20151BC SEAOC STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL Volume 1: cobe APPLICATION EXAMPLES NN @&NCSEA 8 mt Feral Count Sou agar OE TERNATIONAL ‘CODE COUNCIECopyright Copyright © 2016 Structural Engineers Association of California, All rights reserved. This publication of any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural Engineets Association of California. Publisher Ue ae Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) 921 11th Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501 E-mail: [email protected]; Web address: www.seaoe.org The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional member organizations (Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and Central California), SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with SEAOC’s stated mission: To advance the structural engineering profession; to provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application of state-of-the-art structural engineering Principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession. Editor International Code Coun Disclaimer While the information presented in this document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference t0 opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication. ‘The material presented in this publication should not be used for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. First Printing: ugust 2016 ISBN: 978-1-60983-649-8 ro20446 ji 2018 18¢ SEAOC Stuctural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Suggestions for Improvement Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the following: Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Don Schinske, Executive Director 921 11th Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 ‘Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501 E-mail: [email protected] Errata Notification SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate, In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC Web site at wwweseaoc.org and on the ICC Web site at ww w.icesafe.org. 'SEAOG, at its sole discretion, may issue written errata, 2015 IBC SEAOC StructuralSeismic Design Manual, Vo. iliv 2016 18C SEAOC StructuralSelsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1Preface to the 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual .......000000000 Preface to Volume 1... Acknowledgements... 66.0.4 References . . How to Use This Document. xi . xiii xv - xvii . xix Design Example 1 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters. = sud. Design Example 2 Design Response Spectrum ceveeeeee SILAS Design Example 3 Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures ..... . $47 Design Example 4 Importance Factor and Risk Category . 8115 ‘Seismic Design Category : S116 Design Example 5 ‘Continuous Load Path and Interconnection. 7 $12.13 Connection to Supports... .esveeeeeteeeseeseees gd Design Example 6 ‘Combination of Framing Systems in Different Directions . Design Example 7 ‘Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Direction: Vertical ....... $1223.10... Design Example 8 ‘Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Direction: Horizontal .......§12.2.33 .. Design Example 9 ‘Combination Framing Detaiting Requirements .. a $12.24 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural'Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 uw 3 15 7 2B 28 vDesign Example 10 Dual Systems Design Example 11 Introduction to Horizontal Irregularities... Design Example 12 Horizontal Inegularity Type 1a and Type 1b Design Example 13 Horizontal Imegularity Type 2... Design Example 14 Horizontal Irregularity Type 3 Design Example 15 Horizontal Inegularity Type 4... Design Example 16 Horizontal Imegulatity Type 5. Design Example 17 Introduction to Vertical Irregularities Design Example 18 Vertical Irregularity Type 1a and ‘Type Ib Design Example 19 Vertical regularity Type 2. Design Example 20 Vertical Irregularity Type 3 Design Example 21 Vertical Inregularity Type 4 .. Design Example 22 Vertical Irregulatity Type Sa/Sb — Concrete Wall vi 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1 foe 28 -§123.20 2.2.31 cro -$123.21 32 _ ee GI2B.2 36 + $123.21 38 $123.21 40 $123.22 .......43 44 veeeeee eA §123.2.2 2. - $123.22 50 $123.22 .......52 oe G123.2.2 0002.54Design Example 23 Vertical Irregularity Type Sa/5b ~ Steel Moment Frame .......cseee0s+ Design Example 24 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls or Frames... ....2060002+4 Design Example 25 Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls or Frames —Light-Frame ... Design Example 26 Redundancy Factor P ..... Design Example 27 Seisinic Load Combinations: Strength Design ....... Design Example 28 ‘Minimum Upward Force for Horizontal Cantilevers for SDC D through F Design Example 29 Interaction Biffects 0... Design Example 30 Seismic Base Shear Design Example 31 Approximate Fundamental Period... Design Example 32 ‘Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces Design Example 33 Horizontal Distribution of Forces Design Example 34 Amplification of Accidental Torsion .........6.22.+ wokendeaata Design Example 35 Story Drift... $123.22 .......56 §12.3.33 .. $123.33 . 64 $12.34 .......67 $124.23. 72 $12.44 . 75 $1274 2.2.78 = $128.1 .......80 §12.8.2.1 3 §12.83 .......87 - $12.84. 91 $128.43 .......96 = $12.86 ...,-.100 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, ol.1 vilDesign Example 36 Padelta Effects 20. ceece veceeeeees 1287 oo... 103 Design Example 37 Scaling Design Values of Combined Response $12.94 ......108 Design Example 38 Diaphragm Design Forces, F,.: One-story Building ....... $1210.11. Design Example 39 Diaphragm Design Forces, F,,: Multi-story Building veces GIZMO 116 Design Example 40 Collector Blements - Flexible Diaphragm ........ $12,102... 119 Design Example 41 Out-of-Plane Seismic Forces ~ One-story Structural Wall - $1211 and $13.3 ......123 Design Example 42 Out-of Plane Seismic Forces - Two-story Structural Wall ......, §12.11.J and §12.112 ......127 Design Example 43 ‘Wall Anchorage to Flexible Diaphragms : §121121 2.131 Design Example 44 Story Drift Limit alee esbeateee 2 S12... 134 Design Example 45 Structural Separation oo... ee cece cceeeeeseeees - $12.23 ......137 Design Example 46 Deformation Compatibility for Seismic Design Categories D through F .... $12.25 ...... 140 Design Example 47 Foundation Design ........ $1213... 143 Design Example 48 Foundation Ties 02.00.2000 -§12.13.5.2, §12.13.6.2, and IBC §1810.3.13 ......150 Vili 2015 18 SEAOC Structural’Seismic Design Manuel, Vol. 1Design Example 49 Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria for Simple Bearing Wall or Building Frame SYSOMS o.oo occ eee eee ceesseeeeeeeeeeereeeees Design Example 50 j * Seismic Demands on Nonstructural Components on Rigid Supports: Design Example 51 Seismic Demands on Vibration-isolated Nonstructural Components Design Example 52 Seismic Relative Displacements of Component Attachments Design Example 53 Exterior Nonstructural Wall Element .........4. Design Example 54 Exterior Nonstructural Wall Element Connections, Design Example 55 Lateral Seismic Force on Nonbuilding Structure .............+ Design Example 56 Flexible Nonbuilding Structure Design Example 57 Rigid Nonbuilding Structure... 5.2 [lle Design Example 58 Retaining Wall with Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure... vee G24 $13.3 and §13.4 vos $13.3 and §13.4 §13.3.2 §135 1 G54 $154 and §15.5 = §15.6.1 154 187 161 167 = 170 2015 IBC SEAOC StructuralSeismic Dsign Manual, Vol. 1 47 180 183, 185 ixX 2015 IBC SEAOC StructuralSelsmic Dasign Manuel, Vol.1‘The IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, throughout its many editions, has served the purpose of illustrating good seismic design and the correct application of building-code provisions. The Manual has bridged the gap between the discursive treatment of topics in the SEAOC Blue Book (Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary) and real-world decisions that designers face in their practice. ‘The examples illustrate code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good performance under severe seismic loading. In some cases simply complying with building-code requirements does not ensure good seismic response. This Manual takes the approach of exceeding the minimum code requirements in such cases, with discussion of the reasons for doing so. ‘This manual comprises five volumes: + Volume 1: Code Application Examples + Volume 2; Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up, and Masonry Buildings + Volume 3: Examples for Reinforced Concrete Buildings + Volume 4: Examples for Stocl-Framed Buildings + Volume 5: Examples for Seismically Isolated Buildings and Buildings with Supplemental Damping Tn general, the provisions for developing the design base shear, distributing the base-shear-forces vertically and horizontally, checking for irregularities, etc, are illustrated in Volume 1. The other volumes contain ‘more extensive design examples that address the requirements of the material standards (for example, ACI 318 and AISC 341) that are adopted by the IBC. Building design examples do not illustrate many of the items addressed in Volume 1 in order to permit the inclusion of less-redundant content. Each volume has been produced by a small group of authors under the direction of a manager. The ‘managers have assembled reviewers to ensure coordination with other SEAOC work and publications, most notably the Blue Book, as well as numerical accuracy. ‘This manual can serve as valuable tool for engineers seeking to design buildings for good seismic response. Rafael Sabelli Project Manager 2015 IBC SEAOC StructuralSeismic Design Manual, Vol.1. xixii 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. +Volume 1 of the 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismie Design Manual addresses the application and interpretation of the seismic provisions of the 2015 International Building Code. More specifically, Chapter 16 of the 2015 IBC requires compliance with the provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-10 “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures" with Supplement #1, except for Chapter 14 of ASCE 7. ASCE 7 generally prescribes the loading and methodology to be used in the analysis of a structure or an clement. In order to determine strength to resist to the load demands from ASCE 7, the IBC adopts national ‘material design standards (such as ACI, AISC, MSIC, and NDS) to be used for the design of an element of particular material. The Volume 1 examples focus on the application of the provisions of ASCE 7, while the examples in Volumes 2, 3, and 4 focus more on the application of the material design standards. The Manual is not intended to serve as a building code of to be an exhaustive catalogue of all valid approaches. ‘Volume 1 presents 58 examples covering most of the key code provisions within ASCE 7 Chapters 11, 12, 13, and 15. These examples have been updated and revised to reflect applicable changes to codes and standards since the 2012 edition of the Manual, to provide additional clarification and commentary for the more complex or nuanced provisions, and to incorporate input from the SEAOC Seismology Committee and other practicing engineers regarding the latest SEAOC interpretations and recommended practices. ‘Whenever possible, the authors have incorporated lessons learned from actual projects into the examples. Readers are welcome to submit other conditions or provisions not addressed in this edition for consideration in future editions. Ryan A. Kersting ‘Volume Manager 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural’Seismic Design Manual, Vol1 —Xxillxiv 2015 /BC SEAOC Structural/Selsmle Dasign Manual, Vol. 1Acknowledgements ‘Volume 1 of the 2015 IBC SEAOC Seismic Design Manual was written and reviewed by a group of highly qualified structural engineers, chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The authors are: Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., Associate Principal, Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers — Volume ‘Manager and Author/Reviewer of Various Examples Ryan has over 19 years of experience in the analysis, design, and review of building structures spanning the spectrum of conventional systems and materials, He is also frequently involved in projects that incorporate innovative structural systems, nonlinear analysis, and performance-based designs. Ryan has been very active in SEAOC, including being 2014-2015 SEAOC President, previously serving as Chair of the SEAOC Seismology Commitee, co-authoring / reviewing Blue Book articles, and serving as Chair of the 2007 SEAOC Convention. www. bbse.com April Buchberger, S.E., Senior Structural Engineer, Clark Pacifie — Author/Reviewer of Various Examples April has over 10 years of experience designing precast concrete structural systems and architectural cladding for the commercial, residential, health care, and government sectors in California, She is active in the SEAOCC (Central California) member organization of SEAOC, whete she has served on the Boatd of Directors and as Website Committee Chair, www.ClarkPacific.com ‘Timothy S. Lucido, S-E., — Author/Reviewer of Various Examples ‘Tim has over 11 years of experience in the seismic design and evaluation of building structures with specialization in hospital design and steel-framed systems. He has been a contributing member of SEAOC and SEAONC, including co-authoring the SEAOC Blue Book article “Concentrically Braced Frames.” He has done extensive work in the application of BRB design and Lean Construction and is currently pursuing ‘an MBA at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Kevin Morton, S.E., Associate Principal, Hohbach-Lewin Structural Engineers — Author/Reviewer of Various Examples Kevin has 15 years of structural engineering experience in both new construction and evaluation/retrofit of existing buildings. He has worked on projects throughout California, the United States, and overseas. He is an active member of SEAOC and served on the SEAOC Seismology Committee for 3 years. He has particular expertise in seismic analysis, value engineering, and construction means and methods. www. hohbach-lewin.com Nicolas Rodrigues, PE, SE, Managing Principal, Cary Kopezynski & Co. Steuctural Engineers — Author/Reviewer of Various Examples Nic has nearly 15 years of experience in performing both code-based and performance-based designs of new highrise concrete and steel buildings in seismic areas around the world, including Turkey, the Philippines, and the West Coast of the US. He has chaired several SEAOC committees; served on a PEER ‘committee for the performance-based design of tall buildings; and currently serves as a voting member on ACI 318 H, the subcommittee responsible for the seistnic provisions of ACI318, www.ckeps.com, 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural’ Seismic Design Manual, Vol 1 xvAli Sumer, Ph.D., S.E., Senior Structural Engineer, State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) — Author/Reviewer of Various Examples Allis currently working as a Senior Structural Engineer at the Seismic Compliance Unit at OSHPD. He has performed several seismic retrofit projects and has experience in performance-based design using nonlinear analysis techniques, building collapse risk analysis, and equipment shake table tests. He is a member of the SEAOC Seismotogy Committee and serves as Chair of SEAOCC (Central California) Seismology Committee, www.oshpd.cagov ‘The additions and revisions incorporated in the 2015 edition of Volume 1 are the result of thoughtful review from and close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee. The review, input, and assistance from the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. 2014-2015 SEAOC Seismology Committee 2015-2016 SEAOC Seismology Committee Roy Lobo (SEAOCC), Chair Benjamin Mohr (SEAONC), Chair Amir Gilani (SEAOCC) ‘Tom Hale (SBAOCC) Ali Sumer (SEAOCC) Ali Sumer (SEAOCC) Russell Berkowitz (SEAONC) Katy Briggs (SEAONC) Silvia Mazzoni (SEAONC) Silvia Mazzoni (SEAONC) Benjamin Mohr (SEAONC) Chris Tang (SEAONC) Gabriel Acero (SEAOSC) Josh Gebelein (SEAOSC) Mikhail Gershfeld (SEAOSC) Jesse Karns (SEAOSC) Mehran Pourzanjani (SEAOSC) Mehran Pourzanjani (SEAOSC) Jeremy Callister (SEAOSD) Jeremy Callister (SEAOSD) Victor Garcia (SEAOSD) Victor Garcia (SEAOSD) Additional review was provided by Cairo Briceno, Michael Cochran, Lachezar Handzhiyski, James Lai, Brace Maison, Anand Nene, David Paliner, Felipe Perez, Yusuf Saleh, Rahul Sharma, David Tran, Jia ‘Wang-Connelly, and Laura Whitehurst. Special recognition is given to Tom Hale and Benjamin Mohr for their major contributions, Production and art was provided by the International Code Council. xvi 2015 JBC SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1American Conerete Institute: ACI 318: Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2014. Ametican Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Third Printing with Supplement #1 and Expanded Seismic Commentary. Reston, Virginia, 2013. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, Virginia, 2014, International Code Council. International Building Code (IBC). Washington, D.C., 2015. Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings ‘and Other Structures: FEMA P-1050-1/2015 Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2015. SEAOC Seismology Committee. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (Blue Book), Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seventh Edition, Sacramento, California, 1999, SEAOC Seismology Committee. SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations, Structaral Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), First Printing, Sacramento, California, 2009. www.seaoe.ong/bluebook 2015 IBC SEAOC Siructura/Selamic Design Manual, Vol. xviiXvill 2015 18C SEACC StructuravSoismic Design Manual, Vo. 1‘The examples in Volume 1 are written to illustrate the application of a specific section or provision within ASCE 7. Bach example is a separate problem (or group of problems) for a unique condition chosen to best address the particular referenced code provision. Examples are stand-alone and do not rely on results from another example. Each example contains a problem statement with a detailed listing of “given” information and a clear list of items to be determined in order to arrive at the solution. The problem is solved through a logical sequence of steps, and appropriate code references are provided im the right-hand margin of the page. Most examples include an introductory overview to the particular code provision and/or additional commentary following, the solution. Readers are referred to applicable SEAOC Blue Book articles for additional information when appropriate, For all examples, ASCE 7 is the default source document for the references, unless another document is specifically included in the reference. The following abbreviations are used within the references: §-Section - T-"Table P—Figure Eq—Equation 2016 15C SEAOC Sinsetura’Selsmic Design Manual, vol. xixXX 2018 JBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manvel, Vol. 1‘Design Example 1 » Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters §17.4 Design Example” Design Spectral Response. Acceleration Parameters OVERVIEW For a given building site, the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations, ‘Sq, at short petiods, and S,, at a 1-second period, are given by the acceleration contour maps in Chapter 22 ‘in Figures 22-1 through 22-6. This example illustrates the general procedure for determining the design spectral response acceleration parameters S.y5 and Sp, from the mapped values of Sand 5. The parameters Sps and Spy are used to calculate the design response spectrum in Section 11.4.5 and the design base shear in Section 12.8. ‘The easiest and most accurate way to obtain the spectral values is to use the “U.S. Seismic Design Maps” application from the USGS website (earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application. php). The USGS application allows for values of S, and S, to be provided based on the address or the longitude and latitude of the site being entered. PROBLEM STATEMENT A building site in California is located at 38.123° North (Latitude 38.123°) and 121.123° West (Longitude -121.123°). The soil profile is Site Class D. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Mapped risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE,) spectral response acceleration parameters S, and S,, 2. Site coefficients F, and F, and MCE, spectral response acceleration parameters Sys and Sy, adjusted for Site Class effects. 3, Design spectral response acceleration parameters Sp and Sp. 1. May MCE,, Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Ss, Ppa s, en Seer ne §11.4.1. For the given site at 38.123° North (Latitude 38.123°) and 121.123° West (Longitude -121.123°), the USGS “U.S, Seismic Design Maps” application provides the values of 8 5 634g 0.272¢. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 4Design Exampla 1 « Design Special Response Acceleration Parameters $11.4 For the given Site Class D and the values of §, and S, determined above, the site coefficients are Fy 1293 A THAI B= 1.856. THAD ‘The MCEy spectral response acceleration parameters adjusted for Site Class effects are 292(0.634g) = 0.8198 Eq 114-1 851(0.272g) = 0.5058 Fg 114-2 (2/3) Sys = (2/3)(0.8198) = 0.5468, (213) Sy, = (213)(0.505g) = 0.337, Commentary ‘The USGS application “U.S. Seismic Design Maps” requires the risk category to be specified, even though that category is not necessary for determining Sp. and Sp). 2 2018 186 SEAOC Suuctura/ Seismic Design Manual, Vo. 1Design Example 2 « Design Response Spoctrum §11.4.5 PROBLEM STATEMENT, A building site in California has the following design spectral response acceleration parameters determined in accordance with Section 11.4.4 and mapped long-period transition period evaluated from Figure 22-12: Sps= 0.558 Sp = 034g 1, 28sec. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Design response spectrum. Section 11.4.5 provides the equations for the 5 percent damped spectral response acceleration, S,, relative to period, 7, in the following ranges: OST 0.75 (recall $, = 0.75), the building shall be assigned to SDC E, Also for Risk Category IV having S, > 0.75, the building shall be assigned to SDC F 12 2015 18C SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manuel, Vo. 1Design Example 5 » Continuous Load Path and In 12.13 Connection to Supporis §12.1.4 OVERVIEW ‘This example illustrates use of the beam interconnection requirement of Section 12.1.3. The requirement is {o ensure that important parts of a structure are “tied togethes"” PROBLEM STATEMENT For the two simple beams shown below, the following information is given: Seismic Design Category D Spy = 1.0 Dead Load D = 6 kip/ft Live Load L = 4 kip/ft D+ Le iOkint ach supp Figure 5-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Horizontal connection force between the two beams. 2. Horizontal connection force between the beam and support 2015 IBC SEAOG StructuralSelsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1 13Design Example 6 = Continuous Load Path and Interconnection $12.1. Connection to Supports §12.1.4 1, Horizontal Connection Force between the Two Beams §12.1.3 Requirements for ties and continuity are specified in Section 12.1.3. For this particular example, it is required to determine the “tie force” for design of the horizontal tie interconnecting the two sinaply supported beams. This force is designated as F,, given by the greater value of F, = 0.133 Symp F, = 0.050, where w, is the weight of the smaller (shorter) beam 40 f(D) = 40(6) = 240 kips. For Sps = 1.0, the controlling tie force is '2. Horizontal Connection Force between the Beam and Support “P” 12.1.4 Seetion 12.1.4 requires a horizontal support force for each beam equal to 5 percent of the dead load plus live load reaction. The required design force at the pin support “P” is, H= 00566 kif + 4410) (2) = 10 kips. 14 2018 IBC SEAOC StructuralSeismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 6 » Combination of Framing Systems in Difrent Directions §12.2.2 Design Example 6 : Combination of: Preening systems r Pitarent Directions a: OVERVIEW ‘This example illustrates the determination of response modification coefficient, R, system overstrongth factor, Qo, and deflection amplification factor, C,, values for a building that has different seismic-force- resisting systems along two orthogonal axes (1e., directions) of the building, PROBLEM STATEMENT A three-story building has concrete shear walls in one direction and concrete moment frames in the other. Floors are concrete slab, The building is SDC D and Risk Category IL. Lines A and D (north-south direction) are special reinforced concrete shear walls (bearing wall system). R=5,0,=25, Cy=5, Table 12.2-1 (Al). Lines 1 and 3 (east-west direction) ate special reinforced concrete moment frames. R=8.0,0,=30, C,=5.5 Table 12.2-1 (C3). Special rhforced concrete moment frame —O —o —O Shooe wat ‘Typical Floor Plan Figure 6-1 2016 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 15Design Example 6 » Combination of Framing Systems in Different Directions §12.2.2 DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Value for R, C,, and Q, for each direction. 4.Value for R, Cz.:and., tor Each Direction. $1822 ‘The provisions of Section 12.2.2 require that where different seismic-force-resisting systems are used along the two orthogonal axes of the structure, the appropriate response modification coefficient, R, system ‘overstrength factor, Q, and deflection amplification factor, C,, for each system shall be used. ‘Therefore, use 0, y= 2.5, and C, = 5 for the north-south direction. ), Q, = 3.0, and C, = 5.5 for the east-west direction. R R Commentary ‘Since this is SDC D, ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls and ordinary or intermediate reinforced concrete moment frames are not permitted. In this example, the corner columns are common to two intersecting seismic-force-resisting systems and thus are subject to the provisions of Section 12.2.4 for detailing requirements and Section 12.5 for direction of loading requirements (“orthogonal effects”). For additional information regarding the detailing requirements, refer to SEAOC Blue Book article 4.02.041 "Structural Detailing for Combined Structural Systems" available at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/irtdex.htra. 16 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural’Selsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 7 » Combination of Framing Systems inthe Same Drecton: Vertical §122.8.1 Design Example 7 Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Dir Vertical : OVERVIEW Itis sometimes necessary to design buildings that have a vertical combination of different seismie-force- resisting systems. For example, the bottom part ofthe structure may be a rigid frame and the top part may bbe a braced frame or shear wall. This example illustrates use of the requirements of Section 12.2,3.1 to determine the applicable response modification coefficient, R, system overstrength factor, Q, and deflection amplification factor, C,, values for combined vertical systems. PROBLEM STATEMENT Three structures are shown below with different vertical combinations of systems in the same direction ‘The seismic design category for each structure and the applicable design coefficients and factors from ‘Table 12.2-1 for each system are provided, DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Value for R, Q5, and C, and for each story in the direction shown for a steel special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) over steel special moment frame (SMF). 2. Value for R, 2, and C, for each story in the direction shown for a special reinforced concrete shear wall (SRCSW) over special reinforced concrete moment frames (SRCME). 3. Value for R, 9p, and C, for each story in the direction shown for a concrete SRCMF over @ concrete building frame shear wall system. 1, Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) over Steel Special Moment Erame (eM “ (Sehr) §12.2.3.1 Design Parameters: Seismic Design Category C Steel special concentrically braced frame R= 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol.1 17Design Example 7 = Combination of Framing Systems In the Same Direction: Vertical §12.23.1 Steel special moment frame R=80 Figure 7-1. ‘This combined system falls under the vertical combinations of Section 12.2.3.1, Because the rigid framing system is above the flexible framing system, the exception for a two-stage analysis in Section 12.2.3.2 cannot be used. Therefore, in accordance with Section 12.2.3.1, the values of R, Q,, and C, for the upper (braced frame) system must be used for the design of both systems. Design Parameters: Seismic Design Category C Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall (Non-Bearing) R=6.0 18 2015 180 SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manus, Vo.Design Example 7 « Combination of Framing Systems In the Same Direction: Vertical §12.2.1 Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Figure 7-2, ‘This combined system falls under the vertical combinations of Section 12.2.3.1. Because the tigid framing system is above the flexible framing system, the exception for a two-stage analysis in Section 12.2.3.2 cannot be used. Therefore, in accordance with Section 12.2.3.1, the values of R, Q, and C, for the upper (shear wall) system must be used for the design of both systems. ig) Frama’ Shear Wal beh ee a oe §12.2.3.2 Design Parameters: Seismic Design Category D Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame R=80 2)=30 C255 ps3 Stiffness upper portion = 175 kipyin Tropec = Tine 0:56 86 ‘Modal Response Spectrum Analysis 55 see 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol1 19Design Example 7 x Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Direction: Vertical §12.2.3.1 Shear wails Figure 7-3. Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall (Non-bearing) Stiffness = 10,000 kip/in Tragae= 0.03 506 Equivalent Lateral Fotce Procedure ‘This structure has a vertical combination of a flexible system over a more rigid system. A two-stage static analysis may be used, provided the structure conforms to the requirements specified in Section 12.2.3.2. Ris different for beating wall systems versus building frame systems for special reinforced concrete shear walls, see Table 12.2-1. 20 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural’Seismic Design Manual, ol. 1Design Example 7 « Combination of Framing Systems In the Same Direction: Vertical §12.2.3.1 Check requirements of Section!2.2.3.2 for a two-stage analysis: 4) The stiffness of the lower portion is at least 10 times the stiffness of the upper portion. For multiple-story upper or lower portions, the stiffness should be the shear in the lowest level of the portion divided by the total drift of the portion. 10,000 kipfin > 10(175) = 1750 kipfin....OK. b) The period of the entire structure is not greater than 1.1 times the period of the upper structure ‘considered a separate structure supported at the transition from the upper to the lower portion. 0,56 see < 1.1 0.55) =0.61 sec... OK. ‘¢) The upper portion shall be designed as a separate structure using appropriate values of R and p. 4) The rigid lower portion shall be designed as a separate structure using appropriate values of R and p. Reactions from the upper portion shall be determined from analysis of the upper structure amplified by the ratio of R/p of the upper structure over R/p of the lower structure, This ratio shall not be less than 1.0. ©) The upper portion is analyzed with the equivalent lateral-force or modal-response spectrum procedure, and the lower portion is analyzed with the equivalent lateral-force procedure. Design Procedures for Upper and Lower Structures Design the upper SRCMF using R=8.0 = 3.0 p=13 Figure 7-4, 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 21Design Example 7 = Combination of Framing Systems inthe Same Direction: Vertical §12.23.1 Design the lower portion of the building frame system for the combined effects of amplified reactions from the upper portion and lateral forces due to the base shear for the lower portion of the structure (using R= 6.0, 4 = 2.5, and p = 1.0 for the lower portion). & Viuue= (amplified Vijoye) + Voy Sy Vease Figure 7-5. The reactions from the upper portion shall be determined from the analysis of the upper portion amplified by the ratio of (R/p) for the upper portion over (Rip) of the lower portion, For the basic seismic load combinations, the factor p must still be applied to forces corresponding t0 Vinge ‘Commentary ‘Such systems are likely to contain vertical irregularities, For additional information, refer to SEAOC Blue Book article 4.02.040 "Combined Systems" available at htep:/www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index html. 22 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 8 = Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Direction: Horizontal §12.2.3.9 ‘Design Example 8 Combination of Framing systems in: the Same Direction: Horizontal OVERVIEW A combination of different seismic-force-resisting systems may be used in the same direction along different lines of resistance. This example shows how the response modification coefficient R value is determined in such a situation. PROBLEM STATEMENT A one-story steel-frame structure has the roof plan shown below. The structure is assigned to Risk Category Il and Seismic Design Category C. 5 Lines 1 and 4 are ordinary steel moment frames: Lines 2 and 3 are special steel concentrically braced frames: R = 6.0 North bod Roof Plan Figure 8-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Value for R for design in the east-west direction assuming the roof diaphragm is determined to be rigid, 2, Value for R for design in the east-west direction assuming the roof diaphragm is determined to be flexible. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 23Design Example 8 « Combination of Framing Systems in the Same Direction: Horizontal §12.2.9.3 When a combination of structural systems is used in the same direction (except for those combinations that comply with the requirements for dual systems), Section 12.2.3.3 requires that the value of R used shall not be greater than the least value of any system utilized in that direction. Therefore, use R= 3.5 in the east- ‘west direction for all lines of the seismic-force-resisting system. Section 12.2.3.3 also requires that the values of C, and be consistent with the R of the governing system in that direction, SN I Roa ‘When a combination of structural systems is used along different lines of resistance in the same direction, Section 12.2.3.3 contains an exception that permits the least value of R for the different systems found in each independent line of resistance to be used if all ofthe following conditions are met 1, Risk Category 1 or I building 2, Two stories or less above grade plane 3. Use of light-frame construction or flexible diaphragms. Section 12.2.3.3 also requires the use of the least value of R for any of the systems in the same direction for the design of diaphragms. Since this is a one-story, Risk Category Il building, and since it is given that the roof diaphragm is determined to be flexible, all conditions of the exception have been met. Therefore, it is permitted to use R 5 in the east-west direction along lines 1 and 4 and K = 6.0 in the east-west direction along lines 2 and 3. The design of the diaphragm in the east-west direction shall use the least value of R = 3.5, For additional information, refer to SEAOC Blue Book article 4.02,040 "Combined Systems," available at bttp:/iwwwseaoe.org/bluebook/index. html. 24 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural'Selsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 9 « Combination Framing Detailing Requirements $122.4 OVERVIEW i ‘This example illustrates the application of the requirements of Section 12.2.4 for members that are common to different framing systems used to resist seismic forces, This topic is also the subject of the SEAOC Blue Book article 4,02.041 “Structural Detailing for Combined Structural Systems.” Structural members ‘can be common to different framing systems when systems are combined in various manners (vertically, horizontally, or orthogonally). This example considers a common member within a vertical combination of systems, The Blue Book article discusses other configurations. PROBLEM STATEMENT A two-story, steel, special moment-resisting frame structure sits on top of a special concrete reinforced. shear wall. The structure is assigned to Risk Category Il and SDC D. Beams are W30 x 108 with Reduced ‘Beam Sections (RBS), and columns are W14 x 283. Steel is ASTM A992, Columns are assumed pinned at the base. woo Wwexioa R=8 9°38 aie wisn 1° | >| Column/Pilasters are [ “Common” to both concrete shear wall ReS and moment frame, N= 2% Figure 9-1, ‘The upper two stories are special steel moment-resisting frames: R= 8, 29=3 =5,.Q)= ‘The lower story is a special concrete reinforced shear wall: 5 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol 1 25Design Example 9 = Combination Framing Detailing Requirements §12.2.4 DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Seismic axial force for the design of the concrete column/pilaster supporting the steel column. above. 2. Locations and types of splices for the vertical reinforcing within the concrete pilasters, 3. Amount and spacing of required confinement reinforcing within the concrete pilasters. 4. Seismic force for the design of the connection between the two systems. 1. Seismic Axial Force for the Design of the Concrete Column/Pilaster. Per Section 12.2.4, structural members common to different framing systems must be designed using the detailing requirements of the system with the highest R factor. In this example, structural members that are “common” to both systems shown in the figure include the concrete colurnn/pilaster members and their supporting foundations. The system with the higher R value is the steel SMRF. To comply with the requirements of Section 12.2.4, the design axial seismic load on the concrete columns must comply with the same loading requirements for the columns of the steel SMRF, Per AISC 341, columns of a steel SMRF must be designed for amplified seismic loads (combinations including Q, per ASCE 7-10 Section 12.4.3) when axial loads using standard LRFD load combinations exceed a certain threshold. Otherwise, standard LRED load combinations without the overstrength factor are appropriate. ‘Therefore, assuming axial loads are high, the concrete column elements must be designed by using 0 (per the steel SMRF, since itis the system with the higher R value) in the load combinations of ASCE Section 12.4.3. In the Blue Book article, the SEAOC Seismology Committee recommends performing a capacity-based design of the upper structure to determine the maximum loads that can be delivered to the wall below, rather than simply using the load combinations with overstrength, Assuming plastic hinging oceurs in the center of the RBS cut at each end of each beam in the given SMRF system, the resulting capacity-based design seismic axial load can be deterinined: For W30 x 108: Z = 346 in? At RBS with a=7 inches, b= 20 inches and c = 2.25 inches, Z,= 247 in’, for ASTM A992, R, = 1.1 and F,= 50 ksi y= (F, + P.MOR,) < 1.2; therefore, C,, = 1.15 for ASTM A992 My, = CRF Zp = (1-15)(1-1)(90 kia L. (distance between center of RBS cuts) = 15623 kip-in 28 ft — (2)(7 in + 7 in + 20 in/2)/12 = 24 fe Pray = 2MylL’ (2)(15623W[(12)(24.0)] = 108.5 kips With (wo stories, the sei Kips. nic axial force, P,, for design of the concrete pilaster is (2)(108.5 kips) = 217 ‘This is to be used as the P,replacing the 0,0, term in the load combinations of ASCE Section 12.4.3.1 26 2016 IBC SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 9 » Combination Framing Detailing Requirements §12.2.4 Per ACI 318 requirements for special reinforced concrete shear walls 3. Amount and Spacing(of Required Canfinement Reinforcing Per ACI 318 requirements for special reinforced concrete shear walls. 4. Seismic Force for the Design of the Connection between the Two Systems ‘The welds, base plate, and anchor rods should be able to develop the maximum load that that the column can deliver to the concrete pilaster below. This will be same axial seismic load, P,, determined above for the pilaster design of 217 kips. Commentary For additional information, refer to SEAOC Blue Book article 4.02.041 "Structural Detailing for Combined Structural Systems" available at hitp://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.htmnl. 2015 IBC SEAOC Siructura/Ssismic Design Manual, Vol 1 27Design Example 10 « Dual Systems §1225.1 Design Example 10° © Dual Systems 1225.1 OVERVIEW ‘This example illustrates the determination of design lateral forces for the two basic elements of a dual system. Section 12.2.5.1 prescribes the following features for a dual system. 1. Resistance to Lateral load is provided by the combination of the moment frames and by shear walls or braced frames. Recall that the moment-resisting frames provided mast be able to resist at least 25 percent of the design forces. 2. The two systems are designed to resist the total design base shear in proportion to their relative rigidities. 3. In present practice, the frame element design loads for a dual system are usually a result of a computer analysis of the combined frame-shear wall system. PROBLEM STATEMENT In this example, the Equivalent Lateral-Force Procedure of Section 12.8 has been used to determine the seismic demand Q, at point A in the dual system of the building shown in Figure 10-1. This is the beam moment Moy. ‘The following information is given Seismic Design Category D p=10 1,210 Design Base Shear V = 400 kips Qe = Mop = 53.0 kip-ft 28 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismie Design Manuel, Vol. 1Design Example 10 » Dual Systems §12.2.5.1 Shear wall Figure 10-1. From the results of the computer analysis EV shear walls =Vcolumns “Total design base shear 400 kips DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Design criteria for the moment frame system. 2. Seismic design moment at A = M ‘ge. 4. Design Criteria tor the Moment Frame System According to the two listed requirements, the moment frame must be designed for the greater value of either the Qj value due to the design base shear V losding on the combined frame-shear wall system, or the Qf value resulting from at Teast 25 percent of the design forces. This 25 percent requirement may be interpreted in two ways. a Q;, may be found by an equivalent lateral-force analysis of the independent moment frame using 25 percent of the design base shear V. b Q;, may be found by factoring the combined frame-shear wall system Q% value such that Q: corresponds to the action that would occur if the portion of the base shear resisted by the moment frame V, were to be at least equal to 25 percent of the design base shear V. 2018 IBC SEAOC Structura/Selsmic Dosign Manual, Vol. 1 29Design Example 10 » Dual Systems §12.2.5.1 2. Seismic Design Moment at A = Mo, Its elected to use the factored Q, (option b) listed on page 29, because this procedure includes the interaction effects between the frame and the shear wall. From the combined frame-shear wall analysis with forces due to the design base shear V = 400 kips, the portion V,of the base shear resisted by the moment frame is equal to the sum of the first-story frame column shears in the direction of loading, For this example, assume that Vp = BV, = 45 kips, ‘The required values Q! corresponding to a frame base shear resistance equal to 25 percent of Vis given by (Qp) = 0.25(400)O_145 = and the seismic design moment at A is My, = 2.22 (53.0) = 117.8 kip Commentary ‘The use of a dual system has the advantage of providing the structure with an independent vertical Loud- carrying system capable of resisting 25 percent of the design base shear, while at the same time the primary system, either shear wall or braced frame, carries its proportional share of the design base shear. For this configuration, the code permits use of a larger R Value for the primary system than would be permitted without the 25 percent frame system. Design Criterion 1a involving the design of the moment frame independent from the shear wall ot bracing system for 25 percent of the design base shear should be considered for high-rise buildings. The slender configuration of the shear walls or bracing systems can actually load the moment-frame at the upper levels of the combined model, and excessively large moment-frame design actions would result from the use of Design Criterion 1b, where these large actions would be multiplied by 0-25V ‘Dual systems are offen used in structures with the primary lateral-force-resisting system located in a structural core, The moment frames are placed at the perimeter ofthe building 10 counteract torsional effects. Design Criterion 1b should be utilized in order to envelope potential torsional effects. For additional information, refer to SEAOC Blue Book article 4.02.020 "Dual Systems" available at http:/iwww.seaoe.org/ blucbookindex.html, 30 2015 IBC SEACC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vo. 1Design Example 11 « Introduction to Horizanta Iregularlies §12:3.2.1 Design Example 11 Introduction to Horizontal Irregularities grag.24 Horizontal structural irregularities are identified in Table 12.3-1, There are five types of horizontal iregularities: i 12, Torsional Irregularity — to be considered when diaphragms are rigid or semi-rigid (diaphragms not deemed flexible per Section 12.3.1.1 or calculated as flexible per Section 12.3.1.3). 1b. Extreme Torsional Irregulatity — to be considered when diaphragms are rigid o semi-rigid (Giaphragms not deemed flexible per Section 12.3.1.1 or calculated as flexible per Section 12.3.1). 2, Re-entrant Corner Irregularity 3. Diaphragm Discontinuity Irregularity. 4. Ou-of-plane Offsets Imegularity. 5. Nonparallel Systems Imegularity. ‘These irregularities can be categorized as being either special response conditions or cases of irregular load path. Types la, 1b, 2, 3, and 5 are special response conditions, ‘pes la and 1b, When the ratio of maximum story drift to average story drift exceeds the given limit, there is the potential for an unbalance in the inelastic deformation demands at the two extreme sides of a story. ‘Asa consequence, the equivalent stiffness of the side having maximum deformation will be reduced, and the eccentricity between the centers of mass and rigidity will be increased along with the corresponding torsions. An amplification factor A, is to be applied to the accidental torsion M,, to represent the effects of this unbalanced stiffness as required in Section 12.8.4.3. Type 2. The response of plan projections adjacent to re-entrant corners ("flapping" behavior acting fo open and close the angle of the re-entrant comer) can result in concentrated forces at the comer point. Elements ‘must be provided to transfer these forces into the diaphragms. Type 3. Excessive openings in a diaphragm can result in a flexible diaphragm response along with force concentrations and load path deficiencies at the boundaries of the openings. Elements must be provided to transfer the forces into the diaphragm and the structural system. ‘Type 4. The out-of-plane offset irregularity represents a discontinuity in the load path. Shears and overturning moments must be transferred from the level above the offset to the level below, and there is a horizontal offset in the load path for the shears, ‘Type 5. Systems with nonparallel lateral-force-resisting elements require special consideration to determine appropriate design forces for elements. 2016 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismie Design Manual, Vol? 31Design Example 12 « Horizontal iegulanty Type 1a and Type 1b $12.32.1 Design Example 12 One Horizontal Irregularity Type 1a and Type 1b §12.3.2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT A three-story special moment-resisting frame building has rigid floor diaphragms. Under code-preseribed seismic forces, including the effects of accidental torsion, it has the following elastic displacements 6, at Levels 1 and 2: 8x2 120in dg) = 1.90in is =1.00in dg = 1.20in, Lev 3 a 7 Lave? ‘Te? Levelt Figure 12-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Ifa Type 1a or Type 1b torsional irregularity exists at the second story. Ifit does: 2. The torsional amplification factor A, for Level 2, 32 2015 IBC SEAOC StructuravSeismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 12 « Horizontal Iregulanty Type 1a and Type 1b §12.3.21. A Type 1a torsional irregularity is considered to exist when the maximum story drift, including accidental torsion effects, at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of the two ends of the structure (see Section 12.8.6 for story drift determination). Referring to the above figure showing the displacements ,, due to the prescribed lateral forces, this irregularity check is defined in terms of story drift A, = (6,4, ,) at ends R (right) and Z. (left) of the structure, Torsional inegularity exists at Level x when T1234 L2(Ae ct Ay 2 Agu? LOB) = Determining story drifts at Level 2 Aya = 1.20 - 1.00 = 0.20 in .90 = 1.20 = 170 in 020500 _ 9.45 in 70... (Aga). 155>12 <. Torsional irregularity exists ~ Type La Check for extreme torsional irregularity Sour ® LAA) 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural Salsmic Design Manual, Vol 1 33Design Example 12 = Horizontal regulary Type 1a and Type tb §12.9.2.1 on = 1,55... thus, extreme torsion irregularity exists ~ Type Ib. 2. Compute Amplification Factor A, for Level 2 ‘When torsional irregularity exists at a Level x, the accidental torsional moment M,, must be increased by an amplification factor A,. This must be done for each level, and each level may have a different A, value. In this example, 4, is computed for Level 2. Note that A, is 4 function of the displacements, not the story drift. (3 ui 28.) Eq 128-14 1.90in... @gs) Ay (#25) = 104 > 1.0...Note A, shall not be less than 1.0, ‘Therefore, use A, = 1.04. Commentary In Section 12.8.4.3, there is the provision that the more severe loading shall be considered. The interpretation of this for the case of the story drift and displacements to be used for the average values Ay, anid 3 i8 as follows, ‘The most severe condition is when both 3, and d, ; are computed for the same accidental center-of-mass displacement that causes the maximum displacement 6,.,- For the condition shown in this example where bg = Spa» the centers of mass at all levels should be displaced by the accidental eccentricity to the right side R, and both dg and d, y should be evaluated for this load condition. Table 12.3-1 triggers a number of special design requirements for torsionally imegular structures. In fact, if irregularity Type 1b (Extreme Torsional Irregularity) is present, Section 12.3.3.1 is triggered, which prohibits such structures for SDC E or F. [tis important to recognize that torsional irregularity is defined in terms of story drift A,, while the evaluation of A, by Equation 12.8-14 is, in terms of displacements, d,,. ‘There can be instances where the story-drift values indicate torsional itegularity and where the related displacement values produce an A, value less than 1.0. This result is not the intent of the provision, and the value of 4, used to determine accidental torsion should not be less than 1.0. ‘The displacement and story-drift values should be obtained by the equivalent lateral-force method with the code-prescribed lateral forces. Theoretically, ifthe dynamic analysis procedure were to be used, the values Of Ayr and A,,, Would have to be found for each dynamic mode, then combined by the appropriate SRSS or CQC procedures, and then scaled to the code-prescribed base shear. However, in view of the complexity of 34 2015 180 SEAOC StructuralSelsmic Design Manual, Vol 1Design Example 12 « Horizontal Iregulanty Type 1a and Type tb §12.3.2.1 this determination and the judgmental nature of the 1,2 factor, itis reasoned that the equivalent static force method is sufficiently accurate to detect torsional irregularity and evaluate the A, factor. If the dynamic analysis procedure is either elected or required, then Section 12,7.3 requires the use of a three-dimensional model if there are any irregularities. For cases of large eccentricity and low torsional rigidity, the static force procedure can result ina negative displacement on one side and a positive on the other. Fot exaraple, this occurs if},,, = —0.40 in. and 5,5 = 1,80 in, The value of 8,,, in Equation 12.8-14 should be calculated as the algebraic average. Sn= Sis7 Bey _ (40) 4180 _ 140 _ yagi 7 2 2 2 ‘When modal analysis is used, the algebraic average value J... should be found for each mode, and the individual modal results must be properly combined to determine the total response value for Boye Alternatively, static analysis may be used to compute the effects of accidental torsion, including amplification. The results may be added to those from modal analysis. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selemic Design Manual, Vol. 1 35Design Example 18 « Horizontal iregulanty ype 2 §12.82.1 Design Example 13 Horizontal Irregularity Type 2 §12.3.2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ‘The plan configuration of a 10-story special moment frame building is as shown below. arse @Q- 3@20=60" OQ- Figure 13-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Ifa Type 2 re-entrant comer itregularity exists. 1. Determine If a Type 2 Re-entrant Corner Irregularity Exists §12.3.2.1 ‘A Type 2 re-entrant comer irregularity exists when the plan configuration of a structure and its Iateral- force-resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both projections of the structure beyond a re-entrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the direction considered (see Table 12.3-1). ‘The plan configuration of this building and its lateral-force resisting system has re-entrant comer dimmensions as shown, For the sides on line I, the projection beyond the re-entrant corner is 100 ft ~75 ft = 25 ft 36 2015 1BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 13 = Horizontal regularity Type 2 §12.9.2.1 2 This is oS ‘or 25 percent of the 100-ft plan dimension ... More than 15 percent For the sides on line B, the projection is i 60 ft — 40 ft = 20 This is 2 or 33.3 percent of the 60-foot plan dimension ... More than 15 percent. Since both projections exceed 15 percent, there is a re-entrant comer irregularity. ‘Therefore, a re-entrant comer irregularity exists. Commentary. 5 : Whenever the Type 2 re-entrant corner irregularity exists, see additional diaphragm design requirements in Section 12.3.3.4 for SDC D, B, and F. If only one of the projections exceeds the 15 percent threshold, then the irregularity would not exist. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura’Sslsmic Design Manual, Vol 37Design Example 14 = Horizontal iregularty Type 3 §12.9.2.1 Design Example 14 : Horizontal irregularity Type 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AA five-story conerete building has a bearing wall system located around the perimeter of the building. Lateral forces are resisted by the bearing walls acting as shear walls. The floor plan of the second floor of the building is shown in Figure 14-1. The symmetrically placed open area in the diaphragm is for an atrium and has dimensions of 40 feet by 75 feet. All diaphragms above the second floor are without significant openings. O— FE ® a i Second-floor plan Figure 14-1, DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Ifa'Type 3 diaphragin discontinuity irregularity exists atthe second-floor level. 1, Determine If a Type 3 Diaphragm Discontinuity Irregularity: : Exists at the Second-Floor Level §12.3.2.1 A Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity irregularity exists when diaphragms have abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, including cutout or open areas comprising more than 50 percent of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragin, or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the next. ‘The first check is for gross area. Gross enclosed area of the diaphragm is 80 ft x 125 ft = 10,000 sq ft 3B 2015 18C SEAOC Structural’Seismic Design Manual, Vol.1Design Example 14 = Horizontal regularity Type 3 §12.9.2.1 Area of opening is 40 #t x 75 ft = 3000 sq ft ‘50 percent of gross area = 0.5(10,000) = 5000 sq ft 3000 < 5000 sq ft Therefore, no diaphragm discontinuity imegularity exists. ‘The second check is for stiffness. ‘The stiffness of the second-floor diaphragm with its opening must be compared with the stiffness of the solid diaphragm at the third floor. If the change in stiffness exceeds 50 percent, a diaphragm discontinuity iregularity exists for the structure. This comparison can be performed as follows. Find the simple beam mid-span deflections A, and A, for the diaphragms at Levels 2 and 3, respectively, due to a common distributed load w such as 1 kif. w= tet A wetke Figure 14-2. IFA, > 1.5A,, there is diaphragm discontinuity imegularity 2015 IBC SEAOC Siructural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 39Design Example 15 = Horizontal regularly ype 4 §123.2.1 Design Example 15 Horizontal Irregularity Type 4 2.3.2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT A four-story building has a concrete shear wall lateral-force-resisting system in a building frame system configuration. The plan configuration of the shear walls is shown in Figure 15-1. P PF Q- O- 0 w ‘Typleal floor plan a te ey Ground (first) floor plan Ed 2e8 Figure 15-1 40 2015 18C SEAOC StructuraY'Selsmic Design Manual, Vol.1Design Example 15 » Horizontal Iregulanty Type 4 §12.3.2.1 DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, Ifa Type 4 out-of-plane offset irregularity exists between the first and second stories, 1, Determine If aType Qut-of-plane Offset Ire lal Exists betwee the iat te Second Movies " om 9123.24 ‘An out-of-plane oftet plan iregularity exists when there are discontinities ina lateal-force path. An ‘example would be out-of-plane offsets of vertical lateral-force-resisting elements such as shear walls. The fitst-story sheat wall on line D has a 25-foot out-of-plane offset to the shear wall on line B at the second story and above. This constitutes an out-of-plane offset irregularity, and the referenced sections in Table 12.3-1 apply to the design. Therefore, an offset irregularity exists 2015 IBC SEAOC Siructural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol. 1 41Design Example 16 = Horizontal trequiany Type 5 §12.82.1 Design Example’ 16 Horizontal Irregularity Type 5 ~§12.3.2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT A 10-story building has the floor plan shown in Figure 16-1 atall levels. Special moment-resisting frames are located on the perimeter of the building on lines 1, 4, A, and F. PPLT 75) PERT Typical floor pl Figure 16-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Ifa ‘Type 5 nonparatlel system imegularity exists, 4.Determine If a Type 5 Nonparallel System Irregularity Exists §12.3.2.1 A Type 5 nonparallel system irregularity is considered to exist when the vertical lateral-force-resisting ‘elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the building’s lateral-force- resisting system, ‘The vertical lateral-force-resisting frame elements located on line F are not paraliel to the major orthogonal axes of the building (., lines 4 and A). Therefore a nonparallel system irregularity exists, and the. referenced section in Table 12.3-1 applies to the design. See Section 12.5.3, Section 12.7.3, and Table 12.6- 1.A three-dimensional dynamic analysis is recommended. 42 2015 1BC SEAOG StructuralSeismic Design Manual, Vol.1Design Example 17 = Introduction to Vertical regularities §12,9.2.2 Design Example 17 3 Introduction to Vertical Irregularities > §12.3.2.2 ‘Table 12.3-2 defines vertical structural irregularities and assigns analysis and design procedures to each type and Seismic Design Category; ‘These irregularities can be divided into two categories. The first, dynamic force-cistribution irregularities, which are Types 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. The second, irregularities in load path or force transfer, which are Types 4, 5a, and 5b. The vertical itregularities are Ja, Stiffness —Soft Story Inegutarity 1b. Stiffness —Extreme Soft Story Imegularity 2. Weight (mass) Inregularity 3. Vertical Geometric Irregularity 4, Incplane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral-force-resisting Element Sa. Discontinuity in Lateral Stength—Weak Story Irregularity 5b. Discontinuity in Lateral Strength—Extreme Weak Story Irregularity. Structures in Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F possessing dynamic force distribution irregularities shall be analyzed using the Model Response Spectrum Analysis procedure in Section 12.9 (refer to Table 12.6-1). The vertical force distribution provided by Section 12.8.3 may be assumed to be adequate for structures lacking vertical irregularity Types 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. However, stiffness and mass discontinuities ray significantly affect the vertical distribution of forces and, for this reason, the modal analysis procedure, ‘which can account for these discontinuities, is necessary. Although designers may opt to use the dynamic analysis procedure and bypass checks for irtegularity Types 1a, 1b, 2, and 3, the reference sections listed in Table 12.3-2 should still be checked for limitations and design requirements. Note that Section 12.3.3.1 prohibits structures with vertical irregularity Types 1b, 5a, ot 5b for Seismic Design Categories E and F as well as structures with vertical iregualrity Type 5b in SDC D. Regular structures are assumed to have a reasonably uniform distribution of inelastic behavior in elements throughout the lateral-force-resisting system. When vertical irregularity Types 4, 5a, or Sb exist, there is the possibility of having localized concentrations of excessive inelastic deformations due to the irregular load path or weak story. In this case, the code prescribes additional strengthening to correct the deficiencies for strictures in certain seismic design categories (SDCs). In the case of vertical imegularity Type 5b, limits are placed on the building height for all SDCs except SDC A. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 43Design Example 18 Vertical ireguianty Type 1a and Type tb $129.22 Design Example 18: 8 OE Sea! Vertical Irreguiarity Type 1a‘and Type 1b 1 §12.8.2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT A Seismic Design Category D five-story concrete special moment-resisting frame is shown in ‘The Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (Section 12.8) was used to determine the lateral forces F, from Equation 12.8-11. The forces have been applied and the corresponding floor level displacements 6, at the floors’ centers-of-mass have been determined as shown below. ° a i 0 | Pay o we Figure 18-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, fa Type La or Type Ib vertical irregularity exists in the first story. 4 ,betermine if aType ta or Type 1b Vertical. regularity Exists, In nie 28. 2 ‘There are two tests for each kind of soft-story irregularity (values in parenthesis are for Type 1b): 1. The lateral story stiffness is less than 70 percent of that of the story above for Type 1a (less than 60 percent for Type 1b) 2. ‘The lateral story stiffness is less than 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three stories above for Type 1a (less than 70 percent for Type 1b). 44 2015 /BC SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual, Vol.Design Example 18 « Vertical hregulatty Type ta and Type 16 $123.22 If the stiffness of the story meets at least one of the two criteria above, the structure is deemed to have a soft story, and Modal Response Spectrum Analysis is required by Table 12.6-1. ‘The definition of soft story in the code compares values of the lateral stifiness of individual stories. Generally, it is not practical to use stiffness properties unless these can be easily determined. There are ‘many structural configurations where the evaluation of story stiffness is complex and is often not an available output from computer programs. Recognizing that the basic intent of this irregularity check is to determine if the lateral-force distribution will differ significantly from the pattern prescribed by Section 12.8.3, which assumes a prescribed shape for the first dynamic mode of response, this type of irregularity can also be determined by comparing values of drift ratios due to the prescribed lateral forces. This deformation comparison may even be more effective than the stiffitess comparison because the shape of the first mode is often closely approximated by the structure displacements due to the specified Section 12.8.3 force pattern. Floor level displacements and corresponding story-drift ratios are directly available from computer programs. To compare displacements rather than stiffness, itis necessary to use the reciprocal of the limiting percentage ratios of 70 and 80 percent as they apply to story stiffness, or reverse their applicability to the story or stories above. The following example shows this equivalent use of the displacement properties. From the given displacements, story drifts and story-drift ratios are determined. The story- 0.00308... aot OK. ‘Therefore, a soft story exists Note that 70 percent of the first-story drift is larger than the second story drift. Alternately: 0.00493 > (0,00308/0.7 = 0.004) Also note that structural irregulacities of Types 1a, 1b, or2 in Table 12.3-2 do not apply where no story-drift ratio under design lateral force is greater than 130 percent of the story-drift ratio of the next story above. See Section 12.3.2.2, Exception 1 0.00493, 0.00308 60... . not OK. Checking the 80 percent requirement: (3) 0. 80[, a) = 0.80(0.00493) = 0,00394 > 0.00289. . . not OK. Therefore, 2 soft story exists with condition La, Alternately: 0.00493 > (0.00289/0.8 = 0.00361). Therefore, a soft story exits. Check for extreme soft story (Vertical Structural Inegularity, Type 1) Checking the 60 percent requirement: 0.60(0.00493) = 0.002958 < 0,00308 ... OK. Alternately: 0.00493 < (0,00308/0, 0.00514)... OK. Checking the 70 percent requirement: 0.70 (0.00493) = 0.003451 > 0.00289 . .. not OK. Alternately: 0.00493 > (0,00289/0,7 = 0.00413)... . not OK. ‘Thus, due to stiffness, an extreme soft story exists with condition 1b. Recall from Table 12.3-2 for ‘Type 1b, extreme soft story, reference Section 12.3.3.1. This building is SDC D and is permitted. Structures having SDC E or F and also having vertical irregularity ‘Type 1b shall not be permitted. For this structure, Table 12,6-1 must be checked to determine the permitted analytical procedures. 46 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 18 « Vertical iregulerty Type 1a and Type 1b §123.2.2 Structures with Type Ia or Type Ib vertical irregularity may require Modal Response Spectrum Analysis per Table 12,6-1. Additionally, structures with Type 1b are not permitted in SDC B and F. If a modal analysis is to be performed and if the structure is not in SDCE ot F, the structure does not need to be checked for either the Type 1a or Type Ib irregularity. The limitation regarding the Type Ib irregularity not being allowed in SDC E and F is the primary difference between the impact of a Type 1a irregularity versus a Type Ib irregularity. Section 12.8.6 requites that story drifts be computed using the maximum inelastic response displacements 4, which include the deflection amplification factor C, Cb, ; Bq 12.8-15 However, for the purpose of the story drift, or story-drift ratio, comparisons needed for soft-story determination, the displacement 6,, due to the design seismic forces can be used as in this example. In the ‘example above, only the first story was checked for possible soft-story vertical imegularity. In practice, all stories must be checked, unless a modal analysis is performed. Its often convenient to create tables to facilitate this exercise, see Tables 18-1 and 18-2 Using the story-drift ratios ( 150 kips ‘Therefore, a weight irregularity exists. 48 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Salsmio Design Manuel, Vol.1Design Example 19 » Vertical irogulanty Type 2 §12.3.2.2 At Level 3 1.5W, = 1.5(110 kips) = 165 kips W, = 170 kips > 165 kips ‘Therefore, a weight irregularity exists. Inthis example, the weight irregularity exists twice: once between the first and second levels, and again between the second and third levels. Either one of these alone would have been enough to trigger the Type 2 irregularity, Commentary. As in the case of vertical irregularity Type Ia or Ib, this Type 2 irregularity also results in a primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape and lateral load distribution given by Section 12.8.3. Consequently, the appropriate load distribution must be determined by the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis procedure of Section 12.9, when required by Table 12.6-1 Another common potential occurrence of this iregularity would be a multistory building where the plan area decreases in an adjacent story due to large floot openings or a building setback. In such a case, a Type 2 irregularity may exist even if the floor use is the same. Exceptions | and/or 2 in Section 12.3.2.2 may apply in this case and should be considered. 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manu, Vol 1 49Design Example 20 « Vertical regularly Type 8 $123.22 Design Example 20 : PE Vertical irregularity Type 3 A §12.3.2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ‘The lateral-force-resisting system of the five-story special moment frame building shown below has a 25-foot setback at the third, fourth, and fifth stories. Level 5 ‘ 3 2 , | | 1 ma sos H HF l yk Figure 20-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Ifa Type 3 vertical irregularity (vertical geometric irregularity) exists. 1, Determine If a Type 3 Vertical Irregularity Exists. $1 2.3.2.2 A vertical geometric imegulatity is considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral-force- resisting system in any story is more than 130 percent of that in the adjacent story. 50 2015 1BC SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manual, Vo. 1Design Example 20 » Vertical Iregularity Typo 3 $123.22 In this example, the setback of Level 3 must be checked. The ratios of the two levels are Width ofLevel2 _ (00) _ | 55 Width of Level3 ~ (75 R) 133 percent > 130 percent Therefore, a vertical geometric irregularity exists ‘More than 2 30 percent change in width of the lateral-force-resisting system between adjacent stories could result in a primary mode shape that is substantially different from the shape assumed for proper applications of Equation 12.8-11. If the change is a decrease in width of the upper adjacent story (as is typical, and the cease here), the mode shape difference can be mitigated by designing for an increased stiffness in the story with a reduced width, or by performing modal response spectrum analysis to determine forces. Similarly, ifthe width decrease is in the lower adjacent story (the unusual situation), the Type Ia soft-story irregularity can be avoided by a proportional increase in the stiffness of the lower story. However, when the width decrease is in the lower story, there could be an overturning moment-load-transfer discontinuity that ‘would require a dynamic analysis in accordance with Table 12.6-1. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1 1Design Example 21 « Vertical Iegularty Type 4 §12.9.2.2 Design Example 21 ae Ra Vertical Irregularity Type 4 §12.3.2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT A concrete building has the building frame system shown in Figure 21-1. The shear wall between lines A and B has an in-plane offset from the shear wall between lines C and D, ‘Shear wat Shear wall Figure 21-1, DETERMINE THE FOLLOWIN 1, Ifa Type 4 vertical iregutaity (in-plane discontinuity) exists 1, Determine It a Type 4 Vertical Irregularity Exists g12322 A Type 4 vertical irregularity exists when there is an in-plane offset of the lateral-force-resisting elements resulting in overturning demands on a supporting beam, column, truss, or slab. In this example, the left side of the upper shear wall (between lines A and B) is offset from the left side of the lower shear wall (between lines C and D). Overtumning demands are imposed on the supporting columns. Therefore, in-plane discontinuity exists. 52 2016 IBC SEAOC Structural Selomie Design Marl, Vo. 1Design Example 21 w Vertical iregularty Type 4 §12.3.22 Cominentary eae Note: The definition of this irregularity changed between ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10, ‘The intent of this irregularity check is to provide correction of force transfer or load-path deficiencies. Any in-plane offset can result in an overturning moment-load-transfer discontinuity that requires the application of Section 12.3.3.3, When the offset exceeds the length of the resisting element, there is also 4 shear transfer discontinuity that requites the application of Section 12.3.3.4 for the strength of collector elements along the offset. In this example, the columns under wall A-B are subject to the provisions of Section 12.3.3.3, and the collector element between lines A and D at Level 2 is subject to the provisions of Section 12.3.3.4 2015 IBC SEAOG Structural/Soismic Design Manusl, Vol. 1 53Design Example 22 » Vertical Iregularty Type Sa/Sb— Concrete Wall $12.3.2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ‘A.concrete bearing-wall building has the shear wall configuration shown in Figure 22-1. All walls in this direction are identical, and the individual piers have the shear contribution given below. ¥,, is the nominal shear strength calculated in accordance with ACI 318, PIER Vn 1 2Okips 2 3 3 0 4 8 50 Figure 22-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. If a’Type Sa or ‘Type Sb vertical irregularity (discontinuity in lateral strength—weak-story) exists, ( Daterming Ifo Type a oF Type Sb Vertical ineguiarity Exists gig.d.b2 A Type Sa weak-story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is Tess than 80 percent of that in the story above. The story strength isthe total strength of all seismic-force-resisting elements sharing the story shear for the direction under consideration. Since all the walls in this direction are identical, itis adequate to perform this analysis on just one of the walls. Using the values of ¥, given for each pier, the story strengths are First-story strength = 20 + 30 + 10 = 60 kips 54 2015 18C SEAOC Structural Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 22 » Vertical Imegularty Type S@/Sb— Concrete Wall $12.3.2.2 Seoond-story strength = 80 + 10 = 90 kips Check if frst-story strength is less than 80 percent of that of the second story. 60 kips < 0.8(90) = 72 kips ‘Therefore, a weak story condition exists. Check if first-story strength is less than 65 percent of that of the second story (irregularity Type 5b). 60 kips < 0.65(90 kips) = 58.5 kips 60 kips > 58.5 kips ‘Therefore, the lower story is not an extreme weak story, irregularity Type 5b, but is a vertical irregularity Type Sa_weak story. Commentary” ‘This irregularity check is to detect any concentration of inelastic behavior in one supporting story that can lead to the loss of vertical load capacity. Elements subject to this check are the shear wall piers (where the shear contribution is the lower of either the shear at development of the flexural strength, or the shear strength), bracing members and their connections, and frame columns. Frame columns with weak column-strong beam conditions have a shear contribution equal to that developed when the top and bottom of the coluran are at flexural capacity, Where there is a strong column- ‘weak beam condition, the column shear resistance contribution should be the shear corresponding to the development of the adjoining beam yield hinges and the column base connection capacity. In any case, the column shear contribution shall not exceed the column shear capacity. Anextreme weak story is prohibited (ander Section 12.3.3.2) for structures more than two stories or 30, feet in height unless the weak story is capable of resisting a total seismic force equal to Q, times the design force prescribed in Section 12.8. Per Section 12,3.3.1, either weak-story condition is prohibited in SDC E ‘and F. Vertical irregularity Type 5b is not permitied in structures assigned to SDC D. It is assumed in this example that shear governs the strength of the wall and the system. Ifthe walls had ataller aspect ratio and the walls became flexurally governed, then the walls’ moment strengths should be used for checking this irregularity. In this case, both the 1.2D and 0.9D axial load cases should be considered, In this example, the weak story could be mitigated by providing additional shear reinforcing in the first floor walls so long as the upper bound strength limits in ACI are not reached 2018 18C SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuel, Vol 1 5BDesign Example 23 « Vertical regulary Type Sa/Sb- Stoo! Moment Frame $12.32.2 Design Example’23. ‘Vertical irregularity Type 5a/5b — - Steel Moment Frame §12.3.2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT A five-story building has a steel special moment-resisting frame (SMRF). The frame consists of W24 beams and W14 columns with the following member strength properties. Beam and column nominal capacities at Levels 1 and 2: 50 kip-ft M,= 200 kip-ft Column base connections at grade (based on grade-beam strength): Myog = 100 kip-ft Assume for the purposes of illustration only, that the columns have been designed such that a strong beam- ‘weak column condition is permitted 2 PO Figure 23-1. 56 2015 /BC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol 1Design Example 23 » Verical ireguianty Type Sa/Sb — Steel Moment Frame §12.9.22 DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1, First-story lateral strength, 2. Second:-story lateral strength. 3. If a’Type Sa or Type Sb vertical irregularity (weak story) exists at the first story. Discussion ‘A Type 5 weak-story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is less than 80 percent of that of the story above (where itis less than 65 percent, an extreme weak story exists). The story strength is considered to be the total strength of all seismic-force-resisting elements that share the story shear for the direction under consideration ‘To determine if a weak story exists in the first story, the sums of the column shears in the fist and second stories—when the member moment capacities are developed by lateral loading—must be determined and compared. In this example, itis assumed that the beam moments at a beatn-column joint are distributed equally to the sections of the columns directly above and below the joint. Given below are the calculations for first and second stories 1. Determine First-story Lateral Strength Columns A and D must be checked for strong column-weak beam considerations 2M, = 400 > M, = 250 ‘Therefore, a strong column-weak beam condition exists. ‘Next, the shear in each column must be determined, Because the beam yields first, the moment capacity ‘of beamn (250/2) governs over moment capacity of column (200) to determine shear. Clear height = 14 ft—2 ft = 12 ft ON a actasua ol Vy = Vp = 1254100 = 18.75 ki ‘0 Ss ips as v FOR SHEAR: < Mog ® 100 kip-* 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol.1 57Design Example 23 = Vertical Inegularty Type 5a/5b — Steel Moment Frame §12.3.2.2 Checking columns B and C for strong column-wealk oem beam considerations 2M, = 400 < 2M, = 500 “—- 250 ‘Therefore, a strong beam-weak column condition exists. 200—~ FOR MOMENT 20 220 ( ) 200 20 Next, the shear in each column must be determined. Because the column yields first, the moment capacity a of column governs over moment capacity of beam to determine shear, 10 Clear height = 14-2 = 12 (00k FOR SHEAR, Mesa 200+100 Vy=Vo = 25.0 kips Firststory strength = V, + Vy + Vo + Vp = 2(18.75) + 2(25.0) = 87.5 kips 2. Determine Second-story Lateral Strength Columns A and D must be checked for strong column-weak beam at Level 2. 2M, = 400 > M, = 250 A FOR MOMENT ‘Therefore, a strong column-weak beam condition exists. by 250 Y —_ Vv Myi2=125kipft Clear height = 12-28 = 10ft FOR SHEAR 1254124 10 My/2= 125 kipft Ty [y= JB BC 58 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol 1Design Example 23 « Vertical regularity Type 5a/Sb— Steel Moment Frame $123.22 ‘Checking columns B and C for strong column-weak beam considerations 20, 2M, = 400 < 2M, = 500 0 ‘Therefore, a strong beam-weak column condition exists. ad oN FOR MOMENT (Me = 200 kipt ‘Clear heigh 12 ft~2ft= 10 ft Vg = 200200 = so ips _ 10 7 FOR SHEAR 7 Mc 200 Kp wb Second-story strength fa + Ve + Vet Vp + 2025.0) + 240.0) = 130.0 kips Brrennine If a Type 5a or Type 5b Vertical irregularity Exists at the rst: ry. a ae First-story strength = 87.5 kips ‘Second-story strength = 130.0 kips 87.5/130.0 = 0.67 < 0.8 T1232, item Sa ‘Therefore, a weak story condition in first story exists. The ratio is not below 0.65; therefore, this, does not constitute an extreme weak-story irregularity. Per section 12.3.3.1, this irregularity is prohibited in SDC E and SDC F, and measures must be taken to mitigate the issue. 2015 IBC SEAOC Structura/Seismic Design Manual, Vol 1 58Design Example 24 « Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls or Frames §12.339 OVERVIEW This example demonstrates the loading criteria and detailing required for elements supporting discontinued or offset elements of a seismic-force-resisting system, PROBLEM STATEMENT A reinforced concrete building has the lateral-force-resisting system shown below. Shear walls atthe first- floor level are discontinuous between lines A and B and lines C and D. ‘The following information is given, Seismic Design Category D Sos = 110 ‘Special reinforced concrete shear wall (SRCSW) building frame system: R=6andQ, =25 T1221 Office building live load: use factor of 0.5 on L §12.4.2.3 Axial loads on column D = 40kips 20 kips Qp = +100 kips 60 2016 180 SEAOC StructuralSeismic Design Manuel, Vo. 1Design Example 24 = Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls or Frames §12.3.9.3. axed = 4000 pi Figure 24-1. DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Applicable load combinations and required strength for column C. 1 Applicable Load Combinations and Required Strength for Column © Because of the discontinuous configuration of the shear wall atthe first story, the first story columns ‘on lines A and D must support the wall elements above this level. Column C on line D is treated in this ‘example. Because of symmetry, the column on line A would have identical requirements. Section 12.3,3.3 requires that the coluran shall have a design strength to resist special seismic load combinations of Section 12.4.3 1.2 +0.28ps)D + Q0_+0.5L $12.4.3.2 (Comb. 5) (0.9 -0.25p,)D + Q0y $12.4.3.2 (Comb. 7) 2018 IBC SEAOC Structural’Seismic Design Manual, Vol.1 61Design Example 24 » Elements Supporting Discontiouous Walls or Frames $123.33 where ‘Thus, 1.2 +0.2(1.10)) (40) + 2.5(100) + 0.5(20) = 317 kips (compression) and = (0.9 - 0.2(1.10)) (40) + 2.5(-100) = -223 kips (tension). Commentary Itis worth noting that for this configuration and others shown below, in addition to the requirements for the design of elements supporting the discontinuous system, special attention should be given at the level of the discontinuity to the design of collectors in accordance with Section 12.10.2, ‘The load requirements of Section 12.3.3.3 and related sections of the relevant materials chapters apply to the following vertical irregularities and elements. 1. Discontinuous shear wall. The wall shown has a Type 4 vertical structural irregularity, Note that only the noted column needs to resist the special load combinations since it supports the shear wall. Figure 24-2, 62 2015 180 SEAOC StructuravSeismic Design Manual, Vol. 1Design Example 24 « Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls ar Frames §12.3.3.3. 2. Discontinuous column, This frame has a Type 4 vertical structural imegularity. The transfer girder requires the special load combinations as it supports a discontinuous system and also serves as a collector. Furthermore, the portion of the load from the transfer girder being applied to the supporting columns would also require the special load combinations. Figure 24-3, 3. Outof-plane offset, The wall on Line A at the first story is discontinuous. This structure has a Type 4 plan structural irregularity, and Section 12.3.3.3 applies to the supporting columns. ‘The portion of the diaphragm transferring shear (ie. transfer diaphragm) to the offset wall ‘must be designed in accordance with the requirements of Section 12.3.3.4. Note that according to current code language the transfer diaphragm and the offset shear wall are subject to the p factor, but not to the special load combinations. However, the SEAOC Seismology Committee suggests the engineer apply the special load combinations to the transfer diaphragm when the performance of the diaphragm is critical to the performance of the primary LFRS. Figure 244. For any of the supporting columns shown in Figures 24-1 through 24-4, the load demand 9,0, of Section 1.4.3.2 Equations 5 and 7 need not exceed the maximum force that can develop in the element from a ‘capacity-based analysis of the lateral-force-resisting system (see the exception to Section 12,4.3.1). 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Selsmic Design Manual, Vol 63