Behavior of Structural Systems For Buildings

CEE 285 BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
FOR BUILDINGS
DESIGN PROJECT
Professor H. Krawinkler
Stanford University
Submitted: March 22, 2!
"eam Members:
#immy $han
%s&hica $hhabra
#ennifer Moore
#ana "etikova
'ick (ann
CEE 285 BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
FOR BUILDINGS
DESIGN PROJECT
Professor H. Krawinkler
Stanford University
"eam Members:
#immy $han
%s&hica $hhabra
#ennifer Moore
#ana "etikova
'ick (ann
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2
Table of Co!e!"
P%)" *'+: S,S"+M %SS+SSM+'"..............................................................................-
.. /ntroduction................................................................................................................-
... Pro0ect Pro&osal.....................................................................................................-
..2 /ndividual )oles.....................................................................................................-
2. 1oad 2etermination ..................................................................................................3
2.. 4ravity...................................................................................................................3
2.2 1ateral .................................................................................................................2
5. Structural 2esi6n.....................................................................................................2-
5.. 4ravity System.....................................................................................................2-
5.2 Perimeter Moment 7rames ..................................................................................5
5.5 Shear (all 2esi6n...............................................................................................58
5.- $onnections..........................................................................................................-.
5.8 7oundation...........................................................................................................-9
-. +"%:S Modelin6 ; %nalysis and 2iscussion..........................................................8.
-.. Model 2iscussion.................................................................................................8.
-.2. Shear (all;7rame /nteraction.............................................................................82
-.5 +"%:S Model and 7rame; Shear (all /nteraction $om&arison........................85
8. $onclusions..............................................................................................................88
P%)" "(*: %PP+'2/< ; 2+S/4' $%1$U1%"/*'S................................................8!
%&&endi= % > 1oad 2etermination ...............................................................................8!
%&&endi= : > 4ravity System 2esi6n...........................................................................8!
%&&endi= $ > SM)7 2esi6n.........................................................................................8!
%&&endi= 2 > Shear (all 2esi6n..................................................................................8!
%&&endi= + > $onnection 2etails and $alculations......................................................8!
%&&endi= 7 > %nalysis )esults ?+"%:S and /nteraction@............................................8!
PART ONE: SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Proposal
"o build a . story office buildin6 in Palo %lto accordin6 to .99A U:$ s&ecifications
kee&in6 the followin6 constraints in mind:
Site $onstraints:
Seismic 1oads: the buildin6 is located at A km from the San %ndreas fault.
Soil &rofile S
2
%rchitectural $onstraints:
$lear Story hei6ht should be at least 3.8 ft.
3 ft = .- ft floor &lan
*ther $onsiderations:
/nsure elastic behavior of structure under stron6 motion earthBuake
$onsider foundation system
1.2 Individual Roles
/ndividual roles were 6iven to each team member:
*wner: #ennifer Moore
%rchitect: 'ick (ann
Structural: #immy $han
Mechanical: #ana "etikova
$ontractor: %sh&ica $hhabra
"he res&onsibilities of each are outlined below. +ach &erson &erformed research in
hisCher own area in order to 6uide the buildin6 system desi6n.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -
#$2$# O%e&
"he owner wanted to have fle=ibility in the use of functional s&aces that can su&&ort the
unknown future demands on the structure as wells as to entice sales of s&aces. S&ecific
areas were chosen and desi6ned for heavier loads in order to meet this fle=ibility
reBuirement. "o increase demand, the owner also reBuested s&ecific &hysical
characteristics such as an atrium on the first floor and a restaurant. $ommercial s&ace on
the first floor was also set as a hard constraint in order to rent to retailers. MinimiDations
of costs were also im&ortant to the owner, who desired to have a cost efficient buildin6
system.
#$2$2 A&'()!e'!
"he architect res&onded to the ownerEs vision of the buildin6 throu6h an innovative and
&ractical e=tension of the atrium to im&rove the overall s&ace. /nstead of havin6 the
atrium at the first floor level, he reversed the seBuence and added a lar6e o&enin6 runnin6
throu6h the buildin6 from the !
th
to .
th
floor. "his lar6e o&en s&ace leads to a reduction
in the functional s&ace of the buildin6, however it allows am&le natural li6ht to enter the
buildin6, creatin6 a livelier atmos&here and increasin6 the &roductivity of its occu&ants.
"he ceilin6s at the first floor were increased to .8 ft in order to increase the 6randeur and
aesthetic a&&eal of the commercial area. "he architect o&ted a6ainst a basement. "he lack
of basement and commercial use of the first floor reBuired that mechanical systems be
&laced on the second floor, increasin6 the 2
nd
floor story hei6ht to .8 ft.
"he architect desi6ned two continuous shear wall cores, one on each side of the o&enin6.
He has also &rovided for a restaurant on the fifth floor level, which &rovides for more
retail s&ace in the buildin6. "his floor was chosen because its central location would be
more accessible to the buildin6 occu&ants, which would ho&efully increase use. %lso, the
restaurantEs location on the 8
th
floor would allow diners to look u& throu6h the o&enin6,
im&rovin6 the Buality of the lunchtime e=&erience. %dditionally, &eo&le at the to& floors
would be able to look down at the decorated restaurant.
#$2$* S!&+'!+&al E,)ee&
"he mechanical and architectural reBuirements &osed as the &rimary structural challen6es
for the structural en6ineer. *wners concerns were addressed throu6h the architect and not
the owner herself.
*ne of the most im&ortant decisions that the structural en6ineers made was the ty&e of
lateral load resistin6 system. "he structural en6ineers decided on a dual system
consistin6 of concrete shears walls and steel s&ecial moment resistin6 frames ?SM)7@ in
both the +( and 'S directions. 2uctile shear walls &rovide e=cellent resistance to hi6h
lateral loads that are &robable in hi6hly seismic re6ions. "o achieve this ductility,
however, s&ecial attention had to be &aid to the detailin6 of the wallsE reinforcement.
%dditionally, the s&ecial moment resistin6 frames ?SM)7@ act as a Fbacku&G system
&rovidin6 necessary redundancy to the system.
S&ecial attention also had to be &aid to key areas for the heavy loads im&osed by the
mechanical system com&onents. "hese areas were strate6ically &laced in locations
a&&roved by the architect, so as not to interfere with the flow of the buildin6, yet &rovide
efficient service throu6hout. *ne of the most notable structural challen6es in the buildin6
has to do with the lar6e o&en core runnin6 down the center of the buildin6. "his
architectural detail &rovided many structural challen6es, be6innin6 with the dia&hra6m
that was assumed to be ri6id in this buildin6 desi6n. (ith a &lan discontinuity such as
this, the en6ineers would have to analyDe the dia&hra6m further to validate the ri6id
dia&hra6m assum&tion. Many other structural decisions had to be made throu6hout the
desi6n &rocess includin6 the use of com&osite beams, shored construction, and
fire&roofin6 around the stairways.
#$2$- MEP
"he structural en6ineers collaborated with the mechanical en6ineers to come u& with a
scheme for the ductwork, which will &rimarily run alon6 the interior corridor deck that
surrounds the o&enin6. *n the .
st
throu6h 8
th
floor, ductwork will run under the floor
beams which are not very dee&. "he mechanical en6ineer s&ecified that two chillers and
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower !
coolin6 towers are reBuired for the buildin6. $hillers and other *ri6ination systems will
be housed in the two mechanical rooms on the second floor ne=t to the cores. $oolers at
the roof are also located ne=t to the cores. 7our elevators are located in the buildin6. "he
shear core is housed around the stairway, allowin6 for most of the vertical &i&es to also
run alon6 the core. "he transformer and 6enerator which account for heavy concentrated
loads will be housed outside the buildin6 and hence do not affect the structural decisions.
"y&ical M+P features and loads can be found in "able 2;2.
#$2$5 Co!&a'!o&
"he &rimary role of the contractor was to &romote efficiency of the structural desi6n.
"his affected decisions on member siDin6, steel member and shear wall connections, and
concrete work. "he more similar the connections and member siDes, the more cost
efficient the desi6n. %lso, connections and members that are readily available in the
market are more desirable. 1abor was also a concern es&ecially related to the installation
of the doubler &lates which was avoided by increasin6 the interior column siDes. "he
contractor &artici&ated in the desi6n &rocess.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower A
2.0 Load Determination
4ravity loads were com&uted based on M+P load reBuirements, ty&ical dead loads, and
live loads based on varyin6 functional uses. (ind and seismic loads were determined to
com&ute total lateral load effects.
2.1 ravit!
Table 2.#$ 2ead 1oad H 1ive 1oads
"oads #s$
Concret+deck+misc. 0.065
Partitions 0.02
DL 0.085

Exterior Cladding 0.02
Roofing system 0.05

Sel$ %ei&'ts #l$
loor !eams 0.05
"irders 0.#
Col$mns 0.2

"ive "oads #s$
%ffices 0.05
Corridors& exits 0.#
ile Rooms 0.#5
Roof 0.02
"he chillers, which may wei6h u& to ., lbs, were &laced on the second floor. "he
coolin6 towers are in 6eneral &laced on the roof for they reBuire a continuous flow of air
and are Buite noisy. Since at the time of conce&tual desi6n no decision was made as to
where e=actly on the roof coolin6 towers would be &laced, four areas of about .8 sBuare
feet where desi6ned to su&&ort loads u& to 5 &sf ?)ef. )oof 1oad Key Sheet@.
/n addition to chillers and coolin6 towers, another im&ortant consideration is the chilled
water loo& and condenser loo& which will &roduce a reaction of about 3, lb. at the
base of the buildin6.
*ther 6eometric constraints arise from &rovidin6 the buildin6 with &lumbin6, storm, and
electrical system. "able 2;2 summariDes the M+P loads and considerations.

Table 2.2. M+P 1oads and $onsiderations
Ca!e,o&/ Rela!e0 Co"!&a)!" Ve&!)'al Loa0
#$ Ele1a!o& "/"!e2
+levators and dumbwaiters ?21 and 11@ accessibility and fire&roofin6 2 =. lb
2$ HVAC S/"!e2
i@ *ri6ination System ; ;
$hillers
area of . ft. = 2 ft.
-?I@ thick raised concrete &ad
.2 ; .8 ft. ceilin6 hei6ht
5 &sf
$oolin6 towers
area of .8 ft. = 2
ft. hei6ht of .8 ft. ; 2 ft.
raised above deck
5 &sf
$ondenser loo& ?2 loo&s needed@ ' 3 lb
$hilled water loo& ?2 loo&s needed@ ; 3 lb
Masonry wall enclosures and
increased slab thickness for &um&s and
com&ressors
; . &sf ; .5 &sf
ii@ 2istribution System
2uctwork ; 8 &sf

*$ Ele'!&)'al S/"!e2
"ransformers concrete encasin6 2 ft. = ! ft. 5 &sf
+mer6ency 4enerator 3 lb

-$ Pl+2b), S/"!e2
"anks and boilers ; ;

5$ F)&e P&o!e'!)o S/"!e2
2istribution lines and s&rinkler heads ; ;
% summary of the 6ravity loads alon6 with the architectural renderin6s of the ty&ical
floor &lans are included herein.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower .
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower ..
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower .2
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower .-
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower .!
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower .A
2.2 "ateral
*nce the 6ravity loads are com&uted and finaliDed the lateral loads can be determined.
"he lateral loads are a&&lied in addition to the 6ravity loads and ty&ically control the siDe
of the members. /n our case, the lateral loads are resisted by a shear wall and moment
resistin6 frame system. (ind loads can be very hi6h in some re6ions such as near the
shoreline of a ma0or body of water, such as the Pacific *cean or the 4ulf of Me=ico.
However, the seismic forces im&osed on our buildin6 were much 6reater than the wind
forces, and therefore controlled the desi6n. *ther forms of lateral load, such as blast
loadin6 or im&act loadin6 are not relevant for the desi6n of an office buildin6 and
therefore were not considered in this &reliminary desi6n.
2$2$# 3)0 Loa0"
"he loads im&osed on the buildin6 were calculated usin6 the U:$ formula 2;.. %
desi6n wind s&eed of 9 m&h and an e=&osure cate6ory : were used in the formulation of
the lateral wind loads. Usin6 the followin6 eBuation as well as "able .!;4 of the U:$,
containin6 values for $
e
, the wind &ressure at each story and at each mid;story was
inter&olated:
& J $
e
($
B
B
s
/ where ($
B
J .3 I .8 J ..5
"hen, as shown in 7i6ure 2;., the values of the wind &ressure, &, are avera6ed at each
interval and this value is then used as the desi6n wind &ressure over the entire half;story.
"he desi6n wind load was then re&resented as a line load over the width of the floor by
multi&lyin6 the wind &ressure of the half;story above and below each floor by their
res&ective half;story hei6hts and summin6.
F),+&e 2.#: 2istribution of the (ind Pressures over the Hei6ht of the :uildin6.
"his line load, ( in kCft, was then multi&lied by the width of the buildin6 to calculate the
total force im&osed on each floor by the wind. "hese story forces were then summed
cumulatively down the buildin6 to arrive at the story shear force. +ach story shear force
was then multi&lied by the story hei6ht and a6ain summed cumulatively down the
buildin6 to determine the overturnin6 moment im&osed by the wind loadin6. "he
calculations are summariDed in A44e0)5 A. %s e=&ected, the 'S wind &roduces hi6her
base shear forces and overturnin6 moments of -23 ki&s and 5.,.-2 ki&;ft, res&ectively.
"his is nearly twice the loads im&osed by an +( wind &roducin6 a base shear of 2-8 ki&s
and an overturnin6 moment .A,98 ki&;ft. However, while these lateral load effects are
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2.
notably lar6e due to the close &ro=imity to the Pacific $oast, they were ultimately
ne6lected in &lace of the even lar6er seismic loads.
2$2$2 Se)"2)' Loa0"
"he seismic loads im&osed on structures in the Palo %lto area are e=&ected to be
si6nificant. "he seismic loads were calculated accordin6 to the U:$ ?.99A@. %s
&rescribed by the code, the total base shear is calculated accordin6 to desi6n &arameters,
such as &ro=imity to an active fault, seismic Done, soil &rofile, ty&e of lateral system,
&eriod and the effective seismic wei6ht of the buildin6. "he seismic wei6ht was
determined in %&&endi= % usin6 many &reliminary assum&tions for material and
mechanical wei6hts. "hese assum&tions were later verified as conservative avera6es.
"he elastic fundamental &eriod of vibration of the structure was determined usin6 code
Method % ?eBuation 5;3@:
" J $
t
?h
n
@
5C-
,
where $
t
J .58 for steel moment;resistin6 frame was used. "hen, the base shear was
calculated usin6 eBuations U:$ ?.99A@ 5;- throu6h 5;A:
W
RT
CvI
V
W
R
CaI 8 . 2
CaW .. .
W
R
ZNvI 3 .
*nce the total base shear was determined, the forces were distributed to each floor. Since
the natural fundamental &eriod was determined to be ..5 sec K .A sec, the whi&lash
force, 7
t
was determined accordin6 to:
7t J .A"LM .28L,
"his force was a&&lied to the roof of the buildin6 to account for the wave reflection
which causes a hi6her inertia force on the to& floor. "he rest of the base shear was then
distributed to the individual floors based on their seismic wei6ht and hei6ht. %s was the
case with the wind loadin6, the seismic shear story forces were summed cumulatively
down the buildin6 to determine the individual story shears and the base shear at the
6round level. "he story shear was then multi&lied by the story hei6ht and cumulatively
summed once more to determine the overturnin6 moment. "he results of these
calculations can be observed in 7i6ure 2;2.
F),+&e 2.26 2istribution of the Seismic 7orces over the Hei6ht of the :uildin6.
%s can be easily seen from the results in the A44e0)5 A, the base shear for the buildin6
is .,53 ki&s and the overturnin6 moment at the 6round floor is 9!,!93 ki&;ft. "hese
results are nearly 5 times the lar6est values obtained from the wind loadin6, thus the wind
loads were i6nored and the seismic loads were used as the controllin6 desi6n lateral
loads. %dditionally, unlike the wind loadin6, the lateral systems in both directions
e=&erience the same loadin6 and thus must both be desi6ned for the same load effects.
3.0 Structural Design
(.1 ravit! S!ste)
*$#$# G&a1)!/ Col+2"
"he 6ravity columns which make u& all of the interior columns were desi6ned for a=ial
load only. "hese columns have beams framin6 into them and have sim&le shear
connections, which are modeled as &ins so that virtually no moment is transferred into the
column. "hus, in order to desi6n the columns we first had to determine the a=ial loads
due to dead and live loads only. "hese loads were based on the tributary area of the
column and 6ravity loads includin6 the column self;wei6ht. "he resultin6 loads are
summariDed in A44e0)5 B.
"he dead and live a=ial loads were summed cumulatively from the roof down to
determine the total a=ial load at each floor. "hese loads were then factored accordin6 to
the load combinations &rovided in the U:$ ?.99A@ to obtain a desi6n load, Pu. However,
before we could continue with the desi6n, two en6ineerin6 decisions were made. 7irst,
due to the column layout and symmetry of the buildin6 we determined that we could
reduce all of the interior 6ravity columns down to two ty&ical columnsN one on the corner
ne=t to the elevators, and the other towards the middle of the buildin6 closer to the shear
wall. "his consistency &rovides a sim&lification durin6 construction. "he second
en6ineerin6 decision is that the columns would be s&liced at - feet above every second
level. "his decision is based on the trans&ortation constraints of the columns as well as
the constructability of the buildin6.
(ith these decisions in mind, the columns were then desi6ned usin6 a KJ ., 7
y
J 8 ksi
and c
J .38 for com&ression. $olumn siDes at each story were chosen so that the ratio
of a=ial com&ression from the loads to the a=ial com&ression ca&acity of the siDe,
n c
u
P
P
, was less than or at most eBual to ... (e used (.- sections for the 6ravity
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2-
columns. "he final &reliminary desi6n of the 6ravity columns were taken as the siDes
desi6ned at the .
st
, 5
rd
, 8
th
, A
th
, and 9
th
floors. "hese are summariDed in "able 5;..
Table *.#$ 4ravity $olumn 2esi6n
RA*ITY +O",MNS
-loor +olu)n . +olu)n /
Roo$

10
)#*+5, )#*+5,
1

2
)#*+-0 )#*+-0
3

/
)#*+#20 )#*+#0-
.

4
)#*+#5- )#*+#*5
(

2
)#*x2## )#*+#.6
1
*$#$2 I!e&)o& G)&0e&"
"he interior 6irders are desi6ned for ..2 2 I ..! 1. )efer to the &revious load key sheets
for the various load areas. 7or interior 6irders only, we analyDed the 6irders with
distributed loads and tributary areas. (e looked at both the stren6th and deflection,
calculatin6 the minimum section modulus as well as the minimum /
=
before decidin6 the
6irder sections. "he deflection limits for live loads and dead loads are 1C2- and 1C5!
res&ectively. Sam&le calculations can be found in A44e0)5 B.
*$#$* Floo& Bea2"
7loor beams and slab were desi6ned as a fully com&osite system to reduce beam siDes
and to take advanta6e of the concrete floor stren6th. 7loor beams were desi6ned with the
followin6 &ro&erties:
"otal floor de&th ; !.28 inches
$oncrete fill ; 1i6htwei6ht concrete ?f
c
EJ 5ksi, ..&cf density@
Steel stren6th ; f
y
J 8ksi
Shear studs ; O inch diameter 5 inches lon6
Shored and unshored construction was evaluated with the followin6 assumed
construction loads:
(et concrete ; ! &sf live load
%dditional const. load ; 2 &sf live load
7inally, the choice of usin6 com&osite beams was verified by &erformin6 a cost
com&arison between com&osite and non;com&osite beams, detailed in A44e0)5 B$
1oads:
1oads were obtained from the load key sheets. "hree ty&ical loadin6s and three floor
beam len6thsCs&acin6s were used in calculations.
2ead 1oad ; 38&sf
1ive 1oad ; Heavy J?.8&sf@, Medium J ?.&sf@ and 1i6ht J ?8&sf@
7loor beams ; 5P1on6 Q.P s&acin6, 28PQ.P and 28P Q3P;-R
)eBuired 7le=ural Stren6th:
"he fle=ural resistance reBuired was obtained from:
3
2
wL
M
u

BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2!
where w is the load &er linear foot of beam obtained from tributary widths ?half the
distance to ad0acent beams@ and 1 is the s&an of the beam.
Select Section and Pro&erties:
%ssumin6 the de&th is the concrete stress block, a, is less than the thickness of the
concrete slab, the desi6n fle=ural stren6th,
M
n
is:
@
2 2
?
a
y
d
F A M
conc y s n
+
where %
s
is the area of the steel beam reBuired, d is the de&th of the steel beam ?assumed
to be .G for the first iteration@, y
conc
is !.28 inches, a is the de&th of the concrete block
?assumed to be 2G for the first iteration@.
% value of ,
2
, distance from to& of the steel flan6e to the center of the concrete stress
block, is also reBuired. %ssumin6 the de&th of the concrete stress block is less then the
thickness of the slab, ,
2
was obtained from:
2
2
a
y Y
conc

Usin6 these two values sections were chosen from the %/S$ 1)72 Steel 2esi6n Manual
5
rd
edition "able 8;.- $om&osite (;Sha&es.
7le=ural ca&acity was check usin6:
@
2 2
?
a
y
d
f A M
conc y s n
+ + where
1
1
]
1
ce dis centerline
beas!an
b
tan S T
2
.
T
3
.
min T 2
and
b f
A f
a
c
s y
P
38 .
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2A

$om&ute number of Shear Studs )eBuired:
"he nominal stren6th of . stud was obtained from:
u sc c c sc n
F A " f A #
P
8 .
where %
sc
is the cross;section of the shear stud ?.--in
2
@ , +c is the modulus of elasticity
of concrete 6iven below ?238.5 ksi@ and w is the unit wei6ht of concrete ?..&cf@.
P 8 . .
55
c c
f w "
7or a O in diameter stud the stren6th is .A.-A ki&s. "he number of studs reBuired from
the &oint of ma= moment to its connected ends for full com&osite action was obtained
from:
n
y s
stud
#
f A
U
Since the beams are sim&ly su&&orted this number is for half the beam len6th. "otal
number of studs reBuired is then twice U
stud
.
$onstruction Phase Stren6th $heck:
% fle=ural demand for an unshored beam was checked usin6 the construction loads
assumed. 7or floor beams where the fle=ural ca&acity of the steel is e=ceeded, a lar6er
section was chosen and the number of shear studs recalculated.
2eflection $alculations:
:eams that are unshored were checked for deflection under dead loads usin6:
"I
wL
53-
8
-

where unfactored load &er linear foot of beam and + and / are the modulus of elasticity
and moment of inertia for the unshored beam. (here deflection are lar6e ?VK1C5!@
adeBuate camberin6 is reBuired.
:eams that are com&osite were checked for deflections under live loads usin6:
5! 53-
8
-
L
"I
wL

where / is the lower bond elastic moment of inertia 6iven "able 8;.8 of the %/S$ 1)72
Steel 2esi6n Manual 5
rd
edition.
$om&arison to a 'on;$om&osite Section:
:eam sections were chosen by com&arin6 fle=ural ca&acity of the steel section to the
calculated fle=ural stren6th reBuired. Sections chosen were also checked for live load
deflections as ?WM1C5!@. %ssumin6 Albs &er stud ?in cost@ the amount of steel increase
due to the beam siDe increase was com&ared.
SiDes for each of the 5 loadin6s ?heavy, medium and li6ht@ and for each of the 5
s&ansCs&acin6s as described in %, are tabulated below. % sam&le calculation can be
found in A44e0)5 B$
Table *.26 Section 2esi6n
5eav! 6"" 7 1.0ps$8 ,0/0#0/
1y2e of Const 3ection 3t$d 3t$d 32acing 4$ 5kft6 X4n 5kft6
37ored )#2x,5 ,8*9 e:ery 69 ,8*..5 *,-.5
;ns7ored )#2x,5 ,8*9 e:ery 69 #** #-2
<on'Com2osite )#6x5. ,8*..5 ,-*

5eav! 25/0#0/
37ored )#*x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 26..2 280
;ns7ored )#*x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 #00 #2*.5
<on'Com2osite )#6x*0 26..2 2.*

5eav! 25/08.,,,/
37ored )#0x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 222.5. 255
;ns7ored )#0x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 8,., -..5
<on'Com2osite )#6x,6 222.5. 2*0

Mediu)6"" 7 100ps$8 ,0/0#0/
37ored )#0x26 ,8*9 e:ery 89 2-*..5 ,02.#
;ns7ored )#2x,0 ,8*9 e:ery .9 #** #6#.6
<on'Com2osite )#6x*5 2-*..5 ,08.6

Mediu) 25/0#0/
37ored )#0x#- ,8*9 e:ery -9 20*.. 22*
;ns7ored )#0x26 ,8*9 e:ery 69 #00 ##..*
<on'Com2osite )#*x,* 20*.. 20*..5

Mediu) 25/08.,,,/
37ored )#0x#5 ,8*9 e:ery ##9 #.0.5 #.6.*
;ns7ored )#0x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 8,., -..5
<on'Com2osite )#*x,* #.0.5 20*..5

"i&'t 6"" 7 .0ps$8 ,0/0#0/
37ored )#0x#- ,8*9 e:ery ##9 20*..5 226..2
;ns7ored )#2x,0 ,8*9 e:ery .9 #** #6#.6
<on'Com2osite )#*x,* 20*..5 20*..5

"i&'t 25/0#0/
37ored )#0x#2 ,8*9 e:ery #*9 #*2.2 #*2.,*
;ns7ored )#0x26 ,8*9 e:ery 69 #00 ##..*
<on'Com2osite )#*x26 #*2.2 #,-.5

"i&'t 25/08.,,,/
37ored )#0x#2 ,8*9 e:ery #*9 ##8.* #*2.,*
;ns7ored )#0x22 ,8*9 e:ery 89 8,., -..5
<on'Com2osite )#2x26 ##8.* #,-.5

*$#$- Ele1a!o& Bea2"
S&ecials beams were desi6ned above the roof to su&&ort the wei6ht of the elevator and its
com&onents. "hese beams, called sheave beams, were desi6ned to carry ., lbs each
as a centered &oint load. %dditional beams were desi6ned to su&&ort the sheave beams.
1imitations on deflection called for a (.2=.! for the sheave beams, and (2-=88 for the
su&&ort beams. )efer to A44e0)5 B for calculations.
(.2 Peri)eter Mo)ent -ra)es
*$2$# F)5e0 E0 Mo2e!"
"he Perimeter Moment )esistin6 7rame of the buildin6 under6oes lar6e moments
im&osed both by lateral and 6ravity loadin6. "hese moments are transferred throu6h the
beams to the columns and eventually to the foundation, where they are dis&ersed into the
earth. "herefore, each member of this chain must be stron6 enou6h to resist the
ma=imum moments im&osed on it if the system is to carry the loads safely. However,
before we can desi6n the members we must know the ma=imum loads that each would be
likely to e=&erience. "hus, we can start with the &erimeter 6irders to determine the
ma=imum moments im&osed on them from the 6ravity loads. "hese can be calculated by
assumin6 the ends of the &erimeter 6irders are fi=ed and calculatin6 the fi=ed end
moments.
/n our system, none of the &erimeter 6irders carry distributed loads other than their own
self;wei6ht or the e=terior claddin6 which was assumed to be .5- kCft alon6 the len6th of
the beam. %dditionally, there are two &oint loads caused by two beams framin6 into the
6irders. "hus, before the fi=ed end moments can be calculated, the reactions from the
framin6 beams must be determined accordin6 to the load key sheet and beam layout
6eometry. "hese calculations are shown in A44e0)5 C$
*$2$2 G)&0e& De"),
"he &erimeter 6irders &rovide ma0ority of the stiffness in the Perimeter Moment )esistin6
7rames. However, we did not need to desi6n the 6irders for stiffness since the moment
frame is the secondary or Fbacku&G system. "he &rimary shear wall system instead
&rovides the reBuired stiffness. "he moment frame hence only needs to be desi6ned for
stren6th. "he desi6n load was taken as the ma=imum fi=ed end moments ?6ravity loads@
and moments due to earthBuake loadin6, which were determined usin6 the Portal Method.
"he fi=ed end moments were factored by ... and used for a &reliminary estimate of the
6ravity moments. "hese assum&tions would later be checked by com&uter analysis.
%lso, the = factor used in U:$ E9A for redundancy was i6nored in this desi6n, but the
load combinations &rovided in the code were utiliDed. "he ma=imum moment obtained
from the load combinations and the determined moments was used for the &reliminary
desi6n.
Usin6 the desi6n moment, we were able to calculate the minimum &lastic section
modulus, Y
=
that was reBuired. "he a&&ro&riate
factor of .9 was used for bendin6.

"he eBuation used to &erform this calculation was:
Y
=,min
J Ma= Moment?from load combinations@T.2C?.9T8?ksi@@
%t this &oint, it was decided to use the same 6irder siDe for all three of the 6irders in each
moment frame. "his consistency sim&lifies the construction &rocess and thus reducin6
the chance of beams &laced in the wron6 location. "he results of the &reliminary 6irder
desi6n are shown in A44e0)5 C$
*$2$* SMRF Col+2 De"),
"he columns in the SM)7 under6o both a=ial com&ression and bendin6 moments. /t is
assumed that thereEs no bia=ial bendin6 e=&ected since the interior 6ravity beams framin6
into the columns are shear connected. "he &erimeter columns were oriented such that
stron6 a=is of the column would occur. (e utiliDed symmetry and only two columns in
each direction of the moment resistin6 frame were desi6ned. %lso, we decided to use
(2- sections due to their lar6e bendin6 moment resistance.
%mon6 the loads im&osed on the &erimeter columns are moments and a=ial loads from
dead, live, and seismic loads. "o determine all of these com&onents we be6an by
calculatin6 the a=ial loads due to the dead and live loads. "he &rocedure for this was
e=actly the same as for the 6ravity columns, usin6 the tributary area of the columns and
the 6ravity loads due to all &ossible sources includin6 the self;wei6ht of the column. %
moment distribution of the moment resistin6 frames was also com&leted to determine
how the fi=ed end moments determined earlier were actually distributed to the columns
of the frame. "o com&ute the stiffness of each member in the moment distribution of the
frame, the moment of inertia of the columns was assumed to be ..2 times the moment of
inertia of the beams. /n &erformin6 the moment distribution, a concentrated moment of
. ki&;ft was used so that a sim&le &ercenta6e of the moments a&&lied due to the fi=ed
end moment could be used to calculate the actual distribution of moment in columns due
to 6ravity loads. %lso, an unbalanced loadin6 was used in the moment distribution to
re&resent &ossible scenarios of live load. %nother load effect obtained durin6 the
moment distribution was a continuity shear that resulted from the unbalanced moments in
the ad0acent columns. "his shear was com&uted by dividin6 the difference in moments in
the ad0acent columns by the len6th of the beam. "his shear in the beam is converted to
an a=ial load in the interior column and is added to the a=ial load due to dead loads. "he
a=ial loads due to dead and live loads were cumulatively summed as before to determine
the total a=ial load at each floor due to the dead and live loads. 7inally, the a=ial loads
and moments determined in the Portal Method are used to determine the ultimate loadin6
on the columns. "hese loads are summariDed in A44e0)5 C.
%ll of the load cases used in this desi6n were considered. However, since r
=
Cr
y
is lar6e in
our case, we can i6nore the first case ?..22 I ..!1@ and use the second case ?..22 I .81
I ..+@ assumin6 K
=
J K
y
J .., which is &ermitted by the seismic code, to determine the
ultimate a=ial load and bendin6 moment on each column. "he results of this factorin6
are shown in A44e0)5 C$
Usin6 the followin6 interaction eBuations siDes were determined from the factored loads:
. . 2 .
,
_
+ +
ny b
uy
n$ b
u$
n c
u
n
u
M
M
M
M
P
P
P
P

. .
9
3
2 .
,
_
+ + >
ny b
uy
n$ b
u$
n c
u
n
u
M
M
M
M
P
P
P
P

M
u
J :.M
nt
I :2M
lt
M
nt
J come from factored 6ravity loads
M
lt
J come from factored lateral loads
*nce a6ain the columns were s&liced at every 2
nd
level, so that the column used were
those desi6ned at the .
st
, 5
rd
, 8
th
, A
th
, and 9
th
floors.
*$2$- Se)"2)' P&o1)")o"
/n addition to the stren6th desi6n of the Perimeter Moment )esistin6 7rame columns,
s&ecial seismic &rovisions must be taken into account to ensure the safety of the structure.
(e used only the interior &erimeter columns for this check because they have two
moment resistin6 beams framin6 into them as o&&osed to only one. "he columns must be
stron6 enou6h so that &lastic hin6es will form in the beam before in the column. "his can
be accom&lished by eBuation 3;5 of the U:$ E9A:
. .
@ C ?

yb b
c uc yc c
F Z
A P F Z
,
"his eBuation ensures that the &lastic stren6th of the column is lar6er than that of the
beam.
"he columns and beams desi6ned are checked for the stron6 column;weak beam conce&t
and where needed redesi6ned so that they &ass.
%nother seismic desi6n criterion that had to be checked for the Perimeter Moment
)esistin6 7rame is the check for Foverstren6thG durin6 an earthBuake, since column
bucklin6 can be a ma0or &roblem. "his &rovides an e=tra &rotection a6ainst e=tra a=ial
forces in severe earthBuakes, which are lar6er than those used &reviously in the desi6n.
Since a=ial loads &rimarily concern e=terior moment frame columns, this check will be
only for those columns. "his check should be used when
- .
n c
u
P
P
. (e used the
followin6 code eBuation to assure that the e=terior &erimeter columns were &rotected
a6ainst overstren6th:
..2P
21
I .8P
11
?.-)@P
+
Z >
c
P
n
/n &erformin6 this calculation the factored loads were added to .-T)TP
+
J .-T3.8T P
+
J
5.-T P
+
. "his is a lar6e increase in a=ial load to &rotect a6ainst a rare event. "he a=ial
ca&acity at each floor is checked so that the above eBuation is satisfied and the column is
&rotected from bucklin6. %ny column that fails is resiDed so that it satisfies this
reBuirement. "hese results are summariDed in "able 5;5.
Table *.*6 F)al SMRF De"),
EAST 9 %EST -RAME NORT5 9 SO,T5 -RAME
+olu)ns irders +olu)ns irders
-loor Interior E:terior -loor Interior E:terior
Roo$ )#8+,5 Roo$ )#*+26

10 )2#+** 10 )#6+*0
)2*+#,# )2*+55 )2*+#,# )2*+55
1 )2#+** 1 )2#+**

2 )2#+50 2 )2#+**
)2*x#*6 )2*+68 )2*+#,# )2*+55
3 )2#+50 3 )2#+50

/ )#8+55 / )2#+50
)2*+#62 )2*+8* )2*+#*6 )2*+68
. )2#+55 . )2#+55

4 )#8+55 4 )2#+55
)2*+#62 )2*+#0* )2*+#62 )2*+8*
( )2#+55 ( )2#+55

2 )2#+55 2 )2*+55
)2*+#62 )2*+##. )2*+#62 )2*+#0*
1 1
(.( S'ear %all ;esi&n
"wo shear wall staircase cores resist lateral loads in the buildin6. "hey are .8ft =..8ft
?centerline dimensions@, and have wall thickness of .3 inches ?See 7i6ure 5;.@. "he
stren6ths of concrete and rebars are 5&si and !ksi, res&ectively. )ebar siDes and
s&acin6s were determined usin6 sim&lified formulas, assumin6 a solid core with no
o&enin6s. 2oor o&enin6s 5.8E wide 3E tall were modeled on each floor in the +"%:S
verification model to see the effects of this sim&lification. 2esi6n was &erformed in
accordance to a&&licable %$/ 5.3 &rovisions. )ebar layouts are shown in 7i6ure 5;8 and
described in "able 5;-.
F),+&e *.#6 Plan Liew of Shear (all Staircase $ores
Table$ *.-6 Shear (all )einforcement
Shear (all )einforcement ?on each face of wall@
.8 ft +( core walls ?.3G thick@ U-Q3G horiDontal reinf
U.Q.2G vertical reinf ?story .;-@
U3Q.3G vertical reinf ?story 8;.@
3 ft 'S core walls ?.3G thick@ U-Q3G horiDontal reinf
U.Q.2G vertical reinf ?story .;-@
U3Q.3G vertical reinf ?story 8;.@
$hoice of 1ocation:
"he walls around the staircase were chosen as the lateral load resistin6 system because
the stair cores were continuous throu6h the structure. %nother reason for this choice was
the desire of the architect and the owner to maintain o&en s&aces and unobstructed views.
"he locations of stairs were determined by the architect for circulation &ur&oses. "he
atrium above the 8
th
floor and the location of the elevator made shear walls behind the
elevators infeasible due to the inability to transfer shears near the o&en s&ace. %dditional
walls were also not desirable because of constraints for buildin6 modularity ?owner@, ease
of constructability ?contractor@ and aesthetics ?architect@.
Preliminary "hickness:
Since the cores were slender ?..8E width to .2!E total hei6ht@, deflection was believed to
control wall thickness. 2rift is limited accordin6 to U:$ section .!5.9:
55!! .
@ 8 . 3 ? A .
2 .
A .
2 .

R %
%ssumin6 an avera6e interstory drift over the hei6ht of the buildin6 ?.2!ft or .8.2 in@,
the total drift limit is 8.3 in.
7rom the calculated statically eBuivalent story shear values and assumin6 ?.@ .3G thick
core walls with no o&enin6s, ?2@ [ the load 6oes to each core and ?5@ only fle=ural
deflection of the shear walls, the drift was found to be -.8in in the 'S direction and
5.5in in the +( direction ?)ef A44e0)5 D@. 7or these calculations, the moment of
inertia was modified to .A/ in accordance with %$/ $ode ...... for calculatin6
deflections of an uncracked wall. "able 5;8 6ives a summary of the estimated overall
drift of the shear walls.
Table *.5: Shear (alls 2rift
1imitin6 drift 'S drift +( drift
8.3 in -.8 in 5.5 in
Pro&ortionin6 loads to each core:
)i6idities for each core were determined assumin6 only fle=ural deflection. "orsional
ri6idities were determined assumin6 a solid core without o&enin6s and a &oisson ratio of
.2. %ccidental torsion of 8\ was included. 7rom these calculations, it was found that
accidental torsion contributed to moments at each core. "he additional shear forces
caused by torsional moments at the core were determined assumin6 constant shear flow.
% summary of shear forces is 6iven in "able 5;!.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 5A
Table *.76 Shear 7orces to /ndividual $ore
'S +(
Shear from direct shear .8L .8L
Shear from torsion ...AL ..!AL
Shear on each core .!.AL .!!AL
Shear )einforcement:
Shear stren6th for the shear wall cores was determined usin6 only concrete shear
stren6ths and steel shear stren6ths in the walls in the direction of the load considered
?)ef. 7i6ure 5;2@. %
factor of .A8 was used assumin6 only fle=ural failure of the

wall. Shear stren6th of concrete was determined usin6:
w c c c
tL f V
P
where
. 2
c
for
. 2
W
L &

7i6ure 5;2. Shear )esistin6 Portions $onsidered
7or most cases, it was found that minimum horiDontal reinforcement was reBuired. "his
minimum accordin6 to %$/;5.3 &rovisions is ]
min
J.28. HoriDontal reinforcement for
all walls was chosen to be U-Q3G.
:endin6 )einforcement:
:endin6 ca&acity of the shear wall core was determined with many sim&lifyin6
assum&tions. 2istributed rebar forces and com&ressive rebar forces were ne6lected. "he
distance from tension steel to centroid of concrete stress block was assumed to be .9
times the len6th of wall. P
n
was assumed to act .- times the len6th of wall from the
neutral a=is. "he factor .9 was chosen instead of a smaller value since most of the
moment resistin6 rebars will be located in the flan6es ?)ef. 7i6ure 5;5@ of the core.
F),+&e *.*. Moment )esistin6 7lan6es of the $ore
7rom these assum&tions the relationshi& between a=ial load, area of steel reinforcement
in one flan6e and the bendin6 ca&acity of the core is :
n W y s W n
P L f A L M - . 9 . +
where
9 .
u
n
M
M and
38 .
u
n
P
P

%=ial loads were determined from tributary areas as shown below:
F),+&e *.-. "ributary %rea of Shear (all $ore
)eBuired area of reinforcin6 steel was determined from overturnin6 moment and a=ial
load data usin6 the above eBuations. 7or both 'S and +( walls, U.Q.2G on each face
were chosen for reinforcement at the flan6es.
7or ductility reasons it is desired that the bendin6 stren6th be reached before shear,
therefore a check of MnCLn vs MuCLu was &erformed. /t was found that at hi6her stories
?story ! and hi6her@, the wall fails in shear. 7or ease of construction, the chan6e of rebar
layout was done at story 8 where the buildin6s layout also chan6es. 7or both 'S and +(
walls, U3Q.3G on each face were chosen for reinforcement at the flan6es.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -
F),+&e *.5. Shear (all 2esi6n
(.4 +onnections
Larious connections were used in our desi6n and are described in this section. 2etail
drawin6s are shown at the end.
Moment )esistin6 7rame:
Several connection ty&es suitable for moment resistin6 frames in seismic re6ions were
considered. "he structural en6ineer evaluated welded unreinforced flan6e;welded web
connection ?(U7;(@, welded flan6e &late ?(7P@ connection, and reduced beam section
?):S@ connection. 2esi6n &rocedure and criteria were followed as outlined in 7+M%;
58 document.
"he basic desi6n a&&roach of moment resistin6 connections is to estimate the location of
&lastic hin6es and determine &robable &lastic moments and shear forces at the &lastic
hin6es, at critical sections of the assembly. "o be able to form &lastic hin6es in
&redetermined locations, i.e. within beams, connections are stren6thened and stiffened or
beam sections are locally reduced as in the case of reduced beam section connection
which were chosen for this &ro0ect by the structural en6ineer.
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -.
$olumn S&lices
$lose attention was &aid to the s&lices of e=terior columns which are &art of the moment
resistin6 frame. "hese members, in addition to 6ravity loads, are sub0ected to relatively
hi6h a=ial forces that are &roduced by overturnin6 moments caused by seismic activity.
"he structural en6ineer decided to use a combination of bolted and welded web s&lices
with com&lete 0oint &enetration flan6e welds, which can su&&ort a=ial as well as bendin6
forces due to earthBuake loads.
Shear $onnections
Sim&le bolted shear connections were desi6ned for interior column;to;beam connections,
beams framin6 into the shear walls, and the two beams framin6 into cantilever beam
which su&&ort the walkway on the !
th
throu6h .
th
floor.
?)ef: A44e0)5 E for calculation details@
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -2
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower --
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -!
BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower -A
(.. -oundation
"he foundation of the buildin6 serves to transmit 6ravity and lateral loads as well as
overturnin6 moments to the earth. "o accom&lish this we have selected a combination
foundation system. Under each 6ravity column, footin6s will serve to transfer the 6ravity
loads to the soil. 7rom &reliminary calculations for the base &lates of these columns, it
was determined that the footin6s should be -2 inch sBuare. "he second &art of the
foundation carries both 6ravity loads and overturnin6 moments from the moment
resistin6 frames. "his was accom&lished usin6 stri& footin6s. "he stri& footin6s run the
len6th of the buildin6 alon6 the &erimeter and allow a &ath for the hi6h moments
6enerated in the moment resistin6 frame. 7rom similar calculations it was determined
that the footin6s should be at least 5! inches wide. 7inally, the shear walls will be
su&&orted by a mat foundation. "he &reliminary siDe of mat reBuired to &revent
overturnin6 of the shear wall base was determined from the overturnin6 moment and the
dead load on the core. )esistance to overturnin6 was assumed to come solely from dead
loads. "he reBuired eccentricity and therefore the reBuired half width of the mat was
calculated by dividin6 the overturnin6 moment by the total unfactored dead load
?includin6 self wei6ht@ of the shear wall. % -3E = -3E mat was determined. /nvesti6ations
on the use of anchors are reBuired to decrease the siDe.
Table *.5 to Table *.8: $alculation of Minimum Mat 7oundation SiDe
Table *.5
%all Sel$ <ei&'t
t7ickness #.5 ft
7eig7t #26 ft
2erim 5# ft

?ol$me -6,- ft@,
density #50 2cf
%ei&'t 144..2. #
Table *.7
;eter)ine Pu on %all
Dead load
Area B852sfC AreaB502sfC Bki2sC
#0 LRoof .8..5 ,-.,.5
- L#0 6#2.5 52.0625
8 L- 6#2.5 52.0625
. L8 6#2.5 52.0625
6 L. 6#2.5 52.0625
5 L6 6#2.5 52.0625
* L5 .8..5 66.-,.5
, L* .8..5 66.-,.5
2 L, .8..5 66.-,.5
# L2 .8..5 66.-,.5
Total ./3.4
Table *.8
Total do<n<ard load at t'e
=ase o$ t'e s'ear <all
20#,.288 k

Overturnin& )o)ent
-66-8 kft
%R *8,*- kft eac7

Eccentricit! re>uired
2*.0# ft

Mat under S'ear <all
s7o$ld De *8/ x*8/

%R smaller Eit7 anc7ors
4.0 ETABS Modeling - Analsis and Discussion
4.1 Model ;iscussion
+"%:S was used to analyDe the buildin6. 7rom the +"%:S analysis we were able to
com&are some of the actual load effects with the assum&tions made in the desi6n &rocess.
(e desi6ned the moment resistin6 frame to be able to resist 28\ of the total seismic
loads. However, from the results shown in "able -;., it is obvious that this is a very
conservative assum&tion. "he loads &roduced by +"%:S are consistently lower than
those &redicted by the Portal Method. /n some cases the &redicted values by the Portal
Method are twice of those calculated by +"%:S. "his discre&ancy is accounted for in the
interaction between the moment resistin6 frame and the shear wall. "he stiff shear wall
takes most of the load, so the moment resistin6 frame takes very little com&aratively.
"his can be &roved by the shear wall frame interaction com&utations it was found that
only about 8;.\ of the total load actually 6oes to the moment resistin6 frame.
Table -.#6 +( SM)7
-loor
!eam 4oment
BinteriorC
Col$mn 4oment
BinteriorC
Col$mn Axial
BexteriorC
Portal E1A!3 Portal E1A!3 Portal E1A!3
Roo$ #.#.2# 2-.28
8..28 --.#* .*.8# #*.*
10 2-2.5. #26.,
#,8.0* -*.06 #5*.*2 66.8
1 ,,0.*. #26
#.,.8, #06.25 2,6.*# #20.0*
2 ,6*.#6 #,#.2
205.*# #02.6. ,20.*8 #.,..8
3 ,-,.6, #2-.8
2,2..- #0#.-# *06.,. 22...
/ *#8.-0 #2*.#
255.-5 #05.5- *-,..- 28#.5.
. *,-.05 ##6.2
2.,.0. .*.05 586.2* ,,-.88
4 *#-.8- -#.*
2.2.-6 .*.** 66#.#* ,8*..6
( *,#.,# -0..
282.*. 6-.*- .*#.#2 *2-.*6
2 *.2.80 .-.6
,55.-, 5,.25 82#.5# *.,.*
1
Table -.26 'S SM)7
-loor
!eam 4oment
BinteriorC
Col$mn 4oment
BinteriorC
Col$mn Axial
BexteriorC
Portal E1A!3 Portal E1A!3 Portal E1A!3
Roo$ #*2..0 56.##8
.*.66 60.6* **.5* 8.#*
10 255.8. #55..,
##-.-2 8-.-, 88.85 ,#.6.
1 2-..56 #80..-
#55..# -5.,. #,5.*2 5..2
2 ,,*.62 #80.#8
#8..,0 #02.*5 #8,.-2 82..#
3 ,6..0* #8..*.
2#*.6. ##0.*2 2,*.0* #08.-.
/ ,-*.8* #8,.65
2,..8, ##5... 285.** #,5.0.
. *#6.-- 20*.0*
25*.-6 #20.,* ,*0.6- #65.#2
4 *,-.*6 #.5.5
2.0.*6 ##,.,6 ,-*.06 #-0..
( *52.02 #60.8.
2.-.-8 #05.52 *5,.,2 2#5.0,
2 *-..66 #*,.22
,5,.** 8..88 5#,.05 2,..62
1
4.2. S'ear %all9-ra)e Interaction
(e evaluated the frame shear wall interaction usin6 the $om&onent Stiffness Method.
"his is used to find out the &ercenta6e of lateral load 6oin6 to the shear wall and the
frame. "he assum&tions made in the $om&onent Stiffness Method are:
.. "orsion is i6nored.
2. 'o o&enin6s in the core
5. Uniform story hei6ht has been assumed. /n reality we have the .
st
and 2nd story at
.8 ft each, and all other stories at .2 ft so. %n avera6e uniform story hei6ht was
assumed to be .2.! ft
-. Shear deformations are ne6lected.
8. $alculations showed that seismic deflections 6overned over wind, thus wind was
i6nored in the final calculation of forces, deflection, and moment.
!. %=ial deformations very small, hence i6nored.
?)ef: A44e0)5 F for calculations@
Table -.*$ Shear (all;7rame /nteraction Summary
'S +(
P to each frame 5.. k 2!.2A k
P to each wall 5.. k 2!.2A k
2eflection 2.!. in ..A! in
*verturnin6 Moment --!35 k;ft -8.-A k;ft
L
e=t.col
8.58 k -.53 k
L
int.col
9.3. k 3.A! k
^M
e=t.col
3A.!5 k A..A. k
^M
int.col
.!.!9 k .-5.-2 k
4.( ETA?S Model and -ra)e9 S'ear %all Interaction +o)parison
7rom the story drift data collected from +"%:S, we were able to calculate the
deflections. "hese were com&ared to the shear wall frame interaction, as can be seen in
the followin6 table.
Table -.- to Table -.76 /nteraction +Buations Ls. $om&uter analysis
Table -.-
'S "otal 2eflection ?in@ +( "otal 2eflection ?in@
Shear wall 7rame interaction 2.!. ..A!
+"%:S 5..8 ..A38
7rom these com&arisons, it is seen that the assum&tions made in usin6 the shear wall
frame interaction formulas are verified throu6h the com&uter analysis usin6 +"%:S.
2eflections differences in the east west direction were smaller than in the north south
direction. "his can be e=&lained by the fact that door o&enin6s were modeled in +"%:S
whereas they were i6nored in interaction calculations.
Percenta6e of the overturnin6 moment resisted by the shear wall core was also com&ared,
as can be seen in the table below. %6ain, the effects of the door o&enin6s account for the
differences between hand calculations and the +"%:S model. Since o&enin6s were
modeled the walls become less stiff and a lower &ercenta6e of the buildin6 overturnin6
moment is resisted by the cores.
Table -.5
'orth South Half the :uildin6
*ver turnin6 moment
*verturnin6
moment one core
Percenta6e of load
6oin6 to the core
+"%:S -35-9kft -23.53kft .35
Shear wall 7rame
interaction
-A9!.!.kft --!35 kft .95
Table -.7
+ast (est Half the :uildin6
*ver turnin6 moment
*verturnin6
moment one core
Percenta6e of load
6oin6 to the core
+"%:S -35-9kft 59398.!3kft .328
Shear wall 7rame
interaction
-A9!.!.kft -8.-A kft .9-
Half the buildin6 overturnin6 moment for the shear wall frame interaction was obtained
usin6 the story shears calculated from assumed seismic dead loads and the U:$ E9A
code. "he same values were 6enerated from +"%:Es built;in U:$E9A code calculations
for the same assume &eriod of the structure but with seismic dead loads obtained from the
self wei6ht of the structure. "hese values are tabulated in the A44e0)5 F.
/nterstory drifts limits were also checked a6ainst the seismic interstory drift limitation
6iven by .55!. %s desi6ned, nowhere are the seismic drifts limits e=ceeded.
Floo& E3 ea&!(9+a:e )!e&"!o&/ 0&)f! NS ea&!(9+a:e )!e&"!o&/ 0&)f!
)oof .!53 .!!5
. ..5!2 .2-!!
9 ..5!3 .2-9-
3 ..5!! .2-A9
A ..58 .2--3
! ..5.- .2535
8 ..28. .29A
- ...88 ..383
5 ..25 ..8-5
2 .382 ..9!
. .!2 .--3
!.0 "onclusions
7or &reliminary desi6n of a re6ular . story buildin6, sim&lifyin6 calculations were
found to &rovide sufficient accuracy for the initial choice of member siDes. :y knowin6
the behavior of a structure, few detailed calculations had to be &erformed. "he
assum&tion that . &ercent of the lateral loadin6 6oes to the cores while 28 &ercent 6oes
to the SM)7 was also found to be a 6ood conservative a&&ro=imation.
%ssum&tions that the cores had no door o&enin6s si6nificantly reduced the com&le=ity of
calculations but also reduced the accuracy of the results. /n addition, rebar Buantities
were only calculated for a core without o&enin6s. )ebar layouts in the wall &iers as well
as in s&andrel beams of the core reBuire more com&le= calculations which can be
automated usin6 +"%:S.
PART T%O: APPEN;I@ 9 ;ESIN +A"+,"ATIONS
A##endi$ A % Load Determination
A##endi$ B % &ra'it Sstem Design
A##endi$ " % SM() Design
A##endi$ D % S*ear +all Design
A##endi$ E % "onnection Details and "alculations
A##endi$ ) % Analsis (esults ,ETABS and Interaction-

Behavior of Structural Systems For Buildings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Behavior of Structural Systems For Buildings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CEE 285 BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

BD Inc. Project: Palo Alto Office Tower 2A

factor of .9 was used for bendin6.

factor of .A8 was used assumin6 only fle=ural failure of the

Potrebbero piacerti anche