Guia para Trabajo-1-50

(Page intentionally left in blank)
INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
Index
Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ii

Table Index .......................................................................................................................................... ii
1. Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Plan View ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Vertical View ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Loads ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Gravity Loads ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Seismic Loads ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1. Response Spectra ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2.2. Capacity Design Requirements........................................................................................ 5
3. Load Combinations...................................................................................................................... 5
4. Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1. Seismic forces determination.............................................................................................. 7
5. Material Properties ..................................................................................................................... 8
6. Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 8
6.1. Fundamental Period ............................................................................................................ 8
6.2. Drift ..................................................................................................................................... 8
6.3. Design forces ....................................................................................................................... 9
7. Design Results Summary ........................................................................................................... 10
7.1. Beams ................................................................................................................................ 10
7.2. Columns ............................................................................................................................. 10
7.3. Connections ....................................................................................................................... 12
8. Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 17
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 18
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 i
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Location of the building of study.......................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Plan and Elevation of the Building. ...................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Elastic Design Spectra........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Reduced Design Spectra. ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Sections and Labels of the Model of Analysis. ..................................................................... 6
Figure 6. Moments and shear forces for capacity analysis ................................................................. 9
Figure 7 Connection's Locations........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 8 Connection Type CON-1 ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9 Connection Type CON-2 ...................................................................................................... 16
Table Index
Table 1 SMF Design Coefficients and Factors ..................................................................................... 3

Table 2 Response Spectra Parameters ................................................................................................ 4
Table 3 Section Assignments ............................................................................................................... 7
Table 4 Seismic Forces and Base Shear for strength capacity computation ....................................... 7
Table 5 Seismic Forces and Base Shear for drift computation ............................................................ 7
Table 6 Design Drift computation ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 7. Maximum probable moments and shears ............................................................................ 9
Table 8 Beam Design Results Summary ............................................................................................ 10
Table 9 Mechanical properties Section W 33x291 ............................................................................ 10
Table 10 Columns Design Results Summary – Strength Load Case................................................... 11
Table 11 Columns Design Results Summary (Capacity Design)) ....................................................... 11
Table 12 Verification Strong Column/ Weak Beam........................................................................... 12
Table 13. Beam limitations for 8-Bolted Extended End-Plate Moment Connection ........................ 12
Table 14. Dimensions considered for design in connection. ............................................................ 13
Table 15. Materials considered for the design of connections. ........................................................ 13
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 ii
1. Project Description
The project of study is a 3-story and 36 ft. tall building, located near Salt Lake City in Utah (coordinates
41.140011 N and -111.947694 W) (refer to Figure 1). This building has a regular plan dimension of 240x240
ft, and the Seismic Force Resistant System (SFRS) will be Special Moment Frame (SMF). Six (6) frames will
be distributed along each direction in the plan (refer to Figure 2). Due to project conditions, the
distribution of the SFRS must be alternated along the height of the structure. The analysis and design of
the Gravity Load System (GLS) is out of the scope of this report and will not be included.
Figure 1. Location of the building of study
1.1.Plan View
As described in the project description, the plan dimension of the building is 240x240 ft, distributed in 9
bays, the SMF is in the central 3 bays with a span of 18 ft due project requirements, the GLS is in the rest
of the bays with a span of 40 ft and 13 ft as shown in Figure 2. Only one frame was analyzed from the total
of 6 since the horizontal force distribution is the same.
1.2.Vertical View
The facades of the building are shown in Figure 2. As a requirement of the project, the distribution of the
SMF frames must be alternated along the height, to avoid a “soft story” we checked the relation of story
stiffness along the height of the building. Since the columns are the major source of lateral stiffness in this
type of configuration, the contribution of the beams to the global lateral stiffness is minimal.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 1
Figure 2. Plan and Elevation of the Building.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 2
2. Loads
2.1.Gravity Loads
A distributed seismic weight of 100 psf was considered as gravity load, the design of the GLS was not part
of the scope of this work. All gravity loads were neglected for the design of the SRFS as instructed by the
project specifications, moments amplifications produced by stability related analysis weren’t considered
as well.
2.2.Seismic Loads
The seismic loads were determined through the requirements of the ASCE 7-16, the height and regularity
conditions of the structure allow us to use the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method to obtain the seismic
forces and the period of the structure was calculated according the ASCE 7-16 section 12.8.2.
To check seismic drift; the fundamental period “T” was obtained from modal analysis as permitted by
ASCE 7-16 12.8.6.2, this was done because the drift requirement was the controlling factor and increasing
sections sizes would increase the overall price of the structure, specially connections.
As described in Section 1, SMF were considered as the LSF and it was assumed that the central 3 bays will
resist the 100% of the seismic force in each direction of analysis divided equally in 6 frames, see Figure 2.
This system is described in the table 12.2-1 (Design coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting
Systems) as B.2 with the following parameters.
Name Value Description

R 8 Response Modification Factor
Ω0 3 Overstrength Factor
Cd 5.5 Deflection Amplification Factor
Table 1 SMF Design Coefficients and Factors
2.2.1. Response Spectra
As it mentioned in Section 1, the project is located near Salt Lake City, UT, with coordinates 41.140011 N
and -111.947694 W. No soil amplification factors were considered for the determination of the Design
Spectra, all other parameters were determined online from the United States Geological Service (USGS)
in the Earthquake Hazards Program-Design Ground Motions section. Refer to Appendix A for the
computation of the design spectra and periods.
The parameters considered are the following:
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 3
Name Value Description

Ss 1.356 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)
S1 0.494 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)
Sms 1.356 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Sm1 0.494 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Sds 0.904 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA
Sd1 0.329 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA
Sdc D Seismic design category
fa 1.0** Site amplification factor at 0.2s (Project requirement) **
fv 1.0** Site amplification factor at 1.0s (Project requirement) **
pga 0.621 MCEG peak ground acceleration
fpga 0.9 Site amplification factor at PGA
pgam 0.559 Site modified peak ground acceleration
t-sub-l 8 Long-period transition period (s)
ssrt 1.356 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s)
ssuh 1.582 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years)
ssd 2.987 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s)
s1rt 0.494 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s)
s1uh 0.562 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years)
s1d 1.257 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s)
pgad 1.173 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA)
Table 2 Response Spectra Parameters
The Elastic Design Spectra is shown in Figure 3 and the Reduced Design Spectra is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Elastic Design Spectra.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 4
Figure 4. Reduced Design Spectra.
2.2.2. Capacity Design Requirements
For the analysis and design requirements of the SMF System, the AISC 341-16 Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings was used. The section E3 of this manual stablishes the Basis of Design and
Analysis for this SMF, and explains how to determine the forces to use in the design as follows:
a) Elastic seismic forces on beams and columns from the seismic combinations of ASCE 7-16; it is a
project requirement that the value of Ω0 should be taken as 1 for the additional check analysis of
the columns.
b) The beam to column moment ratio at connections should satisfied the requirements of E3.4.4a.
c) The connections should be designed for the capacity limit state Ecl.
These requirements result in an iterative design process with an initial phase to determine the size of the
elements for drift control and a second phase to determine the capacity limited strength of the beams for
the connection design and required moment columns-beam capacity ratio.
3. Load Combinations
A single combination of non-factored seismic load was used in the analysis for determination of forces in
the structural members.
1) 1.0(E)
Where:
E: Earthquake load (seismic).
E= E for beams and columns (Axial + Flexure)
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 5
E=Ecl for columns (Overstrenght load case wasn’t computed since Ω0=1.0 is a requirement of the project;
the global buckling check was computed with the capacity limited state, Ecl, see AISC 341 B2; AISC 341
D1.4a (b) permits neglecting applied moments but for SMF isn’t recommended to neglect them)
E= Ecl connections and moments ratio as well as panel zone checks.
4. Analysis
Due to the distribution of the SRFS, the regularity conditions and the use of the ELF method for
determination of the seismic forces, the analysis for the SMF can be simplified to a 2-dimensional model,
where only the degrees of freedom UX, UZ and RY were considered for the solution. The software used
to determine the forces and deformations was SAP2000 v20.
Figure 5. Sections and Labels of the Model of Analysis.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 6
Section Assignments
Element Column Beam
1 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x84 A992 Gr 50
2 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
3 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x84 A992 Gr 50
4 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
5 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x84 A992 Gr 50
6 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
7 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
8 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
9 W33x291 A992 Gr 50 W24x76 A992 Gr 50
10 W33x291 A992 Gr 50
11 W33x291 A992 Gr 50
12 W33x291 A992 Gr 50
Table 3 Section Assignments
4.1. Seismic forces determination
As stated in section 2.2, the ELF method (ASCE 7-16 12.8.3) was used to determine the lateral seismic
forces acting on the structure (refer to Appendix A for a detailed computation of this forces). Since the
structure is regular in plan and the SRFS is symmetrically located respect to the center of mass, we can
assume that 1/6 of the seismic forces is resisted in each frame.
Structure Distributed in frame

Story
Force (kip) Shear (kip) Force (kip) Shear (kip)
Story 3 732.402 732.402 122.067 122.067
Story 2 488.268 1220.67 81.378 203.445
Story 1 244.134 1464.804 40.689 244.134
Base Shear --- 1464.804 --- 244.134
Table 4 Seismic Forces and Base Shear for strength capacity computation
Structure Distributed in frame

Story
Force (kip) Shear (kip) Force (kip) Shear (kip)
Story 3 407.178 407.178 67.863 67.863
Story 2 225.312 632.49 37.552 105.415
Story 1 81.93 714.42 13.655 119.07
Base Shear --- 714.42 --- 119.07
Table 5 Seismic Forces and Base Shear for drift computation
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 7
5. Material Properties
ASTM A992 (Table 2-4 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual 15th Edition) is the material for the beams
and columns in the project, the material has the following properties:
• Tensile Strength, Ultimate : Fu = 65 ksi

• Tensile Strength, Yield : Fy = 50 ksi
• Elasticity Modulus : E = 29000 ksi
• Expected Yield : Ry = 1.1
: Rt = 1.1
6. Analysis Results
6.1.Fundamental Period
The fundamental period was determined according to ASCE 7-16 section 12.8.2, a Dynamic Modal Analysis
is not required for the height and regularity of the structure, so the approximate method is appropriate
(refer to Appendix A for full computation of approximate fundamental period). This was utilized to design
the beams and columns with the base shear calculated in Table 4.
Ta = 0.492 s
For the drift computation, ASCE 7-16 12.8.6.2 was used and the fundamental period of the structure was
calculated from modal Analysis, (refer to Appendix A); the vertical force distribution computation
utilized was also the same ELF method as described ASCE 7-16 12.8.3., although the minimum shear
requirement of eq. 12.8-5 and 12.8-6 don’t need to be considered, the drift computation made use of
this limit, see Table 5.
T = 1.41 s
6.2.Drift
The story drift was determined according to ASCE 7-16 section 12.8.6, the calculated elastic
displacement is increased by the deflection amplification factor specified in Table 1 and the inelastic
displacements are shown in Table 6.
Elastic displacement Inelastic displacement

Story
Displacement (in) Displacement (in) Drift (%) Limit (%) Condition
Story 1 0.4649 2.56 1.78% 2 OK
Story 2 0.8553 4.70 1.49% 2 OK
Story 3 1.1697 6.43 1.20% 2 OK
Table 6 Design Drift computation
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 8
6.3. Design forces
The design forces were obtained analyzing two models:
• Equivalent Lateral Forces Procedure, to determine the forces to design beams and axial forces
considering the overstrength factor in columns.
• Capacity Analysis for connections, beam-column moment ratio verification and capacity forces
in columns.
For the capacity design, the load states were calculated with the following loads in the structure:
Figure 6. Moments and shear forces for capacity analysis
To generate a real estimate of the distributions of shear force and moments, a push-over analysis was
executed considering the expected plastic moments in the location of the hinges, the results were
compared with the values of the Table 7.
Refer to Appendix B for detail computations of maximum probable moments in beams and their
correspondent moments projections in the center of the column that were used to check the capacity of
the nodes as required by section E.3.4a. Table 7 summarizes the maximum probable moments (Mpr), the
moment at the column face (Mf), the moment at the centerline of the column (Mcc) and the maximum
shear considering the location of the plastic hinges (Vu)
Shape Mpr (kip-ft) Mf (kip-ft) Mcc (kip-ft) Vu (kip)

W24x84 1180.66 1421.09 1670.96 185.62
W24x76 1054.16 1268.83 1491.93 165.77
Table 7. Maximum probable moments and shears
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 9
7. Design Results Summary
7.1.Beams
The detail calculations are shown in Appendix C. For the design of the braces, the Table 8 shows the
demanding force, the resisting force and the demand-capacity ratio. Lb = 6.0 ft for all beams and it is
consistent with the maximum value of 8 ft. The bracing computation wasn’t a requirement of the project.
Seismic Combination
Beam φMn (kip-
Mu (kip-ft) D/C Vu (kips) φVn (kips) D/C
ft)
B-01 716.95 840 0.85 94.70 340 0.28
B-02 0.00 750 0.00 0.00 315 0.00
B-03 713.08 840 0.85 94.70 340 0.28
B-04 0.00 750 0.00 0.00 315 0.00
B-05 592.19 840 0.79 78.44 340 0.23
B-06 0.00 750 0.00 0.00 315 0.00
B-07 405.76 750 0.54 53.40 315 0.17
B-08 0.00 750 0.00 0.00 315 0.00
B-09 400.61 750 0.53 53.40 315 0.17
Table 8 Beam Design Results Summary
7.2.Columns
The columns were chosen according to the Drift Analysis of the SMF. The mechanical qualities of the
columns (W33x291) are calculated or taken from the AISC Construction Manual and are summarized in
the following table:
Mechanical properties Section: W 33x291

Available Compressive Strength φ Pc [kip] = 3440
Flexo-compression
Available Flexural Strength φ Mnx [kip-ft] = 4350
Available Shear Strength φ Vn [kip] = 1000 Shear
Table 9 Mechanical properties Section W 33x291
According to AISC 341-16, the columns should be designed for:
• Forces that come from a Seismic Analysis (ELF procedure in our case).
• Overstrength axial by a factor Ωo, neglecting the bending moments for such verification (Seismic
Design Provisions D 4a.). Nevertheless, according to the conditions to this project the
Overstrength factor is 1. Instead, ISS adopted a Capacity Design for analyzing the forces in the
columns, moment was not neglected.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 10
Seismic Design Forces (ELF) - "Flexo-Compression" Shear

Axial Force Moment Shear Force
Column D/C Vu [kip] D/C
Pu [kips] ɸPn [kips] Mu [kips-ft] ɸMn [kips-ft] ɸVn [kips]
C-01 148.11 3440 733.65 4350 0.19 61.14 1000.00 0.06
C-02 53.40 3440 295.29 4350 0.08 34.33 1000.00 0.03
C-03 53.40 3440 478.05 4350 0.12 15.23 1000.00 0.02
C-04 -69.97 3440 711.42 4350 0.17 59.29 1000.00 0.06
C-05 25.03 3440 649.34 4350 0.15 66.01 1000.00 0.07
C-06 -53.40 3440 483.19 4350 0.12 44.98 1000.00 0.04
C-07 69.67 3440 711.42 4350 0.17 59.29 1000.00 0.06
C-08 -25.03 3440 649.34 4350 0.15 66.01 1000.00 0.07
C-09 53.40 3440 483.19 4350 0.12 44.98 1000.00 0.04
C-10 -148.11 3440 733.65 4350 0.19 61.14 1000.00 0.06
C-11 -53.40 3440 295.29 4350 0.08 34.33 1000.00 0.03
C-12 -53.40 3440 478.05 4350 0.12 15.23 1000.00 0.02
Table 10 Columns Design Results Summary – Strength Load Case
• Capacity Design Analysis, see Appendix
Capacity Design - "Flexo-Compresion"

Axial Force Moment
Column D/C
Pu [kips] φc Pn [kips] Mu [kips-ft] φc Mn [kips-ft]
C-01 351.47 3440 849.97 4350 0.45
C-02 165.77 3440 821.03 4350 0.27
C-03 165.77 3440 1491.90 4350 0.37
C-04 -165.77 3440 975.38 4350 0.41
C-05 19.93 3440 952.45 4350 0.44
C-06 -165.77 3440 1491.90 4350 0.37
C-07 165.77 3440 975.38 4350 0.42
C-08 -19.93 3440 952.45 4350 0.44
C-09 165.77 3440 1491.90 4350 0.37
C-10 -351.47 3440 847.97 4350 0.25
C-11 -165.77 3440 821.03 4350 0.21
C-12 -165.77 3440 1491.90 4350 0.37
Table 11 Columns Design Results Summary (Capacity Design))
The detail calculations are shown in Appendix D. From the above tables, we can observe that the section
accomplished the requirements of the Seismic Provisions and conditions of the project.
In addition to the columns, ISS verify the limitations in the relationship between beams and columns
(Weak/Strong respectively), in Appendix D, the calculation of these verifications are presented in detail.
All the limitations in the relationship between columns and beams are satisfactory, as we summarize in
the following table.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 11
TYPE Section Beam Section Column Mpb [kip-ft] Mpc [kip-ft] Ratio Check
I W24x84 W33x291 1670.96 9085.32 5.44 Ok
II W24x84 W33x291 1670.96 9461.74 5.66 Ok
III W24x76 W33x291 1491.93 9480.12 6.35 Ok
Table 12 Verification Strong Column/ Weak Beam
7.3.Connections
The effectiveness of the connections is critical for the design of a SMF and since the probable maximum
moment is dependent of the type of connection, an evaluation of the Prequalified Connections was
performed were the pros and cons of every connection was considered. ISS decided to use the 8-Bolted
Extended End-Plate Moment Connection since it requires only bolting in field which reduces costs and
most of the welds are executed in shop, where we can expect higher QC. The specifications and design
procedure follow the Chapter 6 of the AISC 358-16. We evaluated the limits on prequalification from Table
6.1 of the AISC 358-16. The columns limitations are listed in section 6.3.2
Param. Description Maximum (in) Minimum (in) Condition

tbf Thickness beam flange 1 9/16 OK
bbf Width of beam flange 12 ½ 7½ OK
d Depth of connecting beam 36 18 OK
tp Thickness of end-plate 2½ ¾ OK
bp Width of end-plate 15 9 OK
g Horizontal distance between bolts 6 5 OK
Vertical distance from the
pfi,pfo inside/outside of a beam tension 2 1 5/8 OK
flange to the nearest outside bolt
Vertical distance between the inner
pb 3¾ 3½ OK
and outer row of bolts
Table 13. Beam limitations for 8-Bolted Extended End-Plate Moment Connection
The plastic mechanism of an 8-Bolted Extended End-Plate Moment Connection consists of “reinforce” the
beam at the column face using stiffeners at the top and bottom of the connection and relocate the plastic
hinge at the end of the reinforcement.
The dimensions considered in the design of the connections for the W24X84 and W24x76 beams are listed
in the Table 14. Refer to Appendix E for a detailed analysis of each limit state of the connection;
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 12
Dimension W24X84 (in) W24X76 (in)

g 5.91 5.91
ts 0.75 0.7
bp 10.91 10.91
de 3 3
pb 2 2
pfo 2 2
pfi 2 2
hst 8.25 8.25
pso 0 1.375
tsc 0 0.75
psi 0 1.375
tp 1.25 1.25
c 3.5 3.5
dbolt 1.25 1.125
Table 14. Dimensions considered for design in connection.
The properties of the materials considered for the design of connections is summarized in Table 15.
Type of element Specification (ASTM)

Plates A572 Gr.50
Welds E70XX
Bolts A490 (N)
Table 15. Materials considered for the design of connections.
Panel zone was considered as part of the design of the connection and according to the section J.10.6
from the AISC 360-16, the stability of the frame considering plastic deformation in the panel zone was
not considered in the analysis, hence we limit the behavior of the panel zone within the elastic range as
shown in Appendix E.
Figure 7 shows the location for the proposed connections and Figure 8 and Figure 9 shows the drawing
and detailing of the connection proposal.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 13
Figure 7 Connection's Locations
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 14
Figure 8 Connection Type CON-1
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 15
Figure 9 Connection Type CON-2
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 16
8. Conclusions
For Special Moment Frames (SMF), issues with drift in the structure are always expected and this design
was not the exception to this rule. In our analysis, the inclusion of the ASCE-07 Section 12.8.6.2 for drift
computations guided us to a more economical solution, although more computation time was required
compared to traditional methods for this calculation. In the same line, and comparing to the previous
SCBF design, for this analysis we considered six (6) frames instead of two (2) in each orthogonal
direction to obtain reasonable shape profile for the elements. If we would have considered less
resisting-frames in the project, we would have faced problems of large shape profiles and we would had
not meet drift requirements.
As we stated before, the design was mainly controlled by drift requirements. In terms of design, the
elastic approach, following the guidelines indicated in the design code, resulted in demand-capacity
ratios for beams below to 0.85. For columns, the design was more focused to meet drift requirements
and later check strength and capacity limit states, according to the established design philosophy.
Finally, for the connections we decided to use 8-bolt extended end-plate moment connections because
they will lead to a more economical solution since it does not require welding in-situ. Moreover, higher
quality control is expected given that all the welds are executed at the shop instead of field executions
that are prone to a lot of uncertainty product of construction conditions.
In conclusion, the proposed design meet all the requirements established in ASCE-07, AISC 341-16 and
AISC 358-16. Even not being required by these regulations, a plastic analysis was performed in order to
verify the maximum expected forces in the columns and compare it with our findings. We obtained a
weight of one frame of the structure of 54.715 kip and for the whole resisting structural system
(considering all the twelve frames) is 656.58 kip, approximately 3.8 lb/ft2.
ISS-R3-2019-03-28 17
Appendix
ISS-R3-2019-03-28
Appendix A: Determination of Design Spectra and ELF Analysis
ISS-R3-2019-03-28
SEISMIC DESIGN FORCES EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE (ELF)
1. GEOMETRY OF THE SPECIAL RESISTANT MOMENT FRAME (SRMF)

Frame 9 3S3BA1.5 ( ive story two bay frame)
Aspect Ratio L/H = 1.5
Building Area = 240' x 240'
Lateralload resisiting system to be used in alternating bays along heigth of building
(e.g. left and rigth bays in 1st story, middle bay 2nd story)
H ≔ 12 ft L ≔ H ⋅ 1.5 = 18 ft
2. Load Combinations
According to ASCE 716 (Section 2.3), ISS considers the following load case:
V. and VII. 1.0 E
Note : The project is not considering dead nor live loads, those loads were just
consider to determine the mass reaction forces of the loors.
Reactive Seismic Mass = Rfloor ≔ 100 psf
ISS has considered 6 SRMF in the facades of the building, in both directions of the frame.
3. DEFINITION OF THE ZONE
The geographical coordinates of Salt Lake City, UT are:
Latitude ≔ 41.140011 N
Longitude ≔ -111.947694 W
Site Class (ASCE 716 / 11.4.3) : B

Risk Category (ASCE 716 / Table 1.51): As it is described in table 1.51 (Risk
Category of Buildings...) our structure is not under the description of categories I, III and
IV; it is a building for conventional uses. Therefore, we adopt:
Risk Category : II
Design Code Reference Document : ASCE 716
Mapped Acceleration Parameters (ASCE 716 / 11.4.2): Figs 221 to 227 have these
values; however, those were obtained from USCG web page, "ATC Hazards by Location":
MCRR ground motion (For 0.2 s Period)
SS ≔ 1.356
MCRR ground motion (For 1.0 s Period)
S1 ≔ 0.494
Short and Long Period Site Coef6icient: These were obtained from tables 11.41
(ShortPeriod Site coef4icient Fa ) and 11.42 (LongPeriod Site Coef4icients Fv ); however,
for this project, we will adopt for soil type B:
Short Period Site Coef icient
Fa ≔ 1.0 SMS ≔ Fa ⋅ SS = 1.356
Long Period Site Coef icient
Fv ≔ 1.0 SM1 ≔ Fv ⋅ S1 = 0.494
Design Spectral Accleration (ASCE 716 / 11.4.5)
2 2
SDS ≔ ―⋅ SMS = 0.904 SD1 ≔ ― ⋅ SM1 = 0.329
3 3
Important Periods for the Response Spectrum (ASCE 716 / 11.4.6)
⎛ SD1 ⎞ ⎛ SD1 ⎞
To ≔ 0.2 ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟ = 0.073 TS ≔ ⎜―― ⎟ = 0.364
⎝ SDS ⎠ ⎝ SDS ⎠
Long-period transition period(s) (ASCE 7-16 / Figs 22-14 through 22-17)
TL ≔ 8
Elastic Response Spectrum (ASCE 716 / Fig 11.41)
T ≔ 0 , 0.01 ‥ 10
⎛ ⎛ T⎞ ⎛ ⎛ SD1 SD1 ⋅ TL ⎞⎞⎞
S ((T)) ≔ if ⎜T < To , SDS ⋅ ⎜0.4 + 0.6 ⋅ ―⎟ , if ⎜T < TS , SDS , if ⎜T < TL , ―― , ――― ⎟⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ To ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ T T 2 ⎠⎠⎠
0.925
0.835
0.745
0.655
0.565
0.475
S ((T))
0.385
0.295
0.205
0.115
0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T
The Design Response Spectrum (Figure 14) presented in the project does not
correspon with the value Cs presented in table 11. Moreover, the period considered for
the calculation the mentioned value are not presented explicitly in the report.
Importance factor (ASCE 716 / Table 1.52)
I≔1
Response Modi*ication (ASCE 716 / Table 12.21): C. 1. Steel Moment Frames
R≔8
Overstrength Factor (ASCE 716 / Table 12.21): C. 1. Steel Moment Frames
Ωo ≔ 3
De*lection ampli*ication Factor (ASCE 716 / Table 12.21): C. 1. Steel Moment

Frames
Cd ≔ 5.5
EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE (ELF) PROCEDURE
T ≔ 0 , 0.01 ‥ 10
⎛ SDS ⎛ SD1 SD1 ⋅ TL ⎞⎞
Cs ((T)) ≔ if ⎜T < TS , ―― , if ⎜T < TL , ――― , ―――⎟⎟
⎜ ⎛R⎞ ⎜ ⎛R⎞ ⎛R⎞
⎜ ―⎟ T ⋅ ⎜―⎟ T 2 ⋅ ⎜―⎟ ⎟⎟
⎜⎝ ⎝I⎠ ⎜⎝ ⎝I⎠ ⎝ I ⎠ ⎟⎠⎟⎠
0.492 1.419
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.084 0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
Cs ((T))
0.04
0.029
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Seismic Reactive Floor Mass:
Wi ≔ Rfloor ⋅ 240 ft ⋅ 240 ft = 5760 kip

W ≔ Wi ⋅ 3 = 17280 kip
W
W' ≔ ―= 2880 kip 6 SRMF in each direction
6
Approximate Fundamental Period:

Value of Approximate Period Parameters: Ct and x (ASCE 716 / Table 12.82)
H ≔ 36 Ct ≔ 0.028 x ≔ 0.8 Ta ≔ Ct ⋅ H x = 0.492
Approximate Fundamental Period for design based on drift:

Coef icient for upper limit on calculated period : Cu (ASCE 716 / Table 12.81)
Cu ≔ 1.4 TDrift ≔ Cu ⋅ Ta = 0.689
Seismic Basal Shear (Approximate Fundamental Period Upper limit):
Cs ⎛⎝TDrift⎞⎠ = 0.06 Va ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ⎛⎝TDrift⎞⎠ = 172.032 kip

Seismic Basal Shear (Reduced Elastic Spectrum):
Cs ⎛⎝Ta⎞⎠ = 0.084 Vs ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ⎛⎝Ta⎞⎠ = 240.845 kip
Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces

Exponent related to structural period: k (ASCE 716 / 12.8.3)
k≔1
Floor Information: (ASCE 716 / 12.8.3) H ≔ 12 ft
n1 ≔ 1 w1 ≔ W' = 2880 kip h1 ≔ H ⋅ n1 = 12 ft
n2 ≔ 2 w2 ≔ W' = 2880 kip h2 ≔ H ⋅ n2 = 24 ft
n3 ≔ 3 w3 ≔ W' = 2880 kip h3 ≔ H ⋅ n3 = 36 ft
w 1 ⋅ h1 k
C1 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.167 F1 ≔ C1 ⋅ Va = 28.672 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
w 2 ⋅ h2 k
C2 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.333 F2 ≔ C2 ⋅ Va = 57.344 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
w 3 ⋅ h3 k
C3 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.5 F3 ≔ C3 ⋅ Va = 86.016 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
- Vertical Load Distribution based on Fundamental Period T

Exponent related to structural period: k (ASCE 716 / 12.8.3)
k1 ≔ 1 T1 ≔ 0.5
k2 ≔ 2 T2 ≔ 2.5
Fundamental Period : T ≔ 1.419 [sec]

⎛ k2 - k1 ⎞
k ≔ k1 + ⎜――― ⎟ ⋅ ⎛⎝T - T1⎞⎠ = 1.46
⎝ T2 - T1 ⎠
Cs ((T)) = 0.029 Vm ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ((T)) = 83.552 kip

w 1 ⋅ h1 k
C1 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.115 F1 ≔ C1 ⋅ Vm = 9.581 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
w 2 ⋅ h2 k
C2 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.315 F2 ≔ C2 ⋅ Vm = 26.35 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
w 3 ⋅ h3 k
C3 ≔ ――――――――― = 0.57 F3 ≔ C3 ⋅ Vm = 47.62 kip
w1 ⋅ h1 k + w2 ⋅ h2 k + w3 ⋅ h3 k
format shortEng
format compact
clear
syms w
FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD CALCULATION

• First we obtain the flexibility matrix of the structure {in/kip}
f=[2.4083 3.7677 4.5952;3.7677 6.7283 8.6538;4.5952 8.6538 12.2287]*1/1000 %flexibility matrix {in/kip}
f = 3×3
2.4083e-003 3.7677e-003 4.5952e-003
3.7677e-003 6.7283e-003 8.6538e-003
4.5952e-003 8.6538e-003 12.2287e-003
• Inversion of the flexibility matrix give us the stiffness matrix
k=inv(f) %stiffness matrix {in/kip}
k = 3×3
4.1454e+003 -3.5385e+003 946.3239e+000
-3.5385e+003 4.6751e+003 -1.9788e+003
946.3239e+000 -1.9788e+003 1.1265e+003
• mass matrix is equal to the story level seismic mass
m=[960 0 0;0 960 0;0 0 960]*1/386.089 % mass matrix {kip/g}
m = 3×3
2.4865e+000 0.0000e+000 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 2.4865e+000 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 0.0000e+000 2.4865e+000
• Solving the eigenvalues of the get natural frequencies and periods
A=[k-w*m];
eqn=det(A)==0;
w=double(solve(eqn,w)) % eigenvalues
w = 3×1
19.6138e+000
540.8020e+000
1
3.4400e+003
w1=sqrt(w(1)) %frecuency corresponding to the fundamental period {rad/s}
w1 =
4.4287e+000
T1=2*pi/w1 %fundamental period {s}
T1 =
1.4187e+000
The Fundamental Period is 1.4187 s
2
Appendix B: Design Forces
ISS-R3-2019-03-28
Forces from Code Elastic Analysis
Axial force (kip)
Shear force (kip)

Bending Moment (kip-ft)
Forces from Capacity Design (Considering Plastic Mechanism)
Axial force (kip)
Shear force (kip)

Bending Moment (kip-ft)
Notes on Plastic Mechanism
Definition of perfectly plastic hinge using Maximum Probable Moment on beam

Localization of plastic hinges in beam (refer Appendix E)
Plastic mechanism of collapse

Appendix C: Beams Design
ISS-R3-2019-03-28
Design of Steel Beams under Combined Stresses
Section H. of AISC Specifications
Type = "SMF"
Load = "B-01 Load Case Seismic Strenght-Major Axis"
Section = "W24X84 A992"
Section Properties (TABLE 6-2 AISC Construction Manual)
fy = 50  ksi Section Yield Stress
Lc = 16.55  ft Analytical Beam Lenght
Pr = 0  kip Required Axial Strenght
Mrx = 716.947  kip  ft

Required Flexural Strenght X-X
Mry = 0  kip  ft
Required Flexural Strenght Y-Y
Pc = 951  kip Available Axial Strenght
Mcx = 840  kip  ft Available Flexural Strenght X-X
Mcy = 122  kip  ft Available Flexural Strenght Y-Y
Vr = 94.704  kip Required Shear Strenght
Vc = 340  kip Available Shear Strenght
Tc = 902  kip Available Tension Strenght
Cb := 1.0 conservatively
Combined Axial and Flexure capacity check Spec. Eq. H1-1a and H1-1b
 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr 8  Mrx Mry   
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0.854
Pc 9
 Mcx Mcy   Pc

Pr  Mrx Mry   Pr 
+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
 Mcx Mcy   Pc 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0.854
Check := "OK" if DC  1 = "OK"

"Fail" otherwise
Shear Strenght Capacity Check
Vr
DCshear := = 0.279
Vc
Check2 := "OK" if DCshear  1 = "OK"
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
Mrx = 0  kip  ft
Vr = 0  kip Required Shear Strenght
 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := =0
Vc
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
Mrx = 713.081  kip  ft

 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0.849
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0.849

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := = 0.279
Vc
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := =0
Vc
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
Mrx = 592.195  kip  ft

 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0.705
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0.705

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := = 0.231
Vc
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := =0
Vc
"Fail" otherwise
Type = "SMF"
Mrx = 405.758  kip  ft

 Pr  Pr
  := if Pr  0 =0
Pc Pc
 
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
Pr
DC := + 
 + if    0.2  Pr  0 = 0.541
Pc 9

+ +  if   < 0.2  Pr  0
2Pc
-Pr
if Pr < 0
Tc
DC := max ( DC) = 0.541

"Fail" otherwise
Vr
DCshear := = 0.17
Vc
"Fail" otherwise

Guia para Trabajo-1-50

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Guia para Trabajo-1-50

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Guia para Trabajo-1-50

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Page intentionally left in blank)

INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS

Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ii

Figure 1. Location of the building of study.......................................................................................... 1

Table 1 SMF Design Coefficients and Factors ..................................................................................... 3

Figure 1. Location of the building of study

Figure 2. Plan and Elevation of the Building.

Name Value Description

2.2.1. Response Spectra

The parameters considered are the following:

Name Value Description

Figure 3. Elastic Design Spectra.

Figure 4. Reduced Design Spectra.

2.2.2. Capacity Design Requirements

E: Earthquake load (seismic).

E= E for beams and columns (Axial + Flexure)

E= Ecl connections and moments ratio as well as panel zone checks.

Figure 5. Sections and Labels of the Model of Analysis.

4.1. Seismic forces determination

Structure Distributed in frame

Structure Distributed in frame

• Tensile Strength, Ultimate : Fu = 65 ksi

Elastic displacement Inelastic displacement

6.3. Design forces

The design forces were obtained analyzing two models:

Figure 6. Moments and shear forces for capacity analysis

Shape Mpr (kip-ft) Mf (kip-ft) Mcc (kip-ft) Vu (kip)

7. Design Results Summary

Mechanical properties Section: W 33x291

According to AISC 341-16, the columns should be designed for:

Seismic Design Forces (ELF) - "Flexo-Compression" Shear

• Capacity Design Analysis, see Appendix

Capacity Design - "Flexo-Compresion"

Param. Description Maximum (in) Minimum (in) Condition

Dimension W24X84 (in) W24X76 (in)

Type of element Specification (ASTM)

Figure 7 Connection's Locations

Figure 8 Connection Type CON-1

Figure 9 Connection Type CON-2

Appendix A: Determination of Design Spectra and ELF Analysis

1. GEOMETRY OF THE SPECIAL RESISTANT MOMENT FRAME (SRMF)

­ Site Class (ASCE 7­16 / 11.4.3) : B

­ De*lection ampli*ication Factor (ASCE 7­16 / Table 12.2­1): C. 1. Steel Moment

­ Seismic Reactive Floor Mass:

Wi ≔ Rfloor ⋅ 240 ft ⋅ 240 ft = 5760 kip

­ Approximate Fundamental Period:

H ≔ 36 Ct ≔ 0.028 x ≔ 0.8 Ta ≔ Ct ⋅ H x = 0.492

­ Approximate Fundamental Period for design based on drift:

Cu ≔ 1.4 TDrift ≔ Cu ⋅ Ta = 0.689

­ Seismic Basal Shear (Approximate Fundamental Period ­ Upper limit):

Cs ⎛⎝TDrift⎞⎠ = 0.06 Va ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ⎛⎝TDrift⎞⎠ = 172.032 kip

Cs ⎛⎝Ta⎞⎠ = 0.084 Vs ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ⎛⎝Ta⎞⎠ = 240.845 kip

­ Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces

- Vertical Load Distribution based on Fundamental Period T

Fundamental Period : T ≔ 1.419 [sec]

Cs ((T)) = 0.029 Vm ≔ W' ⋅ Cs ((T)) = 83.552 kip

FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD CALCULATION

Site Class (ASCE 716 / 11.4.3) : B

Delection ampliication Factor (ASCE 716 / Table 12.21): C. 1. Steel Moment

Seismic Reactive Floor Mass:

Approximate Fundamental Period:

Approximate Fundamental Period for design based on drift:

Seismic Basal Shear (Approximate Fundamental Period Upper limit):

Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces