e.3 at the panel zone of the VBE at
the connection ofthe roofHBE.

O<Mign Cx8mplo 4 • Sp&ciM P/Me ShO·ar W(IJ/S
6.2 HBE-TO-VBE CONNECTION
S e~tio nF5.6b l'e<]ul res thut the HBE~to .. YBE connections satisfy the requ irements of Sect·ion El.6b beam-
to-column connections for ordinary moment frnmcs. Welds shall be in accordance wltb AJSC 358-10,
including critcr.iu for rcmovul of bucki ng burs, buckgouging, und rcinforcc.mcnt with tiJict weldt>. Weld
itcc~ss holes shuII be in accordance with AWS D 1.8 Section 6. I0.1 .2. Additional requirements for the
connection are given in Section E l .6b.
For thi s cx nmplc, the HBE web nnd flunges wi ll get complete joint-penetration wolds to the VBE fl ange,
so u check of the HBE sheur will suffice.. The shear in the HBE is checked in Section 4.10 of this design
example.
6.3 PLATE-TO-BOUNDARY ELEMENTS AISC 360
ln general , tolerances make it impractical to weld the plate directly to HBE.s and VBEs. Either a plo.te
or angle is required to provide a fl at surface against which tbe plate can be placed and welded. For this
example, n plate wiiJ be used. The connecting plutc is sometimes referred to us a "fish plate.'' AJSC 341
Section F5.6c specifics thnt the connection of the plate to the HBE and VBE shall res ist the forces
associaLed with the expected yield strength of the pl ute in tension, oriented at the angle a. In this case, it
is most convenient to express this force in terms of the effect of the tension field. F 1 and F2, acting on the
connection at the angle a.. Figure 4-16 and the following equations demonstrate the decompositi on of the
tension field force Lnto these components.
a. A I COil It
D. 1cos a
v
A 111no.
3/8 ftX4"
TENS ION
STR IP AT
3/16
ANG LE, u
lj EXPECTED YIELD
c:: STRE NGTH IN WEB fL
·-..._
"' TE NS ION,
<l F=:R yFy t,"
s
TOTAL TENSION
3/16 2-6
FORCE= R1 Fy t ,t.
1/4
Figure 4-16. Web-plate-to-boundary-element connection
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 137

Ooslgn t:xomp/~ 4 • Spochtl Pllllo ShoDr Wvlls
0.7D
Ry F) ; "' 1- !:c.
F. = force --
sdh 11
1-
0.7D
cos a
1
length ~
= RyF_/ "
st.lbl!
c.-os C/.
0.7D
R.v~J,. 1- !:c.
F., _ force - sd~~~ 0.7D .
2 - length
- = R Ft
)' )' II
1- sm CJ.
!:c. sd.111l
•
Sin (J.
Because the angle is 45 degrees. the two components of force , F 1 and F 2, are the same . For the lirst-floor
plate, this becomes
Try a % -inch continuous weld on one side and a 'llr.-inch w~ l d inlem1ittent at 2 inches every 6 inches on the
other side. The equation for weld capaci ty comes from Section J2 of the LRFD specification and includes a
ful-1or for the angle of loading relative to the longitudinal axis of the weld, e. which effectively increases the
weld capacity.
$R11 = 0.75 X 0.6f/z.~ (I.O + 0.50 sin u 8) A<::tf EqJ2-5 and Eq J2-4
6 2
thR =0.75 x 0.6x70 x h(2_x +2_ x )(1+0.5(sin45)1. 5 )=7.22k:ip-in ---70K
't' II 2 16 6 16 6
V,, = 3. 72 kip-in I d;>Rn = 7.22 kip-in I

At the corners of the panels, it must be decided how to treat the intcrsccrion of the rwo fish plates.
Schumacher, ct al. (1999) studied tbe effect of different ways ofjoinjng the fish plates. Figure 4-17 shows
the four types of comer connections tested. All four comer detai ls exhibite.d similar response and were
found to be acceptable fo1· use iu tbe SPSW system.

D!J'Sign Examplo 4 • Spodul Pluto Shoor Walls
Detail A Detail B
6
5 ---
6
5 6
Modified Det11ll B Detail C
60-b~O ITIIT1 6
Oomor Oui..Q\1 6
I
I
I so
l
50 II 1oolmm
6
'6
Figure 4-17. Comer details tesled by Sclntmacher el a/. (1999)- A/1 were found to be acceptable
6.4 COLUMN SPLICE AJSC 341
AJSC 341 Section F5.6d references Section 0 2.5 for splices in tl1c YBE. As stated previously, columns
in the SPSW system do more work than otbcr 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
occur.s at the floor levels, and although it is far from zero at a typ ical splice height, it should not be
subjected to inelastic demands. For this example, the column splice is accomplished with complete joint-
peneu·ation welds at tbc flanges and web, so the coJlDection will have at least the sU'Co.g1h of the smaller
scct.ion.
6.5 BASE OF WALL TO FOUNDATION AISC 360
There arc di.ffcrcnt approaches that cno be used to anchor the tiJst-floor web plate t.o the foundntion. It is
sometimes preferable to use a wide-flange beam. See the AISC Design Guide 20 for an example (Sabclli
and Bruneau 2006). For this example, a WT steel secLion is utilized to transfer the significant uplift and
shear to the foundation. The anchor bolts will be des igned to resist the combined shear and tension. TI1e
AJSC D esign Guide I (DeWolf and Ricker I 990) suggests !.hat if anchor bolts arc used to resist shear,
that they either be designed for friction or include a weld washer. The: weld washer allows for the usc of
over$Lzed holes in the WT and tolerances in anchor bolt placemenl, while sti ll encouraging unifom1 bearing
ou each bolr.
2018/BC SEAOC SIJ1Jcturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 139

Ooslgn fExamp/o 4 • Spochtl Pllllo Sllollr Walls
fo r an anchor bolt ::;pacing of 12 inches , determine the loads to ~.:ach bolt:
~ 1 = ~a = ~ 1.3x36x0.!875(1- 0.~(~ ) )= 2.63 kip-in 6
. . . . F. x 12 in spacing
Bolt tenSIOn wtthout prytng act1on. R : : : II
"' 2 bo Its
'"' = 15.8 k1ps
.
F12 x 12 in spf1cing
Bolt shear, V = = 15.8 kips
" 2 bolls
P1yi ng action will amplify the bolt tension. Chapter 9 of the ATSC Ma nual, 13th Edition, gives the method
to determine the added bolt tension due to prying action. A WT ::;ection with a 10-inch-wide fl ange is
agsumed (such ag the WT sccl:ions between WT7 x 30. 5 and WT7 x 41 ).
Bolt goge, g = 6 in
Wf flange width , h1 o I 0.0 in, so a u 2.0 in and b ::::l 2.8 in, F., ~ 65 ksi AISC Manual Part 9
Using I Yt.~ inch bolts, a1 = 2.6 in and b1 = 2.2 in. p = 5.6 i.n
The m.inJmum wr fl an ge thickness to neglect prying action is
0
4Tb _ 4xl5.8x2.2 =O.GSin
trttrn' = ·
QpFu 0.9 X 5.6 X 65
Choose a WT7 x 34 that bus a flange thickness of 0.72 inch. Prying action can therefore be neglected.
Try two 1Y.. -inch F\554 Gr. 55 bolts at 12-inch spacing. Ab ~ 0.99 in 2 , F, ~ 75 ksi. The nominal tt:nsik und
shear strc.ss are obtained from AISC 360 Table 13.2 for threaded pans with threads not excluded from the
shear planes.
<IJJ;, =0.75 X 0.75FuAb =0.75 X 0.75 X 75 X 0.99 !:! 41. 8 kips T 13.2
<1>¥;, =0.75 x 0.45FuAb =0.75 x 0.45x75 x 0.99=25.1 kips T 13.2
., 2
o T,, - + lo v;, ::; 1.0 Eq C-J3-5a
l T,, v;,
(15.8)1+C5.8)2= 0. 54
41.8 25. 1
COMBIN ED TENSION AND SHEAR = 0.54
Figure 4-1 8 shows the detail at the base of the wall.

Do-sign /Exomplo 4 • Sp&clnl PIMo Sh6'J.Jr Walls
WEB Fl 3/16
WT 7X3 4
3/16 2-6
1/8 II ft.3 II X3 II
T w0 1- 1/8 II F 155 4
11
G R 55@ 12
1/4
<1
~ <!
FOUNDATION
<1
<1'
Figure 4- I8. Web-plate connecrion to founda tion
Additional design checks for the WT that should be examined include ensuring the stem is stronger tban the
SPSW web plate, bolt be-aring, bending of the WT bt:Lween bolt-s, and local bending of the fltmgc.
6.6 COLUMN CONTINUITY PLATES
Section E3.6f gives requirements for continuity plates. Check whether continuity plates arc required at the
connection of the first-floor HBE:
b
tcf ~ : = 1.85 in
Since the fiuoge thickness of the first-floor VBE is trr=2.1 i_nchcs, this check docs not indicate that
continuity plates are required at the fi~t floor. If continuity plates are required, they should confom1 to the
requirements of Section E3.6f. Because of the high compressive forces in the HBE-to-VBE connection,
continuity plates shou ld be provided. Jf these conti nuity plates do not match the beam flange, rhe colwnn
flnn,ge should also be evaluated for tbe limit states of fl ange local bending, web local yieldil1g, and web
crippling.
6.7 COLUMN BASE CONNECTION AISC 360
The VBE, in addition to resisting considerable compression, \vii i experience large uplift forces associated
with seismic forces. Uplift fo rces 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 ATSC Design Guide
20 that tension forces are best calculated using this type of capacity-design approach because it can yield

Ooslgn lExamp/o 4 • $pl)tiltl P/11/0 ShMr W&IIS
le:>s upli ft than other methods (Sabdli and Bnmcuu 2006). Vertical forces on the tension column include the
beam shear from plus tic hinging, ~1 ; beam shear n·om web-plate yie lding, V11; and the vertical component
ofthe expected web-plate strength acting on the column, V21. The capaciry design approach produces the
upll.fts given in Table 4- 14.
Table 4-14. Column uplift computed by the capacity deslg11 approach
Plutc Uplift on Beam Shear due Beam Shcur due Incrementa I Cumulative
Column, V21 to Plate, V11 to Hinge. VP Uplift Upli ft, T
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 0 72 - 138 - 66 - 66
6th -1 17 14 - 99 -202 -268

Stb -140 48 -1 38 - 230 -498
4tb -219 20 -108 -307 -805
3rd -252 18 -108 -342 -1147
2nd - 282 43 - 138 - 377 - 1524
I st - 352 0 0 - 352 - 1876
The uplift at the base ofLhe column is found to be 1876 kips. A similar melhod can be used to estimate the
maximum shear at the base of the column as:
v =F (h -d") + M e·-2 = 2 .63 (152 in -1 8.4 in)+ 938 k-ft = 250 l<i
u 2'2-l 2 h 2 12.67 ft ps
Try twelve 1~-i nch-diameter F 1554 Gr. I 05 bolts. The nominal tensile and shear stresses arc obtained from
AISC 360 Table 13.2 for threaded parts with threads not excluded from the shear planes.
<j>'l;, = 0.75 X 0. 75~Ab Nb = 0. 75 X 0. 75 X 125 X 2.41 X 12 = 2033 kips T J3.2

<j> V:, = 0.75 X 0.45FuAhNb =0.75 X 0.45 X 125 X 2.41 X 12 =1220 kips T J3.2
o T 2 o V 2
l<P;n +l<j>~n
Eq C-13-5a
<J.O
2 2
( 1876)
2033
+( 1220
250 ) =0.89
COMBfNED TENSION AND SHEAR = 0.89
The column base plate is designed not to resist moment as reflected by the zero moment at the base of the
column in Figu.re 4-13. Design checks for the base plate are required, but they are not shown he.re.

OMign ex&mplo 4 • Sp<Jcllli PIMo Sho.J:Jr W(II/S
The tollowiug itctns ar-c not addt'CSscd in this example but arc nevertheless necessary for a complete design
of tl1c seismic-load-resisting system:
• Comparison of wind und seismic forces.
• ASCE 7 stability check (ASCE 7 Eq 12.8·16).
• Des ign of the column bo~w plutc connection.
• Des ign of the foundarions .
• Des ign of the dinphrugm system.

Design Example 5
Eccentrically Braced Frame
OVERVIEW
This example presents design procedures for a six-story eccentrica!Jy braced fn1me (EBF) office building.
Given its substantial capacity for inelastic energy dissipation, an EBF seismic-force-resisting system is
oftou used in build ings designed to resist severe earthquakes. This system can be considered a hybrid,
combi ojng tbc stiffness of a conccntricaiJy braced frame witll the ductiLity and energy dissipation capacity
of a moment-resisting frnme.
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 dctailc.d to sustain large inelastic
dcfom1ations without loss of strength. In a well-designed E BF, under severe seismic shaking, inelastic
activity is restricted primarily to the link. It acts as both a ductile fuse and an energy dissiptltor, limiting
the forces transmitted to tbe braces and other frame members and permitting development of stable and
predictable hysteretic behavior.
Des ign requiremtnts for EBF systems are contained in a series of standards. ASCE/SEI 7, Minirnum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, sets the basic loading criteria together with associated lateral
drift limirs. ANSJ/ AJSC 341. Seismic Prov/s7·ons jor Structural Steel Buildings. provides detai led design
requirements relating to matctials, framing members, connections, and construction quality assurance
and contro l. AISC 341 is applied in conjunction with ANS l/AISC 360, Specification fo r Srntc/ural Steel
Buildings, and AISC 303, Code ofStandard Practice .for SLeel Buildings and Bridges. AISC 360 is the
main specification that provides the design and deta iling requirements for aU steel bui ldings. In addition
to these standards, American Welding Society (AWS) standards D 1.1, Structural Welding Code, and D 1.8,
Structural Welding Code Seismic, pres ent requirements fo r welding and fabrication tbat pertain to EBF
systems. Another useful document is the AlSC Seismic Design Manual, which presents EBF design aids
and examples. The International Building Code (TBC) refers to ASCE 7 by reference for the determination
of seismic loading and building drift detem1ination.

Ooslgn FExamp/o 5 • Eccen/rlcttlly Broc<J<i Frt~ma
Si ngle-buy EBF conftg urutions can poNition the link ut the cncU; of the beam, as shown in Figures 5-1 (a)
and (b), or ut the center, as shown in Figures 5-1 (c) and (d). For Iinks positioned at the ends of the beam,
AJSC 34 1 Section F3.2 requires the link-to-column connection be designed in accordance with Section
E3 .6c. Th1s example positions the links in tbc contor using un inverted· V configumtion [Figure s. J(c) I in
one of the primary orthogonal building directions and for comparison, u two-story X configuration [Figure
5-l (d)] in the other. The title tigure on the previous page s hows an isometric clcvution of the sch:ctcd EBF
contigurali ons.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5-1. EBF configurations: (a) end-link V: (b) end-link rwo-s!OJy X:

(L) center-link inve11ed- V.· (d) center-link nvo-srory X

O<N>Ign Examp/() 5 • 5CO()n/rlcally Brae()<! Fr11n10
To ucco mmoda t~ the expected inelastic dri ft, beam-to-column attuc hm ~n ts ure nllly restrained moment
connections. At locutions with nn attaching diagonal brace, the conncclion alilo include~ welded
gusset plates. Alt hough not explicitly illustrated in this example. a si mil ar benrrHo-column connection
con.tigumt.ion for u special concentric bruced frame (SCBF) is included in Design Example 2.
]n order to reduce the moment in tbe beam outside the link, the diagonal bmces are connectcd to the link
with a full y rest:rclined bolted !'lange plate (BFP) n.wment cottl:lC;Ction. The flange plntes facilirare instal lation
of the braces in the field. At the opposite end, away from the link, the brace attachment is idealized ns a pin
with bolted connecting clements aH·aching bn;u;cs to gussets.
To economize tl1cir size and fac ilitate erection, t11e columns are spliced m ilie lbird and tifili levels. At
the base. rbc column attachment to the folllidation is alHo idealized as a pin. The column conoocrs to
the foundation with a bolted base plate. AJthough not il lus1rated iu this example, a similar base-plate
connection config urution for u buckling resh·aincd brace frame is included in Design Ex~o~mplc 9.
The beams. braces) and columns used in this example are all ASTM A992 roUed wide-flange sections.
Plates and built-up !-shaped sections arc all ASTM A572 Gmde 50 motorial. Tbe beam segments outside
the links arc composite with the concrete slab. Within the link, the slab is not composite.
OUTLINE
I. Bu ildi ng Geometry and Loads
2. Calculation of the Design Bru;e Shear and Loud Combinations
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution ofLoad
4. Prdiminary Member Sizing and Analysis
5. Analysis Veriticatiou and Member Final Design
6. Des ign and Detailing of Connections
7. l!ems Not Addressed in This Example
The subject bui liling is a six-story office located in San Francisco. California. See Appendix A for the
fo llowing information:
• General infommtion , including location latih1dc and longitude, site class, and risk category.
• Building geometry, including plan dimensions) elevation, and axonometric view.
• Assembly weights.
• Floor and roof weights.

Oos/gn t:xomplo 5 • Eccen/rlcttlly Bt1Jt<J<I FtMlet
• D ~.s i g n spectral response occd erution parameters.
• Se i s l~l i c desigtl category (SOC).
• Lond combinations, in clud ing the verti cal seismic load cffecl
1.2 PLAN OF FRAME LOCAT IONS AND TYPICAL ELEVATIONS
The tlgurc on pngc 146 and Figure 5-2 show tbc isomch·ic and pl an locations of the frs mcs, respectively.
As shown, there nrc two fm mcs ori cnk d in each direction, for n tota l of four fl·amcs. Fig.1re 5-3 shows the
typical frn.me elevations.
A B c D E F
5 c 30'- 0" 150'- 0" ;
~
t::::!
EBF
- - -" -
5
"' I I I
I I
-~
I
4
.
. :l
I
b
..0I
C><J I
-- -
- :=~
-
3
-
C'J
If
:l . C><J :l z
I
I%
b I
I II
'b
t4')
LL.
~---
0 ffi ---
II
'<t
I z z
2 % z.
''
I I
- _u_ .. •
'"
1 Mr= :,
EBF
Figure 5-2. Typical fluor and framing plan

O<Mign Exomplo 5 • Eccuntrlc(l{ly Broc<Jd Fromo
2 3
30'-0" 30'-0"
~ Roo BM-5
12' ~o"
6th BM-5
12'-0"
5th BM-3
~
12'-0''
~ 4th
12'-0''
~ 3rd BM-6
12'-0"
~ 2nd ..---... BM-1
J-1 12'-0"
'-- BR-1
' - - C-1
0 -Indicates Hinge =-Indicates Splice
(a) (b)
Figure 5-3. EBF eleva/ions: (a) inverted- V along grids A and F; (b) two-s/01:1' X along grids I and 5
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE DESIGN COEFFICIENTS

AND FACTORS
As indicated in Table 12.2-1, ''Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems,"
there are two options for using s teel eccentrically braced frames. The first is listed under line B 1. "Building
Frame Systems." and the other is under lineD I, "Dual Sys1ems." For this example, an EBF without a dual
sys1em is used. Tbe following are the listed EBF response modilication coeflicient, R; ovcrstrength factor,
Oo; and deflection amplification factor, Ci

Oos/gn t:xlJmplo 5 • Eccenlrlcttlly Brot<id Ffflma
2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
As derived in Appendix A, the following arc the example design spectral response accclcmtion parameters
for short periods, Sus and !-sec period, Sm:
S0 s = l .OOg SD1 = 0.60g
The approximate fundamental building period, ~~· is determined in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1 as
follows:
C, = 0.03 and x = 0.75 (steel ccc.entrically braced frames) T 12.8-2

1;, = C,h: = 0.03 x 720.. 75 = 0. 74 sec (see the following discussion) Eq 12.8-7
For a!lsistnnce in illustrating the design response spectr um curVe shown, the fo llowing parameters are
provided in accordance with Section 11.4.5:
T0 = 0.2
501
SDS
= 0.2 °·1.00
60
= 0.12 sec § 11.4.5
T
S =SDS
(I
oA+o.6r = 0.4 + S.OT forT< 1'a Eq 11.4· 5
"
T = SDl = 0.60 = 0 60 sec § 11.4.5
6
SDS 1.00 .
S =
s01
=
0.60
for T > T Eq 11.4-6
" T T "
As indicated in ASCE 7 Figure 22-12 , the long-period transition period, 1~.• occurs at 12.0 seconds.
Therefore, the long period equation for Sn(T> TJ docs not apply.
As indicated in Section 12.8.2, the fundamental period of the structure, T, can be established using the
stmclural properties and deformational charnctcrislics of the resisting clements in a properly substantiated
frame analysis. or it is also perrnined to use the approximate fundamental building peri od, ~· Fu11hem1ore,
the maximum fu11damenta l period. Tr=\ ' shall not exceed the fo llowing:
C" = 1.4(Sm 2 0.4) T 12.8-1

Tm rn. = C11 1'a = 1.4(0.74 sec)= J.04 sec §12.8.2
r WJ<\ ~ 1.04 sec
As shown in Figure 5-4, the approximate fundamental building period, ~, is greater tban TJ but less than
Trn, x· At T=" the corresponding design spectTal acceleration, S0 , 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 arc implicit in the calculation of the seismic response
coefficient, c..

Ooolgn ExfJmplo 5 • 5 coentrlcally Broc&d Framo
1.2
__,.---- Ts = 0.60 sec
- - - - S 0 s = 1.0g
~
...-- Approximate EBF Building
c::
.Q 0.8 Period , T8 !: 0.74sec, S8 = 0.81g
T0 = 0.12 sec
~
-~
Q) Tmar 1.04 sec, S8 = 0.58g
(.)
0.6
<l:
-co
u 0.4
Q)
0.
(/)
c 0.2
·-0>
C/)
Q)
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 5-4. Design response spectrum curvefor the EBF building
For this example, the fundamental period, T, as computed in the elastic model analysis (Section 4.R),
exceeds tbe maximum fun dnn1ental period, Tmi x· Therefore, Tam is used in the detet·mination of the seismic
response coefficient, C$.
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES
ln accordance with ASCE 7 Section J2.3.2.1 and in conjunction with Table 12.3- 1, structures having one or
more of the following shall be designated as huvi_ng a horizontal structural irregularity:
Type Ia or lb (Torsional Trregu!Qrily): The irregularity is defined to exist ifthe maximum story drift, 8mt«'
including accidental torsion, is greater than 1.2 times the average story drift, 8111 1!. For this example, the
maximum srory drifl is assumed to conform with tbe requi.rement and then subsequently con.tinned in the
1igid diaphragm analysis of Section 3.2.
Type 2 (Reentrant Corner Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the plan projectiott, Pr. is
greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension, L1, in the given direction as indicated:
P." "'" < 0.15L... ~ 0.15( ISO ft) ~ 22.5 ft T 12.3-J Type 2
or
P y nu..«. < 0.15L." = 0.15(120 ft) = 18.0 ft T 12.3-1 Type 2
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Selsmlc Design Manuel. Vol. 4 151

Ooslgn fExamplo 5 • Ec;r.:~n/rlctt/ly Broc<t<f Frama
As indicated in Figure 5-2, the building hu~; u plan projection of 30 feet in both orthogonul 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 t·equires that di aphragm design forces be increased 25 percetlt for
diaphragm aud collector colillcctiom;. Also , Tublo 12.6~ I resnicts the permitted struchtral analysis analytica l
procedures.
Type 3 (Diaphragm Discontinuity lrrcgu lat'ity): The irregularity is defined to exist if at\ open at'ea is greater
than 50 percent of the gross enclosed diaphragm area or if a change in effective diaphragm stiffness
varies by more thnn 50 percent fi·om one story to the next. As indicated in Appendix A, the grosli enclosed
diaphragm area is 15,220 :>quare fed. Per figure 5-2, the open urea ut the building's core is upproximntely
600 squnrc feet, much less than hulf the gross a~a.
As indicated in Appendix A, the floor is comprised of 3 ~- inch-thick lightweight concrete fill on a 2-inch
metal deck (rigid), while the roof is si mply metal deck (flexible). By inspection , the stiffness of the Acxiblc
roof deck is less than 50 percent thut of the rigid floors. Therefore, the building is irregular at the roof, 11nd
as witb the Type 2 imgulat'ity, the provisions of Section 12.3 .3 .4 and Table I 2.6- 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 Figures 5-2 and 5-3, the EBF conflguralion provides
vertical continuity with no out-of-plane offset~. Therefore. the building does not have an out-of-plane offset
i.rregulari ty.
Type 5 (Nonpnrnllel System lnegulurity): The im:gulurlly Is defined to exist where vcrticallatcrnl-rcsisting
elements are not partdlclto the system's ma.jor orthogonal <LXes. As indicated in Figure 5-2, the lateral-
resisting frames are positioned paral lel to the major orthogonal axes. Therefore. the building does t'IOt have
a nonparal lel system irregularity.
TYPE 2 AND 3 HORJZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARJTIES
2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
In accordance with Section 12.3.2.2 and in conjundion with Table 12.3-2, structures having one or more of
the following shall be designated as having a vertical structural irregularity:
Type Ia or Ib (Stiffness-Soft Story ltT<-'glllarity): 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 stiflilcss of each story is assumed to conform to the requirement
and then subsequently con finned in the story drift analysis of Section 4.8.
Type 2 (Weight [rregularity): The irregularity is den ned to exist where the effective muss (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 A, tile weight is the same on each story except the roof. Therefore.
the buildi.ng docs 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 docs not have a geometric incgularity.

O<Mign Examp/0 5 • 5coentrlcally Brae&<! Fttlmo
Type 4 (In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lutcrnl-Force-Rt!$iS!ing Element Irregularity): The irregul arity is
defined to exist where an in-plane otrset of the vertical Juteral-forcc-re.s isling clement results in overturning
demands on supporting elements. As indicated in Figure 5-3, the elevation of t.he fr·ame is not discontin uous
or offset in any mam1or. Therefore, tbc building docs not lluvc an in-plunc discontinuity irregularity.
Type 5 (Discontinuity in Lateral-Strength-Weak-Story Irregularity): The irrcgulurity is defined to exist if the

later·ill strength of any story is less than 80 percent of the strength of Lhc story above. For this example. the
lateml story strengths are assumed ro conform with the requirement and then subsequently confirmed in d1e
link s!Tcngth comparisons of Section 4.4.
NO VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARlTIJ::S
Jo uccordam:e with Seclion 12.3.4, the redundancy factor, p, is calcula.tcd for each principal axis and is
1.3 unless either Section I 2.3.4.2(a) ot· 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to bt! trne, 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 n:sult in more them a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor do~
the resulting syS'tem huve an exlTeme torsional irrt!gularity (horizonhtl strucluml irregularity Type I b).
Alternatively, Section 12.3.4.2(b) req uires ar leasr two bays of framing on each side of the structure it1 each
ot1hogonul direction nt each story resisting more than 35 percem of the base shear.
As indic.ated in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, one buy of framing is provided on each side or lhc struclure. In cuch
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 s-tory strength reduction of approximately 25 percent.
Furthermore, tbc resulting system docs not have au extreme torsional in·egularity, as detennincd by rigid
diaphragm analys is (Section 3.2). Therefore, in accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), the redundancy facto r
is 1.0 for each orthogonal direction.
p = 1.0
2.7 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SELECTION
In accordance with Section 12.6 and based on the SDC, structura l system.. dynamic prope1tics, and building
regularity, the structural analysis sha ll consist of one of the fo llowing types, as pcm:llrted in Table 12.6-l:
I . Equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis- Structural characteristics: SDC-D, no applicable

structural irr-egularities, and structural height not exceeding 160 feet.
2. Spectrum analysis.
3. Seismic response history procedures.
USE ELF ANALYSlS
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menuel, Vol. 4 153

Ooslgn IExomp/o 5 • Ecconlrlc&lly Brot<Jd F1oma
2.8 SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT
Using the impo11ance fuctor, !1.. determined in Appendix A. the se ismi<.: response coefliciem. c,.. shall be
detenniucd In accordance w[th Section 12.8. 1.1, as follows:
c -" sJ.>s :::! I.O = 0.125 Eq 12.8-2
. lt l¥o)
The coefficient need not exceed tbc following:
C ~ S Dl - 0.6 = 0.072 Eq J 2.8-3

A rl\I~.!!_ !Q)
1.04l0
1.0
Also, the coefficient shall be not less than the following:
Eq 12.8-5
And when S1 2 0.6g, the coefficient shall be not Jess than the following:
CJ = 0.5S1/ (R// c) = 0.5(0.6)/(8.0/1.0) = 0.038 Eq 12.8-6
c.5= 0.072
2.9 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR
Using the effective seismic weight, W, determined in Appendi-x A, t.hc seismic base shear, V. shall be
determined in accordance with Section 12.8.1 as follows:
V= C~. W = 0.072(723 1 kips)= 521 kips Eq 12.8-1
I V = 521 kips
2.10 SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATIONS
As derived in Appendix A and in consideration of p equal to 1.0, the basic seismic load combinations in
uccorduncc with Section 2.3.6 are simplificd as follows:
1.4D + 0.5L + pQ5 = 1.4D + 0.5L + l.OQ5 (Comb. 6, moditiecl)

0.7D+pQ£ = 0.7D +l.OQF. (Comb. 7, modified)
Also, as derived in Appendix A and in consideration of Du, rhe basic seism ic load combinations with
overstrengtll factor in accordance with Section 2.3.6 are simply as follows:
1.4D + 0.5L + Q 0 Q,.: c 1.4D + 0.5L + 2.0Q8 (Comb. 6, modified)

0.7 D + Q OQ£ = 0.7 D + 2.0QE (Comb. 7, modified)

O<Mign Ex€Jmplo 5 • Ecoon/rlcally Broc&d Ftamo
3.1 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL SEISMIC FORCE
Tn accordance with Section 12.8.3, the Intern! seismic force, F,,, and the vertical distribution factor, C,:(•
induc.ed ut any lcwl shall be determined fTom the following equations:
w ~~ ~
FX =C~J:
V a.nd CIJ( = ' IJ
5
"" Eq 12.8-1 1 nnd Eq 12.8-12
0
wI hI1'
1~ 1
where d1c vertical weights, w, and heights, h. are summarized iJI Table 5-1 utld the distribution exponenr,
k, is interpolated in accordance with Section 12.8.3 as 1.27 forT= 1.04 sec. Tllc corrcsponcliug vertical
distribution factors and lateral seismic forces arc also summarized in Table 5- 1 for each level.
Table 5-l. Vertical dlstl'lbutlon of lateral seismic force
Level w1 (kips) hi (ft) w, I,,* c,:( F.r(kips)

Roof 656 72 149,870 0.188 98
6th 1315 60 238,330 0.299 156
5th 1315 48 179,516 0.225 I I7
4tb 1315 36 124,575 0.1 56 81

3rd 1315 24 74.438 0.093 49
2nd 1315 12 30,866 0.039 20
Total 7231 797,595 1.000 521
3.2 HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES
In accordance with Section 12.8.4, the seismic design story shear in any story, V.'(l shaJI he determined from
the following equation:
Eq 12.8-13
where lbe portion of seismic base shear, F,, is distributed to the fmmes based on the relative lateral sti ffncss
of the frames and the diaphragm. With respect to the diaphragms. Seaiou 12.3.1.2 permits a concrete-filled
metal deck to be idealized as rigid when there arc no horizontal irregularities. As detcm1ined previously
in Section 2.4, the building docs have a Type 2 reentrant comer horizontal irregularity. However, given
the symmetrical configuration and eguivalenr frame sti'frness, a rigid diaphragm idealization is cons idered
acceptable.
ln Figure 5-2, tbc center of mass and center of rigidity, by inspection, coincide at tbe middle of the building.
Therefore, in consideration of Section 12.8.4.1, there is essentially no eccentricity and no corresponding
inherent torsional moment, Mr However, per Section 12.8.4.2, ro account for accidental torsional moments.
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 155

Oos/gn 5xamplo 5 • Eccvn/rlcttlly Bt1Jc<Kl Frtutlo
M,.,, the point of application of the story shear shall be offsd u dhrtunce equal to 5.0 percent of the dimension
of the structure perpendicular lo the direction of applied forces, L1, n·om the center of mass, us fo llows:
M1111 = O.OS~, (f~) = 0.05(120 ft)F1 = 6.0Fi §12.H.4.2
or
M1ul = O.OSL.JF;) = 0.05(150 ft)F1 = 7.5f; § 12.8.4 .2
To di stribute the moment loads to each fra me, the seismic base shellr, Fy1, is applied in the building's X - and
Y-d ircctions. For any given story, each bay of framing bas equivalent stiffness, and a generic stiffness, R,
is used to roprescnr the l'igiclity. A tixcd distance. d1• is then measured from the re!lpoctivc ccntmidul axis ro
each frame. The seismic design story shear, V,rf• can be dc1cnnincd by summing the direct s1ory shear for'Cc,
~;i nherent torsional force, V,,; and accidental torsional force, V,,,;, as fo llows:
v.~., = ~ + vii+ v,.,J Eq 12.8-13 (modified)
where
R1 M101 Rd
1 1
V. = F. , V = 0, and V . =
' I 0 Rl II hll 0 Rd2
The corresponding story .shear rigid diapbragtn distributions arc shown in Table 5-2. Table 5-3 shows rhc
corresponding design shear forces for each typical frame.
Table 5-2. Story shear rigid diaphragm distribution
Grid Direction d, Rd1 Rd I2 ~ v111'1 v).,.

A X -75 -75R 5625R O.SOFI -0 . 024~ 0.48F1
F X 75 75R 5625R O.SOF,. 0.0240 0.52F,.
I y - 60 -60R 3600R O.SOF( -0.0240 0.48fl
5 y 60 60R 3600R 0.50F( 0.024F/ 0.52fl
"£Rd 2 = 18,450R
Table 5-3. Typical fram e seismic design story shears
Level Design Story Shear, Tl_,..; (kips) Cumulative Shear (kips)

Roof 51 51
6th 81 132
Srh 61 193
4th 42 235
3rd 26 26 1
2nd 10 271
I st 0 27 1

Ooolgn ExlJtnplo 5 • Eccontrlcally Broc&d Ftomo
With respect to torsional irregularity and using the values from Table 5-2, the maximum und averogc story
drifts cun be determined us follow s:
Therefore, the maximum to average story drift ratio can be detem1ined as follows:
oiTIT\ =0.52 = l.04 < I.Z T 12.3-l Type Is

0<1\~ 0.50
NO IIORTZONTAL TYPE I a TORSIONAL rRREGULARITY
Jn accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), with the removal of an individual brace, in this case along grid A,
the resulting ti·ame stiffness. R. is reduced 50 percent. With thtu reduction, the correspondi ng modi lied story
shear rigid diaphragm distributions arc shown in Table 5-4. Givou the symmcn·ical natur-e of the frame, it
can likewise be shown that similar dist-ributions occur with the removal of an individual brace along grids F,
I, or 5.
Table 5-4. Modified story shear rigid diaphragm distribution
Gtid Direction d.
I
Rd.I
RdI2 V; ~uJ ~,.;
A X -75 -3 8R 2813 R 0 . 50~ -0.014~ 0.49F1
F X 75 75R 5625R 0.50~ 0.029~ 0.53~
I y - 60 - 60R 3600R 0.50F1 - 0.029F1 0.47F1

5 y 60 60R 3600R 0.50F1 0.029F; 0.53F1
L.Rd 2 ~ 15,638R
With respect to torsional irregttlarity, using the vnlues from Table 5-4, the maximum and avt!rage story
drifts can be determined as follows:
Therefor\!, tbc maximum to average story drift ratio can be determined as follows:
orrm = 0.53 =1.06 < 1.4 T 12.3-1 Type I b

o,,'<t o.so
I NO HORIZONTAL TYPE I b TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY I

201818C SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 157
Oos/gn fExamplo 5 • Ecc~mlrlc&lly Brac<i<l Ft&ma
4. Preliminary Member Sizing and Analysis
4.1 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AISC 341/360
Tn accordance with ATSC 341 Section A3. l, the specified minimum yield stress of steel to be used for
memben; in which inela.stic behavior is cxpeded shall not exceed 50 ksi. For this design example, st<xl
material strengths are taken from the AJSC J\l!anua/Table 2-4 ns fo llows:
RoJJcd wide-flange sections: ASTM A992 ) F y ~ 50· FI II ~ 65 ksi

Built-up T-shupcd sections and plates: ASTM A572 Grade 50, F_). =50: F11 = 65 ksi
FY = 50 ksi: F, = 65 ks i
The material ratio of expected yield sLres.s to the speci tied minimum st.Tess. R>" is taken from A JSC 341
Table AJ.I as follows:
ASTM A992 or A572 Grode 50, R,."" 1.1
Bolt material strengths arc taken from Lbe AJSC 360 Table J3.2 as follows:
Shear tab bolts ASTM A325 , F11 ,. = 68 ksi (threads excluded from shear planes)
Flange plate bolts ASTM A490, Fn,. = 84 lad (threads excluded from shear planes)
GROUP A:}~" = 6H ksi; GROUP B: Fw = 84 ksi
4.2 PRELIMINARY LINK SIZE AND LENGTH AISC 341
In an EBf systtm, the primary design focus is the link. Optimizing the link can ben chnllengc due to
member local buckling requirements, geometric constraints, and considerations associated with the strength
ofthe beam outs ide ofthe link. Of primary importance is the link length, e, and its relationship to rhe
inelastic yielding behavior of the frame.
The design provisions set forth in AJSC 341 Section F3 are intended to provide reliable and ductile link
behavior when the lin!< is subjected to seismic loacting. In the provisions, tlle nominal shear strength of
the link, V11 , is detem1incd as the lesser of the shear yielding stre ngth , V17, or tlle shear associated with the
flexural yielding strength, 2M/e.
ln general, wheu e = 2M/ Vr the yield condition is balanced between sllear and flexure. For values less rhan
J .6M/ V11 , the link behavior is generally controlled by shear. whereas for values grearer than 2.6M/ V11 , it is
controlled by flexure. For link lengths bet\JJccn 1.6 M/ Vfl and 2.6M/V11 , a combination of shear and flexural
yielding occurs.
Because shear yielding is much more reliab.le than flexural yielding, it is generally considered advantageous
to keep lin.k lengths short enough to be controlled by shear. Witb this in mind, a target value of 1.6M,JV,, is
used for the link length. To achieve this, a lower dcsig.n value of 1.3M/ Vr is recommended by Engelhardt
158 2018 IBC SEAOC Struclural!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

D<Mign EJ<omplo 5 • 8Goentrlcully Brae&<! Frarr10
11nd Popov ( 1989). Thil:l lowcr value allows l:lome flexibility in changing the link bcum size and frnme
geometry whi le still mainta.ining u final link length consistent with the 1.6?v"/ Vp tllrgcL
To d ~rive the preliminary link beam shear force, Vr, refer to tbc inverted-V frame beam, BM· l , shown in
Figure 5-3(11). As show·n in the frame free-body diagrnm ofFi.gure S-5 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the preliminary shear force, ~, is estimated in consideration of the cumulutjvc design seismic
shear force. V,; story height. h11; and frame width, L, as follows:
Vr = V2h) L = (271 kips)( 12. 0 ft)/30.0 ft = 108 kips
For the two-story X configuration and BM-2 shown in Figure 5-3(b), tbe same preliminary force includes
the cumulat ive shcat·, wb.ich is esti mated from the two associated siol'ics as fo llows:
vr ~ (vl + vJ h.,./L E (27 1 kips+ 26 1 ki~)(t 2.0 ft)/30.0 ft !:! 2 13 kips
U2
e/2~
V/2
v,
Figure 5-5. Tn verled- V free-body diagram (cut through lhe link centerline)
The preceding methodology is repeated for all the concsponding links with tbe resulting design shear force
summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5. Preliminm~v link design shearforce
Shear, Vr (kips)
Level
Inwrted-V 1\vo-Story X
Roof 20.4 No Link
6th 52.8 73.2
5th 77.2 No Link
4th 94.0 171
3rd 104 No Link

2nd 108 213
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 159

Ooslgn t:xamplo 6 • Ecr.:fJn/rlct~/ly Broca</ FtMIO
For the bcnm BM-1, assuming u short link governed by shear yidding, the required link 11ren, A,,, is
estimated in considerotion of the link design shear strength, <l>)~P as fol lows:
A _ V _ I 08 kips =4 .0 in2 AlSC 341 Eq F3-2 (modified)

~~~ - o , ,
0 6Fy - 0.9(0.6)50 ksi
I
Excess c.upucity in the Link segment is un important economi c consideration, as the other clements in the
frnme are designed to develop the full inelustit: link capacity. The beam-to-bruce geometric constmint is
also a consideraLion in that the beam flange must be approximately equal to or wider than the brace flange.
In this example, the b1-aces wil l be WJO rolled sections. Therefore. in consider-ation oftbe required link
area, flange width, and buckli ng requirements summarized in AISC Seismic Design Manual Table 1-3,
evaluate n WI 0 x 68 ASTM A992 wide flange for the beum BM-1 us foUows:
A 1w = (d - 21/)l, r = [1 0.4 in - 2(0.77 in)](0.47 lll) = 4.16 > 4.00 in2 Eq F3-4
Typicnlly, the most efficient links nrc deeper sections. However, given the geomeh·ic conglnli nts associated
with the fully res-trained beam-to-brace moment connection in this example, only shallow WI 0 and W 18
rol led sections have an adequate flan ge width for the brace attachment. Therefore. in consider-ation ofW I 0
roiJed sections for braces, the minimum required flange widLh i.n the second through tifth levels is b1 > I 0.0
incb ~:s. Above the fifth level, where lighter braces arc adequate, the mini mum required flange width js
b1 > 8.0 inche;.».
Per AISC 341 Secrion F3.5b(2), the nomiual shear, ~, . aud plastic fl exw·al strengths, MP, are determined
assuming P) Pc < 0.15, as follows:
VP = 0.6FyA 1,, = 0.6(50 ksi)(4. 16 in 2 ) = 125 kips Eq F3-2

MP == F_YZ =50 ksi(85 .3 in~) = 4265 kip-in Eq F3· 8
The preliminary li_nk kngth, e, which wil l optimize theW I 0 X 68, is dctcm1ined as follows:
e = 1.3M/VP= 1.3(4265 kip-in )/ 125 kips =44 iu ... say 48 in
The precedi ng methodology is repented for each link for both fTilmC conflgurations with the selected link
sizes; nominal shear strength, VP; and calculated link lengths, e, summarized in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6. Preliminmy link sizes, shear strengths, and link lenglhs
Inverted-V 1\vo-Story X
Level
Lin I< vP(k ips) e (in) Link vP(kips) e (i n)
Roof WIO x 68 125 48 No Link - -
6th WIO x 68 125 48 WI 0 X 68 125 48

5th WlO X 68 125 48 No Link - -
4th WlO X 68 125 48 Wl 8 X 86 243 50

3rd WIO x 68 125 48 No Link - -
2nd WIO x 68 125 48 W l8 X 86 243 50

O<Mign Examplo 5 • 5ccentrlcally Brac&d Framo
As indicated in Table 5-6, for the inverted-V, a preliminary link ~ i zc of WI 0 X 68 io sdcctccl for all of the
floors. With a corresponding incre.ru;c in floor height. somewhat li ghter link sections might be expected.
However. f6r thi s example. in considet'Iltion of buck! ing widtiHo~ thickncss ratios, a lighter W 10 x 60,
Wl 0 X 54, or W 10 x 49 rollt:d section cannot satisfy tbc highly ductile roqulrcmcnt of Section F3 .5b(l ).
4.3 PRELIMINARY ADJUSTED LINK SHEAR STRENGTH AISC 341
The diagonal brace and beam segm ent outside the link are intended to remain essentially elastic. Ther-efore,
in uccorduncc with Section F3.3, the IJnk shear strcng1h is ''adjusted" to include the ampl iticution effect of
both mutcriul ovcrslTength and strain burdening. For the shcur-govcmcd link of beam BM- 1, the adjusted
shear strength, VAu\> is dctcmtiocd as fo llows:
V1111, = 1.25 RY ~' = 1.25(1.1)(125 kips)= 172 kips ~F3.3
The prc<:eding methodology is repeated for each story and each frame configuration with the adjusted
link shear strengths surr1mnrized in Table 5~7. AB a measure of the link shear stt·eugth capacity. Table 5-7
also shows the mtio of the adjlLsted link shear strength to the design sbenr force, V1111/ Vr . ln order to
economize the li.nk member selection, tbe ratio should be as close to 1.25R,. as possible, wbJch in this case
is approximately 1.4.
Table 5-7. Prelimlnmy adjusted link shear strength and shear ratio
lnvcrtcd~ V Two-Story X
Level
v m\ (kips) Vm1/ Vr Ratio V111o (kips) V~ 10 1 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 ofhigbly
ductile rolled wide-flange sections with a corresponding compatible flange \.vidth, this example considers
the usc of bui lt-op T-shapcd sections as an effective alternative for these locations. However, the usc of
bui lt-up link sect'ions is not without both code and economic considerations. For example, AlSC 34 1
Section F3.5b.( I) requires complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds to connect the link web to the
flan ges. ln addition. Section F3.6a(5) classifies these CJP groove welds as demand critical. The Al SC 341
dcmand-cri tkal design ation requires spcci tic tiller mctnls (Scclion A3 .4b) and among other requirements, a
weld procedure specification in Section 12.3.
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 tbnt of a rolled wide-flange section (B . Manni ng, personal
communic8tion). With tbesc considerations in mind, bui lt-up I-shaped link beam sections are deemed
necessary only where the indicated capacity ratios in Table 5-7 exceed 2.0.
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 161

Ooslgn 5xamp/o 5 • Ecoen/rlctllly Bror:<i e.s must sati sfy both locu l buckling and geometric const1·aints.
f:'or beam BM-3 shown in Figure 5-3(u), the required fl ange width for geometric compatibility with tbo
bruce itl upproximatcly l 0.0 i.nchcs. In uccorduncc with the exception in AISC 341 Section F3.5b.( I), the
required flange Lhicknc,qs, 'r· in com:idtralion of u moderately ductile 10-inch flan ge widlh, b1• is determined
as follow s:
t . == bl == JOin -- 0.55 in . . . suy s;, .

1ti m T D 1.1 (modified)
I 2° nlli 0.2(9.J 5)
For the same beam, O!l~uming u short link governed by shear yielding, the req ui red link areu, A,,p is
cstiruatcd in considerotion of th0 liuk design shear strength, <P,.V,, as follows:
A = Vr = 77.2 kips =2.86 inz Eq F3-2 (modified)

,. 0.6~.
0
lw 0.90(0.6)(5 0 ksi)
Using a web thickness, tv, of ~ inch, the required depth, d, can be determined as follows:
d = (A,,It,.) + 2tl = (2.86 in 2/0.25 in) + 2(0.625 in)= 12.69 in . , . say 13.0 in Eq F3A4 (modified)
Tht: preceding methodology is rcpcut~:d for ench targeted link in both frame confl gurutions. The preliminary
built-up link beams de-s ignations arc shown in Figure 5-3, and their associated paromcters are summarized
in Table 5· 8:
Table 5-8. Preliminary buill-up link beam parameters
Depth, d Web. r., flan ge. b1 Flange, t1 Area, A Weight z3

Designation Beam Size (in) (in) (in) (in) (in2) (pit) (in )
BM-3 BU13 X 53 13.0 0.25 10.0 0.625 15.4 53 86.0

BM4 BU1 2 x 37 12.0 0.25 8.0 0.50 10.8 37 53.6
BM-5 BU9 x 34 9.0 0.25 8.0 0.50 l 0.0 34 38.0
Additional built-up link beam design paramdcrs (link shear strength, VP; moment strength, M11 ; and
preliminary link length, e) are summarized in Table 5-9:
Table 5-9. Preliminary built-up link beam parameten; and length
Beam Size Shear, VP (kips) Moment Strength, MP(kip-in) Length, e 1.3M/VP (in)
BUI3x53 88 4299 64
BU12 x 37 83 2678 42
BU9 X 34 60 1900 42

OCt-Sign Exomplo 5 • 5ccontr/c(l l/y Broc<td H(lmO
Table 5-10 t~hows the locution and designation of the built-up link beams. In Bddition, the tnble indi cates the
adjusted link shear lltrength, V,\\ 1" and associated shear ratios. Although the inverted-V roorlink beam shear
ratio exceods 2.0. given the nominal plate sizes. a further adjttstmenr is deemed unnecessary.
Table 5·10. Prelimin(JJ:v tu(justed link sltear strength and shear ratio
lrtvcrtcd-V Two-Story X
Level Vm/V,. VMI/V,
Beam Size v~,~ (kips) Ratio Beam Sizt v,.,, (kips) Ratio
Roof BU9 X 34 82.5 4.0 No Link - -
6th BU9 X 34 82.5 1.6 BU1 2x37 I 14 1.5

5th BUl3 X 53 I 21 1.6 No Link - -
Witb respect to the Type 5 vertical irregularity provision outlined in the Section 2.5 bnsc shear calculations,
Tables 5-7 and 5- 10 show the adjusted link shear strengths either remain lhc same or increase when
compared with thut or each story above. Therefore, ror this example, there is no vertical discontinuity or
weakness in the frame's latera l strength (Ty pe 5 vertical irregulariry).
4 .5 PRELIM INARY NON-LINK BEAM SIZE (TWO-STORY X) AISC 341/360
As shown in the two-story X configuration of Figure 5-3(b), the beams allhe lhir<l tifth. and roof levels
have no associated link. Therefore, thev• are classified as a beam outside of the link. In accordance with
AISC 341 Section F3.5a, beams outside of the link need satisfy only tbc widtb-to-tllickncss Limitations in
Section D 1. 1 for modemtdy duclilc members.
For beam BM-6. shown in Figure 5-3(b), evaluate a Wl 6 x 26 ASTM A992 wide ftar1 ge in cousideration of
deflection and serviceability requirements. Determine the minimum beam deep, dc:in• as fol lows:
dmlo =L/24 =30.0 f\(12.0 ft/l n)/24 ::::: 15 in < 15.7 in

The beam is designed as composite (except at the roof) in accordance with AlSC 360 Section 15 and is
braced at the third points in accordance with AlSC 341 Section D 1.2a.l (a).
USE A COMPOSITE W 16 x 26 FOR

NON-LfNK BEAMS IN THE TWO-STORY X
4.6 PRELIM INARY BRACE SIZE AISC 341
To derive the preliminary brace axial force, P,-.refer to the inverted·V brace, BR· I . shown in Figure
5-3(a). Using tbc beam shear and moment diagrams of Figure 5-6 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the do\vnward vertical brace reaction, Rn,&> and the moment at the end of the LinJ<, Mm'<' arc
determined as follows:
30
R A = V .. ( L ) = 172 kips ( ft ) = 198 kips
-«u "'" L- e 30 ft - 4 ft
l 2e) l 4ft)
0 0
M "'~ = V"'~ = 172 kips = 344 kip-ft

2
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 163

Ooslgn Sxllmp/o 5 • Ecconlrh;tllly Broc<id Frffma
(L - e)/2 (L -e)/2 e
/ ""'tM 1
M, !Vm h
R, Rmll R,
" \.._ Rmh I
v2 v2
f, Tt 1
-
t
T Shear T Shear
. . . l 1 M,
L . l
- I I
I
/ /
L
Moment /
Mmh T Moment
M /
Mmh
(a)
t (b)
'T
Fig ure 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 d,,
respectively, the diagonal brace unbruccd length, L"" and angle, ~' are calculated by bigonomctry ns
fo llows:
::::J6.7ft • • • say 17.0 ft
== 42.7 deg
The required preliminary diagonal brace ax ial force, P,., for the brace is calculated using trigonometry as
fol lows:
198 kips k'

:::: 324 ' IpS
0.90(sin 42.7)
In this example, the brace and brace end connecLions are fully restrained (fixed). Therefore, the moment
at the end oftbe link will be distri buted in p.roportion to the relative stiffness ofthe diagonal brace and
the beam outside 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 confi rmed us ing an elastic computational analysis. T herefore, the preliminary required brace
flexural stTength, M,., in the brace BR-1 is determined as follows:
M = 0.50M "'~ == 0.50(344 kip-ft) = 191 kip-ft

r ob 0.90

O<Mign Exomp/0 6 • 5ctenlrlcnlly Bt1Jt<t<l Fttlmo
Using thc AISC Manual Table 6-1 for combined loading with unbrm:cd length, L" 17 t\ Rnd AlSC =
Seismic Design Manual Table 1-3 for local buckling requirements, a WI 0 X 77 ASTM A992 wide-fltlnge
section is deemed adequate for the preliminary diagonal bt·ace gize. In the Helect1on proce~. the flan ge
width of the brncc, tbf • is confirmed geometrically compatible for attachment to lhe beam. Tbe prcccdiug
methodology i~ rcpcuted for each story und eucb frame configuration with the ~>elected bruce slz.es
summarized in Tuble 5- 11.
Table 5-17. Preliminary brace sizes
Brace Size
Level
lovened-V TWo-Story X
6th W IOx 45 WlO x45
5th W IOx45 W!Ox45
4th W.IO X 54 WlO x 54
3rd WlO X 77 WlO X 68
2nd WlO x 77 W 10 X 68
Ist WIOX 77 WlO x 68
As indicated in Table 5-11. the correspond1ng first-story brace for Ll1e two-story X is a siLc smaller than that
of the inverted- V frame. At this location, the correspondingly larger second-leve l link beam (W 18 x 86)
reduces the moment distribution ro the brace, allowing for the reduction in size.
4 .7 PRELIM INARY COLUMN SIZE AISC 341
Given the configuration shown in figure 5-3(a) for the invertcd-V colwnn C-1. the strain-hardening
reduction factor is applicab le. As with t h ~! downward vertical rcnction of the first-level brace, the first-level
upward force, R,..,~, from the second- level link is dclermincd as follows:
As shown i.n the mechanism model ofFigurc 5-7, tbe 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. Ll1e total first-level requi red column axial load, P111111~ in consideration of the strain-
hardening reduction factor, is determined as follows:
P£11,\ = (I ~of ~~~~ - R,,,~) = (82.5 + 82.5 + 121 + 172 + 172 - 26.5) kips = 604 kips

Doslgn t:xomplo 5 • EEccenlrlcolly Broce<.J Fr;<1ma
~Roof
~f-----=--6t;;.;...;..h-
~___;:;,.
5 t.;.;..:.
h-
~_.:...;
4 t;.h;.,;. .-
3rd
~_____;;....;,..,.;;.;__
~~---=2::..:....;n~d_
Figure 5-7. Column mechanism model (cut through the link centerline)
The seismic forces arc combined with the appropriate proportion of gravity forces to determine the required
column axial load, P,, as follows:
P,. = 1.4D + 0.5L + l.OQ5 = 1.4(286 kips)+ 0.5(98.0 kips)+ 1.0(5 31 kips)= 980 kips
As mentioned previously, the applied free-body-diagram methodology is reasonable where pin-ended

members are used. In this example, the beam-to-column connection is detailed as fixed, so for prel iminary
estimation purposes, assume approximately 15 percent of the link end moment will be distributed ro the
column. The exact colunm moment is subsequently continued with tbe elastic computational analysLs.
Therefore, the rcqujred column C-1 flexural strength, MEt"''' in consideration of the 0.88 reduction factor, is
determined as fo llows:
M ~ 0.15(0.88)Mm\ :::! 0.15(0.88)344 kip-ft =S0.4 ki -ft

Ell\~ 0 b 0.90 p

D<Mign Exomplo 5 • Eccontrlcnlly Broc&<J Frnmo
=
Using the AlSC Ma11ual Table 6-1 for combined loading with unbrnccd length , L6 11 .0 fl, and ATSC
Seismic Design Ma11unl Table 1-3 for local buckling rcquircrm:nts, a W 12 x 96 ASTM A992 widc-flungc
~ection for the preliminary column :-ize is selected. In the selection proces:-. the flange width of the colum n.
' rl' is confirmed to be geometrically compatible for the beam attachment. The preceding methodology is
repeated ot cnch splice locution with column sizes summarized in Table 5-12 for botb frame cootigurntions.
1(Jble 5w12. Preliminm:v colwnn sizes
Level Column Size

5th to roof Wl2 X 50
3rd to 5th WJ2 x 96

l st to 2nd Wl2 X 96
The preliminary frame configunu..ions with the sel~ted sizes are shown in Figure 5-8.
Figure 5-8. Preliminary EBF member sizes: (a) i11ver1ed-V along grid A; (b) two-story X along grid I
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 167

Ooslgn fExamplo 5 • Ec;r.:en/rlc:&lly Brot<fd Froma
4.8 ELASTIC MODELING AND STORY DRIFT DETERMINATION ASCE 7
Using the preliminary beam, brace, and columns sizes, a two-dimensional computer model is generated for
the entire frame. An clastic computntionul u n u l ysi~:> of the model is used to conflm1 the funrlumcntul struclurul
period and the link end moment distribution assumptions. and to determine the elUBiic deflections of the frame.
From the nnulysis of the model , I be fundamental period, 1', is computed as 1.16 nod 1.25 seconds for the
invertcd-V and the two-story X, respectively. Both compukd periods exceed tht: maximum fundHmcntal
period, Tmw confirming Lhat it be u.'lcd in the determit!Ution of the seismic response coefficient, Cl.
Tn accordance with AJSC 341 Section B I, the design story drift and the uJiowublc story dritl: limit arc those
required by the applicabl e bui ldi ng code. From the analysis of the modd , the elastic deflection , 0:u1 between
the first and second levels is computed as 0.348 inch. Tbe allowable story drift Lim it, Ll,,, as indicated in ASCE
7 Table 12. 12- l , is calculated in consideration of the story heigllt, hsr as follows:
Ll11 = 0.02011 11 = 0.020( 12.0 ft)(12 in/ft) = 2.88 in Tl 2.12-1
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section I V~ . 6. the story deflection, o_.. , is calcu lated as fo llows:
o,, = 1::. 2 - 1::. = Crl o.u· = 4.0(0.348 in) - 0 = 1.39 in < 2.88
I I I .0
in Eq 12.8· 15
c
J o.r < Ll 11 ~ DRJFT LIMIT ts sATI SFlBD J
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level and each frame configuration with !be story drifts
swumarized in Table 5· 13. Also included in Table 5-13 is the soft-story vertica l irregularity check.
Table 5-13. EBF Story drift and soft-story parameters
Inverted-V Two· Story X

Level
Story Drift, 8_.. (in) 8_.10.70 (in) Story Drift, 8x (in) 8) 0.70 (in)
Roo f I .04 - 1.57 -
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 - 1.09 -
As indicated in Table 5- 13. the story drift analysis confirms rhat there is no soft-story irregularity (Type Ia).
as set forth previously in Section 2.5 (i .e., ox< 8-<+ 1/0.7). In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.2.2,
Exception 1, the top two stories need not be eval uated.
Jfthe story drift was to exceed allowable limits, ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6. I provides an exception removing
lower limits on the seismic response coeff1cient, C~. The exception. as outlined in Section 12.8.6.2, allows the
usc of seismic design forces based on the computed fundamental period, without tJ1e upper limit specified in
Section 12.8.2.

D<Mign ExfJmplo 5 • Eccen/r/c(ll/y Brae&<! Ftftmo
4.9 P-DELTA EFFECTS ASCE 7/IBC
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12. B.7, P· delta efrects shall be considered on story shears, moments,
and drifts when the ratio of secondary moments to primary moments, defined us the stability coefficient, e.
is grcnter thnn 0.1 0. The stubi1ity coeffkient is determined as fo llows:
PM
e~ - s ..._ ::;; 0.10 Eq 12.8-16
v h ctl
.~ .~\"
Where, in accordance with Tablo 5· 1, lBC Table 1607.1, and live load reductions specified in lBC Section
.1607.1 1 and 1607.13 .2, the tota l sccond-lcvtl vertical design loads arc dctcm1ined ns follows:
P2 = LD + U = 723 I !<ips+ [5(0.035 ksf)(l5,220 n2) + 0.012 ksf( 15.220 W)] = 10.077 kips
Therefore:
e = 10,077 kips(2.8~ in)(l .O) = o.o7 < 0. 10 Eq 12.8· 16

730 ldps(l44 m)( 4.0)
e < 0.10 ~ STABlLJTY COEFFICIENT IS SATISFIED

Note that the ddit limit, rather than the calculated drift, is used here (conservatively) for simp licity.
Engint:.ers should be awnn: that this evaluation is intended to nddn::ss the system stiffne.ss. As such, usc of
shear force.s , Vt> larger than those corresponding to the displacement f). is incorrect and underestimates the
stabiliry coefficient.
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level with the total unfactored design IOl:lds and the
corresponding .stability coefficient, 8, summarized in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14. Total unfaclored design loads and stability coeffidenJ
Level Design Loads, P.r (kips) Stability Coefficient, e

Roof 7413 0.05
6th 7947 0.05
5th 8480 0.06
4th 9013 0.06
3rd 9363 0.06
2nd I 0,077 0.07
4.10 SECONDARY EFFECTS ASCE7
As tlle stabi lity coeftkient is less than 0.10 on all levels. in accordance with Secrion 12.8.7, P~delta
considerations (secondary effects) arc not required.

ooslgn t:xamp/o 5 • Ec;cen/rlc&lly Brot<id Fromo
5. Analysis Verification and Member Final Design
Using the preliminary selected member sizes and output from the elastic model. speciiic desigtl provisions
of the EBF arc i1wcstigatcd.
5.1 LINK BEAM REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 341
For tills example, refer to beam BM· I shown in Figllrc 5 ~3 . As determined l.n the preliminary ana lysis, the
link segment is a W 10 x 68 wide-flange section. Prom the computution uJ anuJysis, the upplled loads fo r the
b~:um are s hown in Tubk 5-1 5.
Table 5-15. Link segment loading for BM-1
Load Dead, D Live, L Seismic, Q1j

Axial, P - - -
Shear, V 1.20 kips 1.00 kips I 02 kips
Moment, M 12.4 kip-ft 7.6 kip-ft 216 kip-ft
From the applied l.oads, the required ax ial , P,:, shear, Vr; and moment design strengths, l\J/11 , can be
determined using the applicable load combinations as fo llows:
P,. = P11 = lAD + O.SL + I.OQ8 = 0.0 kips

Vr = V:, = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.OQE= 1.4( 1.2 kips)+ 0.5(1.0 kips) + 1.0(1 02.0 kips)= 104 kips
M11 = 1.4D + 0.5L + l.OQii = 1.4( 12.4 kip-ft) + 0.5(7.6 kip-ft) + 1.0(216 kip-ft) = 237 kip-ft
5.2 LINK BEAM WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b( I), the link shall comply with the width-to-thickne.ss
requirements of Section D 1.1 for highly ductile members. However. for the flan ges of short, shear
dominated links, tbere is an exception for link lengths less than 1.6M/ VP. In this case, the flan ges
need only satisfy the width-to-thickness requirements for moderately ductile members.
The width-to-thickness ratio for the fl anges can be determined as follows:
A = 0.40 E = 0.40 29,000 ksi = 9. IS T Dl.l

"'"' Ry F)' I. I * 50 ksi
Because h/ 2t1 = 6.58 < AMJ· the fl anges meet the local buckltng requi remenrs.
Tbc width-to-thickness ratio for the web can be dctcm1in cd as follows:
ell = o.o < o.ll4 T D 1. 1
A" .. = 2.57 E (I- 1.04C ) = 2.57 29,000 ksi (1-1.04 a O) = 59.0 T D l.l
" Ry F)' a 1.1 *50 ksi

Ooolgn Ex€J111plo 5 • Eicaontrlc/llly Broc&d Promo
Because h,ft., = 16.7 < /...k,~· the web llUtisfics the local buckling requirements.
LINK BEAM WIDTH-TO-Tl-TICKNBSS RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
Alternatively and in subsequent cnlculutions, the widlh-to-thiokness ratios nrc investigated us ing AJSC
Seismic Design Manual T~blc 1-3.
5.3 LINK BEAM STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 341
Per ATSC 34 1 Section F3.5h.2, the nominal shear, V,,, and plastic flexural strength, 1~,, are determined in
consideration of the required axial strength ns fo llows:
P, = P.r = F>.AK=50 ksi( 19.9 in2) = 995 kips Eq F3-6

Pr/Pc =0.0 < 0.15
Therefore, use VP and Mfl as determined in the preliminary calculations. In accordance with Section F3.5b.2,
the link des ign shc;ar strcng1h , Y,.. sha ll be the lower of the value obtai ned in accordance with the limit
states of shear yielding in the web and flexural yielding in the gross section. Because for this exampk
V,1 < M11, shear yielding of the liuk controls and the de3ign shear strength is determined as fo llows:
Y, = <!>)~, = 0.9(125 kips)= 113 > 104 kips Eq F3-1
I Y, > vr> SHEAR YIELDING coNTROLS I

5.4 LINK ROTATION ANGLE LIMITATION AISC 341
The link rotntion angle is the primary variable used to de;Scnoe link inelastic deformation. AISC 341
Figure C-F3.4 defines the link rotation angle as tbe inelastic angle between the link and the beam outside
the link under design Slory drift conditions. ln accordance with Section F3.4a, the link rotation angle shall
not exceed 0.08 radian for link lengths of 1.6M;,!Vfl or Jess and 0.02 radian for link lengths of 2.6M/V" or
greater. Linear interpolation is required for link lengths between the two limits. As previously detem1ined,
the second-level link length for this example is approximately 1.3MrJVP. Therefore, the link rotation angle.
'Yrr. in consideration of the plastic story drift angle, e," is determined as follows:
F C-F3.4
In accordance witJ1 Section F3.3, the inelastic link rotation angle is determi ned tl·om the inelastic portion of
the design story drift as follows:
tiP= 8" - 8.n, = 1.39 in- 0.348 in= 1.04 in
Therefore,
e{J = 1.04 in!144 in= 0.007 rad

yP =(30 tt/4 ft)(0.007 rad) =0.05 < 0.08 rad
yP < 0.08 rad ~ LJNK ROTATION IS SATISFIED
2018 IBC SEAOC StructuraVSeismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 171

Ooslgn FExamplo 15 • Ecr.:en/rlc&lly Brot<J<f Fttlma
5.5 BEAM OUTSIDE THE LINK REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 341/360
Accot·ding to AJSC 341 Section F3 .3, the t'equi red str-ength of beam outside the link must be "adj usted" fo r
botb material ovcrstn:ngtu and strain hardening. However, witb respect to this segment, tbc adjusted shear
strength is allowed to be tmkcn as 0. 88 times the force to account for the i.ncrcuscd strength provided by a
composite slub and re~ogni ling the fact that limited yielding is unlikely to be detrimental to fhtme bcbaviot'.
Jfrhere is not a conct'tlte composite slab. a st ra in~ha rd e ning factor of 1.25 should be used as t•ecomtrlended
by Section C-F3.3. As discussed in the overview, for thi s cxnmpl c, the beam outside the link is composite
with the concrete slab.
Additionullatcral bracing along the length of the beam, if required, is designed per AJSC 360 Specijiwtion
Appendix 6. If tho beam outside the liuk is a different section than the link, then it must also satisfy tuc
width-to-thickness requirements.
for this exutnple, refer to beam BM-1 !>hOWn in Figure 5~3. M determined in the preli minary a.nulysis, the
beam is a WI 0 x 68 wide-flange section . From the computational analysis. tbe applied loads fol' the beam
a.rc shown in Table 5~16 .
Table 5- 16. Beam outside rhe link loading for BM-1
Load Dead, D Live, L Seismic, Qn

Axial, P - - 138 kips
Shear, V 7.80 kips 6.70 kips 11 .6 kips
Moment, M 11 .6 k.ip-ft 7.60 k.ip-ft 115kip-ft
In accordance with Section F3.3, the "adj usted'' required shear stt'tlngtb, VA1,1, is calculated as follows:
As outlined in the overview. the brace-to-beam connection is detailed as a fully restTained connection.
Using the methodology described i.n AT.SC Seismic Design Manua l Example 5.4.3, the adjusted link end
moment will be distributccl into the beam outside the link and the diagonal brace based on amplification
fnctors . The amplification fuctor, CL, is dctcm1incd by dividing the adjusted shear strength, V1111, by the
required link shear force. VQtl'> reported in Table 5-15 as fo llows:
a= Vm~! V06 = 151 kips/102 kips = 1.48
The seismic axial, shear. and moment force..:; in the beam outside the link are multiplied by the ampli fication
fuc tor as follows:
p &lib= a.P(!E = ).48( 138 kips) = 204 kipS

V£.,1o= aY QE = 1.48( 11.6kips)= 17.2 kips
M Em~= aMQE = 1.48( 115 kip-ft) = 170 kip- fr

0(}S/gn ExfJII'Iplo 6 • Eccon/rlcolly Brocad Prttmo
From the appl ied loads, th<.: required uxiul, Pr; shc.ur, V,; and moment design slrcngths, M,, cnn be
determ ined using the applicable loud combinations us follows:
P, = P, = 1.40 + O.SL + l .OQ!i = 1.4(0.0 kips)+ 0.5(0.0 kips)+ 1.0(204 kips)= 204 kips
Vr = V,, = lAD + 0.5L + l.OQ 11 = 1.4(7.80 kips) + 0.5(6.70 kips) + 1.0(17.2 kips)= 3 1.5 kips
1\lf,. = M11 = l AD+ 0.5L + l .OQ8 = 1.4( 11.6 kip· ft) + 0.5(7 .60 k.ip-fr) + 1.0( 170 kip·ft) = l 90 k.ip-ft
5.6 BEAM OUTSIDE THE LINK WIDTH -TO-THICKNES S RATIOS AISC 341
Because the beam outside the lirlk is rhe same section as the link, uo additional local buckling checks are
required.
B EAM OUTSIDE THE LINK WIDTH-TO-THJCKNESS
RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
5.7 BEAM OUTSIDE THE LIN K STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 360
Due to the large axial force and bending moment, tbe beam outs ide the Iink is designed as a beam-column
in accordance with the user note of AJSC 341 Sectiou f3.5a . Tlle beam outside the link will be braced at
the column and at tJ1e link. Therefore, the unbraced length , L11, in consideration of the column depth , d,, is
determined m; follows:
Lb = (L- e - dc)/2 = (30 f\(12 ln/ft)- 48 ill- 12.7 iu]/2 = 1SO in
For theW I 0 x 68 beam, in accordance with ATSC 360 Section F2.2. the limiting yielding unbraccd length.
LP. and the limiting latcral-torsiooal buckling unbraced length, Lr. in consideration that the coeffi cient.
c = 1, arc dctcm1jned as fol lows:
E 29,000 l<si = in
- = 1.76(2.59 in) 110 E q f2-5
Fy 50 ksi
2 2
E 0•7F)I
L = 1.95r - - +6.76 E q F2-6
r "' 0.7F}' E
where
,./A = ~= 4
)134 in (3 100 in(')= . in
2 92 E q f2-7
3
s.'i 75.7 in
Therefore:
4 4 2 . 2
L = 1.95(2.92 in) 29,000 ksi ___3.56 in .....:...____:..__
(1.0) + 3.56 in (1.0) + 6.76 (0.7(50 kSl)
r 0.7(50 ksi) 75.7 in\9.63 in) 75 .7 in\9.63 in) 29,000 ksi
Lr = 487 in
Alternative ly and in any subsequent calculations, LP and Lr arc dctcm1incd from the AJSC Manual Table 3-2
as follows:
LP= 9. 15 ft(l2 in/ft) = 110 in Manual T 3-2

Lr = 40.6 ft( 12 in/ft) = 487 in Manual T 3-2
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Menual. Vol. 4 173

Ooslgn lExlJmp/o 5 • Ecconlrlcn/ly BI1Jc<J<i Fromo
In accordnnce wi th Section C3 , the effective length factor, K, ~hull be taken os unity. TI1e member
slenderness is dctcrn1incd in accordance with ATSC 360 Section E2 l.L'l follows:
KL/rr = 1.0(150 ln)/2.59 in = 57.9 < 200 §E2
In accordunce with Section E3, the elilStic buckling stress, FV' is determined as fo llows:
{\, = n2E!(KL/r) 2 = ~(29,000 ksi)/(57.9) 2 = 85.4 ksi Eq E3-4
In accordance with Section E3, if the yidd to clustic buckling stress rntio il:i less than or equal to 2.25 , the
column buckling behuvior is considered clastic. The stress ratio is determined as follow s:
F/ F0 =50 ksi/85.4 ksi = 0.58 < 2.25
The critical stress, F,.,, is detern1ined as follows:
Eq E3·2
Alkmativdy and in any subsequent calcu lutions, Fc1- is detcm1incd from the AISC Manual Table 4-22 us
follows:
F 0 . = 35.3 ksil$c = 35.3 ksi/0.9 = 39.2 ksi Manual T 4-22
The nominal compressive strength, Pn, is determined as follows:
P, = F ~s = 39.2 ksi( 19.9 in 2) = 780 kips Eq E3 · 1
In accordance with AISC 341 Section A3.2, the strength of the beam outside the link can be incrcnsed by
the expected yidd stress ratio, R1" given the link and the beam arc the sam e member. In accordance with
•
AISC 360 Section H1.1 . the design ax ial strength of the beam, P , . is determined as follows:
P" ~ R¥~jJ1 , ~ 1.1 (0.9)(780 kips) ~ 772 kips §Hl.l

P,.!Pc = 204 kips/772 kips= 0.26 §HI. I
Tn accordance with ATSC 360 Section F2.2, when L, < Lb < Lr, then the nominal fl exural strength, M,, in
eonsidcration that the lateral-torsional buckling modification factor, c"!::l 1.0, is determined as fo llows:
MJl ~ Ch M p - (M " - 0. 7Fy:r

S ) Eq f 2·2
where
M, ::::1 F_v Z~ ::::1 50 ksi(85.3 in3 ) ::::1 4265 kip-in Eq F2-1
Therefore:
M
II
=1.0 4265 kip-in - [4265 kip-m - 0.7(50 ksi)(75.7 in 3 )](
150
~n-IIO ~n)
487 Ill - I I0 tn
Mn = 4094 kip-in

D<Mign Ex!Jirlplo 5 • Eicoontrlcally Broc&d Ftltmo
In uccorduncc with Section H1 .1, the design Acxurnl strength, M,, i5 dctem1incd as follows:
1\Jfc = Rl~,M11 = 1.1(0.9)(4094 kip· in)(l.O tt/12 in)= 338 kip-tr §H 1.1
•
Because P,.!Pc > 0.2, the combined beam strength is limjted us fo llows:
Pr/Pt + 8/9(M,JM) = 0.26 + 8/9(190 kip-ft/338 kip-ft) = 0.76 < 1.0 EqHl- la
BEAM OUTSIDE THE LINK COMBINED FLEXURAL AND

COMPRESSION STRENGTH RATIOS ARE SAT1SffED
Alternatively and in subsequent calcu lations the combined str-ength equations are determi ned using the
AJ SC Manual Table 6- I, with L0 = J2 feet und Rr = 1.1, as fo llows:
p = 1.40 x 1o-~ (kipsr'11.1 = 1.27 x 10-j kjps- 1 Manual T 6-1

bx = 2.88 x 1o-~ (kip· ttr 111 .1 = 2.62 x 1o-~ (kip·ftT 1 Manual T 6· 1
P,.IPC~ pPr ~ 1.27 X 1o-Jkips- 1(204 kips) ~ 0.26
Because pPr > 0.2. the combined strength is limited by AlSC A'fanual Equation 6-1 as follows:
pP,. + bjvfrx""" 0.26 + 2.62 X 1o-3(190 ldp-ft) == 0.76 < 1.0 Manual Eq 6-1
5.8 DIAGONAL BRACE REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 31 4
For this example, refer to beam BR-1 shown i11 Figure 5-3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
brace is a WI 0 X 77 widc-Aange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the bruce
are shown in Table 5- I 7.
Table 5-17. Diagonal brace /oadingfor BR-1
Load Dead, D Live, L Seismic, Q 8

Axial. P I 0.8 kips 8.30 kips 182 kips
Shear, V 1.00 kips 0.50 kips 5.00 kips
Moment, M 4.10kip-ft 3.20 kip-ft 101 kip-ft
As with tbc beam outside the link, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, tbc required strcngtb
of bruce is "adjusted" fo r both material overstrength and strain hardening. The adjusted required shear
strength, V,. 11" i.s calculated as fo llows:
Using the amplification method describc.d previously, tbc factor a is determined by dividing the adj usted
shear strength, VM•\· by the reqnjred link shear force, VQE'· reported i_n Table 5-15 as follows:
ex= V"' 1,/VQs= 172kips/ 102 kips= 1.69

Ooslgn lExlJmp/o 5 • Ecconlrlctllly 811Jc<td FrarruJ
Th~: seismic ux iul , shear, and moment force_.; in the bruce urc multiplied by the umpliAcution foetor as
fo llows:
P~:i11 u = <YPQC = l .69( 182 kips)= 308 kips

V~:...h = CJ.VQs= 1.69(5.00 kips) c:: 8.45 kips
Mr;.."~ = CJJ.!{QIJ = 1.69( 101 kip-ft) = 171 k.ip-ti:
From the applied loads, the required axial, P,..; shear, V,; and moment design strengths, Mu, can be
dtte1mined using the applicable loud combinations as follows:
P,. = P 11 = 1.4D + O.SL + 1.OQ8 = 1.4(1 0.8 kips)+ 0.5(8.3 kips)+ I .0(308 kips)= 327 kips
V,.- V:, ==- 1.40 + 0.5L + l.OQ6 ~ 1.4(1 .0 kips)+ 0.5(1 .0 kips)+ 1.0(8.45 kips) ~ I 0.4 kips
M11 = L4D + 0.5L + l.OQP. = 1.4(4.10 kip-ft) + 0.5(3 .20 kip-ft) + 1.0( 171 kip-ft) = 178 kip-ft
5.9 DIAGONAL BRACE WIDTH ~TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
Tn accordance with ATSC 341 Section F3.5o, EBF braces shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D 1.1 for moderately ductile members. As indicuted in AISC Seismic Design
Manual Table 1-3. theW 10 x 77 sati lies brace local buckling requirements.
BRACE WIDTH-TO-THJCKNESS RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
5.10 DIAGONAL BRACE STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 360
As with the beam outside thc link, the diagonal brace is designed as a beam-column in accordance with
the user note of ATSC 34 I Section F3.5a. As mentioned prev iously, the bn\ce is hi nged at the column and
fixed at the link. The combined strength equat ions are determined using the AISC Manual Table 6-1, with
Lb = 17 feet (as detcnni.ned in the preliminary design), as follows:
p = 1.54 X I0- 3 kips- 1 Manual T 6-1

b_,= 2.65 x 1o-3 (kip-ftr' Manual T 6-1
P,IP, = pPr = 1.54 X 10-3 kips-' (327 kips)= 0.50
Because pP, > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AJSC Manual Equation 6-1 as fo llows:
pPr + b)vfr.r = 0.50 + 2.65 X 10-J (kip-ftf 1 ( 178 kip- ft) = 0.97 < 1.0 Manual Eq 6-1
BRACE COMBINED FLEXURAL AND COMPRESSION

STRENGTH RATIOS ARE SATISHED
Tn accordance with ATSC 360 Section 02.1, the brace shear strength is dctem1ined in consideration of the
web width-to-thickness ratio. The width-to-thickness ratio is dc:tennincd as follows:
h!rw< 2.24(£/F/·5 = 2.24(29,000 ksi/ 50 ksi)0·5 = 53.9 > 14.8 §G2.1

{J<N;/gn Exomp/0 5 • 6co0nltlcally Brac<t<J FrMIO
Thoreforc, with the wob shcur coefficient, C,.= 1.0, the design shcnr sh-ength, <P.V1,, is dctem1incd as fo llows:
<l>vVn = ¢,0.6;;:,A 11.C, = 1.0(0.6)(50 ksi)(l 0.6 in)(0.53 in)(l ,0) = 169 kips > I 0.4 kips Eq G2- 1
I ,.V, > P,.-> SHEAR STRENGTH rs SATISFIED I
1\Jteruotively, the des ign shear strength. $ ,.V,. is determined using the AISC klamwl Tabl e 3-6 as foJJows:
<PY" ~ 169 kips > 10.4 kips Manual T 3-6
5.11 COLUMN REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 360
For tills example, refer to column C- 1 shown in Fi gure 5-3(n). As dctcmJincd in the preli minary analysis,
the column is a W 12 x 96 widc-flungc section. From the compututiomtl anulysis, the applied louds for the
column nrc shown in Table 5-18.
Tab le 5-18. Column /oadlng .for C-1
Loud Dc.ad, D Live, L Seismic, Qc:

Axial, P 286 kips 98.0 k ips 339 kips
Shear. V 1.00 kip O. l20kip 3.0 kips
Moment. M 4.20 kip-ft 2.20 kip-ft 38.0 kip-ft
As witb the bc.am and brace, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, the column strength must resist the
force.s generated by the sum of the adjus ted link shear strengths. In Section 4.7 of the pre!im innry desigu,
the adjusted colwnu required axial load, P&"''' was determined lobe 531 kips. The computational analysis
confirmed tbnt 15 percent of the li nk end moment, M lim~' or 50.4 kip-ft is distr ibuted to the column.
From the applied loads in a;xial compression, the required axial, P,..; s h~ar, V,; and moment des ign strengths,
M,t' can be dctem1ined us ing the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = 1.4D + O.SL + l .OQE= l .4(286 kips)+ 0.5(98.0 kips)+ I .0(53 1 kips) = 980 kips
V, = V,, = lAD + 0.5L + 1.0Q8 = 1.4( 1.0 kips) + 0.5(0. 12 kips) + 1.0(3.0 kips) = 4.50 kips
M 11 = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QB = 1.4(4.2 kjp-ft) + 0.5(2.2 kip-fr) + 1.0(50.4 kip-ft) = 57.4 kip-ft
From applied loads in axial tension, the required axial, Pn design strength can be dctem1incd using the
applicable load combination as follows:
P, = 0.7D + l.OQ5 = 0.7(286kips) + 1.0(-531 kips)=-331 kips
By inspection, the governing load combin ation is that for axial compression. However, foundation and
anchorage design must also consider the applied loads in axial tension.
2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 177

Ooslgn lExlJmp/o 5 • Eccenlrlcolly Br&t<i'd Frama
5.12 COLUMN WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
In accordance with ATSC 341 Section F3.5ll; EBF columns sha ll comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile members. As indicated In Al.SC Seismic Design Manual
Tobie 1-3, theW 12 X 96 satisfies column local buckling requirements.
COLUMN WTDTH-TO-THlCKNESS RATrOS ARE SATISFIED
5.13 COLUMN STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 360
As mentioned previously. the colurl'ln is idealized as n pin base. The combined stre11gth equations for the
W12 x 96 column arc determined using the AJSC Mc/1/ua/ Table 6- 1 (L b= 11 .0 ft) as fo llows:
p =0.90 I X 10-J kips- 1

Manual T 6-1
b~ = J.6I x 10-~ (kip·ftr ' Manual T 6·1
p ) ? r = p?r = 0.901 X 10-3 kips- I (980 kips)= 0.88
B<!causc pP, > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AJSC Manual Equntiotl 6-1 as fo ll ows:
pPr + b.~r:r = 0.88 + 1.6 1 x 10-~ (kip-1lr' (57.4 kip-ft) = 0.97 < 1.0 Ma/1/Jal Eq 6-1
COLUMN COMBlNED FLEXURAL AND COMPRESSION

STRENGTI-T RATIOS ARE SATISFTED
6. Design and Detailing of Connections
6.1 LINK END STIFFENER REQUIREMENTS AISC 341
In accordance with AJSC 341 Section F3.5b.4, full-depth, doubk-sided web stiffener::; are n::quircd ar the
diagonal brace ends of each link. The minimum required widrb, W01; 01 of each end sti ffe ner is determined as
follows:
w m!o = (b1 - 21\j.)/2 = [10.1 in - 2(0.47 in)]/2 = 4.58 in §F3.5b.4
The minimum required thickness, 1= , of each end stiffener is derem1ined as follows:
/min= 0.75111• ~ Yl< in = 0.75(0.47 in) = 0.35 in< }'! in §F3.5 b.4
PROVIDE FULL-DEPTH, 4~-INCH-WTDE,

DOUBLE-SIDED END STIFFENERS
In order to simplify derailing and fabrication, use the same stiffener thickness as required for the
intermediate stiffeners.

Ooolgn Exomplo 6 • Eccontrlcally Broc<Jd FtflmO
6.2 LINK INTERMEDIATE STIFFENER REQUIREMENTS AISC 341
In accordance with AJSC 34 1 Section F3 .5b.4. where e > 5M/ VP. full · depth inrem1ediate (within the link)
web stiffcncrl! arc not rc(Julrcd. I: or all other conditions, intcmwdiatc stiffeners arc required, spaced at
intcrvuls in accordnnce with Section F3.5o.4(u through c). For this cxumple, with e< 1.6M/V,1, the required
int~nnediate stiffener spuc.ing, s, for ulink rotation angle.~~· of0.08 rntl is determined as follows:
s = (30tw- diS)= 30(0.47 in)- ( 10.4 in/5) = 12.0 in §F3.5b.4(a)
For a link rotation angle of 0.02 rud or less, the rcquire.d spucing is ddcrmined as follows:
s =(52!"' - d/5) = 52(0.47 in)- (I 0.4 in/5) = 22.4 in §F3.5b.4(a)
Intcrpoluting between these limi ts using the culculalcd link rotntion angle of 0.05 rnd, tht: mu..ximum
spncing between stii1eners is 17.2 inches.
For Links where d s 25.0 inches, thl! sti£fcnl!rs arc required only on one side of the Link web. Wbcrc
d > 25.0 inches, the stifl'cners arc required on both sides of the web. The minimum required width, w101.,, of
each intcm1cdiate sti f'fener is determined as follows:
Wmin = bJ2 - T"' = (10.1 i.o/2) - 0.47 in = 4.58 in §F3.5b.4
The minimum required thickness, /min• of each intermediate stiffener is determined as follows:
'~in ='"' > ~ in= 0.47 in §F3.5b.4
For simpliticution purposes, both the end and intem1cdiute stiffeners will usc \12-inch-tbick material.
PROVIDE FULL-DEPTH, 4)4-fNCH-WTDE x ~-INCH

THlO<, SINGLE-SIDED STIFFENERS SPACED
AT I 7 INCHES ON CENTER
6.3 STIFFENER WELD REQUIREMENTS AISC 341 /AISC 360/AWS 01.8
With respect to the fillet welds connecting link stiffeners, AlSC 341 Section F3.5b.4 requires the strength in
proportion to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the link stifl'ener, A.<1· for welds connecting the stiffener
to the link web, the required strength is ~A sr For welds connecting the sliffetler to the link flange. the
required strength is F, Aj 4.
In accordance with AISC 360 Section 12.4, the connecting fillet weld strength, ¢R11 , is determined, in
consideration of tbe weld size (in sixteenths of an inch), D , and weld length, /, as follows:
q>Rn= q>0.60F5xJ.-0.707)DL/ 16 AlSC 360 Eq 12-4 (modified)

=0.75(0.60)(70 ksi)(0.707)D//16 = 1.39D/ kip-in
Altematively, and iu subsequent calculations, the fillet weld strength is determined us ing the AJSC Manual
Part 8 as follows:
q>Rn= 1.39D/ kip-in Manual Eq 8-2a

Ooslgn t:xampfo 5 • Ec;r.:en/rfc&lfy Brot&d Ftt~m a
In accordnnc~ with AlSC 341 Section C-F3.5b.4, welds in the k-area ofthe beam should be avoided.
Appropriately detailed sti ffencr corner clips avoid the k-a.rea. In accordunce with AWS D 1.8 Cluusc 4. I . I,
the requirod minimurn cortHll' clip length along the link web.!,.,. is determined ns fol lows:
/r, 111111 ~ l .S in + kr~,., - t1 ':!:! 1.5 in + 1.21 in- 0.77 in ~ 2.0 in AWS D 1.8 Clause 4. 1.1
ln accordance with AWS 01.8 Clause 4.1.2. the required maximutn comer clip length along the lir1k tla11ge.
/d , is detennined ns fo llows:
/,/lllil'- _, k 1 - 0.501.,1 + y; in ~ 0.88 in - 0.50(0.47 in) + 0.50 in ~ 1.14 in AWS D 1.8 Clause 4.1 .2
Based on the AWS recommendations. 2.0-iJICh and 1.0-inch·widc cUps m·c provided along the web and
flange, respecrivcly. The link stiffener horizontal cross-sectional area. A&~ , in consideration oft be flange clip
is dctcm1ined as follows:
A,,, =(w - I .0 in)l = (4.75 in- 1.0 in)(0.50 in)= 1.88 in 2 §F3.5b.4
The mi nimum thickness of double-sided fillet welds connecting the stiffener to tbo ll nk web and ftange aro
d dt:rmin~;d os follows:
F~Arr
2
n\'V1cb·. D . _ - -
50 ksi(l. 88 in_..::)_ _ _ _ _ = 6 .96 SIX
- - - - - - _ _ _ ; ' - -_
. teentb s
rn n 2(1.39 kip-in)/ 2(1. 39 k:ip-in)[1 0.4 in- 2(0.77 in) - 4.0 in]
FVA I 2
50 ksi(1.88 in ) ___ = .
_ _ _ _ _....:....._ _...;_ .
SIXteen ths
Flange: D , = ' 2 25
mo 4(2)(1.39 kip-in)/ 4(2)(1.39 kip·in)(4.75 in -1.0 in)
In accordance with AlSC 360 Tabl e J2.4, the minimum tiller weld s ize for u Yl-inch·thick plate is Y,6 iucb.
PROVIDE DOUBLE-SIDED. Yl·INCH and ~ - INCH FILLET

WEL DS ALONG THE LINK WEB AND FLANGE,
RESPECIIVELY
6.4 BRACE-TO-LINK CONNECTION AISC 360
For £hjs example, refer to joint J-1, shown in Figure 5-4. As detennined previously, the applied loads forthc
connection arc shown in Table 5-19.
Table 5- 19. Diagonal brace connecliofl /oadlngfoJ·joinl J. f
Load Required Strength
Axial, P" 327 kips
Shear, V., I 0.4 kips
Moment, Mu 178 kip-ft
As discussed in the overview, the diagonal braces are connected Lo the link with a fully rl.!strained bolted
flange plate (BFP) moment connection. 1l1e BPP moment connection is prequalifiecl per AISC 358
Chapter 7.

Ooolgn Exomplo 5 • Ecc<:>n/r/c(l//y Broc<Jd FtM10
ln nccordunce with AISC 360 Section F 13. 1, the flun gc1' of the bruce shall have adequate strength to avoid
the limit statl! of tensil e rupture. The brace tem:jion flan ge gross area. A18 , is dl!lcrmined tlB follows:
A_fir = bp1) = l 0.2 in(O.g7 in) = H.87 in 2 §B4 .3a
Since F/ F, ::::~ 50/65 = 0.77 < 0.8, then Y, = 1.0

Using two rows of bolts, the maximum hole s ize, dm,x• is detem1ined as follow s:
2 1.0(50 ksi)8.87 in 2
8.87 in -
65 ksi
,!:,.__ _ _..;....__ _ _ _ _____;~ = 1.17 in §F l3 .l(a)
2(0.87 in)
Therefore, a bolt nominal diameter, d11 , of 1.0 inch with a s tundard hole is used. The maximum hole size, in
consideration of the hole diameter, d1, is determined as fo llows:
dm, .~ = d, + Yir, in= 1Ytr. iu + Ytr. i.n = 1.13 in< 1.17 iu Table J3.3
In accordance with the Manual Table 7-1 , u nominal bolt arc.a, A'" of 0.785 squ.trc inches is used. In
accordance with the preferred spaci ng requi rein ents ofAJSC 360 Section 13 .3. a longitudih!l l center-to-
center bolt spacing (pitch). s. of 3db is used. Two rows of bolts are used with a 4.0-inch transverse center-to·
center spacing (gage), g , between rows. In accordance with Section 13.10, a longih1dinal bolt edge dist·a nce,
Lc, of 2d" is used. finally, in order to provide installation clearance from the fuce of the li nk beam flange to
the first row of bol ts, a 7.0-inch cl ear dismnce, S" is U!led.
ln consideration of bruce and beam flange compatibility, a flange plute width , ~r,• of 10.0 inches is used.
The flange plute i:; full penetration welded to the bcmn and must be less thun or equal to the flange width. ln
consideration of the brace flan ge thickness. a flan ge plate thickness. 'P' of 1.0 inch is used. Tn this case, it is
preferable that the plate thicl<r~ess is at least equal to or greatet· than the thickness of the brace flan ge.
PROVIDE 10.0-rNCH-WlDE.
1.0-INCH-THJCK BOLTED FLANGE PLATES
The flange plates resist both axjaJ and moment loading. The required flange plate strength due to the axial
load, Pfa• and moment, P1f' arc dctennined as follows:
Axial: P1a = P j2 = 327 kips/2 = 164 kips
Moment: P = M"· = 17 8 kip-ft(l2 infft) = 184 k'Ips

if d+t/i 10.6in + I.Oin
The corresponding total required fl ange plate strength, PI' is dctcm1ined as fo llows:
P1 =P1i, + P1r= 164 kips + I 84 kips = 348 kips
This force applies at the flange at the link end, where the axial and flexural dfcds arc additive. At tbc
opposite fl ange, the force should be not less than the a:'\iul component considered by itself. For simplicity,
the connection of both flan ge~ is identical.
2018/BC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 181

Oosfgn EExamp/o 5 • Eccon/rfctllly Broc<id Frttmo
In accordnnce with Section J3.6 and J3.1 0, the controlling shear strength, ¢R,., per bol t, considering bolt
shear and bearing, is determined us lhc minimum or the following:
<!J R, = <P 1.OFmAb= 0.75(1 .0)(84 ksi)(0.785 in2) = 49. 5 kips Eq J3 .. I

<!J R, ~ <!J2.4F',..)Jt;-c 0.75(2 .4)(65 ksi)( I .0 in)(0.87 in) o 102 kips Eq B -6u
<!J R1, = <!J2.4F,111bt.P= 0. 75(2.4)(65 ksi)( 1.0 in)(l.O in)= 117 kips Eq J3-6a
Therefore, tbc number of bolts can be de-termined as fo llows:
l = 348 kips = .
= _P!.,_
11 7 03
oRI I 49 .5 kips
PROVIDE EIGHT 1-fNCH-DIAME1"ER A490X

BOLTS WITH STANDARD HOLES
In accordance with Section 0 3, the net eftcctive areu of the fl ange plute. A,., in cons ideration of u sh~r lag
fac tor, U = I .0, is determined as follows:
A,,= AnV = trJb;r - 2(d1, + Vi f. in)] V = I .0 in[ 10.0 in- 2(1 Vi r.in + Vtdn)]( 1.0) = 7.75 in2 Eq 03-1
In accordance with Section 14. 1. the trial flange plate thickness for tensile yielding and tensile rupture is
contim1ed ns follows:
p
Tensile yielding: 1 . = f 348 kips = 0.77 in Eq 14- 1
" o:.:m oF b 0.9(50 ksi)(l 0 in)
)' fp
-r . P1t 11
348 kips(l.O in) .
1 cnst1c ruptun!: I = = = 0.92 tn Eq 14-2
pmln °F;,A6 0.75(65 ksi)(7.75 in )
2
With respect to block shear in theW 10 x 77 brnce flange , in accordance with Section J4.3, the gross and net
areas subject to shear, A[(I. and A111 , re.spt!ctively, and the nel area subject to tension, Aw, are dt!terminl!d as
fol lows:
A~:,. = 2[S1 + (O.Sn- l )s]t1 = 2{7.0 in+ (0.5(8)- 1]3 in}(0.87 in)= 27.8 in 2 §14 .3
~
Aur = 2(S1 + (O.Sn - I )s - (0.5n - 0.5)(d11 + Yro))tf

= 2{7.0 in + [0.5(8)- 1)3 in- [0.5(8) - 0.5](1.13 in) }(0.87 in)= 21.0 in 2 §14 .3
A,u = (g - (d,, + Yr .. )]t1 = (4 in- (1. 13 in)](0.87 in) = 2.50 in2 §J4.3
For the li.mit sLate of brace flan ge block shear rupture. Lhe available strength, ¢R,t> for the limit state of brace
fl ange block shear rupture in cons ideration of a uniform rension srress. U1\s = I, is dererm i ned as fo \lows:
<!J R" = <!J(0.60FuAI\V + V,_,F"A,u) 5 <j>(0.60Fy4ll,.+ V17,FwAru) Eq J4-5

= 0.75[0.60(65 ksi)(21.0 in 2 ) + 1.0(65 ksi)(2.50 in 2) ) = 736 kips
< 0.75[0.60(50 ksi)(27.8 in 2) + I .0(65 ksi)(2.50 in 2)] = 747 kips
<!JR,, = 736 kip-s> 348 kips

O<f-Sign E.><omplo 5 • 5coentrlcnlly Brac&d Ftanw
A!though not shown, some th0 preceding methodology is repeated to determine the block shear ruph1rc
strength in the 1.0-inch-thick tlttngc. plate£. For this exillilple, lhc. flttn ge plate block shear rupture strcngth is
assumed to be more thun adequate .
BLOCK SHEAR RUPTURE

STRENGTHS ARE SATlSflED
lu considerution of tbe flan ge plute slenderness, the radius of gyration, r. is detcm1inad as follows:
t 1.0 in .
r= JI2= Jl2 0 29
= . m
In accordance witb Scctlon E2, the mcmbur slenderness, KL/J', using an effective kngtb foe tor, K = 0.65,
and a lateral unbrnccd l0ngth, L =S" is determined as follows:
KL/r = 0.65(7.0 in)/0.29 in= 15.7 < 25 §E2
In accordance with Section J4.4, the avuiJablc strength, <{>P for the Jjmit stntc of compression yielding is
11
,
determined as fo llows:
<{>P11 = $F)>1"t" = 0.90(50 ksi)( I 0.0 in)(l.O in) = 450 kips > 348 kips Eq J4-6
FLANGE PLATE COMPRESSION

STRENGTH IS SATISHED
The vertical component of the Hungc force, Vf' is determined as follows:
Vj =P;(sin p) =348 kips(sin 42. 7) =236 kips

In accordance with Secrion J 10.2, the web local yielding and crippling strengths of the beam at the flange
plate connect-ion are determined as follows:
Yielding: $R, = ~F;Jw(5k +!b)= 1.0(50 ksi)(0.47 in)[5( 12 7 in)+ 1.27 in] Eq JI0-2
= 179 kips< 236 kips
1.5
2 I t ...
Crippling: 9· RII = 'fn-o.80tII' 1+ 3 ..!L
d Eq 110-4
If {w
29,000 ksi(50 ksi)(0.77 in)

=: 0.75(0.80)(0.47 in) 2
1+ 3 (1 .27 in )(0.47 in)u
10.4in 0.77 in 0.47 in
= 240 kips> 236 kips
As indicated, the web locu.l yielding strength is insuffi cient to satisfy the required flange-p late slrtnglh.
Therefore, web stiffeners are required adjacent to lhe ftange plaLes. The componenL portion of the tlange-
plate forc e directed through the stiffe ner is determined as follows:
P, = 0.50(Vf - <{>R, ) == 0.50(236 kips- 179 kips)= 28.5 kips

Ooslgn FExvmp/o 5 • Eco()n/tfctllfy Brot<td Fromo
As dctcm1incd previously, the link end stiffener width is 4.75 inches. Tn considerution of 1.0-inch-wide
stiffener comer clips, the minimum thickness of the sli frener to sntisfy Lhc required local yielding strength
is determ ined as fo llows:
I 111 111
pv =
= ~F'/ 28.5 kips = ' < 0.5 'm
0.17 m
0.9(50 k~i )(4. 75 in - 1.0 in)
The minimum thickness of double-sided tiller welds connecting the stiffener to the llnk web and ftange are
de-tcnnincd flS follows:
P1 28.5 kips ,
Web: D11 . 1 = = = 2. 11 < 8.00 sixteenths
" 2(1.39 kip-in)/ 2(1.39 kip-in)[10.4 in - 2(0. 77 in) - 4.0 in]
. P, 28. 5 kips .
Flange. D . =--....J:.-- ----......:..--- =2 .73 < 3. 00 SIXteenths
mm 2(1 .39 kip-in)/ 2(1.39 kip-in)(3. 75 in)
U NK END STJFFENERS AND ASSOCJATED

WELDS SATrSFY REQUIRED STRENGTHS
Although not shovm, some the preceding methodology is 1·epcated to determine the bolted brace shear tab
at1achmcnr. For this example, two A325 X bolts are determined adequate for the shear tab-to-brace web
connection. lt1 addition, a double-sided, ~- iil th fi llet weld is determined adequate for the shear mb-to-beam
flange connection. 11Je tinul brace-to-be.am connection geometry is shown ln F igure 5-9.
PL W 'x4o/." PL ~"x4%" full

depth intermediate
full depth
stiffeners at 17" on
stiffeners each
side of web ---,.,. L' k center max. , near side
W ide flange ----... Jn ' e side of web ---..
beam
j Link~ e elf
Beam
centerline ·- ·- ·- ·- ·- -- -- -- -- -- - I
1
I
PL W'x4"x0' -6"with Link
{2)-1 " diameter A325X centerline
bolts (bolts not shown)
Shims, if req ui red ~~

/
/
/ '-- PL 1"x10·"x1 '·o" with (8)-1"
diameter A490X bolts, both
/
/ sides, (bolts not shown)
Brace
centerline ' - W ide flange brace
Figure 5-9. Brace-to-beam connection. .l-1. at the link

O<Mign fEJ<fJmplo 5 • 5ccon/rlc(l!ly Brae&<! Framo
6.5 FINAL LINK DESIGN CHECK AISC 341
With the design of the braceM to-beam connection complete, the effective link length. edr• cun be
distwgulsbcd from that used in the prdimjnary design. As shown in .F igure 5-9. the preliminary link lc11gth,
e, is bused on the frame centerline offset and represents the distance betw~:cn the intersection of the brace
nnd beam ccntcrl incs. The effective link length represents the distance between the bn1ce connection.'>
measured fi'Oirlthe edge ofrhe end stift'euer. For beam BMul. shown in Figure 5u3a, the effective link
length, e~ is dctcm1incd as follows:
e =e+d(beam)_d(brace)+2tP = Bin+ 10.4in _10.6in + 2( l.Oin)= 0. in

4 4 7 Say 41 in.
<if hm ~ sin~ mn(42.7) sin(42.7)
The preceding methodology is repeated for each link for both frame configurations with the preliminary
link sizes, e: effective link sizes, ed1; aud calculated link capacity ratios summarized in Table 5-20.
Table 5-20. Preliminmy link lengths, eff eclive link lengths. and link capacity rarios
Tnvcrted-V Two-Story X
Level ed! eu'f
e (in) e (in) e,11 (in)
e11ff (i n)
MIV
, fJ , ,,
MIV
Roof 42 35 1.1 - - No Link
6th 42 35 l.l 42 38 1.1

Stb 64 61 1.2 - - No Link
4th 48 41 1.2 50 52 1.3
3rd 48 41 1.2 - - No Link
2nd 48 41 1.2 50 52 1.3
As indicated in Table 5-20, the link capacity ratios are all less than 1.6. In accordance with AISC 34 1
Section F3.3, a ratio less than 1.6 indicates shear yielding will dominate the inelastic response. If the
links were subject to flexural yielding, the required flexural s1rengtJ1 would be calculated at the link end
ratl1cr than at the. centerline intersection. As all tbc li11ks arc shcar-govorned, no further flexural redesign
considcrations arc required. Commentary Section C-F3.5b further discusses considerations associated with
the centerline model analysis.
6.6 ALTERNATIVE BRACE-TO-LINK CONNECTIONS AISC 341
Although this example uscs a BFP, there are other options to provide a fully res trained brnce-to-
link connection. AJtematives for other connections include a welded flange plate ('WFP) or a welded
unreinforced fl ange (WUF).
Unlike Lhc BFP, a WFP connection is not prcqualificd per AISC 358. In addition, the SEAOC Seismology
Commit1ee, FEMA 350 Task Group has documented a number of potential concerns with the connection's
inelastic perfonnance (SEAOC. 2002).

Ooslgn FExamplo 5 • Eccenlrlctt/ly Broc<J<I Frorrw
With re~pect too WUF connection, gcomcf:ric compatibility for the C.TP woovc welds requires that the link-
be-lim nange width be greater thn.n or equal to that of the brace. In many cuses, including this example, to
provide adequate flange widrh. the link beams wou ld eithet· require ovet·sized rolled wide~ftangell or custom
built-up I-shupcd sections. Botb possibilities would have sig:ui.tlcant economic implications.
The CJP groove welding associated with u WUF connection also presents un overhead field-weld challenge
that mosr tabricators wo1lld p.rcferably nvoid (B. Ma1111ing, personlll cotiJmW1icarion). In some cases. ro
avoid this condition. a short segment of the brace can be shop welded to the link and subseqnently field
spliced (Bnmeau, Uang, and Sabclli, 20 11 ). With re;:spcct to WUF connection inelastic perfomJuncc, several
notuble Iink connection fractures occurred in the 20 l 0 to 20 l l Chti~;tc hurch series of earthquakes. These
fractures were reportedly due to mis<tligned welded f:htnge joints (Kanvindc cl al, 20 14 ). https://uscclibrary
.org/doi/ 10.1 061 /%28ASCE%29ST.l943·541X.OOO I 043
6.7 BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTION AISC 341
As indicated in Design Example l, beattl-to-colurnn connections in a special ruomem frame (SMF) must
satisfy beam plastic-hinge strength requirements because the binge serves as the frame's s1ntcrural fuse. In
accordance witb th~; liSer note in ATSC 341 Section F3.5a, these stnngc.:nt requirements arc not needed in an
EBF because the link, not Lhe bCHm hinge, is the structural fuse. However, beam-to-column conneclions in
an BBF are required to accommodate significant inelaslic drift in accordance vliLh AJSC 341 Section F3.6b.
Therefore , tbe connections must satisfy ordinary moment frame beam-ro-column coilllectiou requi.rements
as outlined in Section EJ .6.
For this example, as discussed in the overview. the moment connection .is fu lly restrained, conforming to
option (b) of Section F3.6b. When in combination with the brace gu:;set, the cortnection configuration is
si mi lar to the SCBF beam-to-column connection illustrated in Design Example 2.
6.8 DIAGONAL BRACE-TO-GUSSET CONNECTION AISC 341
As indicated in Design Example 2, the gtlsser plates in an SCBF must accommodate the inelastic rotarian
due to brace buckling. However, as with the be~m-to-column connections, the user note in ATSC 341
Section F3.5a indicatc.:s this :;tringc.:nt requirement is not needed in an EBF bc.:cat1se the li nk, not the
diagonal brace, is the structural fuse. Therefore, in accordance with Section F3.6c, it is considered
unnecessari ly conservative to design the connection for the brace buckling strengtl1. Tbe cotU\cction Is
simply required ro resist the adjus1ed brace strength corresponding to link yielding and strain hardening in
accordance with ordinary concc.:ntric braced-frame requirements as outlined in Section FJ .6.
For this example, as discussed in the overview. the brace attaches to the g11sset with bolted connecting
elements. Although not illustrated in this example, several bolted brace-to-gusset connection design
examples arc included in the AJSC Seismic Design Manual.
6.9 LINK STABILITY BRACING AISC 341/360
In order to provide stable inelastic bcbav:ior, lateral restraint against out-of·planc displacement and twist is
required at cacb end of the link in accordance with ATSC 341 Sc.:ction F3 .4b. The lateral restraint stabi lizcs
the diagonal bracing and the beam outside the link. In accordance with Section F3.5c, tbc link is considered
a protected zone and as such, headed stud anchors cannot be used between the ends. As detenn ined by
Rictes and Popov (1989), the concrete slab alone cannot be relied on to provide adequate lateral bracing
at the ends of tbc li.n.k. Therefore, the provisions ignore any slab composite action cftccts and require
supplemental bracing.

D<Mign Exomplo 5 • 5ccentr/c(ll/y Broc&d Framo
For I-shupcd ~cctions , Section F3.4b requires brucing for both the top und bottom link flanges. In
accordance with Section D 1.2c, the bracing required strength is the snme a..'l that required for SMr expected
plnstic·hinge locations. In addition to rcquil'tlrttents fot· stt·ength. Section D1 .2c. l (c) also refers to AISC 360
Appendix 6 stiffness requirements. for tl1is example. a !lcbcm at:ic reprcsoutation of the brnciug is shown
in plQo on Figure 5-2. Altbough the link bracing design requirements an: not explicitly illuslruted in this
example, a s imilar latcrulrestmint example for an SMF bcum is included in Dc.sign Example I.
6.10 INELASTIC STRAIN AND QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS AISC 341
As an expec ted urea of inclaslic strain, tht: link is considert:d n protected zont: (AISC 341 Section F3.5c).
In u protecled zone, tlH! members tl re subjc.ct to fabrication and attachment limillltions, u.s detined in
Section 12.1. Those l.itnjtatiot'ls include. among otbor it em~. tbc attacbme11t of headed stud anchors aud
decking that penetrate the flru1ges of the link .
lnel ~tsticSLTnin is ul ~o likely in the column blli!e plate, column splice, and beu.m-to-column moment
cont:lectiotl welds. TI1erefme. CJP welds in these •·egions are to be u·eated as demand critical in acco.rdance
with AlSC 341 Section F3 .6a. As outlined previously, CJP groove welds associated with builHtp link
bcnm fa brication arc also treated as demand critical. Although not spcciJiculJy mentioned in Section F3.6a,
for this example, the CJP groove wdds connec ting the bolted flan ge plates to the link nrc nlso treated as
demand critical.
To provide a reliable ductile seismic response. the EBF is required to meet the quality requirements
outlined in both AISC 34 1 Chapter J and AISC 360 Chapter N. The building code requires u specific
quality as.surance plan (QAP) that is typically prepared by the engineer of record and is part of the contritct
documenrs. Chapter J provides the minimum acceptable requi rements for the plan. As the requirements
may incorporate economic an d scheduling considerations, the QAP should be provided to the fabricator and
erector as part of the bid documents.
The following items are nor addressed in this example but are nevertlteless necessary for a complete design
of tJ1e seismic load resisting system:
• Design of the coll ector elements.
• Des ign of the column splice.
• Des ign ofthe column base plate connection.
• Design of the foundation s.
• Design of the diaphragm system.
2018 IBC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Manuel, Vol. 4 187

Design Example 6
Multi-Panel OCBF
OVERVIEW
A multi-panel braced frame is a braced frame that bas multiple t-iers of bracing in one story. It is best suited
for buildings witb taU stories that bavc restrictions on tbe wldtb oftbe frame, where steep brace augk.s or
very long braces lead to a lt!.ss eflkient design.
The behavior of a singl e-story mulri-panel braced frame is different from a muJtistory braced frame
since it docs not have out-of-plane support·s at each beam-column-brace intersection. The designer must
take special considerations for design beyond those covered by AISC 360, AlSC 341, and ASCE 7.
This example demonstrates one method for d~signing the main components in an ordinary, multi-panel ,
concentrically braced frame,. but it could be adapted for other multi-panel frames.
The method consists of first sizing the members using AlSC and ASCE dcsigu requirements for a steel
ordinary concentrically brnccd frame (OCBF), th!!n il!!rnting the design considering th!! inelastic behavior
of the frame. The frame is designed to control which braced panel will experience concentrated yielding.
Another aspect ofthe design wi ll consider out-ofplane trame buckling. New AISC 34 1 requirements fot·
multi tiered OCBF arc addressed.

Oos/gn lExamplo 6 • MIIIU· Panel OCBF
OUTLINE
2. Calculation of the Design Base Shenr and Load Combination.'!
3. Venical and Hori zontal Distribution of Loud
5. Analysis
6. Fi nul Member Sizes
7. Discuss iou Topics
8. ltems Not Addressed in This Example
The building is a one-story warehouse that wi ll be \tscd for wine storage, public tours, and events . It is
loCBted in San Francisco, CA, in Seismi c Design Category D. The following infom1ation is provided:
• Buildiug geometry: 200 fee t x 300 feet open floor plan with ftac roof.
• Multi-panel braced frames consist of three panels (tiers): 20 feet x 20 fed , witl1 X-brncc
configurations. slacked vertlc.ally. Building height is 59 feet at the perimeter wall from finished
floor.
• Braced frame layout is doubly symmetric.
• The roof diaphragm qualities as flexible.
• Storage racks arc braced independently from the lateral-force-resisting system.
• There are no mezzanines attached to the exterior walls.
• There wi ll be fewer than 300 occupants in the building at a time (Risk Category II).
Sec Appendix A for the following information:
• Latitude and longitude.
• Soi l type.
• Load combinations, including the vertical seismic load effect.

Ooslgn ExDmplo 6 • Mu!U·PfJnOI OCBF
1.2 LAYOUT OF BRACED FRAMES
Figure 6- 1 shows the plan location of the b1·aced frnmes . There are fom bruced frames oriented in the north-
south direction and six braced frumcs orkntcd ln the cast-west direction, making 10 braced ft·amcs in toral.
Figure 6-2 lihows a typical braced frume elevation .
( A)
..---.
< B) ( C)
..........
< D l { E)
.......... ,......,
<
.........
t l ( G) <
- Hl { I )
~
<
-
J l { K)
,......,
< L ) { M)
- <
,......, ..........
Nl ( 0 ) ( P)
..........
15 X 20' - 0
H
.300' o"
1
c
\'-{)· ~.
I I I I I I I I I I J I J I J
I root Of ROOf
Bf- 5 <
- BF- 6
:c -
BF- 7
- -- 1)
i
H - 0
H
'<t"
I
- -- 3 )
LL.
H
J
ID
-• 0
i
Cl
I •
I ..........
0
- i'l
II
- 5)
H - Cl
I
0
• .....-..
~
- 7)
I
X
Cl
-
,..., - ~
{!)
J..
co ID
I
LL. .....-..
H - 9)
~
H - ( 10 )
v
l
BF-8
- --
BF- 9
- \
\ -()]~
-
BF- 10
l -
.....-..
-11)
NORTH
Figure 6-1. Plan layout o.fbraced fram es

Oosfgn Examplo 6 • MIIIU· P&nt>l OCBF
ROOF
-0
N
Top of Second Panel
-
0
N
Top of First Panel
-0
N
1ST FLR.
- J L
1 _____,1 - lL_________J
- -
Figure 6-2. JYpical braced frame elevarion (frame height Is measured}i-orn the top ofrhe footing)
WEIGHTS
Table 6-1. Assembly weights

Roof
Dead Loads Gravity Load Effective Seismic Wcighr
Metal roof deck 4 psf 4 psf

InsuJalion 2 psf 2 psf
Stet:! fra ming 8 psf 8 psf
Ballasted photovoltaic solar system 1 6 psf 6 psf
Total Dead Load 20 psf 20 psf
Roof Live LoadsJ Live Load

Ordinary p itched roof 20 psf
(continued)

Ooslgn Exomt>l<> 6 • MufU,PIJnol OCBF
Table 6-1. Assemb~v weight~con/inued
Exterior Wal I
Dead Loads Gl'iiVi ty Load Effective Seismic Weighr
Cladding 7 psf 7 psf

Meta I studs 2 psf 2 psf
Tnsulotion 2 psf 2 psf
%~in gypsum board 3 psf 3 psf
M iscel luneous 5 psf 5 psf
Totttl Dead Loud 19 psf I 9 p.sf
I. From Borrego Solar, News & Press article "Roo f Loads and Solar Energy," James B. Trnnt,
June 24, 201 0.
2. ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 describes tbe londs thut are included in the effective seismic weight.
3. From ASCE 7 Table 4- I.
Tahle 6-2. Roofweights
Assembly Unit Wt (psf) Area (tt2) Weight (kips)

Ext wall 19 30.000 570
Roof 20 60,000 1200

W:::: 1770
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

PARAMETERS
Multi-panel braced frame systems are not specifically addressed in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. For this example,
!he systems fit into the concentrically braced frame category. Under Footnotej, the building qualifies as an
OCBF since it is one story with a 59-foot roof height (60 feet from top of the foundation), and the roof dead
load is not more than 20 psf:
I R =3.25 no= 2.0 Ctl= 3.25 I

If the Footnote j requirements arc not met~ tbe frame is not permitted to be designed as an OCBF. The frame
can then be designed to meet the special concentrically braced frame requirements.
2.2 DETERMINE SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT
The specl:rnl accelerations to be used in design arc derived in Appendix A:
I SDS '!:!! l.OOg SDl '!:!! 0.60g I

2018 IBC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismlc Design Manuel. Vol. 4 193
Dos/gn t:.xamp/o 6 • MultJ.Panel OCBF
Determine the approximate fundamental building period using Section 12.8.2. 1:
C, = 0.02 and x =0.75 T 12. 8-2

T0 = C,lt; = 0.02 x 60°·75 = 0.43 sec (see the following discUBsion) Eq 12.8k7
7;, = 0.43 sec
T0 = 0.2 Sm = 0.2
SDS
°·1.0060 = 0.12 sec § I 1.4.5
s 0.60
T0 = 0.2
S DS
° =0.2 1.00 = 0.12 sec for T < 1'a
1 Eg 11.4-5
Ts =
s 01
=
0.60
= 0.60 sec § 11.4.5
SDS 1.00
s 0.60
Sa = T = T for T > T•
01
Eq 11.4-6
As shown in FigUJ-e 6· 3. the design building period I"a = 0.43 seconds is benveen 0, and Ts- so the des ign
spectral acceleration S" is J.Og.
1.2 -r---------------------'j
Approxlmnto Bullding Period,
T,"' 0.43 sec. s."' 1.og
~ soo"' 1.0g
c-
.o 0.8
'\.""-- T5 ~ 0.60 sec
-
~
•
T0 =q.12sec
.I
-§
~
o.s
<(
~
\_s•=0.~5.oT
•
~0.4
~
a.
(/)
§, 0.2
·-
I J)
~
0
0+----~----L------~----~
0 o.s t 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 6-3. Response spectrum

Ooslgn 5xamplo 6 • MuiU· PIJn()/ OCBF
The period of the stmcture cun be e$tubli:;hed through structural unulysis of the OCBF. Section 12.8.2,
however, limits the period Lhut can be llilcd to calculate spectral acc clerntion to a value of Tm•x = e11 x ~ .
where euis a fac tor t'outld it1 Table 12.8- 1. Jn this case. Tr=l = 1.4 x 0.43 = 0.60 sec. It is reconnnended
that this period. Trn•x• be used to design the OCBF and tbat tbe porlod of tb ~ building be verified later in the
design process, bt:C!lll!iC often tbc period wiJl be govcmcd by 7; 111 .~ .
The de£igrler should be aware that for a short-period bui lding such as this Otic, the ASCE ductility factor, R.
may not be a good representation ofthe ductili ty of the system. Some research has shown that short,·poriod
sh<JchJrcs tend to exhibit less ducti le bchovior thun predicted by /~ , although further research is n cc d ~o;d to
dt:tem1inc: whether the overall code: design procedure accounts for this by requiring higher design forces in
other ways. Refer to the SEAOC Blue Book article "Development of System Factors."
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T1 2.3·1
By inspection, the buildi ng docS not quali fy for any of thc:se horizontal structural irregularities.
I NO HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL lRREGULARIT[ES I

2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3·2
By inspection, the building docs not qual i.fY for any of the vertical structural irregularities.
I NO VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES

2.6 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T12.6·1
Since the warehouse is Risk Category II and is only one story above the base:, all three analysis options in
Table 12.6-1 are permitted: equivalent lateral force analysis, modal response spe-Ctrum analysis, and seismic
response history proccdw-e. In additiou., the buildiug meets all applicable requirements for the simplifi ed
alternative structural design criteria in Section 12.14. 1.1 .
All options are available to the des igner. The simplitie.d lateml force analysis procc.dure per Seclion 12.14.8
wi ll be used in th is example to detennine the seismic base shear of the bui lding.
I USE SIMPLTFrED LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS
2.7 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR §12.14.8 .1
FSDS w
V= Eq 12. 14-1 2
R
F = 1.0 for bui ldings one story above grndc plane
V = I.O x I.O 1770 =545 kips

3.25
V= 545 kips

Ooslgn fExamp/o 6 • Mti/U· Pbnel OC&F
2.8 SEISMIC LOAD EFFECT AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
The equations for the seismic load effect for the simptitied altemative method are the same us for those of
the equivalent lateral force method, except that the redundancy fac tor, p, is not included ln the equations
(equivalent top = 1.0). Si.occ tbc derivation of the load combinations in Appendix A of this text ore based
on p = 1.0 and 0.2S0 s = 0.2, they arc applicable for this example.
Loud combinations of consequence for the design of the OCBF arc
1.2D + I.OE + O.SL + 0.2S =(I .2 + 0.2SJJS )D + Q8 + O.SL §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, modified)
= 1.4D + Q5 + O.SL fol' th iB exampl e
0.9D-1 .OE ~ (0.9-0 .2Sos )D +Q1; §2.3.6 (Comb. 7, modified)
= 0. 7D - Q8 for this exumplc
Loud combinations with ovcrstrcngth arc not used fo.r the OCBF muin frame clements, although tbey
apply for collectors and at otbcr conditions out"Sidc the OCBF frame. Since the braces io one panel of
the three vertically stacked punds will tend to yield before the othe1'S, it could be argued that after braces
in this panel yield and buckle. the otht!r members in the bra~.:ed fmme become ~.:ollcctor~. Commentary
Section C 12.4.3 discusses that the overstrength factor is intended to be used for rhese elemeuts, unless
yielding of other clements relieve its load. When the braces in one panel yield and buckle, the shear
tTansmi rted to the remaining dements in the frame is then governed by the moment capacity of the columns
at tbt! yielded panel and the remaining capacity in the yielded braces, if any. Therefore, the overstn!n~:,tth
fuctor could apply to the columns. Consideration will be given later to the behavior of the vertically stacked
panels, including dctcm1ining the governing panel and the moment. demand on the column .
Loud combinations with overstrength factor for column design arc
.1 .2 D + I.OE + O.SL = 1.4D + 0 0Q5 + 0.5L §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, moditied)
0.9D + l.OE ~ 0.7D + 0.0 Qli §2.3.6 (Comb. 7, modified)
Fr = Vr = V = 54 5 kips
For flexible diaphragms, the shear can be disn·ibuted to the braced frames based on their n·iburary area
(Section 12. 14.8.3. 1). Since the braced frames all have the same tributary area, the horizontal distribution is
as follows:
FE_rv = F/ 8 = 68.1 kips (frames in east-west directiou)

F,v. s ~ Fr/8 ~ 68.1 kips (frames in north-south direction)
T he rest of this example focuses on lhe design of braced frame BF-1 at A-8.

Ooslgn cxllmplo 6 • MuiU·PlJnOI OCBF
Prdi.mi.uary sizing of the bmccs, colwnns. nnd beams wi ll be based on AJSC 341 nndAJSC 360. The
members will be resized btu~ed on a nonlwcax approuch in the "Analysis" section that fo llows, where a
computer program will be utilized to determine the distribution of seism ic and gravity forc es in a 3D
fruming model of the building.
4 .1 DIAGONAL BRACE DESIGN AISC 341 AND 360
AlSC 341 S<.!ction F 1, which refers to Section D 1.1 , requires OCBF bmccs to meet the limiting width-to-
thickness rJtios for moderately ductile members. Prel iminary sizing wi ll use a seismically compact, square
HSS; however. as discussed wSection 7. research shows improved perfonnance of HSS secrions witb bl r
ratios lower than code m.inl mum requirement-s, as the code m.inJmum is not necessarily conscrvutivc. Tbe
fo rce in each brace for tbc seismic load is shown in Figw-e 6-4.
Brace force = P 34.6fi = 48.9 kips. tension or compression .

"= .
34.6 kips .....t--- ....

•t--- 34.6 kips
~ t
-204.3 kips 204.3 kips
Figure 6-4. Frame BF-1 brace design force

Doslr;n FExampl& 6 • Mu/U· P~nel 0Cl3F
The diugonul bruce end connections wi II be pinned in-plane, and fixed out-of-plunc. Refer to AISC 34 1
Chapter F for connection design requiremen t~. The center connection~ where the diagonal broccs cross will
be tixed in· pl ane and out-ot:plane. The length of the compression brace is L = 14. I feet. since the tension
brace tends to provide latoraJ resistance for tbc compression bruce at the center connection. K = 1.0 from
Table 3 in the SEAOC Blue Book article "Concentrically Braced Fram~s."
Prcli.mimuy brace size is selecrcd as AI 054 HSS 4.500 x 0.188. Fultillrtlent of the local buckli.rtg
requirement is contirmcd in the design aid Tuble 1· 5b of the AlSC Seismic Design Manual. The brace
' arc
propcrhcs
A8 = 2.54 in 2
1
f A= I,,= 20.7 ilf
rx- '1-= 1.53 in

KL/r = I0 l < 200 (rccommer1ded criterion in E2, User Note)
F,. =50 ksi
The compn:ssion strength of the bmcc is calculated ns
AlSC 360 Eq E3-4
KL
-=101 <4.71 !_=113
I' Fy
F
_L.
F(Y =[ 0658 ·~
•
1
~. =29.1 AlSC 360 Eq E3-2
~ .+. A.,~ ~ 67 kips

2
.+. P
't' r JJ
F
't' r r. ~
0.9 x 29.2 ksi x 2.54 in AISC 360 Eq E3-1
The A I054 HSS 4.500 x 0.188 is adequate.
4.2 COLUMN DESIGN AISC 360
The preliminary column design considers axial load only. Column in-plane moments due to brace yielding
in tension and brace inelastic buckling in compression will be addressed in the iteration and final de..-,"ign.
Frame BF-1 bas a sigrtificunt ovc.rtuming moment due to the frame's aspect ratio (3:1) and the relative ly
small amount of dead load. Negkcting the dead load of the fmme for now, the maximum design
compression force is based on modified load combinaLion 6 with overstrength, and the maximum design
tension force is based on modified load combination 7 with overstrength. The basic design forces are
shoWJJ in Figure 6-5, wberc the cladding loads arc aU applied conservatively as point loads at the top oftbc
column. ATSC 341 Fl.4c requires 1.5 times the overslTength seismic load fo r columns.
D = (20 psf x 20 ft x 10 ft) + (19 psf x 20 ft x 60 ft) = 4 kips + 22. 8 kips= 26.8 kips
L = (20 psfx20 ft x 10ft)= 4 kjps
Pu = 1.4 X 26.8 kips+ 0.5 x 4 kips + 2.0 x 1.5 x 204.3 kips= 652 kips, mn.,. .: imum compression
Load Case 6
P" = -(0.7 x 26.8 kips)+ (2.0 x 1.5 x 204.3 kips)= 594 kips, maximum tension Load Case 7

Ooslgn E:xomplo 6 • Mu!U·PIJnOI OCBF
D= 26.8 k D=26.8k
L• 4 k L= 4 k
~ -~• ~ • 68.1 kips
QE= 34.6 kips .......t - - - ~

.....- ~= 34.6 kips
~ t
~ • - 204.3 kips Qe • 204.3 kips
D"' 26.8 k D "' 26.8 k
L= 4 k L= 4 k
Figure 6·5. Frame BF- 1 column design forces
The column unbmced knglh in the out-of-plane direction is 60 feet, and the compression load is very high.
The unbraccd length in lhe in-plane direction, however, is only 20 feet. The columns could buckle out-of-
plane before the braces reach their intended loads . Tills idea will be discussed in more detail later in this
example. In order to achieve desirable behavior from the frame, the designer must carefully consider a few
options. Two possible solutions are shown here:
I. Add out-of-plane bracing to the column: This could be n·icky, since a large, open floor plan is
required to maximize storage space. One option is to usc W12 or W14 frame columns and build
up a relatively shallow vertical truss perpendicular to the frame for the height of the columns to
stiffen the columns against out-of-plane buckling. A complication with this method is that once
the diagonal braces yield and buckle, the orthogonal stiffener tmss will need to deform with the
columns witbout becoming ineffective.

2. Column Orientation: Select u wide-flange column and orient it such thut the in-plane KL/r is
Iurger than the out-of-plane ~"Lir so buckling will occur in-p lane of the frame. This option may
roqui re a relatively deep wide-ftunge !lection t'o1· om-of-plane bucl< litlg resismnce due to the
height of the coluillll. This option also eompticatcs tho connections bctWC()ll the columns and
the beams, and the columns and tbe bruccs, since the connections would frame into tbe column
webs. Even with this option, it is desirable to udd out-of-pl une stnbility bracing ut the pund
intersecti ons.
For thJs example, a rclutjvcly deep wide-flange s-ection will be used for the prel.io.limuy design, oriented
with the column strong-uxit; fo r out-of-plane bending moments. Bracing options are discu.ssed in Section
5. Design for wind is not addressed in this example, but may govern the column out-of-plane requirements.
In a real-life b11Udiug. cbc designer shou.ld consider wind in tbe preUminary column sizi.ng or in the cohll1m
out.. of-plunc bracing.
Preliminary column size is selected assuming thut the 20-foot unbmced length gove.tns, since support wi ll
be provided between rho pauels. TL\e preUmitHlty size is selected as a W21 x L I I based on the oquatiotts
of Cllapter E. The strong axis of the co lumns is oriented ill the out-of-plane direction for the preliminary
design. Columns of OCBFs are not required to be seismically compact, but the W2 l x 111 qunliflcs. The
column properlit:s ure
A.~~= 32.7 in 2
4
I"= 2670 io
r\.=274 in 4
rx = 9.05 in
':\· = 2. 90 i_n
KLIJ:1• = 82.8
Fv =50 ksi , F11 = 65 ksi (A992)
'
rt2£
F = = 41.7 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3-4
' l~~ J .--.

KL<4.71 ~=113
r F)I
r !2.
F,.... =bo.658 ,c:, F=30.3ksi
v AISC 360 Eq E3-2
~/~, = 4><.F<T A8 =0.9x30.3x32.7=891 kips AlSC 360 Eq E3-l
~/~, = Ql1 ~vA.c: = 0.9 X 50 X 32.7 = 1472 kips AJSC 360 Eq D2-l
The ratio r)rv is 3.1 > 60 fcct/20 feet = 3.0. which confirms tbat the column wenk U.."<is direction (20-foot
nnbraccd length) governs the KL/r. Additional out-of-plane column stability requirements will be discussed
later.

01)8/!Jn Exllmp/o 6 • Mu/U·PMOI OCBF
4.3 BEAM DESIGN
The beams in this stntcture below the roof level are redundum and do not carry mot'C than self-weight.
provided ttlut the compression bruccs do not buckle. AISC 34 1 Fl.4c requires tbe redundant beams for
multi-panel X-bruccd frnmcs to handle the unbalanced bruce forces resulting from the compression bruce
buckling. for the prcliminflry d~.sign , the beams will be sized to tmnsfer the entire lateral load ltorl:l one
tension bmce to tlte nexr. as if the compr-ession br·ace does not exist. The cladding is not suppot·ted by the
beams.
The force in each beam for the seismic load is shown in figure 6-6.
_,_--BEAM FORCE
0 1; = 68.1 kips
~-COMPR ESS ION BRACES

NOT EFFECTIVE
~ "' 34.6 kips ....t - - - ....t - - - Q E== 34.6 kips
Figure 6-6. Frame BF- 1 beam design force
AISC 341 F 1.4c requires 1.5 Limes the overstrength seismic load, assuming no participation of braces in
'
compress1on.
~~ ~ Q£ = 1.5 * 2.0 8 68.1 kips ~ 204.3 kips, compression
The a:x ial force need not exceed the maximum thut can be delivered by the HSS brace:
PII s R_I' FA
y
cos e ~ 1.25(50 ksi)(2.54 in 2
):!i2 ~ 11 2 kips
M = lAD= l A 0.025 klfx (20ft? = 1.75 kip-ft
,, 8
V = l A D = lA 0.025 klfx20 ft = 0.35 kips

,, 2
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 201

Oosfgn lExlJmp/o 6 • MultJ..Panol OCBF
A preliminGry size of HSS 6 X 6 X J~ is selected from AJSC Steel Com;lruction Manual Tubk 4-4, using an
unbraccd length of 20 feeL The beam propertie....: arc
A~>: = 7.58 in2

111 ~ fy = 39.5 in 4
t:t = '1 = 2.28 in
KL!r = 105
Fy = 46 ksi, F" = 58 ksi (ASOO, Gr. B)
IJ> /~, = 149 kips T 4-4 in the Steel Cons truction Manual
IPMn = 54.6 kip-fi T 3·13 in the Steel Construction Manual
Checking the requirements of AJSC 360 H 1.1:
112
P,, = = 0.75 > 0.2
4>/~, 149
P,, + ~ M,, = 0.75 + 8x1.75 = 0.78 < 1.0 AJSC 360 Eq HI-l a
IJ>,./~1 9 1J>Mn 9 X 54.6
Shear strength txcc.:-cds tbe required strength by inspection. The HSS 6 x 6 X ~ is adequate.
AISC 34 1 also reqllires thar the column be torsionally b1·aced at the brace connection points. No specific
requirements are given. In this example , the HSS str ut and th e wind girt on the opposite side of the column
provide torsional brncing via connections tixed about the column axis.
5. Analysis
After pre.l iminary sizes are selected in accordance with AJSC 341 and AJSC 360 minimum requirements,
tlle designer can evaluate the performa.t\Ge of the preliminary slntGtu.re with a 30 computer program to
model the building and resize the members as required. A nonlinear analysis of the building frame is
recommended to caphtrc the ptrfom1ance of the braced frame members.
5.1 DETERMINE CRITICAL PANEL
The geometry of tbc vertically stacked multi-panel brace is conducive to brncc tension yielding and
inelastic buckling being concentrated in one panel , wh ich is called tht! critical panel. That is because when
the braces yield and buck le in the critical pahel, the tier level shear resistahce ih that panel is limited, and
the braced fmrne can no longer develop the shear necessat)' to yield and buckle the other panel braces.
When inelastic defom1ations occur in the critical panel under high l.!nough lateral load demands, the column
begins to develop a moment at the interface between the critical panel and the adjacent unyiclded panel.
The other panels in the system muy not yield.
The critical panel is the panel with the lowest shear resistance. Since all three stacked panels in this
example arc identical in geometry and member size, it is not obvious which one will yield and buckle first.
One way to control the location of the critical panel is to arbitrarily boos t the brace sizes in the other two
panels, to force the inelastic deformations to occur in the preferred paneL

06>slgn Examplo 6 • MuiU·PtJnol OCBF
ln this examp le, th~.; third (top) panel will be designed ~IS the critical panel because the columns in this pund
carry the least gravity and overturning compression force.s. During an earthquake, the brnce_q in the criticuJ
panel wi ll yield, and the co lumns will begir1 to develop moment, ns discussed previously. Therefore. less
compression in tbc columns is mol'<l desirable to allow for more flexural capacity in tbc columns at this
panel level. Typically the top pone! of verticall y stacked multi-panel broccd ft·ames wi II be designed us
the crilic~ l panel. In order to mukt! lhe top panel yield fir..;t, the lower two pnnel broces will be increased
to HSS 4.500 x 0. 188, and the top panel bruces wi.ll be k~pr as HSS 4.500 x 0.188. S~e Figure 6-7 for the
pre Ii111 i nary mernber sizes.
ROOF HSS 6 X 6 X 0.375
Top of Second Panel HSS 6 X 6 X 0.375
.- ......
....
....X
.---
......
X
.- ......
N N
s s
Top of Rrst Panel SS 6 X 6 X 0.375
1ST FLR.
Figure 6-7. Frame BF-1 preliminaiJl member sizes (critical panel at top ofjlmne)
5.2 COLUMN MOMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Since the in-plane moment demands on the column due to inelastic brace defom1ations cannot be
detem1ined from an elastic analysis, an altemative must be considered.

Oos/gn FExomp/o 6 • MultJ.Panel OCBF
ATSC 34 1 F 1.4c requires consideration of un out-of-plane column bending moment, detcm1ined bused on
forces corresponding to the compression forces:
N = 0.006? II
sin o = 0.006( 48.2 kips) 2 J2 = 0.205 kir\<:
t'~
Tiles!! forces load the column ar 1;) poiuts. creating at1our-of-plane rt'IOment of:
M 11 ~ N ~ =0.205 kips ~ ft =4.1 kip-ft

6
Additionully, the wull mus!) is excited out-of-plane. Following the methods in Volume 1 of this Manual, the
moment corresponding to ASCE 7 Chapter 13 wall loads is deretmined:
F = 0.4a1,S 05 W1, 1+2.:.

'7 0.4(J)(I)W I + 30 ft
= p 2 = 0.32W(I
P Rp h 2.5 60ft
1, I
Considering the waJI weight and a n·ibutnry width of20 feet, this results in a distributed load of 122 plf. The
moment is:
6
~
2
Mu = 4.) kip-ft + (122 plf) !::: 59 kip-ft
The second-order effect can be calculated considcting tbc Euler buckJi11g load io the plane of bending:
The 8 1 facror is:
c'" -- I
B1 -~ c 1.67
1- ~~ 1-
594
p 1474
c
The modi lied moment is 1.67(58.8 kip-ft) = 98 kip- ft
The column section W21 x Ill ls checked for beam-column action as fo llows:
<j> cr:, = 9cFcrA!! = 891 kips Previously Calculated

<l> vM Pr = <Pb.r:vz). = 0.9 x 50 x 68.2 = 3069 k.ip-in = 255.8 kip-ft A1SC 360 Eq F2-l
Checking the requirements of AISC 360 H 1.1 :
594
P,, = = 0.23 > 0.2
<l>.P,, 2530
P,, 8 M11
= 0.23+~
98
AISC 360 Eq HJ.lb
~+- ) = 0.575
<!>~. 9 <PM, 9 256
The column section is adequate for strength.
204 2018 IBC SEAOC Struotural!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

O&slgn 5x€Jmp/o 6 • MuiU·PlJnOI OCBF
5.3 OUT-OF-PLANE BEHAVIOR
ln the previous section, the out·of plane frame b<~huvlor was addressed. Ongoing research in this m·ea
indicates tbot critlcul panel yielding and buckJlng docs not produce signlf:lcnnt out-of-plane moment-s;
how~ver, tbe multi-panel bmc~d frame is vulnerable to t'vvisting ut the panel intersections cv~n if tbe
columlll:l remain elastic. The frame is especially vulnerable to this situation now that the column weak axis
direction is oriented in the our- ot~ plnne direction of the ft'ame. For this example, out ~of·p l ane twisting is
addr-cs~cd by providing "relative" bmcing or stiffening along tbc columns. This can bo in the fom1 of a
sha ll ow truss or n stiffener intem1ittently wdded into the column web. The bracing element t; hould c.omply
with AISC 360 Appendix 6 as n minimum. As mentioned previously, the dcsibrncr of ureal building should
consider thar the out-of-pla.tle column bending or bracing requirements may be governed by wind.
Intermittent - - - 1
bracing bet\~een
T-stiffeners
II II
II T-stiffeners welded II
intermittently to
II flanges of column II
II II
Truss II olumn
II olumn
I II
II II
Figure 6-8. Out-o.f:pfane column st{((ening (notlo scale)
5.4 DRIFT CALCULATION ASCE7
According to Footnote c in Table 12.12-1 , there is no story drift limjt for stogie-story structures tbat have
nonst:ructural components designed to accommodate the drift; howcv~r, structural separation requirements
muse sti ll be meL As an experiment, "story" dri'l'ts are calculated for each panel as if they were in a three-
story building) and the results are compared to the Table 12.12-1 limit of 0.025/trc. The drift calculation
is based on the procedure in Section 12.8.6. El astic deflection, o.rr• is calculated by elastic analysis in a
structural analysis program . The results arc presented in Table 6-3 for infom1ation.
0
co
= t/I =3.250
X<' Eql2.8- 15
.l DJ
"

Ooslgn t:xompl& 6 • MtJ/U· P~mvl OCBF
Table 6-3. Calculated and maximum stOIJ' drifls
Level OA1, (in) o.YOu) Limit (in)

Leve l I 0.7 2.2 6
Lcvcl2 1.5 4.9 12

Roof 2.58 8.4 18
6. Final Member Sizes
The flnul m~mb~r sizes ure shown in figure 6-9.
ROOF HSS 6 X 6 X 0.375
Top of Second Panel
Top of First Panel
1ST FLR.
Figure 6-9. Prame BF-1 jinal member sizes

Ooslgn Exomplo 6 • Mu/U·Panol OCBF
7. Discussion Topics
The fo llowing topics are discussed, but are not supported by calculations in this example.
Brace Shape and End Conditions: The hysteretic behavior of the brnces is closely related to the shape
and the end condi tions. In this example, square bmces with pinned ends were selected. However, cycli c
loading tests of bmced frames demonstrate that bra ~es degn1de rapidly after they buckle. Round braces tend
ro porfom1 better than rect~u gula r or square braces, but buckling leads to member tearing after a few cycles.
More ducti.le hys-teretic behavior can be achieved with lower bruce KL!r values. Some res~.;nrch suggests
tl1ut KL/r values of close to 25 provide good ducti lity. The des igner should cons ider designing beyond the
code mjnimum with rnore slouL b race~ and fixe d connecti ons ro inh ibit buckling. Jn a frame wirh long b1·ace
spans, thi s leads to heavy braces.
Wind vs. Scismk Loads: Buildings in some parts of the country may need to be designed fo r high winds
and high seismic dertlandB. The building in this example has a particularly large projected wind area, and
the forces could be sign ifkant, possibly gove1·ning the column des ign. Cortsideration must be given ro the
frame behavior tor both loading conditions. The critical panel fram ing members sha ll not yield fo r wi nd, as
is intended for the seismic response.
Foundations: Multi-panel braced frames tend ro have high aspect tatios. They also can have very little dead
load since they are only supporting .loads essenrially at the top ofthe frame. TI1 e combinarion of those rwo
characteristics results in large uplift forces on the foundatio n. The dc.signcr should consider tJ1i s, if poss ible,
when selecting n foundation type. Foundation types such ~ piles or combined fo otings may be more
suitable than the isolated pad footings shown irt the design example. The frame foo tings could also be tied
ro the adj acent coltunn footings to help resist uplift.
Two-panel or Four-panel Frames: Tl1is example uses a three-panel frnmc with equal panel heights. TlH:
same procedure could apply lo mulli -punel brnced fra mes with a di ffe rent number of panels or unequal
panel heights. However. the designer should consider some additional ideas when selecting a load-resisting
system and laying out a multi -panel frame. F irst~ the higher tbe frame aspect ratio. the more vulnerable the
frame is to twisting, and tbc bracing requirements may be bjg:her. The upi Lft demands on the foundation
may also be very high. A somewhat free-standing, multi-panel system may not be appropriate where the
frame is required to have a very high aspect rat io. A more econom ical lareral-fot·ce-resisting system could
be selected based on rhe building height an d geometry. the frame layout. the architectural restricrions, and
the soil conditi.ons. Second, different panel heights can complicate the frame in-plane and out-of-plane
behavior. Some additional iteration may be required to determine tbe critical panel and the appropriate
column moment demand.
One-story or Two-story X-bracing: In the case where the foundation type and uplift capacity is limited.
but n multi-panel frame is still justified, a wider frame may be selected. Tbc designer may decide to usc a
double-wide or two-sLory X-brnce configu ration wilh three columns instead of the one-story configuratio n
used in this example. See Figure 6- 10. Due to the increased slenderness of the braces, the rwo-story
configuration may not be economical for a situation where the layout is not governed by the capacity of tbe
foundation.
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 207

Oosfgn 5xvmplo 6 • MIIIU·P&nel OCBF
Figure 6-10. Tvvo~s101y X-brace conjigurmlon (left), and (rlg!tr) one-srO/y X-bJ'(Ite configuration
Mezzanine: Since the multi-panel braced frame is best suited for a very tall story, there is a chance that a
mezzattine level will be incorporated into the desigtl. Tbe des igner needs to decide if the mezzanirte level
will be tied in witJJ the multi-panel frame or if it '\.viii be independently braced. If it is tied in with the frame,
the designer needs to then consider the m(;Z?..ani ne level in the layout of the pnn~.: l s. This may govern the
number of pantls, the pant! hei gh ~ and the frame base. Tbc designer should also consider if the mc:;. znninc
will provide any out-of-plane stability to the frame.
The fo llowing items arc not addressed in dt.-1ail in this example but arc nevertheless necessary for a
compktc des ign of the seismic-load-resisting system:
• Des ign of the column base plate connection .
• Design of the foundations.
• Des ign of the roof members and connections.
• Design of torsional bracing for tllc multi-panel frames.
• Des ign of brace and beam to column connections.

Design Example 7
Metal Deck Diaphragm
----------------------------------------------------~
OVERVIEW
Dinphmgms arc the horizontal components of a bullding-typicully the roof and floor c;kments-thut
transfer larerol loads to the vertical elements of the scismic-fon.:c-rcsist:i ng system (SFRS), which arc
buckling restrained bmced frames (BRBF) in these design examples. Diaphragms also:
• Provide gravity support for the structUl'e.

• Transfer dead and live loads to beams and/or bearing waLLs.
• Provide lateral support to walls subject to out-of-plane loading.
• Provide lateral stability to vertical clements, decreasing the unbraccd height of tbcsc members
and consequently increasing their capacity to support axial loads.
• Allow horizontal fhm1ing members supporting gravity loads, such as beams and joists, to carry
larger loads by providing latcml stability to the compression flange..s of the.sc members.
Diaphragms comprise three distinct components: the metal deck or concrete fi ll and metal deck (in t he..~e
examples): the chord elements, which are perpendicu lar to the applied lateral loading and carry axial
loads caused by the moment in the diaphragm; and the collector elements (also known as drag srruts or
diaphragm ties), wlllch arc parallel to the applied latcrallonding and transfer diapht'agrn forc es along u
latcml-loud-rcsisting line to the vertical clements of the SFRS. These three components are identified for
loading in the east-west di rection at the roof in Figure 7-1 and for loading in the north-south direction at the
roof in Figure 7-2. All bays are 30 feet 0 inches x 30 feet 0 inches.
OOLLI!CTOR IJfiMt TYP

,----1- ALONG GRID UNES 1, ~
' - - --f-- - _AND 4
CHORD BE.AIA TYP ALONG

--~== GRID IJNUS A. o, ll. AND P
(i)f---
Figure 7- 1. Diaphragm components for east-west loading
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 209

Doslgn & omplo 7 • MOl{)/ Do<:k Olnphrogm
_j_ l l
I ·~ I
"" CHORD BEJ\1\t TYP

ALONG GRID LINES
I , 2. 4, ANO 6
I
I~
"
,
"~\ COllECTOR. TYP - ;\
®- - "'
ALONG GRIO UNI!S
..
AANDF
.C?:<J
...
"
~
I
I
METAL DECK
••
I/
DIA.PHRAOM ,.
/
1\ - - \
®- &
"
-
..--
"
Figure 7-2. Diaphragm components for north-south loading
The stiffness of tbe diapbrngm, like the stiffness of any structural clement, dctcmJiocs how much it will
deflecL Stiffness is ufrcctcd by many things, including the size, spacing, and connections of the frnming
membel'$, bur rhe factor that contributes rhe mosr is the stiffness of the metal deck or concrete ti ll and metal
deck. A bnre metal deck diaphragm is not as stiff as a concrete-tilled metal deck diaplwagm. and tbus a bare
mc1al deck diaphragm will have higher deflections tban the snme one filled with concrete.
The diaphragm stiffness also determines how lateral loads are distributed to the vertical elemenL<; of the
SFRS. ASCE 7 has three categories for diaphragms. depending on their stiffness: flexible, rigid. aud senti-
rigid. The more flexible a diaphragm is, the less ability it has to transfer torsional forces. When a diaphragm
can be classified as flexible due to the construction type per ASCE 7 Section 12.3. 1.1 or by calculation
in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.3, it wi ll transfer laternlload to the vertical elements of the
SFRS based on tributary area. Rigid diaphragms are stiff enough to transfer torsional force.s ro the vertical
elements ofthe SFRS. A diaphragm can be classified as rigid only if it is one of the construction types
identified in ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2. A rigid diaphragm distriburcs lateral loads to vertica l clements oftbc
SFRS based on its rdativc rigidities. When a diaphragm cannot be classified us fl~'\ibk or rigid, it is said to
be semirigid. A bui ld ing with semirigid diaphragms must be modeled with the stiffness of each diaphragm
taken into accouut. Per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2, semirigid modeling will most likely be required when
any horizontal irregularity (per Table 12-3. 1 of ASCE 7) is present or the span-to-dcptb ratio oftbc
diaphragm exceeds three and tJ1c diaphragm is constructed of a type that otJ1erwise qunlifics as being rigid.
The presence of horizontal irregularities and a span-to-depth diaphragm ratio greater than three impact the
stiffness ofrhe diaphragm in such a way that the rigid idealization is no longer accurate.

Do-sign t=xampl& 7 • MeUrl Dot!< Olu.phtOgm
The fol lowing examples will illustrate how to design diuphrngms in accordance with the 20 18 lBC to
ndC<.jUUtely distribute appli ed latcru l loads lo the vertical elements of the SrRS. Design Example 7A goes
through the design of the roof di aphragm. which is constructed of bare metal deck and can be idealized as
a flexible diaphrngm. De&igu Example 7B goes through the des-ign of the second-floor diaphragm, whkh is
constructed of 3 ~ i n chct~ of concrete fill over a 2-inch metal deck and cun be i d~alizcd as a rigid diapbrugm.
Discussions for ~emirig i d diuphrugm design will be included in Design Example 7B.
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 211

Design Example 7A
Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Diaphragm
------------------------------~
OUTLINE
I . Given Information
2. Dctcnninotion ofDiapbrngrn Forces and Code D.iscussion
3. Diaphrabrm Analysis w1Lhout Openiligs
4. Diaphrogm Analysis at Opening and at Re-entrant Comer
5. Diaphragm Dcsigli
6. Chord and Collector Design
7. Collector Conncclioo Design
1. Given Information
1.1 INFORMATION PROVIDED IN APPENDIX A AND DESIGN EXAMPLE 3
• S1 = l.Og
• SDI = 0.6g
• 1,. = 1.0
• R = 8.0
• p = l.O
• no= 2.5
• Six stories witb heights as shmvu in Figw-e 7 A-1
• W"'"" = 656 kips
• Wn ot>t = 1315 kips for aJl ftoor levels
• SFRS ~ budding restrained braced frames (BRBF)
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 21 3

Doslgn &omplo 7A • BiJro MotfJI Dock {f!loxlbll)) Dlophmgm
B c D r
..0
A E I
''<:t
PARAPET
RD OF ~-
~
6th FLR
5th FLR ..
C)
...I
(\j
4t h FLR I'
II
"0
I
3rd FLR ~
n.J
......
G\1
\[)
2ncl FLR
1st FLR ..
'
Figure 7A-1. Building elevation with s/.01)' heights
1.2 METAL DECK TYPES AND DIAPHRAGM CAPACITIES
Per XYZ..ES Report # 1000 for ACME Steel Deck Company, Roof Deck Diaphragm Capacities:
• va:.~ o
800 plf for 16-gag~; deck with I Yl.-inch rib height, four-weld pntlcm per sheet to supports
with I Y!-inch top !Seam welds at side laps at 24 inches on center for beam spans up to I0 feet.
• v,..1 = 1500 p!J for 16-gngc deck with 1Yl-inch rib height, seven-weld patlcm per sheet to
supports with I Yl.-inch top seam welds at side laps at 12 inchc.s on center for beam spans up to
I0 feet.
2. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion ASCE7
2.1 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM FORCES
Tn order to calcu late th~; diaphragm forces in accordance with Section 12.1 0, the story shears must be
calculared in accordance with Seclion 12.8. These are based on the seismic response coefficient. which is
also calculated in accordance with Sectiou 12.8. This is the procedure for calculating diaphragm forces
regardless of tbc type of analysis used for the verrieal clements of tbc SFRS (equivalent lateral force
procedure or modal response spectrum analysis).
Determine tbe approximare fundamenra1 building period in accordance with Sec1ion I2.8.2. I:
C, = 0.03 and x = 0.75 T 12.8-2

75
Ta = CI hx
II
= 0.03 x 72°· = 0.74 sec Eq 12.8-7

oaslgn Exampl& 7A • Bltro Mf>tol Occl< (FioxJblo) Oluphtilgm
The upproximutc bui lding period per Equation 12.8-7 wi ll be u~ed in these examples to dctcm1inc the
seismic response coefficient and thus the story shell!'$. These numbers wi ll difrer from the ones tulcd in
Des ign Example 3. which utilizes the calculated building pet·iod to determine these vulues.
Determi ne the seismic response coefficient in accordance with Section 12.8.1. 1:
0 60
= 0 I.OO = 0.125 sec ::; S 01 = · = 0.10 Eq 12.8-2 and Eq 12.8-3
~) T( R) 0.74 °~)
lt.o o 1,. l1.o
Also,
Eq 12.8· 5 and Eq 12.8-6
Thcrcfol\'!, Equation 12.8-3 contro ls, and
V = CsW = 0.100 x 7231 kips= 723 kips Eq 12.8-1
Detcnninc the vertical distribution ofbnsc shear in accordance witll Sccrion 12.8.3.
Table 7A-1. Vertical distriburion ofshear
Level w1 (kips) hi (ft) w.h"

I I
c,x f " (kips)
Roof 656 72 78,907 0.18 130
6th 1315 60 128,960 0.29 210
5tb 13 15 48 I 00,442 0.22 159
4th 13 15 36 72,775 0.16 I 16
3rd 1315 24 46,213 0.10 72
2nd 1315 12 21 ,262 0.05 36
Toral 7231 448,559 723
The terms used in Table 7A-l are defined in Section 12.8.3. Since the period = 0.74 > 0.5 stc, the value for
k is interpolated bet'i.veen a value of 1.0 forT= 0.5 sec and 2.0 forT= 2.5 sec. For th is bui lding, k = 1.12.
The distribution of story shear is carried out using
wh J:
F._, = c.~·' V, where, C-a = n
:t :t Eq 12.8- 11 and Eq 12.8- 12
0 J.:
IV/11
1=1

Oos/gn SxlJmplo 7A • Bllro Motol Dock {f!loxlblu) Dluphmgm
Dctcm1inc diaphmgm design forces in uccordnncc with Section 12.1 0. 1.1.
Tahle 7A-2. Diaphragm design forces
Will' F.~ Fw F p.,.min FJWomi X FrnJJn<

Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
-
Roof 656 130 130 131 262 131
6th 13 15 2 10 227 263 526 263
5th 13 15 159 200 263 526 263
4th 13 15 116 176 263 526 263
3rd 1315 72 153 263 526 263
2nd 1315 36 132 263 526 263
Ffit..d-<'15 is the torce that will be u.sed for the diapllrngm design. AJJ other rem1s used in Table 7A·2 are defined
in Section 12.10. I.l.
o" F
I
Fpx _ 1-x
II IVfTJ. Eq 12.1 0- 1
0 w
I
l=x
F~\.. shall be not less than: Fflouin = 0.2SD!/ e w J.\r Eq1 2.10-2
FJN> need not exceed: FJAr~ = 0.4SDS1( w f'J. Eq 12.1 0·3
2.2 DISCUSSION OF DIAPHRAGM FORCES VS . STORY FORCES
As iJlustrated i.n Figure 7 A-2. the diaphragm forces calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 are distributed
di1ferently than the story forces calculated in accordance with the equiva lent lateral force procedure of
ASCE 7. The vertical clements of the SFRS arc designed for the story fo rces, which arc typica lly less than
the diaphragm forces (the roof is the only location where they are not). Diaphmgm forc es are larger because
they arc calc ulated to account for the peak modal response of each srory. Story fo rces do nor account
for this because it wouJd be overly conservative to design the vertical elements of the SFRS for the peak
response a l each floor, as each floor wiU experience its peak response at a different time.

Ooslgn eX(JfTlplo 7A • 8(Jr0 Motol Occl< (Fio><lb/()) 0/uphrogm
72
• Story Forces
~-Diaphrasm Forces
12
0
0 so 100 150 200 250 300
Force (kips)
Figure 7!1-2. Comparison of st01:v ttnd diaphragm forces
Tl1e minimum diaphragm design force was developed to account for responses due to higher mode effects.
The response modiHcution fuc tor, R, hns the most efrcct on the lower modes of the building, so buildings
with higher R-values would unconservatively be des igned for low diaphragm forces that would not capture
all of the dernunds if th is minimum were not provided. In this BRBF building, the minimum di aphragm
forces govern at every level because the R-valuc for this type of building Is so high.
The maximum diaphragm design force was developed to prevent overly conservative demand..'l on
diaphragms with low R-values.
2. 3 DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF THE REDUNDANCY FACTOR, f>
Per Sections 12.3.4.1 and 12. 10. 1.1. p = 1.0 for inertial forces when diaphragm forces are calculated
in accordance with Equation 12. 10- 1. Engineers should exercise caution when fo llowing this code
prescription. lJl some situations, typically at the roof and occnsional ly at lughcr Aoors, F,jF.~ < 1.3. If
p ::::1 1.3 for the dt:$ign of all olher clements of the SFRS, the diaphrugm would actually be des igned for a
lower force. Although it is nor a code requirement, it is recommended that F,u be factored up to p*F_,-
For this bui lding, p = 1.0, so tbc calculated values of FP.< will be used without any alteration.
2.4 INCREASE OF DIAPHRAGM AND COLLECTOR FORCES PER SECTION 12.3.3.4
Per Sccrion 12.3.3.4, if holizontal irregularity Types 1a, 1b, 2, 3, or 4 per Table 12.3- 1 or vettical
irregularity Type 4 per Table 12.3-2 arc present in Seismic Design Category D or higher, diaphragm and
colkctor fo rces must be increased by 25 percent. The only exception is if the ovcrstrengt:h fac tor, Do, is
used and th~se forc~s exceed the 25 percent increase. In the situation where Q 0 > 1.25, the overstrength
level forces govem.
Per Section 12.3.3.4, the connections of diaphragms to vertical clement:> and collectors in buildings where
these irregu larities are present will always be designed for the I .25 percent increase. In this building,
horizontal irregularity Types 1a and 2 are present (per Design Example 3), so this increase will be applied.
Collectors in buildin gs having any oflhese irregularities with on ly light-framed shear wal ls acti ng as the
vertical elements of the SfRS meet Exception 2 of Section 12.1 0.2.1. Therefore, they wi ll be designed for
the 1.25 percent increase, as the overstrength factor does not apply.

oosi(Jn t:xamplo 7A • 88ro MoW/ Dock {rloxlblo) Dlllphn>gm
2.5 DISCUSSION OF DIAPHRAGM FLEXIBILITY
Per Section 12.3. 1,1. untopped steel deck diaplll'agms in bui ld ings with steel bt·acod frames acting ru; the
vertical clements of the SFRS can be idealized us flexib le. The roof is bnrc metal deck, and tbc SFRS
uti lizcs only BRBF, so this diaphragm wiJI be analyzed using flexi bk diuphrngm assumptions. As briefly
discuS!lcd in the Overview, it is assumed that flex ible diuphragrru; cannot transfet· torsional fo rces. Larerlll
fo t-ces at-e distributed to rhe vertical elernettts of the SFRS based ott rhe tributat·y area of the diaphragm to
cuch vertical clement.
Flexible diaphragm analys is can eas ily be used ro deterri1ine the forces it\ the vertical elements of the SFRS,
as the distribution can be done by hand (this will be illustrated in Secti on 3. 1 ofthis design example). Rigid
diaphragm analysis, us discussed in the Overview, accounts for torsional forces imposed on the diaphragm
and the vertical clements of the SFRS. TI1c analysis requires a more in-depth calculation fo r the distTibution
of lateral forces. Typically when rigid diaphragms arc present, an analytical model of the building is
used. The lateral forces in the venical elements of the SFRS can be extracted from this model and used to
calculate the diaphragm forc es. Tills procedure will be illustrated in Dcsigu Example 7B.
2.6 OTHER APPROACHES TO DIAPHRAGM DESIGN
There arc other approaches to designi ng diaphragms, such as non.linear response b1story analysis and
capacity-blliled des ign. The National Building Code of Canudu, in fact, expl icitly requires that diaphrngms
be desigr1ed to not yield, which means that diaphragms musr be designed for the capacity of the vertical
elements of the SFRS.
3. Diaphragm Analysis without Openings

A fl ex ible diaphragm can be idealized as a beam with the veJ1ical clements of the SFRS acting as reaction
points (the BRBFs i.n this example). The se i s mlc~forcc tributary ro that level is treated as the dis1ributed
load along the beam, calculated by dividing the sci.smic force by the area of tbat kvcl. Figure 7A-3
illustrates this ideali:mtion for the roof diaphragm in the north-south direction, and figure 7 A-4 illustrates
this idealization for the roof di aphragm in the east-wesr direction .
Diaphragm forc e at the roof = F1," = 131 kips per Table 7A-2
Roof area = A = 15.220 ft2 per Appendi x A
f. = Fr" = 131 kxlOOO lbslft = S.62 sf

,.~ A 15,200 ft 2 p
1034.4 plf
517.2 plf 517..2plf
. I" lA
\ I" l/\ 1\ I" lA lA ,I\ I" l11 I" l11 I" l11 lA
~, ~
Figure 7A-3. Diaphragm loading in norlh-south direction
w1,;,''-s = f px x d 1 = 8.62 psfx 60ft= 517.2 plf

w2..v-s = }~. X d 2 = 8.62 psf X 120 ft= ] 034.4 plf

Doslgn Examplo 7A • Baro Motol Dccl< (Fiox//)/0) Dluphragm
1293 plf
775.8 plf 775.8 plf
Figure 7A-4. Dlt1phragm loading In east-wesr direction
w1JHY = j~r X d 1 = 8.62 psfx 90ft= 775.8 plf

W 2,r:- w = l~w X d1 =8.62 psfx 150ft == 1293 plf
where d =depth of the diaphragm
The loading along tbc beam takes i.nto account the distribution of the seismic mass based on the
configumti on of the buiIding.
3.1 DIAPHRAGM SHEAR
The shear diagrams for the "beam" in each direction arc shown in Figures 7A-S and 7A-6.
6
RP ~ 65.5 k
Figure 7A-5. Diaphragm shear in north-south direction
18.1 k 23.3 k
Rs
40.1 k 20.7 k
R4
Ffgure 7A-6. Diaphragm shear in eas1-wes1 dil·ecrion
The maximum shenrs occur at the reaction poi nts, which are the locations of the BRBF. Tht: diaphmgm is
des igned for the maximum unit shear, wh ich is calculated as the shear along a line divided by the length of
the diaphragm at tbat line. These diaphrag m shear demands arc calculated in Tab le 7A-3.

Do sign 8uunpl() 7A • BlJro Motol Dock (f!loxlblo) Olaphrogm
Table 7A-3. Diaphragm shear demands
v V CC>m.>Hii\:l VII" L v
Grid Line (kips) (kips) e (kips) (ft) (pit)
A
-
65.5
- 65.5
-
1.1
- 72.1 60 1201
-
F 65.5 65.5 1.1 72. 1 60 1201
I 22.0 23.2 1. 12 26 90 289
3 58.2 61.4 1.07 65.7 ISO 438
4 44.0 46.4 1 13
0 52.4 150 350
V =Calculated diapllrogm shear
V"'n=~< u =Diaphragm shear corrected so the summation of the T\!actions in each

direction !!!!! F1" - 131 kips
e = Eccentricity
V11 , ~ = V*e
L = Diaphragm length
v= vd ~~
JL
Tbc summation of tbc reactions, V, in tbc cast-west direction docs not equal FP) = 131 k. This is due
to rounding of the distributed loading. The variable V,\),ro:-wu has been introduced to account for thi s
discrepancy.
The variable e is included to account for accidental torsion. TI10ugh ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2 docs not
require that this be accounted for when des igning flexible diaphragms, it is recommended that accidental
torsion be considered for tJ1e stune reason that it is required to be considered in Lhe design of inflexible
diaphragms, which is to provide capacity in tbc diaphragm to resist redistribution of loading due to
nonuniform inelastic behavior of the elemenrs of the SFR.S.
For the simply supported beam condition in the north-south direction, shifting the mass 5 percent of the
building widlh to account for accidental torsion creates a I0 percent increase in the ~actions. For the more
complex condition in rbc cast-west direction, sh ifting the center of mass 5 percent of the building length to
account for accidental torsion creates a 12 percent in the reaction at grid line ), a 7 percent increase in the
n:.action at grid line 3, and a 13 percent increase in the reaction at grid line 4.
3.2 CHORD FORCES
As blief:ly mentioned in the Overview, chord forces develop in boundary members perpendicular to the
appl ied load as a result of the moment created in the diaphragm. The moment diagrams fo r the "beam" in
each direction are provided in Figures 7A-7 and 7A-8. These diagrams have not been corrected ro account
for rounding as tbe forces iu Table 7 A-3 have been. The moment resolves itself as a tension-compression
couple with an aml equal to the depth oftbc diaphragm at that point. The boundary members can be
thought of as the flanges of the beam with the diaphrngm acting as the web to provide shear resistance.
Maximum chord forces will occur at locations of maximum moment and/or at locations where Lhe
diaphragm is fairly shallow.

Do-sign cX(tmpiG 7A • Baro Motol 0(Jc;-!< (Fiox/1)/0) 0/uphrogm
M =2676.5 k-11
Figure 7A-7. Diaphragm momenl in norlh-south direction
310.3 k· ft 349.1 k-ft
311.4 k-ft
Figure 7A.. 8. Diaphragm moment in east-west direcrio/1
Based on the moment <liagrams for loading in each direction provided in Figures 7 A-7 and 7 A-8. the chord
forces within the boundary members an:::
P. = P. = 2676.5 kip-ft = 22 .3 kips

1 5
120 ft
0
31 1.4 kip-ft 349.1 kip-ft) ( . . ) 9 .
P0 = PE = max l ft • ft =max 3.5 ktps, 3.9 k1ps = 3. k1ps
90 90
p = p = 3 10.3 kip-ft = 2.1 ki s

A F !50 ft p
As shown in Figure 7-2, there are also chord members along grid lines 2 and 4, which develop because of
the re-entrant comers. The forces in these members arc calculated in Section 4.2 of tbis example.
Distributed lin~.s of lateral load resistance crc<ttc shorter diaphragm spans. which lead to less moment
developed within the diaphragm. Consequently. chord forces are lower when the lateraJ .. Joad-res isting
lines arc located throughout the building than wbcn they arc located at the extremes of tbc building only.
This concept is illustrated here by the di ffcrcnce in magnitude between the chord forces in the north-south
direction and the chord forces in the cast-west direction .
There are no provisions for increasing the forces in chord members in ASCE 7 (i.e., designing for
amplified 0 0 level forces or increasing by 25 percent wbcn certain in·cgularitics arc present). lu Seismic
D~:s i g n Category Cor higher, collector elements are required to be designed for forces ampliflcd by the
overstrengrh factor Qll per ASCE 7 Section 12. 10.2. 1. Consequently, where member$ in a line of lateral
resisrance act as both chord and collector elements, coll ectot' forces almost always govem.
3.3 COLLECTOR FORCES
As brietly mentioned in the Overview, collector members are parallel to the appli ed diaphragm loading.
Their funclion is to drag load along the di aphragm into the veJtical members of the SFRS. Per ASCE 7
Section 12.1 0.2.1, collector members and their connections must be designed for tbe maximum of !20*F.'(1
n *F1111 and p$F(LI.Jilhl' but the force does not need to exceed p*FfM,Tl'UX' There is an exception
.. "'() - for bui ldinos
0
that have their SFRS comprised entirely of light-framed shearwalls. Collectors and their connections in
these buildings do not have to be designed for forces ampliiied by the overstrengrh factor, nu.
Doslgn FExamp/o 7A • 88ro MoW/ Duck (f!loxlblu) Dluphrogm
Tobie 7 A-4 en leu lutes the colkctor force for ench story hlll:!ed on Section 12.1 0.2.1.
Table 7A-4. Collector forces
Level n ll •F-~ (k) nuIt Ffil (I<) p eF ,,\'.mln (k) p e ~\Y,II\h~ (I<) F~ullre1f.•· (k)
Roof 325 325 131 262 262
6th 525 568 263 526 526
5th 398 500 263 526 500

4th 290 440 263 526 440
3rd 180 383 263 526 383
2nd 90 330 263 526 330
Foollt ct>x is tbc force tbat wi IJ be used for the design of tbc collector beams and their connections. Tbc
force along each line of lnlernl res istance from Table 7A-3 will be sca kd up to the colkctor forcc
of 262 kips at the roof from the di aphragm force of 131 kips ca1c\.llatcd in Table 7A-2.
Collcc1or diagrams for each lateral-load-resisting Line iu the cam-west direction arc provided in
Figure..s 7A-9, 7A-l 0, and 7 A-11 for grid lines I, 3, and 4, respectively. A collector diagram for
grid lines A and F is provide.d in Figure 7 A-12.
~
:10
i
~
~
17.3
--~
~
~-- 26
v• 262 k I 131 k • 26 k I 90 It • 578 pit Q)
~- ~ ~-·-
:o
!::'
0
u.
...0 0 ... -·
-··
.
0 20 40 (;0 •.0<---· 100
< t3
Q)
10
-20
-·
V = 262 k I 131 k • 26 k = 52 k u
0 26 17.3
..~ n
(a) Length Along Collector Line (tt)
(b)
Figure 7A-9. Collector diagmm along grid line 1
~----------~~--~~---------------
~ ~ ----------~
5~2-~6~~~6~5-~
8 _______________
_g. _......
~ -tCI ------,;-,....,.-----,::c~-'-:::::.·____-f------------------
v1 = 262 k /1 31 k. 20.4 k / 150 h = Z72 pll
3 ~ ----.-=~~?.3~~
~·-_·-------~-----------------
- > > . > > ) ?0 ;-> > --2. > > " 0 0 ~- ~~. ----------~--------~.----~-~-
~~ 1~) _.==@}
> > >~-7-:-7 ):-7~ > :>-7-7 0 ' : .,.,, 0
0
?0 .s: 1[1) llfl'
.----- 26.3
v2 =262 k / 131 k • d5.3 k /150 rt "' 60d pll ~
..t.ll
-------------=:-::-±::>-...:~~=-=------------
- _ ...,-
<
v =262 k /1 31 k . 65.7 k= 131.4 k (.)
0
'
fJ)
ro -------------6~5~.8~--~52~.6~----------
Longth Along Colloolor Uno (11)
(il)
(b)
Figure 7A -10. Collector diagmm along grid line 3

Oo.s.lgn Examplo 7A • 8(1ro Molal Dec!< (Fioxlblo) 0/uphmgm
M------------------------------------
V1 " 262 k I 131 k ' 27.7 k I 90 It "' 616 pll
1 Jn-----,1-.1----.~~~~~~---~-~J~··_-• __
62_.4________________
~ 2() _ _...··
--=~~=-~>~~)~)
~~ ~~~·§2~
- ~·~>~>~>~·----~ &
- ---7 ) ~~~-7'~~~-.~)-)7---)7---)~ . .,
li e ~--
-:.N 0 J0 Ill Ill 41\ 1111

•• Jilt- ~ '>10
)Ill
V2 ., 262 k /131 k' 2-4.7 k / 150 It c 329 pll fl

~· ~)------------------~~--------------
- .. _.,../ 11 .1
<
V .. 262 k I 1aI k ' 62.4 k .. 104.8 k u
0 .
.~ ------------~~~------------------
52.4 ......... 38.6
Leng th Along Collectol Une (0)

{ll) {b)
Fig ure 7A-l 1. Col/ecJ.or diagram along grid line 4
~f
~ 1'
~
V = 262 k I 131 k
'72.1k = 1442k
g
?1'
~ ~
~0
/ 3£.05 /' 36.05
~
-
{/)
• a. / /
->< .>< 20 .
51' / /
~
~
10
I'
V = 262 k I 131 k 0 0 / / . •
~ 1' Ao Ao
lJ...
• 72.1 k = 144.2 k -10 10 ::>.1 LrJ GO 710
<0 5 / /
13 ..ao .
~t / /
~
0
.oo v
()
-40 . 36.05 36.05 ""'
(a) Length Along Colloctor Line (1\)
(b)
Figure 7A- J2. Collector diagram along grid lines A and F
The (a) diagrams sllow how diaphragm forces at--e being dragged into the lateral res isting line. When late.ral
resisting clc.:mc.:ots arc located at tbe interior of a building, load is dragged in from both sides of lhe line.:,
but at lateral rc.:sisling lines locnted along the exterior of a bui lding, the load along that line is dragged in
from the interior side only. Figures 7A-1 O(a) and 7A-ll (a) occur at the interior of the building, and the
loads being dragged into tbese ones from eitller side of the diapllragm are taken fTom Figw-e 7 A-6. Tile
shear values used in the-se figures have been corrected for usc with Vt.lrs from Table 7A-3. Tbc (b) diagrams
show the actual distribution offorccs along the collector li_nc, which tnkcs into account the unloading of the
diaphragm as the load goes into the vertical element of the SFRS.
The jump in the collector force diagram occurs at the mid-span of the BRBF at all of these collector
diagrams because tbat is where the braces frame into tbc diaphragm. When braces frame into the diaphragm
at columns (such as in special concentrically braced frames with X configurations) or in moment-fmme
bui ldi ngs where the load gets tmnsferred directly into the columns, then~ will be two jumps in the collector
diagram--one at ench brace-column within the frame. At shearwall buildings, the lateral load is considered
to be uniformly transferre-d into the lateral resisting clement, so collector diagrams for these buildings will
have different shapc.s than the ones shown here.
201818C SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 223

Ooslr;n t:xamp/o 7A • &Jrc Molal Dock (Pioxlblo) Olaphmgm
Th ~.: vulue of Du =2.5 hHs been used in determining these collector force!\. Per Footnote b of ASCE 7
Table 12.2-1. when~ 2 2.5, it can be reduced by 0.5 fo r slrul'ture.<s with flexible diaphragms. Tn this
building. tl.le roof diapht'agttl is flexible. but the fl oor diaphragms are not. Consequently. the reduction will
not be used in this design example. Whcu all diaphragms lrJ a building are flexible, the 0.5 reduction shou ld
b~.: lltililed when possi ble in order to avoid an overly conservative dl:sign of the collector members and their
connections.
These coll ector diagrams are for design in accot·dnnce with ASCE 7 only. See Design Example 3 for
collector diagrams wi thin lhe BRBFs, where the collector forces shown here must be combined with
additional uxiul and shenr loads cnllsed by bmc~.: yielding.
4. Diaphragm Analysis at Opening and at Re-entrant Corner
4.1 ANALYSIS AT OPENING
Openings in diaphragms create a concentration of forces at portion s of the diaphragm adjacent to them.
Incre!lllcd shear demand at members along the length of the opening and local chord fo rces along the lop
and bottom of the opening will be developed. Figure 7 A- 13 shows how forces in the north-somb direction
must be tt·ansfen-ed around rhe opening between grid lines C and D just north of grid line 3, ct·eating
additional forces within in the diaphragm that nrc not accounted for when lt is analyzed without the
•
opcnmg.
EXAGGERATED
~--- DEFLECTED SHAPE
OF THE DIAPHRAGM
AT THE OPENING
v <M I J
I
I llo...l
~!-------------- tp1'g -------------!~
c D "
' ./
Fig ure 7A-13. Forces and dejfecled shape at diaphragm opening

oo-slgn cxampl@ 7A • Bltfo Mf>tal OfJC'I< (Fioxlblo) Oluphtilgm
The distributed loud, wu1111•11, i:; equal to the distributed diaphragm loading multiplied by the depth ofthc
diaphmgm at this location, which is 60 feet at this opening. The shear forces that must be tntnsfcrred
around the opening, Vorm'u m<e calculated here bOBcd on the w orn'l! and the opening length. /.,110.". Additionally,
the local chord forces can be calculated fl'om the momont created by wu.ro'~: and the depth of ilic opening,
d<Z1"''u as shown here .
Wopn'l! = .f;,K X d = 8.62 psf X 60ft = 5 17.2 pl.f
V ' = IVqr<l 'R X / v\ln' ll = 517.2 plf X 30ft = 7.76 kips

tlfTO Jl 2 2
T = C = ""'2 x I = 517.2 plf x (30 ft)2 x _!_ = 5.82 kips

8 dopo'g 8 I0
The beams along grid lines C and D near the opet1ing and their connections must be designed to drag
this shear force around the opening. The beam along gri d line 3.2 between grid Jines C and D needs to
be dt:,'5igned for this axial chord force in addition to gmvity loads. The bcnm along grid line 3 between
grid line.s C and D is pnrt of tl1t: BRBF, and this additional U.."<iul loud from the loctll forces must be added
ro the axial forces from the coll ector analysis and from the yie lcling of the braces. The chord forces arc
conservatively based on a simple span moment, but tlle end connections of the beams along grid Hnes 3 and
:t2 should bo designed for fhcd-end moments created by the distributed loading along the opening.
The shear dertulhds along grid li nes C and D wi ll increase to account for the fact that the two openings
located between gl'id lines 3 and 4 t·educe the diaphmgm length by 20 feet total. The new shear demands
along these lines urc:
VC = V0 = V,,,<b - IV X
1
30ft - w2 X 30ft= ,72.1 k - 517.2 p1Jx30 ft -1 034.4 plfX 30ft = 25.6 k
v , =: v ~ Vc ~ 25 ·6 k ::::! 256 If
c [) d- 20 ft 120 ft - 20 ft p
Because these openings arc not located ncar latcraHoad-rcsisting I!JJcs in the north-south direction, they do
not have much impact on the shca.r design of the diaphrngm, and tbe shear demands along tbe latcml-loud-
resisting lines at &'Tid lines A and F sti ll govern.
In tJ1e east-west direction, these openings occur along lateral-load-resisting lines. The method for
dctem1ining the local chord forces wil l be the same as for loading in the north-south direction. The new
shear demands along grid lines 3 and 4 are:
v = v_,.t~ct - 65.7k = 548 If

3
150 ft: - /(l;o 'l! 150 ft - 30 ft p
v = v:l,d11S ::::l
52 .4 k c 437 plf
4
150 ft - /opn'l! 150 ft- 30 ft
These diaphragm shear demands that account for the effe-cts of the openings arc 25 percent larger than shear
demands calculated in Tabk 7 A-3, which did not account for the openings.

Doslgn IExamplo 7A • &Jro Molal Dock {Fioxlblo) Oillphmgm
The collector force diagrams along gdd lint$ 3 und 4 must also be modified to account fo r the transfer of
the diaphragm force around the opening. fo'ig ure 7A-14 shows the uctuaJ collector force diagram along grid
line 4, including the opening bctweeu grid li nes C and D. The modified coUecrot· diagram along grid line 3
will be vary similar.
w
~ 46.9 .. - - - 62.4
8_ ~(I ----
v1 = 262 k / 131 k. 27.7 k/60 f1 "' 923 plf 6
~
;n
___..
11.1
~
_,. / '
- ~:7 =Z=Zr- ~77::7. " u.o n .~--

~-----~--~--+-----------~~4~
:> =:> >~-74'5~ > )--7-~~ ~ n "' m m n:. tm
~1~---------------~----~~
, .,_-- ~d~
~
~-~------
tm
i:l __/~ 11 .1
V2 = 262 k / 131< . 24.7 k / 150 11 = 32.0 pit ~ ~ ~ -----------------~---~
~ L
46~.9
~----------
" 62.4
V "' 262 k/131 k' 62.4 k c 104.8 K ~ 00 ------------~~-------------------
Length Along Colle01or i.Jile (11)
(B)
(b)
Figure 7A-14. Collectorforces along gl'id line 4 with opening UJken into account
Figure 7 A- 14a differs from Figure 7A-ll a in that the distribmed shear being dragged along rhe line in
Figure 7A-1 4a is larger around the opening and zero at t11e opening on the side of the tine where the
opclli11g occurs. Tbc distributed shear along tbc otber :>ide oftbc line is unchanged from what was shown in
figure 7 A-l l o. The maximum collector forces in Figure 7A-14b arc Iurger nt grid lines C and D than thosc
calculated in Figure 7A-ll b.
As illustrntcd in Figure 7A-1 4, opcnJngs ln diaphragms c.an have u sign ificant impact on the members
sw-roundi ng them as well as on the diaphragm shcar demands. While diaphmgm analysis done without
considering these opening$ is easier to calculate, it is important for the engineer to account for them in
order to capture all ofthc demands on the elements that are part of the diaphragm.
4.2 ANALYSIS AT RE-ENTRANT CORNER
Similar to openi ngs in diaphragms, re-entrant corners creare a conceutratiou offorces at the portions of
the diaphragm near them.lucrea.sed shear demand is created within the area of the diaphragm that has the
narrower dimension. Chord forces arc also deve loped at the re-entrant comer that must be dragged back
into the main portion of the bui lding. Figure 7A-1 5 illuslrutes how forct:.$ in the;: north-south direction are
transferred at the ~-entrant comer along grid line B, creating additional forces within the diaphragm in this
area.

Doslgn Exomplo 7A • BMO Motol DfJC* {Fioxll>le) 0/~pltrogm
~
1 •-' "' 3cY·o· - ..
.,1
0 •-•-•- !iit-=======::::-H~-': • ~-': " ~ 3k
.
C(
R~a 7'21k 1 - - - - - -- H Vflc. = M ill<£
"
-o
0---- -~.=======r~~~- . ~.-= ..

I I
26.3 k
0 0
FlguN~ ?A- 15. Forces at re-entrant corner
From Table 7 A-3 , you know that R11 =72. 1 k and from previous calculations, w 1 =5 17.2 pi f. UtiIizing these
values and the dimensions of the re-entmnt corne1·, I= 30 feet and d = 60 feet, the chord forces created are
v;._,. o IR11 - w1 x tl =112.1 kips - 517.2 plf x 30 ttl =56.6 kips

M r-c, = v,_c X I= 56.6 kip X 30 ft = 1698 kip-ft
T ~C = Mr-c - 1698 kip-ft - 28 3 kips

r -t' 1'- ~ d 60 ft - (.
These axial chord forces must be accounted for when designing beams along grid lines 2 and 4, and
consideration must be taken to ensure that these axial forces arc adequately dragged into the mai n portion
of the diaphragm beyond the re-entrant corner.
2018/BC SEAOC SIJUcturai/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 227

Ooslgn FE.>wmp/o 7A • BlJro Molal Dock {r-loxlblo) Olllphmgm
Jn order for the BRBFs along grid line A to resist loading from their lributnry portion ofth ~:: diaphragm
in the not'lh-south direclion, the diaphragm shear to the eu.sL of the re-entntnr corne.r must be transferred
to the west of the re~ en lrant cornet'. This aeates a much higher shear dernand along grid lin e B than wns
pnN lously accounted for in the diapllrugm analysis done witllour considering tllc re-entrant corner. Tbc
diaphragm shear demand along grid line B cun be calculated us
v}J = vr-;; =56 ' 6 k

v 56.6 k
v1J = :..Jl.. = = 943 plf
d 60ft
Without accounting for the re-entrant comer, the distri buted diaphragm shenr along grid line B would be
much lower, as il would be determined using the length of the entire diaphragm, which is 120 fe.d, inHtcud
of the let1gth of tbe diaphragm at the re-ottll'rult comer.
5. Diaphragm Design
5.1 DESIGN FOR SHEAR DEMANDS
Bused on the earlier calculations done for diaphragm analysis withour consideration for openings or
re entrant corners. with consideration for the openings. and with considet·ation for the re~eutrant corners,
4
the maximum diaphragm shear demands occur along grid lines A and F.
vu,mu; = 1201 pl f
Di aphragm capacities must be obtained fro m a properly cet1:ifi ed evaluntion rcpo11 produced by an
accredited service. From the given infom1ation of thls design example, per XYZ-ES Report # 1000 for
ACME Steel Roof Decks,
vtill = 1500 plf for 16-gnge deck with I ~- inch rib height, 7-weld pattern por sheet to supports with
.1 Yrinch top scam welds at side laps at 12 inches on center for bcat'll spans up to 10 feet
The diaphragm shear demand musLbe converted to an allowable value:
vm,l( = 120 I plf'aO.7 = 840.7 plf
Per Section 2.4 of this design example, the connections of the diaphragm to vertical d ements and collector
members musr be designed for a 25 percent increase to the calculated diaphragm force. Therefore, the
actual diaphragm shear demand is
v,., •.x ~ 840.7 p1P'1.25 ~ 1050.9 plf < 1500 pl f
The capacity of the chosen deck, based on the attachments to rhe support-ing members, ca11 adequately
transfer diaphragm forces to the collector members and vertical elem ents of the SFRS.
5.2 BARE METAL DECK DIAPHRAGM CAPACITY
Bare metal deck diaplu<tgm capacities are largely controlled by the type and spacing of fasteners used
to attach the deck to tbc supporting structure. Just calculatiJJg the capacity of these fasteners, however,
w ill not accuraLdy provide the capacity of a bare-metal deck diaphragm. It is also influenced by the type

oo-slgn £xampf~ 7A • BMo Mf>IBI /)()c'l< (Fioxlf>le) Dluphtt.lgm
and spacing of fu.\\lcncn; used ut side 1\cums, the spuci ng of the t>upporting members, unci the deck profile
(rib heightnnd width, rib spucing, and thickncils of steel). Where the diaphntgm spans long distam:cs
between supports, buckling of the metal deck becomes an issue and may be the governing factor ofthe
deck capacity. Deck capacities provided in approved testwg agency reports arc based on u combination
of c.alculations used witbio tbc industry and testing duta in order to dctcmJinc capacities fo r a variety of
confi gurutions.
5.3 DISCUSSION OF DEC K FASTENER DUCTILITY
Bare mdal decks cnn be fas tened to the sh·uchmll steel members supporting it by many different means. In
tbis design examp le, puddle we lds are uLilized, but self-tapping screws and powder-actuated fasteners can
also be used as coru\cctors. It is important to note that whi le welds do provide a stronger connection from
the deck to the supporting members, they are not the most ducti le form of attachment. Se lf-tapping screws
and powder-uchJuted fasteners have been found to demonstrate more ducti lity than welds, and thus may be
a more fuvorub lc method of attachment.
6.1 DISCU SSION OF 0 0 AND COMBINING FORCES FROM PERP ENDICULAR LOADIN G
As previously discussed in Section 3.2 of this exnmplc, chord members arc not required by code to bt
designed for amplified. Q 0-level fo rces. T his discrepancy between level forces for chord and collector
rnembcrs is unclear, as the ovcrso--ength fac tor is provided to prevent non-ductile fai lure modes.
ASCE 7 do<.:s not explicitly require that chord and collector forces be considered to net simulbmcous ly, but
there arc cases, such as at cantilevered porti on~ of diaphragms or at discontinuities in the diaphragm, when:
it is highly recommended to considet· both of d1esc forces iu the design of these members.
6.2 COLLECTOR COMPRESSIVE STREN GTH AISC 360
The collecror beam along grid line 4 between grid lines B and C wi ll be designed, and for illustrative
purposes irs compressive strengt h wi ll be deten:nined for both the deck pamll el condition and the actual
deck perpendicular condition . Only the cupucity based on the deck perpendicular ,Ifill be used for the fi.nal
design , as this matches the actuul configurution of the bui lding.
When the deck is paral lel to t11e beam, the beam can be considered to be completely unbraced for major
axis buckling and braced only at poi.nts where perpendicu lar beams frame into it for minor axis and
torsional buckUng. The initial size chosen is a W18 X 35, and its compressive strength \vlll be calculated in
accordance with AJSC 360 Chapter E, "Design of Members for Compression."
Per AISC 360 Tables B 4.1 a and B4.1 b. chec.k beam flanges for slenderness:
!!.l = 7.06 ° 0.38 ..£..=9. 15 T B4.1b

~
E
!:.. = 7.06 ° 0.56 - =13.49 T B4. J a
t F)J

Doslgn fEx{Jmp/o 7A • Bllro Molal Dock (Fio><lblo) Dillphmgm
Therefore, the flanges of u W 18 X 35 urc compnct for Acxun.: and non-slender for compress ion . Next, chcck
the beam web for slendc rn~-'l s:
.!!.. = 53.5 ° 3. 76 ..§__ = 90.55 T B4.1 b

tY/
~·
.!!.. =53.5 ° 1.49 .!... =33.88 T B4.1a

F/1
'"
Therefore, tbc web of a W 18 x 35 is compact for flexur-e but slender for compression. Tbc compressive
sln:ngth of this mcmber shall be.: culculutcd p<.:r AlSC 360 Section E7, ''Mcmbcrs with Slcndcr Elcmc.: nts."
But firSt, F(_j , the flexural buckling stress, must be l:Uiculatcd in uccordunce with Section E3.
Kx L~ = J.Ox360 in = 1.
5 14
r.Y 7.04 in
K·"L>. _ 1.0 X 360 in • •

- - - - = 295 > 200 . T11s
1 rat1o should be less than 200 per AlSC 360 82 User Note.
ry 1.22 in
Therefore, provide u nominal perpendicular beam with a full-depth sh~ar tab connection to theW 18 x 35
bean.l at its mid-span to cut the unbt·aced leugth in half:
KYL.r = 1.0 x 180 in= 147.5 > 4.71 .!!.._ = 113.4

ry 1.22 in Fy
2
F = n!-E = n X 29,000 ksi = 13 .! ksi
c
o KL) 2
(147.5)
2
l7
Therefore, Fo· =0.877 x F t:
= 11.5 ksi. Eq E3-3
TheW 18 x 35 beam is composed of compact unstiffened clement-s and s lcuder stiffened clements, so the
compressive strength is calculated per AlSC 360 Section E7:
h E
Because - = 7.06 ° 0.56 - = 0.56 29,000 ksi = 28 . 1 0 . = I.O
[
f 11.5 ks i ' _,
,~,P = tt-.p
Therefore, 't' II't' n· Ag =0.9 x 11.5 ksi X I 0.3 in =I06.6 kips 2
E q E3-l
Because the torsional and lateral restraints are provided althe same locations. minor axis flexural buckling
will govern the compressive strengtll of the collector. Torsional buckling need not be checked.
As previous ly mentioned, the capacity of tbe W 18 x 35 beam will bc chc.ckcd for the actual deck
pe'lJendicular condition. The deck running perpendicular to Lhc beam can be assumed to acl as continuous
bracing for minor axis buckling, provided constrained axis flexural-torsional bucl<ling .is checked.

oaslgn t=xamplo 7A • l3t'tro M4JitJI Occl< (F/(jxJblo) Dlupllftlgm
AISC 360 Equation E4-4 fo r elostic tors ional buckli ng ~tress is modi Aed us shown here to detemtine the
compressive strength or a member aL:counting for constrained axis flexural-torsional buckling:
F=
(!
where a ~ distance from the member centroid to tbc location of lateral restmint on the minor ~txis (d/ 2 for
wide-flange beams).
Constrained axis ftexuraJ-torsionnl buckling governs over major axis flexural buckiJng, so
n1 x 29,000 ksi x ( 1140 in() + 15.3 x (8.85 in)2 )

F = 7
+ 11,200 ksi X 0.506 in 4
(' (1.0 X 180 irl)-
0·9 = 17.8 ksi

4 4 2 2
510 in + 15.3 in + (8.85 in) x I 0.3 in
and F ~f
=17.8 ksi x 0.877 =15.6 ksi Eq E3-3
Therefore, <j> P" = <j>Frr A~> = 0.9 x 15.6 ksi >< 10.3 in 2 = 145 kips Eq 63- I
As calcu lated above, constrained uxis flexu ral-torsional buckling allows for a hi gher compressive strength
Lhan minor axis flexural buckling (35 percent more capacity in this L~ase). so it should be used to calculate
the compressive strength of a coll ector beam when the deck mns perpendicular in ordet· to all ow for a more
efficiently ~iz.ed member.
6.3 COLLECTOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH AISC 360
The flexmal strengtll oftbc Wl8 x 35 collector beam will be calcttlated in accordance with AISC 360
Chapter F, "Design of Members for Flexure." Because theW J8 x 35 beam has compacl flanges and a
compact web for flexure, local buck ling ntcd not be considen:d.
Check beam yielding:

3
t+.M
y = "'M
'f' /)
II
= 0.9 X 50 ksi X 66.5 in ::: 2992.5 kip-in Eq F2-l
Check beam lateral torsional buckling per Section F2-2 of Al SC 360.
For Wl8 x 35:
LP =4.31 ft A TSC Steel Manual T 3-2

Lr=J2.3ft
Therefore' Lh > Lr> so M II = F SX <1'

o Mp Eq F2-3

Doslgn IExamp/o 7A • &Jro Motol Dock (Pioxlblo) Dluphrogm
Where, per AI SC 360 Equ11tion F2-4:

2
C n 2
E 1 OL
F -~b__ I + 0.078
..,.
OL 1
JC
l
S_A ) /~
...J2...
l -;!-
LI
'>
2
1.0 X 1t X 29,000 ksi
2
1+ o.o?g 0.506 x 1.0 ( 180 in ) - = 25 _2 ksi
57.6 ir1J x 17.3 in 1.52 in
180in )
( 1.51 in
Cb = 1 has conservatively bcon used in this calculation.
Therdore, ¢M11 =<j>Fa Sx = 0. 9 X 25.2 ksi x 57.6 in3 =1306 kip-in =108.8 kip-ft.
6.4 COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR COMBINED LOADING
The capacities for compres-sion und flexure huve both been calculated. In order to detem1ine the adc:quacy
of theW I 8 x 35, these capacities must be checked in combination against the compressive and ftexurul
demands.
The uxiulloud on the beam will be taken us a combination of the full collector loud, wbicb is amplified
bu.sed on Section 12.1 0.2.1 of ASCE 7 and calculated considering the opening in Section 4.1 , nnd 30
percent of the chord force calculated at the re-entrant corner· in Section 4.2.
P" = 46.9 kips+ 0.3 x 28.3 kips= 55.4 kips
The flexura l demand on Lhe beam is due to dead, live, and vertical .seismic loads at the roof, which have
been provided in Appendix A. This W 18 x 35 beam has I 0 feet of tributary roof
( (1.2 + 0.2 X 1.0) X 310 pJf + 0.5 X 200 ptf) X (30 ft) 2 .
M = = 60.1 krp-ft
u 8
The maximum axial load and Lhe maximum flexuml load calculated above do not occur at the same location
along the beam. The maximum axial load occurs at the left end. and the maximum flexural load occurs
at mid-span. These maximum axial and flexural demands will be checked in accordance with AlSC 360
Chapter H.
!t_ = P,l= 55.4 k = 0.38 > 0.2

PC <P~I 145 k
P 8 M,1 ~ 0.38 + ~X 6 0.l k-ft ~ 0.87 < 1.0

Therefore, " +- - EqHl-la
¢~1 9 ¢Mn 9 I 08.8 k-ft

oa-slyn £x&mpl@7A • 8~tro MM&I {)()ck (Fioxlt>lo) Oluphft.lgm
7. Collector Connection Design AISC 360
This design example wi U check a simple shear tab connection for combiucd axial and shear loads. When
horizonta l unci/or vertical loads arc larger tban the ones present at the end of thi6 col lector beam, a stronger
con nection will be required. Some commonly used connections for collt:ctors with large forces are shear
tnbs wit11 double rows of bolts or welded fla nge.<>.
The l''()actions at this connection arc
T = p =
55 ' 4 ·kips and VII = (1.4 x 3 10 plf -t· 0.5 x 200 plf) x 30 ft =
8' 0 kips
II J/ 2 ·
Figure 7A· 16 provides u detai l of this connection.
1/2 SHEAR TAB WITH

II
5-7/8" DIAMETER
A325N BOLTS
W1 8X35 COLLECTOR
BEA M l,
''
~ '' I
~
-- ......~ --
I
( - + I
I
v WFCOL
PER PLAN
I
'' l
••
'
,.,.., ):
t
--/
1- /
/ ,, /.," , 2"
, /
5/16 "
/
30
, /
, /
MAX
Figure 7A- 16. Collector connection detail

Doslgn fExamplo 7A • &Jro MolfJI Dock {Fioxlblo) Dlaphrogm
Check S hcur Plate Yielding
The Y2--inch she-ur rub wi ll be checked for combined loadi11g in accordance with Section 14. The axial fOI'Ce
causus a moment in tbe weak axis of tuc shear tab due to the ccccntrlci ty between rbc eenrcrUnc of tbc
beam web and the centerline of the shc.ur tab.
M = 55.4 kips x.!.. x(.!. in + 2.. in) = 22.5 kip-in

U) ' 2 2 16
The plate wi ll be acccptnbk for the combined londing if

2 z
-" +l
0 0
V ? 8 M
+-X ~ 1.0
l V,,q>
It
<)>P,, 9 <)>M,
II)
Where the shear strength of the plate is
<j> Vn = <)>X 0. 6~,tft = 1.0 X 0.6 X 50 ksi X 0. 5 in X 15 in= 225 kips Eq J4-3
the compressive strength of the plate is
lhp
'f n
-:=. lhp A
'f c.r II
KL = I.O X 4 in= 27.7 S 4.71 -E = 113.4

~·
r 0.5 in
712
2 2
F = n E _ rc X 29,000 ksi = 373 ksi Eq E3-l. Eq E3-2, and Eq E3-4
2
c 0
KL ) (2 7.7i
l /'
:. F = ~.658~] F = ~.658;i3 ~] x 50 ksi = 47.3 ksi
cr J'
$~, ~ 0.9 X 47.3 ksi X 0.5 in X 15 in =319 ksi

aud the flexural strength of the plate is
2
lhM =lhr d x F =0.9x(0. 5 in/xl 5 inx50 ksi=42.2ksi Eq F2-l
'f II 'f 4 )' 4
~
2 2
0
=042
··l225 k +l
. o 8k ) 55.4k
319 k +9 X
22.5k-in )
42.2 k-in . ~ 10
.
The 'I.-inch x 15-inch shear tab will not fai l in yielding under the combined loading.
Check Plate Rupture
Plate rupture is checked based on the net area of the plate for combined a.xial and shear loading in
accordance with Section J4 .
v 2
T 2
0
"
l V:, +l

o
<PI;,
II
< 1.0
A= = [ 0.5 in x 15 in- 0.5 in(7/ 8 in + I/8 in) = 7 in J 1

oos/gn £xampl@7A • B,'lro Motol Occl< (Fioxii>IIJ) Oluphrogm
Using A11111 the capncitie::; of th~: plutt: in shear und tension arc
¢ V:, =~ X 0.6A" F;, = 0.75 X 0.6 X 5 iu 2 X 65 ksi = 146.3 kips

¢7;, =~A_.F,, - 0.75 X 5 in 2
x 65 ksi- 243.8 kips Eq J4-2 and Eq J4-4
...
0 8k )20 55
+ .4
k)2= 0.05 < 1.0
l t46.3 k l 243.8 k
The \12-inch X 15-inch shear tub will nol fail in ruptw·c under the combined lo1:1ding.
Check Bolt Sbcar
Bolt shear for combined vertical and horizontal loading is checked in nccordanc~: with Section .13.6. The
plate has been sized to be weaker than the bolts in order to provide a more ductile fai lure mode.
R11 = JP,;+ V:? = ~(8 k) 2

+ (55.4 k) 2 =56 kips
and
¢R, = ll~f;,Ab = 5 X 0.75 X 48 ksl X 0.6 in 2 = 108 kips Eq B - 1

DCR = 0.52 o 1.0
The 5 ~'- ittch-diamctcr A325N bolts will not fall iu shear·, and the plate wi!J yield before the bolts fail.
Check Bolt Bearing
Bearing strength at bo lr holes is checke.d in accordance with Section 13.1 0. Bolt beari ng w ill be checked for
loading in the horizontal direction only. as the vertical load is small enough to be neg1ecred.
The bc.am web, with a thickm:ss of Y.r. inch, will control over bearing at the \11-inch-thi ck shear tab.
The holes are standard size.. and deformation at the bolt hole under service louds is a des ign consideration.
~
so
¢R11 = <)>X 1.2L)F, s; ~X 2.4dtf', Eq J3-6c and Eq J3-6a
where
Lc= 2 in - 112(7/8 in + 1/8 in) = 1.5 in

t = 5116in
Fn = 65 ksi
d = 7/8 in
:.<j}R,. = 0.75 X 1.2 X 1.5 in X 5/ 16 in X 65 ksi < 0.75 X 2.4 X 5/ 16 in X 65i<si
¢R,, = 27.42 kips s 36.6 kips
¢R, = 5 x 27.42 kips = 137. 1 kips
DCR = 0.4 1
201818C S£AOC Strocturai/Seismlc Design Manuel. Vol. 4 235

Doslgn Sxvmp/o 7A • Bllro MulOt Dock {Fioxlblo) Dluphrogm
Check Weld Strength
The strength of the two %,-inch tiUet welds wi ll be checked in accordance with Section J2.4. and for
simplicity, the vcrtictllloadlng will be ignored.
tt.R
't' It
= 't'th X 0.6F)tI \\( I"'
tt.R
't' II
:::l 0.75 X 0.6 X 70 ksi X 2 .J2 X 5/ 16 in X 2 X 15 in = 209 kip$ Eq .T2-4 and Eq J2-5
DCR = 0.27
Check Block Shear
Block shear wi.ll be checked in accordance with Section J4.3 . As in previous checks. the vertical load can
be neglected, and tbc connection will be checked for block shear due to tbc horizontnlload only. The beam
web, being thinner than tbc shear plate, will govern.
Eq 14-5
where
AI7T = 2 x 5/ 16 in x [ 2 i.n- 0.5(7/8 in+ J/8 in)]= 0.9375 in 2

A, 1 :::l 5/16 in x [ 15 in - 2 X 1.5 in - (7/8 in+ 1/8 in) J ::::l 3.4375 in 2
A = 2 x 5/16 in x 2 in= 1.25 in1
81
uru = 1.0
.'. <PR11 :::J 0.75 X (65 ksi X 0.9375 in 2 + 1.0 X 65 ksi X 3.4375 in 2 ) S
0.75(0.6 X 50 ksi X I .25 in 1 + 1.0 X 65 ksi X 3.4375 in 1 )
<!>R, = 2 13.3 kips s 195.7 kips
<j> R11 =195.7 kips
DCR = 0.28
Therefore, the simple shear tab connection detailed ill Figure 7A-16 is adequate to resist the combined
lo<Jdtng. The culculutions were simplilied by the fact that the vertical load due to gravity was small enough
to be neglected. When the vertical reaction is s igni lknnt. Astaneh 's " Design of Shear Tab Connections for
Gravity and Seismic Loads" is a good resource.
The following items arc not addressed in this example but arc ncvcrtbelcss necessary for a complete design
of the bare metal deck roof diaphragm:
• Design for gravity loads.
• Support for out-of-plane wa!J loading.

Design Example 78
Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm
----------------------------~
OUTLINE
I. Determination of Diuphragn\ Forces and Code Discuss ion
2. Diapllrogm Analysis
3. Diaphrtlbrm Desigrl
5. Discussion of Semirigid Diaphragms
1. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion ASCE 7

---
1.1 DISCUSSION OF TORSION
As mentioned in the Overview. concrete-filled metal decks are allowed to be classified as rigid per
Section 12.3. 1.2. This bui Iding has horizontal iucgulurity Types l a and 2, so per Section 12.3 ,1.2, it is
required to model this building to account for the nch!al stiffness of the diaphragms (semirigid modeling).
In order to provide a simplified calculation that can be presented in this design example, however, the semi-
rigid modeling requirement will be ignored, and tl\e coucrete-fill ed metal deck diaphragms in this building
will be assumed to be rigid. A discussion of semirigid diaphragm modeling will be presented at the end of
this example.
Rigid diaphragms mu.st be de-s igned to account for torsion, as they are assumed ro have adequate stiffness
to distribute torsional loads. Tors ion is created when the center of mass (COM) and the center ofrigidity
(COR) do not coincide. A moment is induced in the diaphragm equal t.o the force applied at that level
multiplit!d by the distance bttwcen the COM and the COR, e~ . Per Seclion 12.8.4.2, all inflexible
diaphragms must include a 5 percent offset of the COM in each di~cti on perpendicular ro the applied load
to accowH for auy accidental torsion. Th.is is not a minimwn offset. For diaphragms where the COM and
t.be COR arc at the same .location, such as in tbc north-south direction of this building, the value of the
eccentricity doe to accidental torsion, € 11, which is equal to 5 percent of the building width, will be the total
offsel between COM and COR. When:: the COM and lhe COR are nol ar the same locations, such as for
loading in the east-west direction of this building, tbe offset from accidental torsion is added to the inherent
torsion so that the total offse t between COM and COR becomes e.+ e11 • Figures 7B- I and 7B-2 illustrate
tbe torsional effects for loading in each direction.
The accidental torsion is included to account for any nonuniform inelastic behavior of t.he elements of t.he
SFRS as well as any uneven distribution of loads. The components of the SFRS must be designed for the
worst-case load cftccts due to accidental torsion applied in either direction of the actual COM.

Oosfgn 5xamplo 78 • Concrotf>.F/1/oo 0(1(.:1< (Rigid) 0/l)pllrtlgrrl
®- ---
1 I
~ ~
..,- I ~ J
l/
[\ A COM
1\
~
COR
I
I ~
v I!
·~· .... ~\..
[\ I I
1\
V3-d
~·
CD~---- - ---~====.&.:=~~=A====
, .
Figure 7B-1. Accidental torsion for north-south loading
B c D E F
"
5 -
I I
4 H I
l/
[3>$:] COR
- I;
fl'<.. v,,.
®
1\
H. t
~
T
e. ....-
;\~
---- I
\
.e._ Vb4
v '\.
COM
J
[\ \
a I I I
CD - --...
"'
Figure 7B-2. Accidental torsion for east- wes t loading

Design t=xomplt!> 78 • Concroto·f!ll/t1<1 Ooc-·k (R~Jid) Oluplltilgm
Section 12.8 .4.3 require~ thut uccidentul torsion be amplifi ed wht!re the s-tory drifts ut the extremes of the
diaph111gm exceed a certain rat io or the avet11ge story dri ft. This torsionuJ ampJjticalion factor, A 11 has been
developed fot' bui ldings wi th vertical elements of the SFRS laid our in such a way thnt large amounts of
torsion will occur. The fu<.1or A., is applied to the 5 porcont required accidental torsion, increasing it in order
to account for the fact that buildings with irregular layouts will have more nonuoifom1 inelas-tic behavior in
the clements of the SFRS.
1.2 FORCE DI STRIBUTION IN RIGID DIAPHRAGMS WITHOUT THE USE OF AN

ANALYTICAL MODEL
One way to design the second floor diaphragm. it1S chords. and its collecwrs is to perform a rigid diaphragm
analysis by hand (or with the help of a spreadsheet). A rigid diaphragm is assumed to distribute lateral load
to the vertical members of the SFRS bused on the vertical members ' relative rigidities. By calculating the
rig_idity of each BRBF llnd their relative:: rigidities, the COR can be determined. The COM mu.st also be
calculated. as well the distance between rhe COM and COR. including the etYects of accidental torsion.
This type of analysis would be done using the ca lculated diaphragm forces provided in Table 7 A-2 of
Example 7A, and no analytical model of the bui lding wou ld be: requi red.
The resulrs of a hand distl'ibul"ion of forces in a rigid diaphragn1 for loading in the north-south direction
would be exactly the srune ns the flexib le diaphragm analysis done in Design Example 7 A tbat included tbc
5 percent accidental t!ccentJicity, as the BRBFs along grid lines A and F have the same stifthcss. The only
difference is that the moment created by the offset between the COM and the COR must be resolved by
the BRBFs in the eusr-west direction. For the flexib le diaplm1gm analysis, t'esolving this moment was r'\Ot
required because inc luding accidental eccentricity was not required, but because tbc accidcmal eccoutriciry
must be included for a rigid diaphragm analysis, all forces must be resolved. As showD in Figure 7B-3,
shear fo rce:: is developed within grid lines 1, 3, and 4 when perfo rming a rigid diuphmgm analysis us a result
of the moment created by the acc idental torsion appl ied in the positive di.ll!ction_
A 8 c ~~ E F
:s -
I I
v.,.
.. ....
v
-- ........_
~
~
r
I
\
-
3
Vva'l.-Vu .
•
-----
Vt~
L'
- cOM
COR
><
V'!>../2• Vv
\
v ~
\
r
'/ +<!>
\ \
v,...
'l I
_, VTI
CD - .r
"
Figure 7B-3. BRBF.forces due to posltfve accidenla!Lorslon in north-south direction

oosi(Jn EExamplo 78 • Concro/(}·FIIIM Do<-* (Riukl) DI.Dphrtlgm
1.3 FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN RIGID DIAPHRAGMS WITH THE USE OF AN ANALYTICAL

MODEL
It is more d l1cient and usually more accurate (provided thrlt the modeling assumptions mude nrc correct) to
creare an analytical model of n building with rigid diaphnlgms. When this approach is taken, the desigr1er
can use the forces wthe vertical elements of the SFRS detennincd by the analysis program to cnlcuJnte
the diaphragm forces. These torces must be scaled up to the level of the diaphragm force calculated in
accordance with Section 12.1 0.1. 1.
2. Diaphragm Analysis
2.1 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM SHEARS
This example wi ll use the results from the analytical model created for Design Example 3 to calculate rhe
shears in the second-floor di aphragm . Table 1B· J provides the section cut-s from the ETABS model along
each line of lateral load n:sistnnce in the north-south direction fo r the stories above and below the second
floor with accidental eccentricity applied in each direction. The diaphrngm shear along each line is then
sen led up to the diaphragm force calculated in accordance wiLh ASCE 7 Section 12.1 0.1.1 from Tabl e 7A-2
of Example 7A. Table 7B-2 provides tile same information as Table 7B- l but tor loading in the cast-west
direction.
Table 7B-1. Diaphragm design forces for loading in north-south direcrion
VI v2 VI - v2= Fp.r Ff.l.TJJ(~ v pr,du

Line ±e. . (kips) (k ips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
A + 297.39 284.6 12.79 127.1
F + 350.8 337.13 13.67 135.9
Sum + 648.19 62 1.73 26.46 263 263
A - 350.8 337. 13 13.67 135.9
F - 297.39 284.6 I 2.79 127.1
Sum - 648.19 621.73 26.46 263 263
Table 78-2. Diaphragm design .forces for loading in east-west direcrion
V1 - v2 =F~n FJft,oh -, v pr,o}.\!

Line ±e,. V1 (kips) V2 (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
I + 174.62 169.7 4.92 43.9
3 + 200.42 188.95 11.47 102.3
4 + 2 11 .38 198.27 13 . I I 116.9
Sum + 586.42 556.92 29.5 263 263
I - 190.7 J 183. 19 7.52 67.0
3 - 197.08 186.11 10.97 97.8
4 - 198.47 187.46 ll.O 1 98.2
Sum - 586.26 556.76 29.5 263 263
240 2018 IBC SEAOC Struc/urBl!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Design t=x€Jmpl~ 78 • Concroto·FHI!id 01Wk (R~Jid) Olvpht(lgm
The story force is much lower thun the prescribed diuphmgm force ut the second floor. Tht! di fferenct!
between story force und diaphmgm force becomes more pronounced lower in the bui lding ror reusons
discussed in Section 2.2 of Design Example 7A. The t~1ct that the mirti tl"lum diaphragm force goverlls pet·
Equation 12.10-2 of ASCE 7 furtbor bighlights tbis dif ference, as the higb R-vuluo for this BRBF bu i Iding
allows for relatively low design forces io the vertical clements of the SFRS.
AlBO. the stot·y shears calculated frottl the analyticnJ lt\odcl are lower than the second-floor force cillculnted
in Tabl e 7A· l of Design Example 7 A. This diffet·ence is because the ETABS results are based on a
response spcch"\1111 analysis, which produces a different distribution of forces than the cquivulcntlatcra l
force procedure distribution calculated in accord11nct with ASCE 7 Equations 12.8-11 and 12.8- 12. The
response spectrum analysis is also why the story shears differ in the north-south and east-west directions.
The bLti lding IHLS di.ftcNlH modal responses in each diJ'ectiou, wbicb creates a different force distribution in
each direction .
Regt.lrdlcss of the analysis type used, the diaphragms must be designed for forces calculated in accordance
witb ASCE 7 Section 12.1 0.1.1.
The internal diaphragm sbears can be calcu lated from the scaled diaphragm shear reactions at eacb BRBF
line in each di rection for positive and negative accidcntnl torsion. An eHkient way to do this is Lo create
a spreadsheet that calculates distributed loads bused on the geometry of the diaphragm and the locations
of tlle braced frames. Using tbe reactions at the BRBF locations and the distributed loads, the internal
shear diagram cau easily be calculated. Figure 7B ~4 shows t.be input that would be used for loading Jn the
north-south direction with positive eccentricity, and Figure 7B-5 shows the required input fo r loading in the
east-Weilt diroction with po~itive ecccnt;icity. For both loading directions, input for negative eccentricity is
identical to the input for positive eccentricity except that the frame reactions are difrerent.
Diaphragm Shear Diagram Second Floor, Loading In N-S Direction
Load Case +E
Total Length ~ 150.000 ft
BF Line Dlsl from West End (11) Reaction (k)

A 0.000 127.1
F 150.000 135.9
Total 263.000
Dist. Load Location Length (ft) Width (ft) Area Dist. Load (kif)
w1 A-8 30.000 60 1800 1.10
w2 B-E 90.000 120 10800 2.19
w3 E-F 30.000 60 1800 1.10
Total 14400
Figure 7B-4. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm shears in north-south direction
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel, Vol. 4 241

Doslgn fExllmp/o 78 • ConcrotO<·FIII&d Due* (Riuld) Dlllphrogm
Diaphragm Shear Diagram Socond Floor, Loading In E·W Dlroctlon
Load Case +E
Total Length ~::~ 120.000 ft
BF Line Dlst. from Sou th End (ft) Reaction (k)

1 0.000 43.9
3 60.000 102.2
4 90.000 116.9
Total 263.000
Disl Load Location LenQth (ft) W idth (ft) Area Dlst Load (kif)
w1 1· 2 30.000 90 2700 1.64
w2 2-4 60.000 150 9000. 2.74
w3 4· 5 30.000 90 2700 1.64
Total 14400
Figure 7B-5. Spreadsheet inpul to ca/cu/a/e diaphragm shears in east-west dimction
The resultant internal shear diagrams for loading in the north-south direction for positive and negative
eccentricity an.: shown in f igure 78 -6, and the resultant internal shear diagmms for loading in the cust-wcst
direct iou for positive and t'tegative eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B-7.
.... .., 12'7:1k- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '1')) . . - 136.9k

~-
..
S lHilO
,..,
... ....
li .,. . ,____
<I OJ»
,,
a .~1<1) A G)= ~
' --- '"
.. . .
:__ 0
·•JHOl
========::::~t:
1J5,9k
(~ t!or;'l II!W w ''- 127.1k
Figure 7B-6. Diaphragm shears for loading in north ...south direction
...... ~43':9~ 49.3k

49.3k
: : ------=------1.!..::4.6~k."----l---"'..._,--- 3S..3k
s l- :z; ;:I WI
:i. ~.- '

l '
. ~
~
!
IJhl
.>1"" 0
., "'' ""
-.-
---
·IM'.IM -
67.6k
~'-""
, . . (1)1
41=
- 64.5k -'148.9k
Figure 78-7. Diaphragrn shears for loading in eas1-wesr direction

Oeslgn tXf.Jmpl~ 78 • ConcrYJIO·f:.lllt1d oock (R/f.Jid) OluphtOgm
As previously mentioned, in a rigid diuphrugm unulysi6, force"' lire developed in the verticul!!krnent!> of
the Sfo'RS perpendicular to the applied loading to resolve Lhe torsional moment. These forc es are presented
in Tables 7B· 3 and 7B-4 for the secor1d tloor based on the ETABS results from Design Exampl e 3. Table
7B· 3 provides the forces in grid lines A and F caused by loading i.t1the east-west direction scaled up to the
d.iaphrngm-forcc kwlusing the story shear from Table 7B- l , and Table 7B-4 provide.s the forces in grid
lines I , 3 und 4 cuW~ed by loading in the north-south direction scaled up to the dinphn:t&rm-force level using
the story shear fror.n Table 7B~2.
1<1ble 7B-3. ro rces creared in north-sourIt direcrion by loading in the east-west di1·ecrion
vi v2 V1 - V2= v~y ~.•.r.J~

Line +e,~ (kips) (kips) (kips) Scale Factor (kips)
A + 5 1.82 51 .4 0.42 9.94 4.2
F + 5 1.82 51.4 0.42 9.94 4.2
A - 13.27 13.38 - 0.11 9.94 - I. I
F - 13.27 13.38 -0.11 9.94 -1.1
Table 78-4. Forces created in east-west direction by loading in the north-south direction
vl v2 vi- V2 = vw v,w.(),~
Line ±e.• (ki ps) (.kips) (kips) Scale Factor (klps)
1 + 11.15 9.32 1.83 8.9 16.3

3 + 2.32 1.96 0.36 8.9 3.2
4 + 8.95 7.47 1.48 8.9 13.2
I - I 1.1 5 9.32 1.83 8.9 16.3
3 - 2.32 1.96 0.36 8.9 3.2
4 - 8.95 7.47 1.48 8.9 13.2
The forces calculated in Tabl es 78-3 and 78 -4 will not be used to calculate intemal diaph ragm shears
in each direction, but they will be included in the des ign of the diaphrngm and its components when
accouuting for combined orthogonal etrects in accordance with ASCE 7 Section l 2.5.4.
2.2 CALCULATION OF CHORD FORCES
The intemal diaphragm moments can also be calculated from the scaled diaphragm shear reactions at
eacb BRBF line in each direcrion for positive and negative accidental torsion. An efficient way to do this
is to create a spreadsheet that calculates distributed loads based on the geometry of tbe diaphragm and
the locations of the braced frames. Internal moments arc c.alculatcd from one !!nd of the building based ~
on the BRBF reactions and the distributed diaphragm loading. Because of the torsional moments, the
moment diagram created this way will not equal zero kip-feet at the other end of the building. This nonzero
moment at the end becomes the unbalanced moment shown in Figures 78-8 and 78-9, which is distri buted
tbrougbout the diaphragm as the correcting moments based on the tributary cliaphragm area along its lengtb .
2018/BC SEAOC SIJ1Jcturai/Seism lc Design M anual, Vol. 4 243

Ooslgn fExamp/o 78 • ConcrotQ-·Fill&d Oook (Rigid) Dlvphrtlgrrl
The internal moments arc then summed with the corrected moments to create the fi nul moment diagram for
the diaphragm. Figure 78-8 shows whut inpul would be used for loading in the north-south dircdion wilh
positive eccetltl'iciry and Figure 78· 9 shows the required input for loading in the cos t ~ wcst di rectiotl with
posirivc eccentricity. For both loadillg directions, input for negative eccentricity its identi cal to tbc input for
positive eccentricity except that the frumc reactions arc different.
Diaphragm Moment Diagram Second Floor, Loading In N..S Direction
Load Ca~ •E
Total Longth = 160.000 ft Unbalnnct~d Momon\=

660.000
BF Line Dis!. from West End (fl) Reaction (k)
A 0.000 127.1 Summn\ion Aro.a
F 150.000 135.9 14400
Total 263.000
Corrcoting
Dlst. Load Location LengUi (It) Width (It) Area DISL Load (kH) "' (k-fVft)
\VI A-8 30.000 60 1800 1.10 2.75
w2 B·E 90.000 120 10800 2.19 6.6
\V3 E·F 30.000 60 1800 1.10 2.75
Total 14-100
Figure 7B-8. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm moments in north-south direclion
Dlaphrngm Momon1 Dlagr.~m Sooond Floor, Loading In E·W Dlroctlon
Load Ca~ +E
TOtal Length • 120.000 ft Utlbalsnced Momentn

873.000
BF Line Dis!. lmm South End (f1) Rcnction (k)
1 0.000 43.9 Summation Ares
3 60.000 102.2
4 90.000 116.9 14400
Total 263.000
Correcting
Dlst. Lofld Locntion Lcmnth (ft) Width (ft) Aro.a DlsL LO<Jd (kll) M (k·fllll)
W1 1-2 30.000 90 2700 1.64 5.45626
w2 2-4 60.000 150 9000 2.74 9.09375
w3 4·5 30.000 90 2700 1.64 5.45626
Total 14400
Figure 7B-9. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm moments in east-west direcrion
The resultant moment diagrams for loadjng in the north-south direction for positive and negative
eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B- l 0, and tbe resultant internal moment diagrams for loading in the caS1-
wcst direction for positive and ncgalivc ccccntncity arc shown in Figure 7B-11 .

Ooslgn 15xamp/o 78 • Concroto-·FII/od Ouol< (Rigid) Ol~pilrogm
46,
•
~
30 . 1 .~ -
-~·
..
. .
V• 330 k /203 k' (67 k,. 0.3'16.<1 k) / 90 It a 1002 pH
...
~
)! > > > ~ > •' ~ .. ~ ~ >-? >If ~
~ tel co at·-·
..-......
-· Im
..
vc 330 k 1263 k . (67 k t 0-.3'16.3 k) c 90.2 k _•• -- If'"30.1
~
< (R) 45.1
Length Along Coftector Una (It)
(b)
Figure 7B- 12. Co!lec:.lor fo rces along grid line I
llV
53 7 64.7
.- .. ..--
~
~
I .-·- - ·-·
v1 .
> > > l
>
aaok /2631< • (14.6k + o.a•o.G' l.2k) l 12ott .. 1G8 ptl
)
> > )~) ..
> > 3S y > > • > )
"' .t:·
~
0
u.
~()
....
~...
-/11
..
6
28.8
')~
.---
t; ) i:J I l>l
.
"JlO 1fJl -4 ~•--.
1_,}
v2 " 330k /263k ' (87.6k + 0.3'0.5'3.2k) / 150 It c 737 pU

~
-W
( ()
... -· -·
..-...r:lG.B
<
v- 630X / 2G3k. (102.2k + 0.3'"32k) D 129k
.rn
64.7 53.7
(a) Length Along Collootor Uno (II)
(b)
Figure 7B- 13. Collector.forces a lung grid line 3
111 1
v1 = 330k I 263k' (49.3k + 0.3'0.5'13.2 k) I 60 It= 1072 piJ

~
,>t
~
4J
~
Nl
Nl
lll
17.5 ./
67. 1
-·-· ---- 75.9
~>>~=>~~~~t
"=>:;;::-::4>-= >~~>
..; '>" >t > >-~~~~
~ > > -
u
0
u.
0
/11
0
.:w
- -- ~ 1.0 rn
··" lfl'
...--
. <a!'\ -
1I h
j,ij
~
"m
V2 =330k I 263k • (67.6k + 0.3'0.5' 13 .2k) /150 f1 =582 pll j!
0 "'"
I;;\ ---~
<
V • 3.JOk I 263k • {116.9k + 0 .3'1 3..2k) • 161 .7k
l) -n~
-100
75.9
- - · 671
Length Nong Collector Line (ll)

(a)
(b)
Figure 7B-14. Collectorjorces along grid line 4
~
0
<0
--~. .
<:r v 330k I 263k •
D
•
<') (1J8..9k + 0.3'4 .2k) 'O.B
•
0 • "' 85.51<
+
<}\ co
ID
. 40
42.8 • 42.8
<')
~
~
'
~
w
0.
2
J !J
20 7- /
/
I t2
N
t •
V • 330!<0.
Oo
- 86.5k
-
u.
0
13
- 10
-20
-...'iJ
10
/
£() !t-1
/
It)
•> n
U N Jl!
8
-t/J
-00
42.8 v 42.8 /
(9)
Length Along Collector Line (£1)
(b)
Figure 7B-15. Collectorforces along grid lines A and F
246 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menual, Vol. 4

Design t=xomplo 78 • ConCI"()(O·P-11/od Oock (Rigid) 0/uphft.lgm
Set: Section 3.3 of Design Exumpk 7 A for an !.!Xplunation of the collector diagram$ and the ust: of .0.0 for
amplified force lewis. Do has been applied to the collector force~ caused by loading in cuch direction.
Also. see Design Example 3 for the design of the beams within the BRBF. These beams tnUBt be des igned
to resist the collector loading provided in tbc diagrams above us wcU ns the potential yielding of the brnccs
witbju the BRBF.
3. Diaphragm Design
3.1 METAL DECK SELECTION
For concretc- J:illecl metal deck diaphragms, welded sbeur connectors arc typically dc..«ignccl us tho
mecb ~mi sm for shear transfer. The deck and its attachment to the ::;tructure, then, do not need to b~: cho::;cn
for sheat· strength as they would for a bure-metul deck diaphragm. Where conc rete-filled metul decks utili ze
welded shear connectors, the deck can be sized for gravity loads only. Typically construction loading will
govern, as it is dc&irabte to cl10osc a deck rhat wilt not require shoring. Per Section 13 .1 b of AJSC 360, rho
deck must udcquntcly support all applied loading prior to the concrete rc.:tchlog 75 percent of its specified
compressive strengtJ1, C.
3.2 DISCUSSION OF CONCRETE PROPERTIES
The welded shear connectors nrc designc.d to be the shear transfer mechanism, and so the concrete ti ll cun
be assumed to have adequate in-plane shear strength. The combined deck and concrete fill do need to be
sized to support all applied gravity toads. Also. certain tltic.kncsses of concrete till help achieve one-honr
and two-hour tire ratings.
Reinforc ing should be provided in the concrete fi ll to prevent cracking and also because manufacturer's
resting is often performed with a minima.! amount of steel reinforcing in the concrete. In order to usc the
shear capacity provided by a manufacturer's testing data, the designer must march , at a minimum.. the
concrete properties and the rei nforci ng steel used in the te-st specimens. Reinforci ng in the concrete fill cnn
also help increase the flexural capacity of the composite section when negative moments are app li ed to the
beam. See Sections J3.2b and 13.2d.2 of ATSC 360 for discussions on the use of concrete fill reinforcing to
support negative moments.
3.3 SHEAR STUD DEMAND AND CAPACITY AISC 360
The maximum shear demands along each line of lateral resistance can be calculated from Tables 7B- I
through ?B-4:
v = v = 135.9k+0.3x4.2k=
2286 If
A F 60 fi p
v ~ 67 k + 0.3 X 16.3 k ~ 799 If

I 90 ft p
_ 102k + 0.3x3.2 k_ If
v3 - - 686 p
150 ft
v = 11 6.9 k + 0.3 x 13.2 k = If
4
806
150ft p

Df->slgn lExampl& 78 • Concrot(}oFII/Qd Dook (Rigkl) 0/J.Jphftlgnl
Tht: maximum diL:Iphrngm shear force occur~> along gri d lines A and F ~md is 2286 pl f. This force must bt:
incrensed by 25 percent per Section 12.3.3 .4 of ASCE 7. See Section 2.3 of De.sign Example 7 A for further
discussion. The maxirmtrt l diaphr'agm design sheur bocotnCj 2857.5 plf.
Shear stud capacity can b!.! calcul ated in accordance with AlSC 360 Chapter I. A lternntivcl y, tbe required
shear stud spacing can be dclcnnined from testing provided by deck manufacturers.
for composite beam desigr1, shear studs are also the transfer mechanism between the steel beam and the
concrete tlll for gravity loading. Where beams arc simply supported, the shear force imposed on the shear
connector.) is appli ed in opposite: directions from the cenkr of the benm, so for half of the benm spun, the
shear demands on Lbe welded studs arc additive and for the other hul f, they act in the oppos ite direction.
Figure 7B· l6 illustrates tllc shear forces on shear studs supporting gravity loads and diaphragm londs.
CENTERLINE OF BEAM SPAN

SHEAR PLOW PROM
SHEAR FLOW FROM DIAPHRAGM FORCES
GRAVllY PORC£S
.. .
\. ... . I . I .. , . . ..
.
.
• <I'
:r . .•• .. .. .'
.. - ~ .,· .... .. • . ' . 4. . ..• • . .••
•
1-
"\ : ·: .
~... ·.
. ! . . ...... ,.I. :·. . .: ,'. •..• . . • :• • -4 • •
• '
.•'. ' .,
• '
' • • • • . ..
~K ~r ~ . f::\ · ·. n·~
~.
•
il. • .•• . . • • .• 1/tA
~
. .
. ..: .
.. . .. .
?. ·' .. : ~ ~ .;· .' . . . ... .. ( ;:• ...~·•'4 • . .. . •.
•
\
'I:: ' '/ ...~ . ["""'""\. . /'1-..._\. . ·. ·,.. '

~ .
..
' . I
~
•
;.;.,.....
.f ,.,· J
I
.,. ~•
• • ~A
• 't. ~
•
•
\. ·n :. ;4\
•
.
'
. . ,;
. \
' /.=
< < < < < < ' < '
> ) > ) ) > ,
'
DIAPHRAGM SHEAR IS DECREASED I GRAVITY SHEAR AND DIAPHRAGM
BY GRAVITY SHEAR SHEAR ARE ADDITIVE
./
..... '""
I
Figure 78-1 6. Shear loading on welded studs at composite beams
Bec.ause the maximum shear forc e for tbis example occurs along beams that run paral.lel to the deck, tbc
gravity loads will be assumed to be fai rly minimal. The required shear stud spacing will be detem1ined by
the diaphragm demands only.
The metal deck and tlll combination fo r the second floor has been determined to be 16-gagc deck with
2-inch high ribs with 3 ~ -inch lightweight concrete fi ll having a compressive ~>trength of 3 ksi. The dc.ck
can span I 0 fee t 0 inches during construction without requiring shoring, and the 2-inch deck plus 3!!.l-inch
concre[e fill has a fire rating of two hours. The concrete fill is rein forced with #3 bars a[ 18 inches on center
each way, located at the m.id-bci ght of tbc concrete thickness.
The shear studs wi ll be ~-in ch diameter and 4Vl inches long, which meets the requirements ofAlSC Section
JJ.2c. The load trans fer between the steel beam and the concrete shall be taken as the minimum of concrete
crushing, tensile yielding of tbe steel section, and the shear strength of welded studs. Concrete cmsbi.ng and
the yield strength of the bc.am arc assumed not to govern, so the spacing of the shear studs will be des igned
for the maximum shear demand.
Eq I8- J

Ooslgn Examplo 78 • Concroto·AIIod Dock (Rigid) Oluphrogm
where for deck with h,lw,. ~ 1.5,

2
A....- = 0.44 in
E.. = w~· 5 J/:=(115 pcf) 15
• J3000 psi = 2136 ksi
Rg = 1.0
RP = 0.75
F II
=65 ksi
¢Q,1 = 0.75 x0.5x 0.44 in 2 xJ3 ksi x2 136 ksi = 13.2 k < 0.75x I.Ox 0.75x 0.44 in 2 x65 ksi = 16. 1 k
:. <PQn = 13.2 kips
Provid~: sh~ r studs at 24 inches on center for $v11 ::::J 13.2 k/2 ft o 6600 plf> v, ,oul( c: 2857.5 plf.
4.1 FLEXURAL AND AXIAL DEMANDS
As in Design Examplt 7A, the collector beam along grid line 4 bctwct:ll grid lines B and C will be designed
al the second floor. As determined in Figurc 7B-14, the maximum a..xiul collector load within this beam is
67. I kips.
Additional axial force from loading In the north -soulh direction is created fxom the diaphragm re-entrant
corner. This additional loud is 5 1.45 kips, which wns culculated using the methodology presented in Design
Example 7 A and the diaphrngm shear loading from figure 7H-4.
Consequently, tbc tol-al axia l loud imposed on tbis collector beam is
P, = 67.1 + 0.3 s 5 1.45 k = 82.5 kips
The max.itnum moment is due to dead and live loads, provided ill Appendix A. acting over a tributary widtb
of l 0 feet 0 inches.
M , (l.4x677 plf+0.5x650 plf)x(30 fti ~ 143 _2 kip-ft

II 8
A Wl8 x 46 beam with bracing at mid-span will be used as the second-floor collector at this location. Tbe
axjal and flexural demands arc higher than in Dt:sign Example 7 A, but the composite action from the slab
provides !urger flexurnl capacity, and compressive strength of the beam is determined using constrained axis
flexw·aJ ro1-sion, so the beam does not need to be much larger than the one used at the roof.
4.2 COLLECTOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AISC 360
As stared in the Commentary of A ISC 360, there are no guidelines for computing the compressive strength
of a composite beam. which is due to the lack ofresearch and tbe fact that this would be a comp lex..
1igorous calculatiou. in practice, tbc collector compressive strength is typically dctcnnincd assuming uon-
composite properties because of the reasons stated in the AISC 360 Comment01y and because it would be
potentially nonconservative to rely on the concrete fill once the diaphragm ha.<; been loaded and the fill has
cracked, losing some of its compressive strength.
2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 249

Ooslgn SxlJmp/o 78 • ConcrotOuF/llod Dtn.;-J< (Rigid) Olvphrogm
The deck braces the top flange of the beum, so the bcnm wil l be checked for conslmined uxis Aexurnl
torsion. A discu~sion of cotullraincd axis flexural torsion is provided in Sec lion 3.3 of Des ign Example 7 A.
When determining the compressive strength of a member using constrained uxis flexural -tor:rionul buckling,
modify AJSC 360 Equation E4-4 for dnstic torsional buckling stress:
Eq E4-4
where a= distance from tbc member centroid to the location of lateral restraint on tbc minor axis (d/2 for
widc-Anngc bcnms)
Constnli.ned axis flexural-torsional buckling is assumed to goveru over major axis flexural buckling. so
Tt
1
x 29,000 ksi x ( 1720 in6 + 22.5 x (9 in) 2
F = + 11,200 ksi x 0.122 in 4
" (1.0 X 180 inf
0.9 k .
4 4 2 2
=22.1 Sl
712in +22.5in +(9in) Xl3.5in
aud p;,. = 0.877 x 22.1 ksi = 19.4 ksi Eq E3· 3
:. $~, =¢F;,. Ag =0.9x 19.4 ksi x 13.5 in 2 = 236 kip!> Eq E3- 1
4.3 COLLECTOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH AISC 360
The flcxurnl strength oftb~: collector will be determined assuming composite action oftbe beam aod the
concrete slab with Jit-inch-diumeter X 4 \f..... inch-long shear studs spaced at 24 inches on center.
Determine the horizontal shear force at the interface of the steel beam and the concrete tiiJ over metal deck
in accordance witb Section J3 .2d of AJSC 360 based on tbc lower oft be lim it states of concrete crushing,
stcd yielding, and the capacity of the sbcar studs.
Effective width of the conct·ere on each side of the beam is the minimum of:
• One-eighth oftbc beam span= 30 fcct/8 = 45 inches.
• One-half the distance to the center line of the adjacent beam= I 0 fect/2 = 60 inches.
• Distance to the edge of slab (wi ll not govern for this beam).
Therefore, the e'frective concrete width= 90 inches, as governed by one-eighth of the beam span.
V' = 0.85/;A-.: = 0.85 X 3 ksi X 90 in X 3.25 in= 745.9 kips Eql3-la
Only the thickness above the metal deck is considered. as concrete contained within the flutes is minim<tl
and cumbersome to calculate.
V' = FvA, = 50 ksi x 13.5 in1 =675 kips Eq 13-lb

·' ~Q 30 ft X 13.2 kips = 264 k.' IpS
V = n..... = Eq 13-lc
II 2ft 0.75

Ooslgn cxomplo 78 • Concroto·RIIod Dock (Rigid) 0/uphrogm
Therefore, the strength of the shcnr studs governs. Tnbk 3-19 of the AISC Steel Manual will be uti lizcd to
detcm1ine the flcxurttl strength of this composite W 18 x 46.
where
Ycon = 2 in+ 3.25 in= 5.25 in
a= ~Q" - 264 k = I. 15 in
0.85f.:0 b 0.85 x 3 ksi x 90 in
:. Y2 = 5.25 in - 1.15 in/2 = 4.675 in
Knowing that tbc concronl has much less strength than the stool , and based on Q,, vs. A/v• assume that the
PNA occurs in the web of theW 18 x 46.
264 k +50 ksi X6 Ul X0.605 in+ 50 ksi X 0.36 in X t = 675 k- 50 ksi X 6 in X 0.605 in- 50 ksi X 0.36 in X l
:.t = 1.3 in
The PNA occurs 1.94 inches from the top of the steel beam, so Y1 = I. 94. Using Tabk 3- 19 and
inrerpolating between Y2 values of 4.5 and 5 and interpolating berweer1 Y1 values of 0.57 and 2.08. the
flexm·al compressive strength of this W 18 x 46 is $M11 = 549.6 kip-ft.
4.4 COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR COMBINED LOADING AISC 360
The maximum ax ial load and the maximum flexural load calculated earlier do not occnr at the same
location alonl! the beam. The maximum axial load occurs at the left end, and the maximum flexural load
-
occurs at mid-span. These maximum axial and flcxurnl demands will be checked in accordnncc with AISC
360 Chapter H.
~ = r;, ::l
82 5
· k =0.35 > 0.2
JJ., <PF;, 236 k
p 8
= 0.35 +~X
14 1. 6 k-ft = 0. 58 < 1.0
:. --.:!-." +- Eq H 1-1 a
$Pn 9 9 549.6 k-ft
Design Example 7A provides a design for the col lector beam connection to the column. The connection at
the end of this W 18 x 46 beam will be similarly designed.
5. Discussion of Semirigid Diaphragms
Section 12.3.1 of ASCE 7 explicitly requires semirigid modcUng of the diaphragm to be considered in
the building ana.lysis when the diaphragm cannot be classified as rigid or flexible. Semirigid diaphragm
modeling is also required when diaphragms are of a type that would be pern1itted to be cl1.1s9ified as rigid
but horizontal irregularities exist such that per Sectiou 12.3.1.2 of ASCE 7, they cannot be considered rigid.
The reason for semirigid diaphragm modeling is to accurately capture the behavior of the building,
including the effects of the diaphragm. It is especially important when irregularities are present, as they
alter the stiffness of the diaphragm.

Oosfgn FExampto 78 • concrot&--oFJ/(od Oook (Riffkl) OIW>hrtlgm
Computer analysis progrnms will nllow the designer to choose u ~>emirigid diaphragm option. vVhen this
type of diaphrugm is chosen, Lhe program will require that the diaphragm in-plnne sti ffncss be provided.
This stiffness is typicu.lly based on the thickness of the concrete fHI ove1· the metal deck, tleglecting the
deck and tbc portion ofrbe concrete within the deck. Cracked properties should be used for tbc concrete
where diupbrngm :;hears arc large, and industry practice is typicaiJy to choose bttwccn 0.15 and 0.5 for
the cracked !Section modification factor. Because thi:> is u wide runge of values und because the stifl'he..ss of
tlte diaphragm cau greatly impact that load distribution to other clcmcors of d1c SFRS. it is advised either
to envelope results based on reasonable minimum and maximum cracked section moditier values or to
perform sensitivity studies to dctcm1inc how much the diaphragm stiffness affects the transfer offorces to
the vertical dements of the SFRS.
As mentioned in tlte Overview of this example. the stifl:hess of tlle dinphrag.m is largely detonnined by
the stiffness of the metal deck or concrete tlU and metal deck , but it cun be impacted by the stiffness of
tht other diaphragm components. When the designer is creating a semirigid diaphragm modt:l, it may
be important to include the actual axial stiffness of the chord and collector dements. Consequently, the
designe1· may want to run a sensitivity check to detetmine whether tbis will impact the behavior of the
building.
The following items are not addressed in this example but are nevertheless necessary fo r a complete de.sign
of this concrete-filled metal deck roof diaphragm:
• Design for gravity loads.
• Support for out-of-plane wall loading.
• Semirigid diaphragm analysts.

Design Example 8
Special Moment Frame Base Connection
------------------------------~
OVERVIEW
This design example is a procedure for the design of n bose connection for a specialmomet1t frame (SMF).
Tllis example demonstrates n design using a possible anchorage contigmalion for columns w1tJ1 moderate
expected anchorage forces. In prnctice, these connections generally consist of a plute welded to a ftrst-story
column ut its bus~:, supported by a grout pud, anchored to lhe foundation using anchoring bolts. Whc.n the
base plate a.nd anchor heads are positioned above the surfuce of the foundation, the connection is referred to
as an exposed base connection. ln this case. as iu this example. transferred loads are expected to be resisted
entirely by busc-plutc bearing, plate bending, anchor rods iu tension, and grout/concrete compressive
sh·cngtb. WlJen large overturning moments or tensile fo rces are expected at the buse of the sln1cturc
(usually in high-rise buildings), columns can be embedded in the foundation lo provide add itional strength .
This type of base conliection is referred to as an embedded base connection and is not considet·ed in this
design example.
Laboratory tc~iing (e.g., DeWolf nnd Sarisley 1980; Thombirutnam and Par£unusivnm 1986; Astanch d a l.,
1992: Fahmy et ~tl.. 1999: Burda and It ani 1999; Myers e£ al .. 2009: Gomez et a.!.. 2010). has confirmed that
exposed base connections are susceprible to various failure modes. As a result, efforts have been made to
characterize the strength of exposed base connections under various loading conditions. f.11 this example,
the results from thel:a: laboratory test's and pertinent design guidelines arc utilized to identify limit states
and deretminc the strength of each compone.nt of the base connection. This example assumes a typical
configuration of ar1 exposed base connection fot' seism.ic l'egions: anchor rods are placed along lines parallel
to and outside the connecti ng column flanges . The following base connection design is bused primarily on
two sources: ( 1) ATSC Design Guide /- Base Plate and A nell or Rod Design (Fisher and Kloiber, 2006)
recommendations along with ACT 318 Chapter 17 for anchorage design, and (2) a compilation of te.st
observations from various studies.
OUTLINE
2. Dctcnnine Required Base Connection StTength
3. Design Base Plate and Anchor Rods
4. Base Connection Shear Resistance
5. Design Column-to-bnse Plate Weld
6. Shear Resistance Discussion
7. Anchorage
2018/BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4 253

Qosfgn FExampfo 8 • Spodnl Momon/ Fromo Bosa Connection
1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE7
The building is a six -story ofl1ce building located in Sun Francisco, CA, in Seismic Des ign Category D. See
Appendix A for the following information:
• Bui lding dimensions.
• Latitude and longitude.
• Soi l type.
• Load combinations including tlle vertical se ismic load eft-ect.
The bose connection to be designed connects a W14 x 2 11 ASTM A992 column sccl~o n (F_,.- 50 ksi ,
F11 =65 ksi) to a rein forced concrete f,>Tlldc beam . The grade beam is 4 fed x 3 feet in cross section and
extetlds longitudinall y in botb directiotts along the axis parallel ro tbe column web (see Figure 8-1 ). The
grade beam :frames inro a 4-foot x 4-foot concrete pedestal , levol witb the gr-ade beam and concentric with
the footprint of tbe base plate. The ulLLmatc compressive strength of the concn.:tc, I;, is 4 ksi. The first-story
height is 12 feet, and the column frames into a W24 X 76 beam above. Relevant secti on properties for the
column and beam are listed in Table 8- I.
~-- W14x211
Grout - ----,.
_..--- Anchor Head
Grado Beam - ----,.

~-- Base Plate
,,
•
4ft
>---- General Reinforcement Layers
Fig ure 8-1. General base connection profile
254 2018 IBC SEAOC S/ruclural!Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

Do-sign £xomplo 8 • Sp&clol M'Om<tnt Frvmo B&so Connocllon
Table 8-1. Sec/ion properliesfor the column and connecting beam above
Colwnn Beam
b1 (in) d (in) r1 (in) Z.v(in) db (in)
15.8 15.7 1.56 390 23.9
1.2 SERVICE LOADS AT COLUMN BASE
Load Type Axial Force (kips) Shear Force (kips) Momenr X-X (k-ft)
De.ad 185 0 -3
Live 59 0 -2
Earthquake 4 39 - 348
Applied mon1ents about the column weak ax is are assumed negligible.
1.3 LOAD CASES
See Appendix A for a derivation of load combinations based on SDS = 1.0. The oven>trength fncror, .Q0, is
determined from Table 12.2- 1:
no= 3.o
The load combinations of consequence for the design of the column base connection are as fo llows:
1.2D + I.O EJ.Ji + 0.5L ~ 1.4D + 0.5L + 0.0 Q1.;

0.9D+I.OEw = 0.7D+Q 0 0- ..,..,.
2. Determine Required Base Connection Strength AISC 341
2.1 DETERMINE REQUIRED AXIAL STRENGTH
Section D2.6a requires that the axial strength be the loud calcu lated using the load combinations of the
applicable bui lding code. including the ampl ified seismic load as fo llows:
P,
1
~ 0.7D +D.0 QF. ~ 0.7(1 85 kips)+3.0(4 kips) ~ 142 kips
2.2 DETERMINE REQUIRED SHEAR STRENGTH
Section E3.6d rcquLrcs that the shear strength of the base connection be based on tbc load combinations
of the applicabk building code, including the amplifie-d seismic load. The factored earthquake load, En.w
is determined by approximating the expected shear corresponding to the plastic moment capacity of the
colwnn. Here, Ry is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the speci fied minimum yield stress Fr The

Oosfgn t:xampfo 8 • Spoclal Momon/ Fromv &Jso Connoctlon
nom inal plastic fl exural strength of the column is M,,, and L11 is tht: di s-tance from the column bust: to the
bottom flun ge of the beam above:
where, taking Has the story height,
L11 c H- ~ =(12 ft)( I? in/ft) ~ 23 9

· in = 132.05 in
2 2
Therefore,
v;1
= 0.7 D +Em~ = 0.7(0 k) + 2(1.1)(1.1)(50 ksi)(390 in 3 )/132.05 it\
VII = 358 k.lps
2.3 DETERMINE REQUIRED FLEXURAL STRENGTH
Section D2.6c requires tbur tile fl exural strength of the base connection be at least equal to the Jesser of
1.1 R>.F>.Z-< or tbc moment calculated us!.ng the load combinations of tbc applicublc building code, including
the amplified seismic loud . Assuming the column is adequately dtSign t d to resist alllood combinations, the
required flex ural sln:ngth is calculuted as fo llows:
M11 = 0.7D + 0 0Q£ = 0.7(- 3 k!p-ft) + 3.0(- 384 kip~ft) = -1 155 k.ip-ft
3. Design Base Plate and Anchor Rods
3.1 DETERMINE INITIAL BASE-PLATE DIMENSIONS
The base-plate dimensions arc selecred to be large enough for the installation of at least four anchor rods,
as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA. 200 l ). An edge distance of
4 inches is selected for all sides. An additional 4 inchtS is added on all sides to provide adequate room
between the column and the anchor washers for anchor installation. Based on these practical constraints,
the required length irt rhe direction of bending along the column web. N, and the required width, B, of the
base plate arc estimated as follows:
N > d + 2(4.0 in) + 2(4.0 in)= 15.7 in + 8.0 in + 8.0 in = 31.7 in

B > b1 + 2(4.0 in) + 2(4.0 in)= 15.8 in +8.0 in + 8.0 in= 31 .8 in
Based on tbese practical considerations, the i.oiti al base-plate djmensions arc selected to be N= 32 i.ncbes
and B = 32 inches, with an edge distance of 4 inches.
3.2 DETERMINE BASE-PLATE THICKNESS AND SELECT ANCHOR RODS
The design bearing strength of concrete is first determined using ACI 318 provisions. Concrete
J
bearing capacity can be increased usi ng tbc factor A2 IA 1 , wbicb accounts for the beneficial effects of
concrete confinement. The arca A 1 is the arl.!H of the base plate, and the are.a A 2 is the largest area that is
geometrically simi lar to the base plate that can be inscribed on the surface of the concrete footing without
goi.ng beyond the edges of the concrete. Si11ce ilie base plate is con.nected to a 4- foot x 4-foot concrete

OMign Examplo 8 • Spoc;/111 flk>m&nt Framo B<tsa ConnocUon
pcdcstnl, the dimensions of A 2 nrc tnken to be 4 feet X 4 feet The design bearing strength i1> detcm1incd us
fo llows:
ACJ 318 §22.8.3.2
Qc ~ 0.65 AC1318 §21.2

A1 = N x B = (32 in) x(32 in)= 1024 in 2
A2 = (4 ftX12 in/ft) x (4 ftX12 in/ft) = 2304 in 2
~ == 2304 irl = 1.5

2
A1 1024 in 2
t;I(IJJJJ<) == (0.65)(0.85)(4 ksi)(l.S) ~ 3.315 ksi
Determ ine the bcnring intensity acting on ll1c base plate ru: follows:
(/ 11 u.~ = f{l(tl1k<) B = (3.315 ksi)(32 in)= 106.08 kip-in
e =M IP =IISSk-ft=8.13ft=97.6in
11
u 142k
N- ~~ _ (32 in)
e . -- (142 k) . = 15.3 in
m~ 2 2tl· nu.~ 2 2(1 06.08 k-m)
AISC Design Guide 1 (Fisher and Kloiber, 20 l 0) provides a "large moment" design procedure for the case
when e > ec01 • The assumed force distribution is shown in Figure 8-2.
f e
X
T
q
Ffgure 8-2. Force disrriburion ar base p/are
20181BC SEAOC StrocturaVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 257

Ooslgn /Ex8mplo 8 • Spochtl Momon/ Frome Boso Connoctlon
Dctcm1inc the disl:llnct: from tht: centerline to the anchor rod line,,(, us follows:
r N
::J -
2
- cdge d.ts tnnce ::J ( 32 in) - 4 m
2
. ::J 12 m
.
Dctcm1inc if the base-plate dimensions nrc adequate to resist the appli ed loads us follows:
2
o N 2(M + P f)
f +_ ;;:: II II Design Guide /, Eq 3.4.4
l 2 qrm,
~ 2f13,860 k-in+(142 klps)(12 in)J
0 2
in+ 32 in)
l 12
2 106.08 k-in
784.0 in 2 2 293.4 in 2
BASE CONNEC'l10N o-IMENS JONS ADEQUATE
Dctcm1inc the bearing length, Y, and tension in anchor rods due to base plate uplift, 7~ :
,
r ~ (J+~ ± (f+~J 2(M;:~,f) Design Guide J, Eq 3.4.3
Y = J784.0 in 2 + J784.0 in 2 -293.4 iu2

Y ~ 50.15 in, 5.85 in ° Y !::! 5.85 in
Tll =qffiL'\ Y - PU Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.2
1;, = (106.08 k-in)(5.85 in)- (142 kips)= 478.6 kips
ATSC Design Guide I considers yield line:; purnllcl to the edge of the column flange for both compression
and tension side flexun!. An examination of damage pattcrrul during experiments suggest that yield lines
may form at an angle to the colwrm ftange when anchor rods are placed near the corners of the base plate
only (Gomez et al., 2010). The onset of inclined yield lines may act to reduce the capacity of the plate. To
avoid the onset of inch ned yield lines, and to reduce anchor rod and plate bole sizes, four ancbor rods arc
=
used to resist tension (n 4) for a total of eight anchor rods. Figure 8-3 illusll·ates the di fferenccs between
parallel and inclined yield lines.

O<Mign Exomplo 8 • Sp(}t/ol Mom<mt Framo Boso Connocllon
Anchor Rods
0.95d
~
~ ~ [@J
/
0 /
/
/
/
~ ~ /I
~ Mu
[@]
~ ~ '' [@J
L___ _ Inclined Yield
d
Unes
Fi~:;rw-e 8-3. Comparison between parallel and indined y ield lines
The tension in each rod, 7;. is given by
T = ~ = 478.6 kips= 120 kjps

I II 4
Strengths for commonly used anchor rod material,<; and sizes are tabuh1ted in AISC Design Guide I
Table 3.1. Anchor rods at·e se lected based on the expected tensi le force in each .rod due to uplift:
EIGHT 2-lNCH ASTM Fl554 GRADE 55 ANCHOR RODS

(~R" = 133 kips)
Recommended sizes for washers and base plate holes arc listed in Table 2.3. Heavy hex nuts and standard
washers arc to be used and fastened to the plate washers. Holes arc designed to accommodntc setting
tolernnccs, and washers nre sized to cover the entire hole where the anchor rod is located at the edge or the
hole. Sizes are selected based on an anchor rod diameter of 2 inches:
EJGI-IT :.i.I-INCH x 5-fNCH ASTM A572 GRADE 50 PLATE WASHERS

EJGJ-IT 3Y""fNC J-J HOLES
The distance from the center ofthe holes to the edge of the b(lse plate should be enough such that the enti re
washer will be on tbc base plate ifthc anchor is located at tbc edge oftbc hole. ln addition, eno\tgh room
between the column and the hoks should be provided such that the washer will not come in contact witb
Lhe column fl ange if the anchor is located at the edge of the hole. Considering the column section properties
and the initial base plate size. the assumed edge distance is adequate:
4-INCH EDGE DISTANCE ON ALL SIDES

Doslgn EExarnpl& 8 • Spothtl Momon/ Fromu B8SO Connection
In ATSC Design Guide 1, the preferred material !>pecification for bu~e plates is ASTM A36. However, but~e d
on relatively large demands, the bu.se plate muteriul is selected to be ASTM A572 Grade 50.
AISC Design Guide 1 recommends the designer take the lower of the capacity of the plate in bonding
on tbc tension and on tbc compression side when ddcrmining the strength oftbc base plate in bending.
However, tt.sts conducted on six lurge-scule bu.se connection specimens (Gomez, 20 11) dcmonstrnlcd that
chat·actet1zing bose plate bending strength using the compressive side strength is highly conservative. More
accurate strength predictions were obtained by ~on s idering yielding due ro bending on the tension side
only. The following strength calculation considers compressive side yielding for completeness, but onJy tbc
tension side yielding ill considered for design purpol!es.
Bearing interface:
N-0 .95d 32in-0.95(l5.7in) .

1n = = = 854
. m Design Guide 1. §3. 1.2
2 2
B- 0.8bl 32 in- 0.8(15.8 in) .
II ::::! ::::! - 9.68 In Design Gui£le 1, §3. 1.2
2 2
Since Y < mux (m, n)
Design Guide 1, Eq 3.3. !Sa-2
5 01
))
(3.315 ksi)(5.85 in)( 9.68 in- (S.S
2
I p(ro.l) = 2.11 - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - . . . . L . = 3.42 in
50 ksi
Tension interface:
X= j - d + t.f Design Guide I, Eq 3.4.6

2 2
. 15.7 in 1.56in .
x = 12 m- + = 493
. m
2 2
Design Guide 1. Eq 3.4.7a
(478.62 k)(4.93 in) = _ in

I P<l"l> = 2.1 I 2 56
(32 in)(50 ksi)
Assuming thickness requirements arc based on tension side yielding, the base plate design is as fo ll ows:
2~-TNCH X 32-INCH X 32-INCH

ASTM A572 GRADE 50 BASE PLATE

OMign example 8 • Sp&clnl Momo-n/ FrtlmO 88SO Connotllon
3.3 CHECK COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF THE BASE PLATE
The following pt'Ocedure is used to check that the base-plate thickness is adequate to resist factor-ed
compressive loads. It is based on recommendations tl·om Design Guide 1 Section 3. 1. In Appendix A. tbc
governing loud combination considering comprc:;sion only is us fo llows:
1.2D + 1.6L
Therefore,
~, = I .2(185 kips)+ 1.6(59 kips)= 317 kips
Check minimum base-plate area to res ist compressive load:
A = .!_ ~~ = _!_ 3I7 k ) = 7 I. 72 in 2

(ml ) 2 <l>c 0.85}~ 0
2 (0.65)(0.85)(4 ksi)
A1 = N x B = (32 in) x(32 in) = 1024 iu 2 > 71.72 i.n 2 •• • OK
Cbcck plate tb.ick:ncss required to resist base-plate yielding, taking mnx (m. n, A.n') as tbc cnntikvcr length:
p 317k '
{ = II = = 0.3538 k SI
f7" BN (32 in)(32 in)
X= 4dbf ~I 4(15.7 in)(l5.8 in) 317kips

(d + b1.) 2 A2 (15 .7 in+ 15.8 in) 2 (0.65)(0.85)(4 ksi)(1024 in 2 )(1.5)
"'
Yc
0.85j''A
<: I A,
X= 0.093
A= 2/X = 2J0.093 =0. 313

1 + ~1-X 1+~1-0.093
M o= A [cib; = (0. 269) ~(15.7 in)(l5.8 in)= l.06 in

4 4
2? 11
. 2(317 kips)
t =rnax(m, n,A.na_) =(9.68m)
p(req) ¢~. BN (0.9)(50 ksi)(32 in)(32 in)
tt><~l = 1.14 in <2.75 in
BASE CONNECTION ADEQUATE TO RESIST

FACTORED COMPRESSfVE LOADS
3.4 GROUT DESIGN
Based on recommendations in AJSC Design Guide 1 Section 2.1 0, the design thickness of the grout
space between the base plate and the surface of the grade beam should be 1Y2 inches to 2 inches. It is
also recommended that one or two grout holes, typically 2 to 3 inches in diamdcr, be provided when
2018/BC SEAOC StructuraVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 261

Doslgn EE.xllmp/o 8 • Spoclnl Momon/ FrtJmo Boso Connection
plates ore larger than 24 inchc.<: :>O thBt the grout can be placed properly beneBth the plate. Bused on !helle
recommendations, the grout design i~ U8 follows:
2-INCI-1 N ONSHRINK GROUT BENEATI·I PLATE

TWO 2·1NCH GROUT HOLES
4. Base Connectioh Shear Resistance

This section will dcmonS"h·ute the procedure fo r designing for shear loBding based on recommendation.s in
ATSC Design Guide 1. Sec Section 6 for furt her discussion on shear resistunce at column bases in spec ial
m Orl le tH frames.
4.1 SHEAR RESISTANCE THROUGH FRICTION
As recommended in AlSC Design Guide 1. the contribution of the shear sbould be bnsed on the most
unfavorable arrangcmcDt of factored compressive loads that is consistent with the lateral force being
evaluated. Design Guide 1 utilizes equations from ACJ 349, which has historically provided des ign
equations for large-diameter cast-in-pl ace anchor rods and their base plates. Ba.scd on this, and referring ro
Appendix A. the following load case govems:
Therefore.
~I == 0.7 D + n OQE == 0.7(185 k) + 3.0(4 k) == 142 kips
Si nce the shear and fl exure in the base plate arc due to the same loading, the additional compressive stress
due to anchor-rod tension from the flexural design could be included. Thus,
Pu == 142 kips+ 479 kips= 621 kips
tt. V . can thcu be calculated as fo llows:

Shear resistance throu..._,!!ll frictiort,. 't' "
<!> rr:, ~ llP~ Design GuMe 1, 3.5.1
<!> Vn<="<l = <)>0.2J;Ac ACT 349 § 11 .7.5

 = 0.75 ACI 349 § I 1.7.5
2
At:= BY = (32 in) x (5 .85 in) = 187.2 in
The friction coefficient. 1-1 . is recommended to be 0.4 in Design Guide 1. However. an experimental srudy
(Gom1..-z ct al., 201 0) has shown that 1-1 should be taken as 0.45 for steel on grout. Therefore,
1-l == 0.45
and
<j>V" == <l>ll~, = (0.75)(0.45)(621 kips) = 210 kips

<j>Vlt(U1.2>.x) = <)>0.2J; At: =(0.75)(0.2)(4 ksi)(l 87.2 in =11 2 kips
2
)
210 kips> 112 kips o V:1 = 112 kips

O<Miyn Exomplo 8 • Spctltll Momo-n/ Framo Boso Connocllon
The revised shear lo~d is then U.'i fo llows:
v;, = v;,,ut, 1 - <!>v;,

1
= 35H kips -11 2 kips = 246 kips
where V:t-:rul is the factored shear load calculated in Section 2.2
4 .2 PLATE WASHER BEARING STRENGTH
The ddomu1tion at each washer ho.lc at service loud is not a design consideration. Thus, the bearing
strength of e.uch washer is as fol lows:
¢R, = $1.5//F;, < $3.0d£F;, AISC 341 Eq J3-6b

¢ ~ 0.75 ATSC 34 1 §J3.1 0
where t is the thick:rtess of the washer, F11 is the specified tensile strenglh of ASTM A572 Grade 50 material.
dis the nominal bolt diamctol', and /c is tbe clear distance. The clear distance, lc. is calcuJuted using the
width of the washer in the direction of londing, W""~' · and the diameter of the ancbor rod, d, as follows:
~'w..Wr - (d+J._in) 5 in - ( 2 in +_!_in)

/c - 16 = 16 = 1.469 in
2 2
Thcretore.
¢R11 ~ (0.75)( 1.5)(1.469 in)(0.75 inX65 ksi) s (0 .15)(3.0X2.0 in)(0.75 in)(65 ksi)
¢R11 = 80.56 kips< 219.38 kips -7 ~R11 = 80.56 kips
The shear load at each wasber is the revised shear load, V,,, divided by the tota l number of anchors, 11 . Thus,
v s ~R
_.!!..
n "
246 kips .
---'-- s 30 .8 1<lp~
8
30.8 kips< 80.56 kips
PLATE WASHER BEARING STRENGTH

ADEQUATE TO RESIST SHEAR LOAD
4.3 SHEAR STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS AISC 341
The dtsign shear strength of each anchor rod is as follows:
ARiJ = 'Ytt..p" ' A(J

y
Eq J3-1
¢ =0.75
where F, is the nominal shear stress obtained from Table 13.2, when threads are not excluded from the
shear plane, and A6 is the nominal unthrcadcd body area of tl1e anchor rod.

Ooslgn fExllmp/o 8 • Spoclnl Momon/ Frome Boso Connoctlon
Thus,
F,v = 0.450F;, = (0.450X75 ksi) = 33.75 ksi
where F, Is defined us the lower limit of tensile strength specified for ASTM Fl5 54 Grade 55 mnterial
Therefore,
$R, = (0. 75)(33. 75 ksi )(3.141 5 in 1 ) - 79.52 kips

v
--.!!.. < $R
11 n
30.8 kips< 79.52 kips
SIIEAR STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS

ADEQUATE TO RESIST SHEAR LOAD
4.4 TENSILE STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS CONSIDERING COMBINED

TENSION AND SHEAR AISC 360
Since am:hor rods wi ll be subjt!cted to tension due to uplift as well as shear, the combined effect of tension
aud shear should be considered according to AISC 360 Section 13.7. The design ten..tl ile streng1b of a bolt
subjected to combined tension and shear is as fo llows:
"'R
'I' n -
- "'F'
'I' 111 AII Eq J3-2
 = 0.75
where F~ is the nominal tensile stress of each anchor rod modlilcd to include the effects of shear stress,
calculatt:.d as fo llows:
/1(
F,,1 .ft). s, F/.U
F' = 1.3FIll - "'F Eq J3-3a
'I' Ill'
Here, Fm is the nominal tensile stress, obtained f..rom Table J3 .2, of each anchor rod when threads arc not
excluded fro m tbc sbcar plane, andf :V is tbc required sbcar stress. Both values are calculatt:d as follows:
F,, = 0.75Fu = (0.75)(75 ksi) = 56.25 ksi

f. = (V,In,) = 38.75 kips = 1231 ksi
'" A6 3.1415in 2
where nb is the total number of bolts
Therefore,
56 25
F' == (1.3)(56.25 ksi)- ( · ksi) (12.34 ksi) < 56.25 ksi
nt (0.75)(33.75 ksi)
F;~ =45.8 ksi < 56.25 ksi -7 F
: =45.8 ks i
<j>R" == (0. 75)(45 .8 ksi)(3.1415 in 2 ) == I 07.8 kips

D<Mign cX{JtnpiO 8 • Sp&Cilll Mom&n/ Framo BtiSIJ Connocllon
4.5 TENSILE STRESS DUE TO TENSION AND BENDING
The stress induced in the anchor rods due to tension and bending is addressed in AlSC D estgn G11/de I . The
following cnlc u l atlont~ will be bnscd primarily on Design Guide 1 guidelines, with some deviations bnscd
on expcrimcntl<ll tcsti.ng (Gomez d ul ., 201 0).
The anchor rod tcnsilt: stress is c<tlculated as follows:
f. = T = 478.71 kips =
38 .09 ksi
(4)(3.1416it1 2 )
11
nAIJ
The aucbor rod bending sn-ess is calculated as folJows:
f. M,h
rb - z /)
The anchor rod bendihg moment lever arm. '"' is c.alculated using recommendations from Gomez et al..
2010 as follows:
II> = t P +Igmtn = (3 in) + (2 in) = 5 in
The anchor rod ber1dit1g moment is calculated as follows:
M \ = V,l/11 = (309 kips)(0.5)(5 in)= 96 .56 kip-in

f\ 11
b
8
The anchor rod plastic section modulus, Zb, is calculated us fo llows:
zb= d~ = (
2 ·0 in)J = 1.333 in 3
6 6
Therefore.
!: = M," = 96.56 k-i~ = 72 .42 ksi

rh Z I 333 · -'
" . In
(, = 1; +1m = (38.09 ksi) + (72.42 ksi) = II 0.51 ksi

1
¢F"1 = (0.75)(56.25 ksi) = 42.19 ksi

~$ 9F;II
Ill ksi > 42 ksi
ANCHOR RODS INADEQUATE TO RESIST

STRESS DUE TO TENSION AND BENDING

Ooslgn t:xamp/e 8 • Spotlit/ Momon/ F=romo 8{)SO Connection
Bending stre sses urc inlroduced to the anchor rods due to t! liding of the bose plate on grout und dcfomu1tion
of the grout. As discussed in Section 6, this is not expected in conne-ctions for SMfs. However, a more
consem1tive approach is to in stall a shear key as 1·ecommcnded by Design Guide I . This <lpproach would
eliminate the ncod for anchor rods alouc to resist shear und pr·cvont the sliding action thut will iutroducc
bending stresses in tbc rods.
4.6 SHEAR LUG DESIGN
The lateral resislnnce cuu be expressed u.s:
<!JN, = q>l .3J~:A, + l .2(nA 1/'~. -1') >- ~. Desig n Gui.de I, §3.5.2
 = 0.60
Usir1g this equation, tbc minimum bearing area of the lug, A0 can be dctenntncd as foll ows:
A . = V,, - 1 .2(nAI> ~1. - T) = (358ldps) - (1 2 )((4)(3 .1416 in 2 )(55 ksi)-(478.72 kips)] = . in 2

33 0
l.ma <j>1.3J; (0.60)(1 .3)(4 ksi)
Assume the width of the lug, b 1, to be 14 inches and the embedment depth past the grout bed, d1, to be
2.5 inches. Thus,
Si.nce tbc shear lug is not bearing iD the direction of a free edge of concrete. the shear str'ilngth of concrete
in front of th~: lug is not considered. The bendlng moment acting on the lug, Mu1, using a cantilever model is
calculated as follows:
MuJ = V,, G + ~ = (358 kips)( 2 in +

2
'~ in ) = 1164 kip-in Design Guide 1, §4.9.2
where G is the thickness of the grout bed. The section modulus, Z1, and moment cap.acity, <j> M111 , for the
shear key is calculated as follows:
.+..M = .+..F z = <PF_.,.bt 2 - (0.9)(50 ksiX14 in)l2 = 157.512

'I' "1 '!' y I 4 4
M !J1 <¢Mn1 -7f=2.72 in
Based on Design Guide 1 Section 3.5.2, it is recommended that the base plate be of equal or greater
thickn~..ss than the shear lug. The base-plate thickness is 3 inches ; thus. a shear lug tJ1ickness of 2"X inches is
acceptable.
Since using heavy fillet welds is lhe preferred method of attaching the lug to the bu.se plate, fi llet welds
will be used along the lehgth of the shear lug ar the interface between the lug and the base plate. As in
Example 4.10 in A /SC Design Guide f. the vertical forces are equal and are assumed to act on the welds at
the weld centers. The shear force per unit length acting on each wcld,J.,, can be calculated as follows:
f.•· = 2b
V,, = (358 kips) = 12.79 kl -in
1
(2)(14 in) p

O<Mign cXDtnp/0 8 • Sp<H:Iol Mom&n/ Fromo Baso Connocllon
Verti cal forces nrc assumed to uct at the weld centers due to the bending moment introduced at the
connection between the lug and the bose plute. Assuming u weld size, fw, of I Y.t inches, the.!le rorccs per unit
lehgth ..fc. may be calculated considering rhe di stat!Ce between the fOI'ces. s. as follows:
~
s = t + (2) ( )(1 .25) =(2. 75) + (2)( ~ )(1.25) =3. 58 in
r = M"' = (1161 kip-in) =23. 16kip-in
<' b1s (14 inX3.58 in)
Tht resultunt of the forces per length acting on each weld,.(,., is calculated as fo ll ows:
The dc.sign strength of each I ~-Inch fiJlct weld, assuming the usc of an E70 electrode, is calculated in
accordance with AJSC 341 Section J2.2 us fo ll ows:
¢1;,. = $(0.707)(0.60)(70 ksi)r, = (0.75)(0.707)(0.60)(70 ksi)(1.25 in)= 27.84 kip-ln
Therefore,
r, < Q.f,,.
and the shcur lug is designed as follows:
2J;4-TNCH x 4 Y~-1 NCH x 14-fNCH-LONG SHEAR LUG

I Y4-INCH FlLLET WELDS, BOTH SIDES, ALONG LENGTH
lt is recommended in Desig n Guide 1 that the shear strength of concrete in rront of the lug be considered
when determirling the lug embedment depth. The shear strength of concrete is evaluated as a uniform
tensile stress acting on an effecti ve stress area defi ned by projecting a 45-degrce plane from tbe bearing
edge of the shear lug to a free surface of concrete. In thjs example, the lug bears in tbc direction of the
longitudinol a"<is of the grade beam in which there is no fTce surrace to be exam ined. Thus, this strength
criterion is neglected analysis. However. in cases where zero net ax ial load or net tension in th e column is
expected at service loads, a potential failure surface tllat extends at a 45-degree angle from the edge of the
shear lug to the top surface of concrete mus t be considered. Since nct compression is expected at the base
in this example for all loud combinations, concrctc bearing strength was considered a sufficient design
criterion for lug embedmcnL
5. Design Column-to-base Plate Weld
ExperLmenral tests (Myers et aJ., 2009) conducted using base connection configurations simiJar to the
connection designed in this example have shown that partial joint penetration (PJP) welds in conjunction
with fillt:t welds connecting the column to the basc plate can sustain deformations that ure sufficient for
seismic design. Figure 8-4 illustrates a detai I involving a combination of PJP and filleL welds. The fillet
weld and the PJP weld are sized such that the sum of the widtb of the PJP we ld and the throat thickness of
the iiUet weld is 25 percent greater than the fl ange thickness; fo r an overmatched weld filler material, the
flang e may be ful ly developed in tension. The PJP weld is designed to be installed from the outside flange
face through 80 percent of Lhe fl ange thickness using E70XX electrodes, beveled at 45 degrees. The weld at
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturaf!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 267

Oosfgn fExampfo 8 • Spocllll Momon/ f=rtJmo BbS O Connoctlon
the web i6 n flll et weld of the sumc size as the flllet we ld on the inside of the flan ges. These sp ecifications
are given to remain consistent with previously mcnLioned experimental setups and standard practices for
these types of welds. The fillet weld size, ll'flllt<t ' is determined as follows:
0. 80t1 + 0.707wllliti > If
1 1
wtillt1 > (0.20)t1 = (0.20X1. 56 in)== 0.44 in
(0.707) (0.707)
The size of the PJP weld. IVviv' ls dotcrmillod as follows:
wr)p > 0.80/l = (0.80Xl.56 in)= 1.248 in
Based on these calcularions, rhe column-to-base plate weld dejgn is shown ill Figure 8-4.
1/2·1n Fillet Both SldQs
1· 1/4·1n PJP
1/2-in Fillet - - -1-- 1---.
Base Plate
Figure 8-4. Column-lo-base plate weld detail
Al ternatively, a complete joint pcnctmtion (CJP) weld dctn.il may be designed to attach the flange to the
base plate. However, experimental research (Myers et al. , 2009) indicates that connections with CJP
weld details do no exhibit superior performance wllen compared to PJP detai ls, primarily due to stress
concentrations introduced at the weld access holes that are required for CJP welds.
Tn ~: i ther case, the welds must be treated as demand critica l, such that applicable toughnes s criteria outlined
in the Seismic Provisions (ATSC, 20 I 0) are met

Do-sign 8wmplo 8 • Sp&cltll Mom&nt Fromo B."tSo ConnocUon
6. Shear Resistance Discussion
Figure 8-5 illustrates the fot·cc distribution at the column base due to the applied londing presented in
this example. including the frictional force. Since exposed base connections arc generally used in low- to
mid-rise buildings, net nx inl tension on these connections is high ly unlikely. As n limiting case, an applied
loading scenario is examined where zero axial load is present. It can be determine.d that, in geneml , shenr
resismnce through friction prov ides adequate shear strength for bru;e connections in special moment frames
(SMFs). See Figure 8· 5.
I • I j\
aH
, ~ I [\I I' IN ' I
TU ~ r
' ~
-~
vll ~ Fr
I ~ ~ \
N Y qmaxY = Tu
r ={+---
2 2
Figure 8-5. Force distribution ·with zero net CLrialload
Assume,. = N, the length of the base plate i.n the direction of loading, to obtain an upper bound for the
analysis. from figure 8-5, al-l is a fracLion of the story height, l-1, which corresponds to the location of zero
internal moment in the column. Write the required shear strength to resisr the appli ed forces, V,,, as follows:
v =
TN
IT
lf OH

Oosfgn EExampfo 8 • Spoclal Momon/ Fromo 8{)SO Connoctlon
Tht! shear resistance through fliction, Fr, can be computed by multiplying the resultnnt bearing force, q~nY,
which is equal to the total tension due to uplift, 7;,. by tht coefficient of friction between the buse plute and
grout. ~t. By imposing that the fl'ic ti onal force be ndequnte to resist the shear load. you can dctem, it'le a
constralnt on a as fo Uows:
a ;:::: N = (32 in) =0.4 94

~LH (0.45)(144 in)
The result indicutes thut if the point of inflection or location of zero internul moment in the column is
located at or above 0.494 times the story height for this limiting case of zero axio.Jload, friction alone will
adequately resist any appUed shear loud. As history has shown, the seismk response of an SMF at design
loads gencrnliy results in flrst -story columns devclopLng points of inflection ut or above onc-halftbc story
height. The implication here is that, for the general case cons idering applied axial loods, momtnls, and
typicu\ bil!lc-plate geometries ut SMf buse connections, friction between the base plure und grout alone wil l
.resist mosr, and Ukely all. of the applied shear load.
7. Anchorage ACI 318
The design for anchorage to concrete is generally dictntcd by provisions In ACJ 318 Chapter 17, This
~cction will demonsh·ate an alternative methodology to dtSign nnchorage.s b~t:d on proven slrut-and-tie
concep!'S that buve been used for similar structural configurations. This melhodology may prove simpler
in many cases, allows for simultaneous grade beam des ign, and may also provide more options for the
designer.
ACI 318 Chapter 23 provides a method of ana lysis using strur-und-t ic concepts for deep bcarn~ . To perform
the strUt-and-tie analysis, certain geometric constraints exist. Anchors must be embedded to a greater depth
tl,an the centerline of the lower layer of reinforcement ro engage the reitlforccment ill resisting ancl10rage
forces. This requires that the lower reinforcement be elevated enough such tbat adequate cover is provided
beyond the bottom of the anchors. The geometric constraints affect the design process as fo llows: the
reinforcement locations, anchorage depth. and anchor-plate sizes must be chosen prior ro analysis; then ties
can be sized, and the strength of the grade beam can be checked against the applied anchorage forc es. If the
strength of the grade beam is adequate, the design is successful.
Chapter 23 defines a "D-region" as a region where the usual plane. sections assumption is not applicable.,
and strut-and-ti e design provisions may be employed. Based on the anchorage geometty and ACT 318
Section A. I &ruidelincs, D-regions ex ist through the entirety of the grade beam , which resists applied
anchorage forces. Figure 8-6 shows tl1c assumed bottJe-shaped struts that arc fom1ed to resist the forces
generated in the grade beam.
An idealized. determinate truss can be constructed by considering struts as uniaxial compression members,
and the longitudinal reinforcement between the slruts as uniaxjal tension members. Angles formed by slruts
are assumed symmetric at e.ach node. The constructed truss is shown in Figure 8-7.
The truss can be made detenninate by consideri_ng the far ends as a roUer and a pin support. Figure 8-8
shows tb~.: resulting force distribution and geometry.

Oa.slgn Exomplo 8 • Spcclnl Mom~tn/ Framo Baso Connocllon
... ,..-,.
' .•' '\
L--J
Figure 8-6. Struts formed in grade beam due to anchorage force_s
. . . . .. .. .. . . . .... .
~ • • o o I o • • • • 0 I 0 o o a o o 0 I 0 • o 0 0 0 0 0 o • • • 0 0 I 0 0 • o
···--- ··--- ·· . .......... ... ........... . ... ...... ... . . . . ... -- .... ·- ..... -
,. ... ·... i
•r- --,·
, .~. ··-"'
·r -- '"'·
\. - -.• I.. ... J
Figure 8-7. Idealized truss formed in grade beam resisting anc/wrageforces

Doslgn t=xomplo 8 • Spoclnl Momont Fromo Boso Connoctlon
a
-
qy=T+ P
,,
Figure 8-8. Idealized h·uss layout and fo rce dish·ibution
7.1 DETERMINE DEMANDS ACI 318
Force demUrtds arc determined using standard truss analysis. To perform the analysis. as previously
mentioned, reinforcement locations must be selected. One layer is chosen tor both top and bottom grade
beam reinforcement. The upper reinforcement is chosen to be 4 inches from the top surface based on
cover requirements, and s ince the lower reinforcement must be ekvaled to provide enough cover for the
extending anchor below, the lower reinforcement is chosen to be 9 inches from the bollom of the grade
beam. Values h. a, and e are calculated as follows:
. N y ( . 32 in 5.85 in
a= j +---= 12 m + - - - - = 25.08 in
2 2 2 2
h = (48 in) - (9 in) - (4 in) = 35 in
e= l'an (!a!.)= tan

-I - I(
35
.oo)
25.08
= 0.949 = 54.4°
ACI 318 Section 23 .2.7 requires that the angk between the axes of any sb·ut and any tic entering a
single node shall not be ta ken as less than 25 degrees. Since here 8 =54.4 degrees, the trt1ss geome.try is
permissible.
Reactions at tbc assumed supports can be dcterm_i_ncd tbrough statics as foJJows:
R(J = ±cr- j< P) = 478.72 kips -142 kips) ~ 112.24 kips
Rb =.!.(T+2P)= .!.[478.72 kips+2(142 kips)]=254.24 kips

3 3

Oa-slgn Examplo 8 • Spot/of Ak>m&nt Framo Boso ConnotUon
Forces in each member can be dctem1ined through stnndord tmss onolysit\, and arc culculatcd all fo llows:
F ~-
1 1
(T - P) =- (478.7?kips - l 42kips)= - 138kips
~y 3 sin(8) 3(sin(0.949))
25 07
F = !!....cr- P) = ( · in) (478.72 kips -142 kips)= 80 kips
Uil 3h 3(35 in)
1 1
Fj, ==- (T + 2P) o- (478.72kips + 2(142kips)) o-313k ips
.v 3 sin(8) 3(sin(O. 949))
25 07
F = !!....cr + 2P) = < · in) (478.72 kips+ 2(142 kips)) = 182 kips
cb 3h 3(35 in)
F J == - l (2T+P) ::l- I (2(478.72kips) + 142kips) == -45 lkips

c 3 sin(O) 3(sin(0.949))
where compression is indicated by a negative value
7.2 DETERMINE CAPACITY OF STRUTS, TIES, AND NODAL ZONES ACI 318
ACI 31 R provis ions require that the struts, tics, and nodal zones (truss joints) meet strength requirements
given in Chapter 23. This secLion wi ll proceed by first determining reinforcement sizes required to meet
tie demands based on the assumed geometry. then strut and noda l zone capacities will be calculated. In
practice, each strut and nodal zone should be analyzed to ensure tbe strength oftbc entire truss system
mecl~ the required demands. Here, it is apparent thut the most critica l strut end and nodal zoot: exists at (c)
in F igure 8-8. This location will be analyzed in detail, but it should be noted lhat lhc remaining nodal
zones may be analyzed in an anuJogous manner. Figu.re 8-9 shows the geometry and appl ied forces at nodal
zone (c).
h:eos(fJ)
(l-a)l~fJ)
,'
I '
I
I. aT_,_
(I - a)/1
(l - a)T
-
Figure 8-9. Geometry and applied forces at nodal =one (c)

Ooslgn t:xamp/o 8 • Spoclnl Momon/ r=rome 8{)8() Conn€wtlon
Figure 8-9 shows that the nodnl zone is split into two zones, each resisting u strut that ucts on a fucc of the
nodal zone. The node is split based on the factor r1., which is bUBed on the magn itude of the strut forces
acting at the zone. and ill ca lculuted as fo llows:
a. = F 1)\'
= (l 36.171dps) = 0.234
F11\: +F<:>:1 (136. 17 kips)+ (444.62 kips)
The height of the nodul zone, h),, is t.uken ru; tw ice Lhe distnnce from the plute fnce to the centerl ine of the
bottom rcinJorcement. The plate face is chosen ro be crtlbeddcd to a depth of 42 inches, resulting in hs = 6
inches. The length of the anchor plate. 1,. is taken as 8.5 inches based on an initial anchor plate footprint
sizing of 8Yz Inches x 7 Inches. ACI 318 Section 21.2 s1atcs that stn1t-und-tie models and struts, tics, nodal
zones, and bearing un:us in such models are to use a strength reduction factor of
<1> = 0.75 T 21 .2. 1
Strength of Tics
According ro Section 23.7. the strength of a non prestressed tie, Fn~> shaiJ be ral<en as
Eq 23.7.2
and
§23.3.1 (b)
where A 11 is the area of the tie andJ; is the yield sln!nglh of the tie. Thus, the u.reu of each ti c, assuming
ASTM A6 15 Grade 60 material . can be computed as fo llows:
A > Fm· = (138 k.ips) = 3.07 in2

N/N <1>1;. (0,75)(60 ksi)
A > Fc.n = (182 kips) = 4.04 in2

N ;:b <if.. (0.75)(60 ksi)
Ties should be selected based on the required areas and so that the pl acement of the ties are compatible
with the location of the anchors. Based on the anchorage contigurat..ion. one layer of tive reinforcing bars
spaced at 8 inches is selected. The resulti ng bar sizes arc selected consideri.ng tbe praclical advantage of
having identical longi tudinal rein forcement on top and bot1om of the cross section. The area of c.ach bar is
calcula£ed as fo llows:
A = Au.<l> - 4.04 in l = 0.809 in2

b /1 5 5
T hus,
USE #9 BARS (A REA= 1.00 TN 2 ) AT 8 INCH ES ON

CENTER TOP AND BOTTOM LONGITUDINAL
REfNFORCEMENT FOR GRADE BEAM
27 4 20 18 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

OMign Exomp/Q 8 • Sp&Chll M'Om&nt Fr"IJmO 8 <'i SO ConnocUon
Strength of SLruCs
The compressive strength of a strut without longitudinal reinfot'cemcnt. Fnr • shall be raken as the sma ll er
value of tho foJJowing equation evaluated at the two onds ofthe strut:
F1/J = .Irtt' A (:1 Eq 23.4.l(n)
Here, A ..'f Is the ct·oss·sectional area at one end of the strut, and}~. is the smaller value of the effective
compressive strength ofthc concrete in stmt, given by
r
'~
= 0.85A1-' ,o'j·•. < Eq 23.4.3
and the effective compressive strength of concrete in the nodal zone ls given by
r:
Lt'
= 0.8Sf:t1-'~
orc < Eq 23.9.2
According to ACI 318 Section 23.5, for bottle·shnpcd struts. assuming shear reinforcement will be added
to tbc grade beam, o:• is taken as 0. 75. According to Section 23.9, for nodnl zones ancboJing one tic, o n' is
taken as 0.80. The urea of the strut is c<~ l culatcd consideling the minimum width of the strut in the plane of
loading, w.n shown in Figure 8-9, and the effective widlh in the transverse direction, bs- Conservatively, b1 is
taken as rbe sum of the widths of eucb of ilie anchoring plates . Anchor-plate tootprtnts are initially sized ar
8Yl inches X 7 inches. TlJus, tlJc compressive strength of tile lurger sln1t Is calculated as follows:
Aa = wA 1
= [h9 cos(8) + (1 - a.)/, sin(8)]( 4 x 7 in)
= {(6 in)[cos(54.4°)]+ (1 - 0.234)(8.5 io)Lsin(54.4°))}(4 x 7 in)
2
== 246.03 in
¢Fnr = 9(.Acs = 0.85° .~f;Aca = (0.75)(0.85)(0.75)(4 ksi)(246.03 in 2 ) = 470.5 kips
It follows that,
Th e rcfo~ ,
the st:r'engtb of the larger strut is adequate to resist the applied loads. TI1e compressive strength
of the smaller strut is analyzed as follows:
Aa = 1vs b.v =[h . cos(8) +a/ sin(8)](4 x 7 in)

~~; .~
= { (6 in)[cos(54.4°)] + (0.234)(8.5 iu)[sin(54.4°)]} (4 x 7 in)
= 143.08 in 1
¢Fn, = ~fccAcs = 0.85° ;J;Acs = (0.75)(0.85)(0.75)(4 ksi)( l43.08 in2 ) = 274 kips
1~" ~ <PF;,. . . . OK

Ooslgn tExampto 8 • Spoclal Momon/ From& 88S& Connec:tlon
Strength of Nodal Zone
The strongths of nodal zones at fuces cotltlecting to stluts are equivalertt to the strengths of the struts nr
those locations (excluding the o:, factor, wbJcb acts to i.ucr"Casc tbe capacity at the faces). Thorcforc, it Is
apparent tbat tbc strengths at the faces of the noda l. zone connecting to struts arc adequate to resist the
uppl ied loads. The strength l1t the fucc connecting to u Lie is unulyzed ns fo llows:
F =fA
1\11 (\1 lf"Z
Eq 23.9. 1
2
A"! =:!. hsbi !::1 (6 in) x (4x7 in) =:l 168 in
4>F;_w =¢.(~AM:. = <J>0.85~;J;'Au.: = (0.75)(0.85X0.80)(4 ksi)(168 in 2 ) = 342.72 kips
F_L
tv
::; <PFnn ' ' ' OK
The streng1h at the bearing fucc is analyzed u.s follows:
2
Ar;z =Lb
,. 5
=(8.5ln) x(4x7in) = 238in
<j>F""' ~ ¢f~ Aru -' <J>0.85~~J;Aw - (0. 75)(0.85X0.80)(4 ksi)(238 in
1
)- 485.52 kips
T s <J>F,111 ••• OK
STRENGTHS OF TIES, STRUTS, AND NODAL ZONE AT (C)

ARE ADEQUATE TO RESIST APPLIED LOADS
7.3 DESIGN ANCHOR PLATES
The anchor plates arc expcct<.:d to bend due to bearing against the concrete wbcn anchors arc in tension.
Planar canti lever bending is assume~ and the strength of a plate is checked against the bendi ng moment
induced in the plate in a similar fashion as is demonstrated in ATSC Design Guide I Section 3.3.2 for base-
plate bending. Bending is assumed symmetric . and the cantilever length, x, is the distance that the plate
extends beyond tbc anchor nut. A standard hex nut for a 2-lnch anchor rod has a width, wJ>.:.,, of 3 inches.
The following analysis, assuming A572 Grade 50 anchor plate material, is used to size. the thickness of the
anchor plate, lap:
x = l.u
2 .<
- wLr>!.t. ) = .!.(8.5
2
in - 3 in)= 2.75 in
The moment per unit length lobe resisted by the plate can be calculated considering the bearing pressure,
,fp, exerted on the bearing area of the plate, Ab,8 , as follows:
A.,TI'fl = Ap!Jtc - A.b = (8 .5 in) X (7. 5 in)- (3. 14 in 2 ) = 60.61 in 2

f x2 o T. o x2
M t>' = P2 =l A l-2
t
brg
The nominal bending strength per unit length is as fol lows:
R = ~f:v,
n 4

Do-sign Exomplo 8 • Spcclnl Momcmt FrtJmo Boso Connocllon
There fo re, with<!> = 0.9,
M p/ -< tt.R
'!' II
2
4MP1 _ 2(120 kips)(2.75 in) = O. B
(IJ(J < 2
¢~. (0.9)(50 ksi)(60.61 in 2 )
USE 8Y.-1NCH X 7-INCH X l-INCH

ASTM A572 GRADE 50 ANCHOR PLATES
7.4 DESIGN SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
Grode beam shear t'einforcemont is designed for tlle regiou iu the boam where aucllorage forces are
resisted. ACI 318 Chapter 23 requires that ccti ain requirements arc met that arc consistent with the stnlt-
and-tie analysis performed. An initial design will be based on minimum rcquirt!ments for nrcns of shc.a r
reinforcement in deep beam~ specified in Section 9.9.3.1 as follows :
A v,rriu = 0.0025b81;S AC1318 9.9.3. l (a)

A \ .mln
11 =0.0025b2bs 2 ACI 318 9.9.3.1(b)
where Av is (he vertical reinforcement, A.,11 is the horizontal shea1· reinfOl'cement. s is tl1e longirudinal
spacing for vertical rdnforcomcnt, and s 1 is the vertica l spacing for longitudinal shear reinforcement. The
maximum spacing is as fol lows:
sm•-~ = s2,rnH = .l
1111Jl
od
5:rb •.12 .m = min(9.6 in, 12 in)= 9.6 in
By serting the spacing s and s2 at 9 inches, it fo llows that

1
A v.mn == A, il,m u == 0.0025(36 in)(9 in) = 0.81 in
Chapter 23 dictarcs that wben using a strut-and-tic model. the fo llowing equation for s hear reinforcement
must be satis f:ied:
Eq 23.5.3
where o: 1 is the angle bet\-veen the strut ax is and the vertical reinforcement, and a'2 is the angle betvvcen
the strut axis and the horizontal reinforcement. By setting the vertical reinforcement at a mittimum, tbe
horizontal shear reinforcement can be determined as follows:
A =
"'
. 2
(36 iu)(9 in) = . ll1
..:.__..;..:__~
0 62
sin(54.4°)
20181BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismlc Design Manuel. Vol. 4 277

Oosi!Jn t:xamplo 8 • Spociltl Momon/ t=rome Bosa Connection
It follows that minimum s h~:ur reinforcement is udequult.: in the vertical and longihtdinul directions. Busbd
on the reinforcement urea and spacing requirements, it is determined thut #3 stirrups (Areu = 0.11 in 2)
can be used in the vertical dit·ection spaced ar 9 inches. and #3 strands can be used on either side in the
horiwntal direction in the configuration shown in Figure H-10, the JinaJ buse collllection design.
'-S"' X 2'v8" X ~ 314" PL 0 5"

(S') 5" X 3/41' PL
ASTM 57 2 GR ~0 "'
ASTM A572 ( ,'R 50
(3 V4" HOLE S)
(2) 1 ' GROUT BO!.E S - (B) 2" ANCH OR ROD
/ ASTM P l 554 <lR 55
\ 1/
~ ~
~ ~ ) ~ I ...,
~
0
' • IR9 I '
~ I ~ _\ I
1 va.,.. ._.,
v --l 1- 4"TYP\\
/ 1
I:J n? b3 STIRRUP @ 9'' O.C
/
5 f19 @ S" 0 C
Wl4x2 ll
v ... ll'
~
4" TYP --j 2 3/4" X 4 112" X: 24" L LU'G
2"NON SBR.INK CJROUT .8. I
Il
I
I
3'-6''
I
- - -
~
-
I
<
/ lUI ..... \
(8) 8 I /2" X 7" X I" PL I \ #3@ 9" 0 . C.
Figure 8- I 0. Base connecrion rleslgn

Design Example 9
Braced-Frame Base Plate
OVERVIEW
This example shows procedures fort he design of buckling-restrained braced n·ame (BRB) bnse plates. This
example includes the design of the connection of tile buckling-restrained braced frame gusset to tho bose
ph1tc and column , tbc column connection to tbc base plate, sizing of tbc base plate, and tbc connection of
the b.asc plate to the foundation. BRB connections arc dtSigned for the ultimnte louds thut can be delivered
to the connections from the brace based on the brace expected yield strength , strain hardening, and when
applicable. compression overstrengt:b. This is doue such that yieldiug of tile system wi.U occur in the bruce
and not in the base plate. That is, a capacity design is performed.
OUTLINE
l. Design Parameters
2. Gusset Plate Design
3. Base Pl ate Dcsi1m

-
4. Foundation Anchornge Design
1. Design Parameters
This design example is based on the information calculated in Design Example 3 (buckling-restrained
braced frame).
Design Parameters:
2
Maximum brace size: A,=
.. 5.0 in
Typical bay spacing == 30 ft
Base story heigbt = 12 ft
F_v (BRB) = 42 ksi + 4 ksi
Maximum brace: yic:ld strength = 46 ksi
~ = 1.04
(J) = 1.54
Rv= 1.0
Column size= W 14 x 211
201818C SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 279

Ooslgn fExllmp/o 9 • Bmcod· Fr[Jmo l31lOO PIMo
Material Properties :
Concrete: (: = 4000 psi
W-sbapes: A.STM A992; ~· = 60 ksi
=
Rectangu lar HSS: ASTM ASOO, Grade B; F>. 46 ks i
Plate: ASTM A572 . Grade 50: Fv =50 ksi
Anchor rods : ASTM Fl 554 Grade 55; F,.= 55 ksi
Reinforcement: ASTM A615 Grade 60; F 1. = 60 ksi
1.2 PIN VS. FIXED BASE DESIGN
This section will provide a discussion on different modeling and dc.sign options. Moving forward, the
design of the plate will be done bused on a "pin" assumption. Figure 9-1 shows the conceptual force
diagrnn1 fo t· the bnse cohnection. The vertica l component of the brace force wi ll be taken by the anchor
bolts, while the horizontal shear component of the broce force wiJJ be resisted by an HSS drag strut.
UMN
COL. - - ---I
.
TOP OF SLAB l ~
u
I
TOP OF FDN.
HSS DRAG BEAM FOR

SHE'AR FORCE
Figure 9- 1. BRB connection force diagram

Do-sign £x&n1plo 9 • BrtiCOd·~tOtriO BMO Pllt/0
2. Gusset Plate Design ASCE 7
2.1 BRB CONNECTION TO GUSSET PLATE
The connection of tht: BRB to the gusset plate varies among brnce munufacturel's. BRB connections can
be bolted, \Vdded, or pinned. In designing the BRB, all connection types shoul d be considered during the
design phose. The tinal de_ig.tl of the connection of the BRB to the gusset plate should be provided by the
manufacturer. Typicall y tbc design ofthc gusset plate and irs colillcction to rhc base plate is provided by tbc
manufacturer ns wel l; bowever, it is recommended that tbc engi neer provide mjnimum weld lengths ns part
of the contract documcni.S.
2.2 DETERMINE CONNECTION DESIGN FORCE
The connection of the brace is designed fo r the maximum force that cnn be deliver<.'.<! by the bruce. During n
seismic event, strain hardening wi ll occur in the brace, which incn:ase.s the capac ity of the brace. Therefore,
the capacity of the brace should be increased by the strain-hardening adjustment factor. ro. Additi ona ll y~ the
brace capacity should be increased by the compression-strength adjustment tactor, ~ .w h ic h accounrs for
increased capacity of tbc brace when subjcct to compression loading. Botb ~ and ~ which is the rolio of d1c expected yield stress to the speciiied minimum yield sLress.
F, .. of the brace material. For dit'ferent member types, values of R,. are given in Table A3.1 of the AI.SC 341
Seismic Provisions for Strw:tural Steel Buildings . ln this des ign example, a range of materia l is considered
from 38 ksi to 46 ksi. The upper value of 46 ksi will be used; therefon:, R,. is set <:qual to 1.0.
•
The connection should be designed for the maximwn tension and comj:>ressiotl loads thnr can be delivered
by the brace. Tbc maximum connection design force under compression is
P,.,. = PwR.J~,.A !J
Pn" = (1.04)(1.54)(1.0)(46 ksi)(5.0 in 2 )

Pm: = 368 kips
T he maximum connection design force under tens ion is
Prrt = (i)RY~,A,
Pttt = ( 1.54)( 1.0)(46 ksi)(5.0 in 2 )
P,r, = 354 kips
2.3 SIZE CONNECTION WELDS
Size connection of weld to the base plate:
Brace angle:
e = tan- 1( 12/ 15) = 38.7°

Horizontal component of brace force:
P11 =cos(38.7°)~368 k = 287 kips
2018/BC SEAOC SIJUcturaVSeismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 281

Ooslgn EExamp/o 9 • Brocod-FrYJmo 13Mw Pla/0
Thl! work point for thl! bruce is located at the center( inc of the column at the top of the bose plutc; therefore,
there is no eccentricity between the horizonwl component of the force and design weld. Half of the
horizontal force will be taken directly through the gull!let plate to the HSS strut, while the othet' halfwill be
transferred through the ba.sc plarc to the HSS; sec Fi gw~ 9· 5 for tbc HSS connection to the busc plarc and
gusset. Assuming a two-sided, ~-inch fillet weld, size weld length :
<!lR, = ~[0.6Fii\X (J212)(D/ 16)] t

~N, = (0.75)[0.6(70 ksi)(J212)(4/ 16))f' x 2 sid<:s
'"'R
'f II =I 1.1 e
e= (2 87 k/2)/l l .J = 12.9 in --) 13-in minilhUtrl Weld length required
The vertical component of brace force tnmsfcncd to the column is
P 11 = sin(38.7°)*368 k = 230 kips
Because the work poLnt for the brace is located at the centerline of the column. aud the resisting weld
occurs at the face of the column, an eccentricity occurs between the force and the weld that is to be added
to the design force of the weld. The eccentricity of the weld is equal to hulf the column depth:
e = I 5.7 in/2 = 7. 9 in
Using Table 8-1 1 in the AISC Manual ofSteel Construe/ion for eccentrically loaded weld groups, where
the force angle is equal to zero, determilie the size and length of the fl.llet weld required to resist the vertical
forc e eomponenr. Since there is no retum weld, the value of k is set equal to zero.
Assuming a two-sided, J/<-inch fi llet weld, try a weld length of 20 incbe.s.
e =ae
Therefore, a = elf = 7.9 in/20 in "" 0.395- 0.4
Usi11g AJSC Manual Table 8-1 1 for a= 0.4, then C = 1.33.
Check the minimum weld length required for the detem1Jned C value to confirm the originuJ length
assumption. For LRFD:
ernin = P,/<!lCC D 1
where ~= 0.75
c = 1.33
tper ATSC Manual Table 8-3 for E70XX electrodes)
D = 12 (.Dis equal to the number of sixtcentbs-of-an-iocb in the fUJct-wcld size ;
for a two-sided ~-inch fillet, this is equal to 12)
emm = 230 k/(0.75 X 1.33 X 1.0 X 12)
= 19.2 in < 20 in
Therefore, the original assumption is acceptable. Use a two-sided, 20-inch-long, ~-inch fi!J et weld.

Oo-s/gn cxamplo 9 • Brocod·i-'romo Bliso Piltlo
,.-- STIFFENER PL
AS REO'D,
*
r GUSSET PL*
OOLUMN
)
lOP OF SLAB. -
TOP OF -
FON.
I
IX)
I*fTEM PROVID£0 BY BRB MANUFACTURER
~ /DBL NUT
r
:::
"'..J1l=~l;:,-- STD. WASHER
I 1
I 1 l1 l J I l 1J
Figure 9-2. Connection weld requirements
3. Base Plate Design
3.1 COLUMN CONNECTION TO BASE PLATE
The connection of the column to the base plate should be designed for the maximum tension values that
can be delivered to the system by the braced-frame system. Table 9-1 shows the forces to the column as
detennint:d in Design Example 3.
2018/BC SEAOC SIJUcturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 283

Ooslgn 5xamp/o 9 • BtttCod· Fromo 13ooo Ploto
Table 9-1. Col11nlll desig n forces
AI\' pt" II(~JI~ P,, Pr.= 1"\,, sine• J)L LL LLI' P( 1.4D + O.SL +E) "i.P., P(0.7D- E) "i.P,"
Level ubv. ( klpl•) (kip~) (k ips ) TA (p..~f) (psi) (p:d) ( k ip~ ) (ki~) (kip..~ ) (kl(>..")
Roof 0 0 0 0 900 31 20 4ll 48 20 20

Gth 2 92 147 92 900 67.7 65 207 255 -49 - 30
5th 2.5 I 15 184 I 15 900 67.7 65 230 484 - 72 - 102
4lb :u I 61 258 I 6I 900 67.7 65 276 760 I I8 - 221
3rd 4.5 207 332 207 900 67.7 65 322 I().8 1 - 164 - 385
2nd 5 230 368 230 900 67.7 65 >45 1426 - 187 - 572
11'1 5 230 368 230 2~ 0 1656 -230 -!!02
e P ttl' is equal to the bruce force with overstrcnt,>th
f or the connection of the column to the base plate, provide a CJP weld of the column flanges and a fi llet
wc.:ld for the column web. Per ATSC 360 Table J2.5, for tension wdds nom1al to the weld ax is, the strength
of the joint is controlled by the bnse metal. Therefore, the strength of the flange CJP welds will be equul to
the strength of tl)e column fhn ges :
<!>R, == <j>F8,~.~A 8M for W 14 x 21J: kr:=. 15.8 in and tl~ 1.56 in

= 0.9(50 ksi)(2 x 15.8 in x 1.56 in)
= 22 18 kips
Therefore, the CJP weld of the flanges is udcqualc fo r the trunsfcr of the column tension forces . Provide a
minimum required fi lleLweld for the column web. for a W 14 x 2 11 , the Lhickne.ss of tlle web is l inch. Per
Al SC 360 Table J2.4. the mini mum requi.red fill et weld for l -inch material is Yin inch. Therefore, for the
column connection to the base plate, provide a CJP weld for both column fl anges and n Ya~>- in c h fi !Jel weld
for tbc colulllil web.
Alternatively, a PJP weld can be considered. If a PJP weld is used, it is recommettdcd thar it be toughness
rated. The PJP we ld should be sized for the tension demands ofrhe columu. From Table 9-1. the tension for
the column is equal to 802 kips.
From Table J2.5, for a groove weld in tension,¢ = 0.8, and F.. = 0.6FE.\',\' Tbcrctore, the required area of the
weld is
A"' = 802 k/0. 8/(0.6 X 70 ksi)

2
= 23.8 iu
The effective area of the weld is equal to the length of tbe weld times the effec tive throat thickness.
Therefore, the required throat tllickn ess is
tmin = 23.8 in 2/2 fl ungc.s/(15.8 in)

= 0.754 in ~ %-inch effective throat required

Do-sign Exampl@9 • BrtiCOd ·f!fflrri(J BlJSO Plato
3.2 PLATE MATERIAL SELECTION
For thi s design example. ASTM A572 Grude 50 steel wi ll be used. which hos a yield value of 50 ksi and an
ultimate strength of 65 ksi. ln areas of lower seismicity, ASTM A36 Grade 36 steel may be used.
3.3 DETERMINE BASE-PLATE THICKNESS
The base-plate thickness is dctcm1incd by the maximum tension und compression va lues that can bo
delivered to the plate. For sizing of the bnsc-pl nte thi ckness, the values of Band N will be determined
assuming I Y1-iocb-d iumeter anchor rods, which n!quire 3Y:-inch square washers minimum per AJSC
Manual of Steel Cons /mellon Table 14 -2. Fo.r this example, the value of Nwi ll be based on the area of plate
direct ly below tllc column; gee Figw"C 9-3.
1%"0 A. R. wI PL. WASHER

2~ "¢ A.R. %x4 SQ.
HOLE IN B. P. w/STD. HOLE,
TYP.
•
~
0
~
.....-
co• ~
I
0 ...---
II
en
c ~ ~
N = 2'-4"
m 0.95d m
Figure 9-3. Base-plate dim ensions
The critica l bose-plate cantilever dimension is based on the maximum values of m, n. and 1-vn'. For the
purpose ofthis design example./.. wi ll conservatively be taken as 1.0. ForW14 x 211, bf =- 15.8 inclles and
d=-15.7 inches.
m = (N - 0.95d)/2 = (28 in - 0.95 x 15.7 in)/2 = 6.54 in

11 =- (B- 0.8b1 )!2 =- (22 in- 0.8 x 15.8 in)/2 =- 4.68 in
An °= t..Jdb1 !4 ~ 1(-JJ 5.8 X 15.7 /4) = 3.93 in

e= max(m , n, A.n') = max(6.54 in, 4.68 in, 3.93 in)= 6.54 in
tm·n =- e~2P)0.9~.BN =- 6.54 inJ2 X 1656 kjps/(0.9 X 50 ksi X 22 in X 28 in) =- 2.26 in
Usc a Grade 50 2YS-incb base plate. For the tension check of the plate, sec Section 4.3.

Ooslgn t:xomplo 9 • Btocod-Fr'8mo BHS.O Plato
4. Foundation Anchorage Design
4.1 SIZE FOUNDATION THICKN ESS
Footing sizes wi ll be sized based on the maximum force that c~n be delivered to t11e system. From ASCE 7,
the maximum tension and compression loud cases fo r the foundation design will be:
P I>!' = ( 1.2 + 0.2Sm-) D + 0.5L + E, where sn'< = 1.0

PuJ:::;) (0.9D - 0 .2Sr~)D- E
Soil-bearing values to be used in the sizing offootings should be provided by the geotechnical engi neer on
the project for the specific site. Altematively, default lower bound values can be used as provided in JBC
Table 1806.2. For tbc puq)ose oftbjs design example, assume a soil-bearing value of 5000 psf under dead
and live loads, with an allowable one-third increase under seismic louding. For determination of footing
sizes and uplift forces to the foundation, ultimate brace forces are not requi~d to be used. lnsteud, the brace
demand forces m·e used to calculare the maximum compression and tension forces that are delivered to the
foundation. Table 9-2 shows the forces us determined in Design Example 3.
Table 9-2. Foundation design forces
J>( lAD+ 0.5L + H) P(0.7D- 5)

A" P~.- PJi = P1,. Kine DL u Ur Al Floor Level r.F, .. At Floor Lc"cl i:.P,,
L<-"\'CI nbv. (ki j>S) (kij>.S) TA (psf) (p~) (psi) (kips) (kips) (ki j>S) (kips)
Roof 0 0 0 900 31 20 48 48 20 20
6tll 2 29.9 23 900 67.7 65 138 ! 86 19 39
5th 2.5 72 56 900 67.7 65 171 357 -14 25
4th 3.5 I 08.6 1!5 900 67.7 65 200 557 -42 -18
3rd 4.5 135 106 900 67.7 65 210 777 -63 -81
2nd 5 lSI I 18 900 67.7 65 233 1010 -76 -156
l~>t 5 159.2 125 125 1135 -125 -281
Size the footi11g based on the maximum compression force based on ASD loads. Tbc controlling ASD load
combination for this example will be t. 1OSD + 0.75L + 0.525E, which is equal to 804 kips:
B = J8o4 k/(5000 psf• J.33) = 10.99 ft o 12-ft< 12-ft--square footing
DctcmliJlc the foundation thickness based on the punching shear of the footing based on the maximum
compression force per Table 9-2. The punching shear strength of the fooling is determined by ACI 318
Section 22.6.5 as
"'v
'f c = 4"'rlb r;;jc''
'r"' o \}l ACJ 3 18 §22.6.4
The critical perimeter b0 is one-half the effective depth from a plane halfway between the face of the
column and tlle edge of the bnse plate. Assume a footing depth of 3 feet with rebar clear cover of 3 inches
and #8 rciJlforcing.

Do-sign t xttmplo 9 • Bmcod·l-mmo Bvso Piltlo
Therefore
'
d = 36 in- 3 in- Y2 in= 32Y.! in
and
h0 = 2x(0.95d001 + m + d + 0.8h1+ n +d)= 207.5 in

¢Vc = 4 X 0.75 X 32.5 X 207.5 X ~4000 psi = 1279 k > 1135 kJps
steel column
.,._ -m
2
. . . -m2
••
orltloal / bGSe plate
section
.-----'----.l..._----,
______________
.,., ~
o+m+ d
ori1ioal porimotor
Figure 9-4. Punching shear
Alternatively, a grade-beam system can be used to facilitate transfer of loads in the foundation system
and reduce the size of the square footings. It is recommended that grade beams be used to connect the
foundations in a frame system and facilitate the transfer of the frame shear forces as detailed in Section 4.2.
201818C SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 287

Ooslgn !Examplo 9 • Brocod· Frome 13nsC~ Pia/(}
4. 2 TRANSFER OF SHEAR TO THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM
Th ~: she~:~ r com po n ~:n t

of the bmce force will be resolved in the fou ndation system through u simp. for this
c;;cample, a square HSS will be used to provide the strap clement.
The HSS sec tion shall be sized bused on the mu.'X imum horizontul brncc force component P1r Since the HSS
will be slotted at1d welded to the gusset pl ate. the reduced section shaLl be checked, assuming a gusset plate
thickness of 1Y2 inches.
Detenninc aroa of sred required for the HSS section:
A, = Phi$F>.= 288 k/(0.9 X 46 ksi) = 6.95 in2 ~ HSS 6 X 6 X%
fo r IISS 6 x 6 x ~:As = 7.58 in 2 . Check HSS reduced section for frac ture:
A"= A 9 - 2x((t11 t&t"~ +~in) X t 11ss)
= 7.58 in 2 - 2 x (1 % in x 0.349 in)

== G.44 in 2
IJlPu = lpAc X F11
= 1.0 x 6.44 in2 x 58 ksi
= 373 kips> P"
Size the weld of I-ISS to the gusset. Half of the h01izontal load is being transferred directly from the gusset,
while half is tmnsferT"Cd through the busc plate. Bused on the gusset geometry, a starting weld length of
17 inches wus selected.
~) «I>R11 =¢[0.60:.1X (J212)(D/ l6)Je, where f!. = 17 in

= 0.75[0.6 x 70 ksi( J2 /2XD/ 16)]1 7 x 4 sides
= 94.6D
D = 288 k/94.6 = 3.04 ~ ~ - in ftllel weld
1 A 8
~~ ~ ~. i i
~
~ ~ '\..'I <
~ '" '" '' '" '' '" ''
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ L.
I>-
l.
A 8
P L A N
r-~"<Dx5 " W.H.S. @ 12"
TYP. ~:~---- GUSSET PL.
PL. )f'x1)2"
GR. 50 E.S. 11
A-A 8-8
Figure 9-5. HSS strap connection
288 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Menuel. Vol. 4

OOS!gn cxan1plo 9 • BrtiCOd·t-R>rriO BllSo P/ttiO
To transfer th~ shear loads to the concre te, wdded headed stud~ wi II b~ us~d. Ass uming JA-inch diameter
Wl-ISs on euch side, determine the number of studs required based on the nominal horizontal shear cupucity
of the srud us given in Table 3-21 of the AJSC Manual of Steel Constntction.
Per Table 3-21 for normal-weight concrete with compressive strcng1b of 4 ksi:
Q11 = 21 .5 ksi
Therefore, the number of studs required to h·ansfcr the s h ~r to tbc concrete is
PAIQ11 = 288 k/2 1.5 ksi = 13.4 studs """'?place studs at 12 in o.c.
The HSS stn1t beam can be ended after the forces have been transfen-cd to the slab-on-grade diaphragm.
A ltcrnatively, the HSS strut beam can be extended to the adjacent co lumn. In the case thnt the adjacent
column is not a seismic col umn, it is recommc.nded thut a horizontal slotted connection be provided to the
adjacent column to eli.mil1ate any horizontn l force transfer to the column . The slab diaphragm cottnection
should be checked to conti.rm transfer to tbe gTade beam fou ndation rhrough slab dowels; see Figure 9-7 for
slab dowels. The number of dowels required to transfer the shear force through shc~r friction of tht: dowel
bars, assuming #5 burn is
<PVn = <!J~x;;, X ~l
where, <!>=0.75
A,1 = 0.3 1 in1
.J;'.= 60 ksi
1-.1. = 1.0 (provide concrete shear key between grade beam nod slab)
cp V:, =0. 75(0.31 in 1)(60 ksi)( l.O) = 13.95 kips
Since ? 11 = 288 kips, the number of dowel bars required is
288 k/( 13.95 klbar) = 2 1 dowel bars 4 provide two rows of #5 dowel bars at 12 in o.c.
4.3 TRANSFER OF TENSION TO THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM
The anchor bolts shall be: sized bused on the maximum uplift of the system. For this case, the maximum
tension force rhar can be delivered to the conne.ction is - 802 kips, as was detem1ined in Table 9-l.

Doslgn &ompl~ 9 • Bmcod~Fromo BMW P/a/(i
Pu "' 602k
-·~----~t~----~,-
W COL.- - - --
W.P.
1 -- 10' - ·t--+- 10. - -1--
t;--:: ~
l I l l I
Ll l.J Ll _lj
Figure 9-6. Anchor.jorce distribution
T~ating tbc base plate as a rigid body, the forces in the anchor rods will be:
Therefore, P = 802 k/6 = 133.7 k per anchor rod. Using Or I05 rods then,
A,_rod = 133.7 k/(0.9 X 105 ksi)
~ 1.41 in 2
<!>rod = 2~ A.,_rod In = 2.J1.411o = 1.34 in ~ use I Yi-in-dinme.ter anchor rods
Check base plate in bcncli.ng ro contim.1 rigid body assumption for distribution of tension force:
M11 = 2? 1 X e
e = I0 in- d/2 - rjl2 = 10 in- I 5.7 in/2 + I .56 in/2 = 2.93 in
M(/ = 2( 133.7 k) X 2.93 i.n
= 783 kip-in
For a 2Y2-i nch base plate with anchor spacing of20 inches:
Z = (20 in)(2.5 i.n) 2/4 = 3 1.25 in3

cr = M,)Z = 783 k-in/34.38 in·~ = 23 ksi <50 ksi

{)(JS!gn c X/lf11p(O 9 • Br<ICOd·f!romo BliSO Pfato
To transfe r tht anchor-rod louds to the fou ndation , an embedded plute wi ll be Ul\ed. The plate is extended
below the bouom layer of reinforcing bars to engage the reinforcing. The re inforcing must ex Lend beyond
the embedded plate long enough to develop the full capacity ofrhe reinfo rcing bn.r, or hooks shall be
provided. The rolnforclng bars must be adequate to resist the column uplift forces. Thord'orc, the number of
bottom bars required to resist uplift is
802 k I 2 planes I 0.75 I 60 ksi = 8.9 in 2 --) nine# 8 b1lt'S
Since the reinfo rci ng bars arc fully engaged, tbe ACI 318 Chapter 17 method is no longer applicable.
COL----1 HS9 DRAG ~ toH

SH£AR FORCE
TOP Of SlAB --,
TOP Of FDN.
BRACE
SlAB DO'IIEL BAAS FOR

SHEAR l RANSFE.R lO
FOUNDAnON
Figure 9-7. Foundation anchorage
The anchorage plate should be sized for the bending forces in the plate. The two rows of bolts are located 8
inches from the centerline oflhe plate. The uplift wi ll be res isted tbrough the plate bearing on tJ1e concrete;
tben:fore, the bearing of the plate is equal to tbe upli_ft force over tbe bearing width:
wu = 802 k/16 in= 50.1 kip-in

Mu= w,f 2/8 = (50.1 k-in)( 16) 2/8 = 1603 kip-in
2018/BC SEAOC SIJucturai/Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 291

Oosfgn FExvmpfo 9 • Bt'{}COd·Fromo l31lSO P/Mo
The width of the plute will be tuken but> ed on the spacing of the unchort> plus 3 inche!> from the centerline
of the bolt. Therefore, the width of the plate ill equal to 2 feet 2 inchc!i. Using a 50 ksi plate, the required
moduJus fot· the pl ate is:
Z, ~ M"/0.9/f.~ ~ (I 603 k-in)/0.9/50 k!>i

= 35.6 inJ
.l_, = bt?·/4 where b = 26 in
Therefore , the required plute thickness is
r = J35.6 iH 3*4/26 in = 2. 34 in ~ usc 2Yl x 22 x 26· in pluto

Checking the concrete for breakout in tension, with the plate width taken as the distance between the
anchors:
b/) = 2 x (20 i.u + 32. 5 Ln) + 2 x ( 16 in+ 32.5 in)= 202 in

~ V:, = 4 x 0.75x32.5x?02 x J4000 psi
= 1245 kips> 802 kips
The following item is not addressed in this example but is nevertheless necessRry for a complete design of
the seismic-load-resisting system:
• Design of the founda tions.

Design Example 10
Cantilever Column Building
------------------------------------------~
OVERVIEW
Cantilever column systems are the simplest laremllond resisting systems allowed in the me. The system
consists of one or several columns that ~sist lateral loads by bending about their bose. The columns have to
bBvc sufficient strength to resist both gravity and lateral loads.
The TBC permits two different types of cantileve1· column systems: the ordinary cantil eve1· column system
and tbe special cantilever colwnn system. The ordiltwy system bas no ductiUty requirements but must be
designed for higher forces; the special system allows tbc designer to take advantage of the limited ductility
of the system by detai ling the bnse to higher standards, designating the bose a5 u protected zone, nod
providing bracing to the top of the column. Both systems limit the amount of axial loud in the column to 15
percent of its buckling capaciry.
OUTLINE
2. Calculation of the Dcsi!ITl

- Base Shcur and Loud Combinations
3. Verti cal and Horizontal DistribuLion ofLoad
4. Preliminary Sizing ofdJc Columns
5. Items Not Addressed in This Exampk
The structure is an open-air covered wnlbvny located in San Francisco, CA, in Seismic Design Catcgo1y D.
The fo llowing information has been assumed:
• The walkway is 10 feet wide by 100 feet long, with columns at 25-fect spacing (sec Figmc
10-l ).
• The roof weight is 20 psf, including self-weight of the framing system_
• The roof Uvc load is 20 psf.
• The lalitude and longitude arc 37.7749° N, 122.4194° W.
• The soil type is Site Class D.
• The spectral accelerations are SD.s = l.Og and Sm = 0.6g.
2018/BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel, Vol. 4 293

Dosfgn t:xampfo 10 • Cnnt(/ovw Column Building
• Relevant loud combinations including the vertical seismic loud effect arc:
o 1.2D + 1.6L,.
o (1.2 + 0.2Sr">S)D + pQ5
0 (0.9 - 0.2SDS)D + pQ11
1.2 LAYOUT OF COLUMNS
Figure I 0-1 shows the plnn locution of the columns. There ure 10 columns in totnl. Figure 10-2 shows a
typical wall elevalion.
1 100 ft
t 25 f1 .
T-t::0 I
1
J-----~~~-- ---L ---- ---- - - ---~- --- - ----- --l-- ------- --- -L-
I I
I
I
I o
I
.. I l I
-L~------------- 1 -------------~------------~----------- -t-
0 I 0
'---TYP CANTILEVER
COLUMN
Figure I 0-1. Plan /ayo11r ofcolumns
TO ROOF$
TYP
- CANTILEVER
COLUMN
- -tii-- - - - - Jr't-----j GROUND LEVEL$

TO FOUNDATION$
Figure I 0-2. Typical column elevation

Dosi{)n EXMlplo 10 • C&ntll&vor Column Building

ACCELERATIONS
There are two options in ASCE 7 Table 12.2- 1 for using canti lcVc:.r column systems: the ordin11ry cantilever
column system and the special canti lever column system. Because cantilever systems are typically drift
governed, which is not affected by the ductility, botb systems result in the same size member. A possible
ndvnot,ngc of the spec ial system (with a higher R-factor) could be tbc reduction of foundation loads and
base plnte size. For the purposes of this example, the special cantilever column system will be used:
I R = 2.5 nu= t.25 c,, =2.5
The spoctrnl accelerations to be used i.u design are derived in Appeudi.x A :
I s!)S = 1.oog s0 1 = o.Gog I

Determ ine the approximate fundame ntal bui lding period using Section 12.8.2.1:
C, = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8-2
T" = C,l< = 0.02 >< 12°'75 = 0.13 sec (sec the fo llowing discussion) Eq 12.8-7
I r., = 0. 13 sec I
A separate calculation or computer model can sbow that the period is actually closer to 0.6 seconds.
However, the calcuJatcd period is limited to:
T 12.8-1
T,:n =0. I 8 sec
This period wil l be used to calculate the stn1cture's base shear.
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T 12.3-1
By inspection, the b1ti lding does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural irregularities.
NO HORJZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRRBGULARJTIES
20181BC SEAOC Strocturai!Seismic Design Manuel. Vol. 4 295

Oosfgn /Examp/o 10 • CllnUiovor Column Building
2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T 12.3-2
By inspection. the building does not qualify for any of the vertical structmal irregularities.
I N O VERTICA L STRUCTURAL IRREGULARJTIES I
2.6 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T 12.6-1
I. Simplitlcd altcmutiv~: strucl•trul dt:Sign criteria-According to Section 12.14.1.1 , this a nalysis

procedure cannot be used for buildings that a re not a bearing wall or building [n\me system-
NOT PERMUTED
2. Equivakot lat~:ral force analysis-According to Table 12.6-1, since tbc shlJcturc is Risk
Category n not exceeding two stories above the base- PERMITTE D
3. Modalrespouse spectrum analysis-PERMJTTED
4. Seismic respon :;~: history proccdurcs-PERMTTTED
USE EQUfVALENT LATERA L FORCE ANALYSIS
2.7 BASE SHEAR
c = sOS = I.
00
= 0.4 s sDl 0.60 = 1. 33
s oR o 2.5) oR
3.2)
0. 18 °
Eq 12.8-2 and Eq 12.8-3
l! l~ rli ll.o
Also,
0.5S1
C,• > 0.044.andC1 > o R )= 0.5 X 0.6
o 2.5 ) =0.12 Eq 12.8-5 and Eq 12.8-6
l! l~
c~ = 0.4
Since. the structure has a flexible diaphragm, each column will lake its tribut:nry weight as a seismic load.
A1n'b = 125 sf
w ltih = 2soo lb
v co.>l = c,wtrib = 0.4 X 2500 lb = I 000 lb Eq 12.8- 1
Vrol = 1000 lb

Dos}f:Jn Ex~tmplo 10 • C&ntll&vor Column Building
According to Section 12.3.4, the redundancy factor should be calculated for each principal axis. The
redundancy factor is 1.3 unless cltbcr Section 12.3.4.2(a) or Section 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be tmc, in
which case the redundancy factor can be taken us 1.0. Section 12.3.4.2(n), referring to Tobie 12.3-3,
requi res t11at the loss or rtwmerlt resistam:c at the brule conncctiorts or any single cantilcvct' column would
not result in more than a 33 percctH reduction in story strength. nor does the result ing system have o.n
cxh·cmc torsional itTcgularity. By inspocrion, the loss of one column would r~s ult in a 10 percent reduction
of story strength. The diuphrugm is considered flex ible and therefore there cnn be no torsional irregularity.
The redunduncy facto r is, therefore, I .0 [or both orthogonal directions.
p = 1.0 [or East-West Direction

p = 1.0 for North-South Direction
2. 9 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations of consequence fo r the design of the cantilever columns arc:
I .2D + I .6Lr §2.3.2 (Comb. 3)

1.2D + l .0£ = 1.4D + fl 0Q6 §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, modified)
0.9D + 1.0E o 0.7D + D 0Q6 §2.3.6 (Comb. 7, modiiicd)
Load combinations with ovet'Strength are used for the columns per the requirements of AJSC 341 E6.4a .
The seismic mass wi ll be lumped at the roof level.
As discussed previously, each column wi ll take its tributary seismic mass.
4. Preliminary Sizing of the Columns
4.1 DEFLECTION REQUIREMENTS
Given the flex ible nature of the cantilever column system, it is prudent to size the columns for deflection
requiremencs first. and Lhen check strength capacicy after. For t:.his strucrure. however. per ASCE 7 Table
I2.12-1. Footnote c applJes, and there are no drift requirements. To avoid creating large ? -delta moments
and triggering the consideration of P-dclta effects, in tbis example adrift limit of 2.5 percent is considered.

Do sign Sxomplo 10 • Cltntllovor Column Building
OulllllL ible ::::l 0.025 X 12 ft = 3.6 in

3
8
V L
= (.'(,\( c < 8
o."fu/TQ 3 £} d - tllun\lhll
3
f ;:: Vw1t C = 1000 lb X (144 in) X
2.S = 23 .8 in-'
3£<;:o ,H!III<Lblo.! d ,3 x 29,0C>O ksi x 3.6 in
Therefore, a preliminary size of I-ISS 6.00 X 0.375 A500 Grnde C has been selected, with I = 24.8 in'1.
4.2 STRENGTH REQU IRE MENTS AISC 360
The co lumn 's nx iul stn:ng1h can be determined using AJSC Manual Table 4-5 or the equations in Chapter 8:
K = 2 (canti lever)
Lc = 2 X 12ft= 24ft
<jlP,, = 67.5 kips
The column's bending strength can be determined using AlSC Ma11ual Table 3- 14 or the equations in
Chapter F:
<jlM11 =38.6 kip-fl =463 kip-in

T!Jc colunm must be c!Jcckcd for worst case axial, and worst cnsc bending and axial combinations.
The worst case axial loud is from the combination including roof live load:
P 11 = 1.2 X 2500 lb + 1.6 X 125 sf X 20 psf = 7000 lb (Comb. 3)
~~ ~ 7
kips ~ 0. 10 ~ 1.0 . . . OK
<P~, 67.5 kips
The WO r$1 case combint:d axial loud and behding is from the combination including vertical and horizontal
seismic forces. Per AlSC 341 E6.4a. the requi red strength shall not exceed 15 percent of the avai lable axia l
strength for ovcrstrcngth combinations.
Pu = 1.4 X 2500 lb =3500 lb (Comb. 6, modified)

M 11 = 1.25 X 1000 lb X 12 ft = 15,000 ft-lb = 180 kip-in
This moment must be mngnificd to address P-8 and P-1). effects. These arc typically addressed by means
of B 1 and B 2 fac tors from ATSC 360 Appendix 8. The B 2 factor may be used for bolh translation and non-
translation moments.
I I I
B2 = < - - - - - - - - - - - - - = 1.04
l- P,.trl r)' !).' p /). 1 I _ 3500(0.025£) I 2.5
RMHL 1- Ulll)' c:; 0.85(1 OOO)L
RMHL
M" = 1.04 * 180 k.ip-io = 188 kip-in

Dot;Jgn Exflmplo 10 • C&ntll<wer Column Building
P,, = 3·5 kips = 0.05 s 0.15 . .. OK

P,, 67.5 kips
M" =1 88 k-in=0.4l < I.O ... OK

Mn 463 k-in
P,, + Mu = 0 05
· + 0.4 1 0.43= ~ 1.0 ... OK Eq H 1-1 b
2<!>?, M, 2
4.3 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AISC 341
Section E6 gives system requirements for the special cantilever column system. Per Sectiotl E6.4b, (he
columns shall be braced to satisfy the requirements appLicable ro beams classified as moderately ductile
members in Section D 1.2a. Tbcsc include:
• D 1.2a. l a: Both tlUitgcs of U1e column shllll be lateraUy braced or lhe beam cross section shall
be bt·acod with poiut torsiouuJ bracing.
• D1.2a.l b: Beam bracing shall meet the strength requirements of AISC 360 Appendix 6.
• D1.2a.lc: Beam bracing shall have a maxiruum spadng per Equation 01 ~2.
Since tbc column is a round HSS section, the se-ction i.s considered laterally braced and tbc requirements
listed above do not apply.
Per Section E6.5a, the column section must meet the requirements in Section Dl. I for highly ducti le
members. For a round HSS, this requirement is:
Dlt < 0.053 E

R.,.FY
R.v = 1.3 T A3. 1
F_v = 46 ksi
29
!}_ S 0.053 E = 0.053 X ,000 ksi = 25.7
I R>,F'_1 1.3 X 46 ksi
For HSS 6.00 x 0.375 , Dlt = 17.2: therefore, the column meets the reqtLirements of Secrion E6.5a.
Per Section E6.5c, the column 's bose (two times the column depth) sball be designated a protected zone per
the requirements of Section D 1.3, which prohibits attachments and discontinuities in this zone. Per Section
E6.5b, the column must not have abrupt changes in the flange size in the protected zone.
4.4 P-DELTA REQUIREMENTS
Per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.7, ?-delta effects do not require consideration if lhe stabiliry coefficient is less
tbanO.IO.
e= P!ll = 2500 lb X 3.4 6 in X l.O = 0.02 < 0.10 ... No ?-delta requirements
VhCd 1000 lb X 144 in X 2.5

Doslgn FExomplo 10 • Cnntllovor Column Building
Tlle fo llowing ircms nru not addressed in this example but nrc nevertheless necessary for a complete design
oftbc scismic·lond-rcsisting system:
• Compuri ~o n of wind and seismic forces.
• Des ign of the co.lumn basc-plnto connection.
• Des ign of Lhc foundn tions.
• Design of dw diapllmgm system.

Appendix A
General Building Information
----------------------------------------~
The fo llowing infonnation is used for mosr of the design examples in th is vo!Wllo and is presented here
to reduce repetition . Design Exampl e 6, which is a one-story industnul building, uses only the locution ,
site cluS$, and sp~c tntl accekrations; it uses a different geomdry nnd roof W:ll:lembly w~ight. Each dt!$ign
example cites this appendix at the poihts in the d~s ign process ar which the infonnation is applied.
Tllis appendix contaiJlS the following information:
I. General Information
2. Bu ilding Geometry
3. Assembly Weights
4. Floor and Roof Weights
5. 0 1!$ ign Spcclrul Accclcrutions
6. Seismic Design Category
7. Load Combinations
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Ofiicc occupancy on all floors
• Located in San Fr-uncisco. CA
• Site Class D
• Risk Category fi
BUILDING GEOMETRY
• 120-foot x 150- fo ot centerline dimension in plan with typical floor and roof framing s hown in
figure A 1-1. The edge of the deck dimens ion is approximately I foot 6 inches from the grid
line.
• Six-stories as show.Ll in Figures A 1-2 and Al-3.

Appondlx A • Gunoml Building lnlormoUon
A B c>
D E f'
, II s ® 3o'-o" = 15o'-o"
~ "
~
II
5
> '~ s
4 14 :1 :1
It
0
-...........
...-- -----
--........
~
I
0
-
N
ll J><::l
3 ~
14 :1
0
~
I
0
t"1
@
v
2 X X X :1
1 -" .;, .;,

'
Figure A 1~ 1. Typica l floor and roofframing plan
"'
~ ~ ~
0
-
cr r
1
' <t
' PARAPET ..
R OOF .. I'
I'
6th FLR
5th FLR ..
0
I
'
ru
,.....
4th FLR
..
0
II
3rol FLR -......

I
( \J
w
\I)
2nd FLR
1st FLR ..
'
Figure A 1-2. Building elevation

Aop&ndlx A • GOn&f<ll Building lnlormoUon
I I~ Ill I
lL JIL IlL I
~ Ill Ill I
I Ill Ill I
~ Ill Ill I
~ I
Figure A 1-3. Building a:«momerrlc view
ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS
Floor
Dead Loads Gravity Load Effective Seismic WeLghe
Floor finish 5 psf 5 psf

2-in. 18-ga. deck 2.7psf 2.7 psf
3 ~- in Ligbtweight concrete till 39.0 psf 39.0 psf
Steel framing 10 psf 10 psf
Mechanical I Plumbing I Electrical 4 psf 4 psf
Ceiling 4 psf 4 psf
4
Partitions Under Live Load 10 psf
Miscellaneous 3 psf 3 psf
Tolal Dead Loud 67.7 psf 77.7 psf
Office Building Live Loads' Live Load

Lobbies and stairs = I 00 psf 100 psf
Offices= 50 psf + I 5 psf partition 2 65 psf
CotTidors above 1st floor == 80 psf 80 psf

AppOndlx A • Gonorttl Building lnformllllon
Roof
Dead Loads Gnwity Load Efrcctivc Seismic Weightj
Btlilt-up roof 6 psf 6 psf

Insulation 2 psf 2 psf
Metal J'Oof deck 4 psf 4 psf
Steel framing 8 psf 8psf
Mechanical I Plumbing I Electrical 4 psf 4psf
Ceiling 4 psf 4psf
Purtitiom; 0 psf 5 psf 4
Miscellaneous 3 psf 3 psf
Total Deud Load 3 1 psf 36 psf
Roof Live Loads 1 Live Load

Ordinary Flat Roof 20 psf
Exterior Wall
Dead Loads Gravity Load Efrective Seismjc Weight!
Cladiling 7 psf 7 psf

Metal studs 2 psf 2 psf
Insulation 2 psf 2p.sf
'l'J-in gypsum board 3 psf 3psf
M isce llnnt!ous 5 psf 5psf
Total Dead Load 19 psf 19 psf
I. From ASCE 7 Table 4- 1.
2. ASCE 7 Section 4.3.2 spcci.tics a 15 psf Live load where partitions wiJJ be erected or rcarruogcd .
3. ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 describes the loads that are included in the effective seism.ic weight.
4. Per Section 12.7 .2, 10 psf is included for partitions where partition load is n:quired per ASCE 7
Section 4.3.2.
FLOOR AND ROOF WEIGHTS
Unit Wr Area Weight Floor Wt

Level Assembly (pst) (!f) (kips) (kips)
FIOOI' 77.7 15.220 1183
Typkal floor 1315
Ext wall 19 6990 133
Roof 36 15,220 548
Roof 656
Ext wall/Parapet 19 5700 108
W = 5( 13 15 h.rips) + 656 kips = 723 1 kips.

Aoptmdlx A • Gon&n)/ f3ulldlng lnlormoUon
DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS ASCE7
Design spectral accdemtions arc obtained eltb~:r fi·om maps or from a ground~motion hazard analysis in
uccordanco with ASCE 7 Section 21.2. Tho spcctrnl-uccdcrution maps arc uvuilnblc in ASCE 7; however,
in areas of high seismic ity. the precis ion of reading fro m printed maps is insufficient. and acteleration
values are obtaiued based on the lorl girude and latitude of rhe site from data published by USGS at
https://carthquukc.usgs.gov/huzards/dcslgnmaps. ASCE 7 2016 differs from previous editions in thnt
struchm:s on Site Clusg D and E sites \vith S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2 now require either a ground-
motion huzllrd analysis or u 50 percent increase in the col!ff:icient culculuted using certain base-shear
equations (per Section 11.4). (Sec Volume I [Design Examples I, 30, and 55] of this Manual series.) For
purposes ofthe examples i11 this volume, it is assurnod t!Jut spectral accelerations have been obtained from
a ground-motion hazard anu l ysit~ and arc represented by the traditiona l two-parameter design spectrum . The
design curtJ1quukc (DE) spectrn l accelerations fo r 0.2 sec, S0 s. und 1.0 sec, S01 are:
S 0 s ::::1 I .Og S01 ° 0.6g ]
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY ASCE 7
Risk category = 11 T 1.5-1/lBC T 1604.5

Importance factor= 1.0 T 11 .5- 1
Short-period seismic des ign category = D (for S0 s = I.Og) T I I .6-1
1-sec seismic design caregory = D (for S0 1 = 0.6g) T 11.6-2
According to Section 11.6, the seismic design category is tbe more severe of the two results of Tables
11.6-1 and 11.6-2. Both resulted in Seismic Design Category D, so
Seismic Design Category = D § 11.6
LOAD COMBINATIONS ASCE7
E = E1\ ±£,. Eq 12.4-1 and Eq 12.4-2

EII = 0
0
- E, Eq 12.4-3
Ev = 0.2Sv...,D = 0.2X I.OD = 0.2D; therefore, Eq 12.4-4
E = pQ£ +0.2D
Em =Em +E\. Eq 12.4-5 and Eq 12.4-6

E _o 0 Eq 12.4-7
"'~ - 0- £

Appondlx A • Gonoml Building lnformutlon
Loud combinations of const!qucncc arc:

§2.3.6
1.2D + t.OE + 0.5L ::::: 1.4D + 0. 5L + pQ11 Load Comb. 6 (modified)
0.9D+ 1.0£ = 0.7 D+pQE Loud Comb. 7 (modified)
§2.3.6
l.2D + I.OE).~ + O.SL c l .4D + O.SL + 0. 0 Qii Load Comb. 6 (modified)
0.9D+l.OEru =0.7D + 0.1>Qr:• Loud Comb. 7 (modified)

•
es1 anu,a
CAU FORKIA
Design Examples for Wind Forces on Buildings and
Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Based on t he 2018 IBC and ACSE/SEI 7-16
The Wind Design Manual provides examples on wind force design

that illustrate the practical requirements of provismns ~n ASCEI
SEI 7-16: Mimmum Design Loads and Associated Cntena for
Buildings and Other Structures. Practicing structura1 engineers.
trained des1gners, building department engmeers, other pjan
review agencies, professors and students, can all learn from these
examples of code-compliant designs engineered to achieve g.ood
performance under wind loading.
Developed by the Wind Design Manual Task Group of 1he
Structu ral Engineers Association of Califorma (SEAOC}, the
pub Iicat ion draws on t he expertise of jnvited authors from various
parts of the United States. The Wind Design Manual is intended
for nationwi de use, with example problems U1.at apply to a variety
of geographic areas. All are presented in a format similar to the
SEAOC Structural/Seismic Destgn Manuals.
A wide range of topics is covered:

• General topics (4 exampl es) • Buildings (3 examples)
• Specific topics (2 examples) • Solar Photovonaic systems (7 examples)
Order Now! https://www.s~eaoc.orglpage/2018WDM

SEAOC Members are eligible for the ICC member discount when they log-in and order
through the S EAOC website.
ICC Members and non-members can order Item 9000S 18 at shop.iccsafe.org

Welcome to the
2019 Edition of the SEAOC

CA LIFORMlA
Blue Book: Seismic Design
Recommendations
Thts edit4on of the Blue Book, SEAOC's signature publications,

is the ninth since 1959. This edition represents a multi-year
volunteer eftort by the SEAOC Se1smology Committee, and it
builds on the work of generations of Seismology Committees
before them.
A lot has changed in 60 years. In its first decades. this collection of
i nterpretat4ons and recommendations from SEAOC's Seismology
Committee served as the basis for the seismic provisions of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) used in the Western US.
Since the move in the 1990s to a national code-development
pmcesso the Blue Book's tenor has shifted from establishing the
code to interpreting the code for practicmg structural engineers
and putting it context. lmportantly, the 201.9 e-dition captures
how t hat context is evolving- from a former focus on "life-safety''
to modern pursuits of performance-based design and resiliency.
So, wh ile Blue Book tracks t he history of an important d iscipline (as well as a proud professional
organiz{jt ion), it is much more than j ust a piece of the past. You wi II find the 2019 edition a useful
reference for yo ur current work and rich in hi nts about t he future.
SOFT COVER 1:19006Sl9
DIGITAL i!89S2DG001
BUY BOTH l!tW SAVE!
SOFT COVER ~ DIGIT~L COMBO #3006BNl9
Order y·our copies today!

1-800-786-4452 I shop.iccsafe.org
Top Tools for Structural Design
2018 lnternaUonal Building Code Illustrated Handhook
An easy-t~use V1sua/ gwde to lhe 2018 1BC
2018
Thoroughly updated to address the provisiorts of :he 2018 IBC, this fully il lustrated guide malt.es International
it easy to Jnderstand and apply the m~t crrtlcal c:ode provisions_ Co~rerlng both fire- and e- Buikfmg Code-
satety and structural provisions, f his prac:tical resot.rce contams 5DD+ user-tnendly dragra'lls Ilia-! IlluStrated
designed t o clarify the applicaron ard intent of the IBC. The Handboo.k provioesall tire Handbook
• •
information neeaed to get construction jobs done r gtlt and acf'l,eve compliance. {1,008 pages)
HARDCOVER 14000SJ 8
PDFDOWHLGAD P89!1DP8e.4
2015 ed!lion IS also available
Significant Changes to the Minimum Design of Wood Stroch.tres ASDI

Design Loads and Associated LRfD, Eighth Edmon
Criteria for 'Buildings and other Fu ly updated 1o -he 2018 BC and
Structures (ASCEIS£1 7-16) 2018 'IDS! <Hiering the la~est
This handy \'01ume translates the techn ques and standards, authors
most noteworthy changes to ~h e Dona d Breyer, Kelly CobeP..-n and Zeoo
ASCE 7-16 load provisions into a Martin lead you :~rough the compl~e
:cwm quickly accessib le to structura1 design of a •\ood structure .:.ollm,.;ng
engineers and other professionals. the same sequence usea mtile actua
In a user-rriendly :ormat, thtS _._...,.. desJgn•'constructiorl prooess. Detailed
volume describes 100+ changes
accompamed by a rJetailed analysis..
and inc.udes photographs, d1agrams. and other ·~fsua l aids_
--
..... c;.'
thr01..1ghout the text.

I
equabons. clear illusbabons. and
prc!dical design examples are iea!ured
(368 pages) HA_~D COVER

SOfT COVER k9002S161
2018 iBC Code and Commentary, lnclucks Solutioos Manual

Volumes 1 and 2 (Chapters 1-35) Structural Load Detcrmmation:
Thtc:. 1-tel p1u l publication •contains ,he 2018 IBC and ASCEISEI 7-16
ful l text of tne 20 18 JBC, including Disrow~r how lo calculate ~truclura
BC tables and \gures. 1ollowed by

expert commentary at lhe et"d of
oads w1th n the oontext of
2018 BC anct ASCE/SEI 7-16
eacll sectiOn to help code users re.Qu.rements_ T"lts prac~tcal g_, de
understand the intent of the code t1)• Dav1a ~fane Ia cor>taJns
proVIsio"'S and how to apply them J.n~matioo engrneers "6ed ~o aesi~
effectrvely. bu ldfrrgs ~~t ' J , thstana "he
~-- •-•e .iofces ofgra-.rty, OCCUP<mCJ, and
em1r<mment~1 streSs It iOCJ ~
SOFT COVER ii3010Sl8 des.iJm ex:s~p 'e5 fio.vcharts; and road .d.OS that ._,.IUSiTCte
PDF OOWTiLOAD f8.70Pl8 comp•ex :Oad pro-.isioos 1be booT<--eJpta-ns the~oper
SOFT + PDf COt!BO f3010SPJ8 application of ASD. lRffi. aoo -se.SMic 1oa<:f comb<"na -ons_
Charters co~;-er occupancy, :oof rain soow, -~-Mnd..~
Volumesare aLc:o sold ~parately.
and tsunami loads '""Proo~a--.,.s $-placed :octhe:==
2D18 JEBC'" Code and Commentary rsalsa JVa1faoJe. prooer apolit::anon of oad pro-.'isioos-wrrhfn 'ttl€ scope of
e~rexyday ~ce:_ (.512 ~i
SOF"' COV£R
POf 00"1\mOJID
Order your structural tools today!

1-800-786-4452 I www. iccsafe.orglbooks
Get FREE access to hundreds of
ICC resources and view the largest
collection of code titles
ICC's Digital Codes Library (codes.iccsafe.org) conveniently
provides access to the latest code text while on the go, at home
or in the office, in an easy-to-navigate format.
Available anywhere 24n
Use on any mobile or

- digital device
View over 800+ ICC titles
Learn hov~ to use this powerful tool at codes.iccsafe.org


- digital device


- digital device

Seaoc Vol 4 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Seaoc Vol 4 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seaoc Vol 4 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

®

Strucrural Engineer.:; Association of California (SEAOC)

International Code Counci l

First Prin ting: May 2020

ISBN: 978- 1-60983-999-4

Struch1ml Engineers Association of Ca lifornia (SBAOC)

SBAOC. at its sole discretiotl, Iliay issue wrineo en·ata.

2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Acknowlcdgttlents ... ..... , .. .. . .................... . . ...................... . ... . .. . . XI'

7A. Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Di aphragm .................................. . .... 213

2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 V

Appcndi..x A: Geneml Bui lding Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 I

This manual comprises four volumes:

• Volume J: Code Applicution Example!!

Rafael Sabell i and Knty Briggs

Auindya Dutta, S.E., Ph.D, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger-Example 3

Kenneth Tam, Simpson Gompertz & Heger- Example 3

Scott M. Adau, Ph.D., P.R. , S.E., SECB, Principal, Adan Engineering-Example 5

Anna Dix, S.E., Associate, Liftet·h Consultants Inc.- Example 6

Katy Briggs, S.E., PrincipaJ, BASE Design-Example 7

David A. Grilli, Ph.D., Associate, Wiss, Janney, E lstner Associates, Inc.

Law·a Whitehw·st, Senior Project Engineer, Holmes Consulting-Example 10

Production aod arl was provided by tbc lnlt:rnotionol Code Coonci I.

2018 IBC SEAOC Structure/!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 XV

Bozorgnia. Y. and Bcrtcro, Y. 2004. Eanhquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology ro

Englehardt, M. Personal correspondence and notes. 2012.

xvi 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Roberts, T. M. and Sabouri-Ghorn i, S. 1991. "Hysteretic Characreristics of Unstitfeoed Pl ate Shear

Stoakes. C. D. and Fahnestock , L.A. "Influence of Weak-axis fl exural Yielding on Strong-axis

Tremblay, R. , Archambault , M.-H., and Filiatrnult, A. "Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced

Abbrevintions used in the ''Code Reference" column nrc

2018 IBC SEAOC Slructurel!Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 1

I. Building Geometry and Loads

2 . Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations

3. Vcrtic.al and Horizontal Distribution of Loud

5. Element and RBS Connection Design

6. Detailing of RBS Connection

1. Building Geometry and Loads

1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION

2 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4

Figure 1-1. 1.\•pical floor framjng plan

6th FLR W21 X 150

2nd FLR W21 X 150

2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual. Vol. 4 3

1.2 FLOOR WEIGHTS

For development of seismi c forces per Appendix A:

Table 1-1 . Development ofseismic forces per Appendix A

Unir Weight Area Weight Floor Weight

W= 5(1320 kips)+ 656 kips= 7256 kips

2. Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations ASCE 7

2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE SPECTRAL

Per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1 for special steel moment frame:

2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS

The spectral accelerations to be used in design arc derived in Appendix A:

[ S0 s = I.OOg S01 :::I 0.60g [

2.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

C, = 0.028 and x "" 0.8 T I 2.8-2

T,, = 0.86 sec