Tilt Up Buildings

SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations
Tilt-up Buildings
ASCE 7-05
reference section(s)
ACI 318-05
Reference section(s)
2006 IBC
reference section(s)
12.11 14.8
21.7
21.8
21.13
1908.1.16
1908.1.8
1908.1.13
2305
Introduction
Thereinforcedconcretetilt-upbuildingisthemost popular formof light industrial andlow-risecommercial
constructionintheWesternUnitedStatesandisasignificant portionof newconstructionnationwide. This
popularityisprimarilydrivenbytheconstructionspeedandeconomical natureof tilt-upconstruction. Architectural
acceptancehasbecomemorewidespreadastilt-upconstructionhasadaptedtothedemandsof taller buildingswith
better aestheticsinvolvingirregular planshapes, moreglass, andaccent treatments. Tilt-upconstructionisbecoming
morecommonfor officebuildings, assemblyoccupancies, andevenschools. Originallyaone-storyformof
construction, tilt-upbuildingsarenowcommonlytwoandthreestories.
Unfortunately, theuniquenessandrapidevolutionof tilt-upconstructionhavemadeit achallengefor seismic
provisionsinbuildingcodestokeeppace. Poor performanceinpast earthquakeshasbeenresponsiblefor significant
revisionstobuildingcodesandinsomejurisdictionsmandatedseismicretrofit requirementsof older tilt-up
buildings. Thisarticledescribesuniqueproblemsassociatedwithtilt-upseismicdesign, howthepast hasshaped
current recommendedpractice, andinsightsfromrecent researchontilt-upbuildingbehavior.
Tilt-upbuildingsconsist of reinforcedconcretewall panelsthat areformed, cast, andcuredonthebuildingfloor
slabor adjacent waste slabandthentiltedupintoavertical positionwithaliftingcrane. Surroundingthe
perimeter of thebuilding, theseconcretewall panelsaretypicallybetweensixandtwelveinchesthick, andareboth
gravityload-bearingandseismicforce-resisting. Oncethewallsareinplaceandtemporarilybraced, aroof structure
iserectedconsistingof either metal deckingor panelizedwoodsheathing(structural-usepanels) over steel or wood
framingmembers. Themost popular framingsysteminusetodayisthehybrid roof systemconsistingof a
panelizedwoodroof of OSB (orientedstrandboard) and2x4framing, supportedonfactoryinstalledwoodnailers
attachedtothetopchordof open-websteel joists(trusses). Theroof structureisconnectedtotheinterior wall face,
allowingthewallstoextendabovetheroof asaparapet. SeeFigure1.
metal deck, wood, or
hybrid roof diaphragm
re-entrant
corner
precast concrete
tilt-up wall panels
Figure 1. Typical structural featuresof atilt-upbuilding
Article 9.02.010 Page 1of 25 September 2008
www.seaoc.org/bluebook
Tilt-up Buildings
Themost critical component of tilt-upbuildingseismicperformanceistheanchorageof thewall totheroof
structure. Thisanchorageisaccomplishedwithembeddedconcreteanchorsor strapsattachedtotheroof framing
system. Finally, thewall panelsareconnectedtotheslab-on-gradethroughlappedreinforcingwithinapour stripor
fill-instripof concretefloor. It isalsostronglyrecommendedthat thewall panelsbeconnectedtothefoundationsin
highseismiczonestoprovideapositiveloadpath.
Historical Background
Manyseismiccodeprovisionsthat haveevolvedover theyearsenvisioneither classicframestructureswithrigid
diaphragmsor light framebuildingswithsmall lightweight diaphragms. Tilt-upconstructionisuniquewithitsmany
different material combinationsandhasuniqueperformanceissuesthat havenot generallyenteredthecodeuntil
evidenceof aproblemfromafailure. Tilt-upconstructionhasexperiencedmanyearthquake-inducedfailuresinthe
past (EERI 1988, SEAONC 2001). Thetilt-upprovisionsthat doexist arescatteredthroughout thecode, primarily
becausetilt-updoesnot fit neatlyintoonematerial type. IBC Chapter 16(Structural Design), Chapter 19(Concrete),
Chapter 22(Steel), andChapter 23(Wood) all containimportant provisionsfor thedesignof thevariousmaterials
associatedwithdiaphragms, collectors, andwall anchorage, andwiththemainlateral force-resistingsystem.
Eventhoughthecodehasbecomemoreprescriptive, therearemanyaspectsof designthat varysignificantly
betweenengineers. Therestill isnoclear directionprovidedonsomeimportant engineeringissuessuchasthe
following:
-= Howtoproperlytieintoare-entrant wall;
-= Howshear loadsaredistributedalongalineof perforatedshear walls;
-= Whether wall tiesshouldbedesignedfor compressionor tensiononly.
Walls Loaded Out-of-Plane. Prior tothedevelopment of slender wall codeprovisionsinthe1980s, concrete
wallswerelimitedtoarbitraryheight/thickness(h/t) ratioscreatingwallsmuchthicker thantypicallyseentoday. It
wasbelievedthat veryslender wallscouldbuckleprematurelyor deflect somuchastonot beserviceableafter
earthquakes.
Tojustifythinner walls, panelswerejoinedtogether withcast-in-placepilaster stiffenersformedbetweenadjacent
panels. Theconcretewall panelsspannedhorizontallyout-of-planebetweenthepilasters, andthepilastersspanned
verticallybetweenthefloor slabandasupportingroof beam. Horizontal concretepanel reinforcingextendedintothe
cast-in-placejoint, effectivelymakingall thepanelsbehavemonolithically.
Inthe1970s, engineersbeganexperimentingwithwall panel designsspanningverticallybetweenthefloor slaband
roof, leavingthepanel jointsdryandcaulkedwithwaterproof sealants. Pilasterscast withthepanelswerestill
provided(usuallyonjust onepanel edge), but onlyfor thepurposeof providingroof beamgravityloadreactions.
Thepanelswerenowthemselvesspanningverticallywithout therelianceonthepilasters, behavingastall, slender
walls. ACI 318limitedbearingwall slendernesstoaheight-to-thickness(h/t) ratioof 25, andthesetall, slender walls
didnot conformtothetypical UBC or ACI codeprovisionsfor concretewalls. Theslendernessrestrictionprevented
economical useof verticallyspanningtilt-uppanels.
Instead, engineersbeganexperimentingwithnewanalysistechniquestoincludesecondorder effects, or PA=
moments, asameanstocircumvent thearbitraryh/t limitsprescribedbyACI. Inadvertently, manyengineersuseda
moment magnificationmethodinACI 318-71toaccount for thesesecondorder effects, but thismethodwasnot
developedfor flexural memberswithonlyacentral layer of steel. Another approachusedwastoconduct rigorous
straincompatibilityreviewsor tousepublishedpaperssuchasthe1974report, Tilt-Up Load-Bearing WallsA
Design Aid, bythePortlandCement Association(Kripanarayanan1984). Eventhoughverythinwall panelswere
beingerectedsuccessfullyinthe1970s, therewasgrowingconcernover theengineeringfundamentalsbehindthe
analysisof thesewalls.
Inresponsetotheexplosivegrowthof tilt-upconstructionthat wasbasedonpotentiallymisappliedcodeprovisions,
theStructural EngineersAssociationof SouthernCalifornia(SEAOSC) publishedin1979their Recommended Tilt-
=
=
Tilt-up Buildings
Up Wall Design, alsoknownastheYellowBook (SEAOSC 1979), andwasquicklyfollowedin1982bythe
GreenBook titledTest Report on Slender Walls (ACI-SEAOSC 1982). Basedontheworkof SEAOSC andthe
SouthernCaliforniaChapter of ACI, thisimportant publicationcontainedtheresultsof thirtyfull-scaletestsof
slender wallsunder out-of-planeloading(twelveslender concretewallswiththeothersbeingmasonry), andit
confirmedtherecommendeddesignprovisionsof theYellowBook but without arbitraryheight-to-thickness(h/t)
limits.
Theseprovisionsrecognizedthat withlight axial loads, tilt-upwall panelsbehavemorelikeflexural membersthan
compressionwall sections, thuseliminatingtheneedfor arbitraryheight-to-thicknesslimits. BothP-deltaeffects
andeccentricloadingweredeemedveryimportant considerations, becauseslender panelsarecapableof undergoing
largeout-of-planedeflections, andtheprovisionsprovidedequationsthat estimatedthenon-linear deflection
characteristicsout-of-plane. Also, theflexural reinforcement ratioandaxial loadingwererestrictedtoensureductile
flexural yieldingwhilemitigatingsuddenbucklingcollapse. Oneof theinherent advantagesof usingwhat became
knownasslender wall designisthereasonablythinner wall panels, whichinturnreducetheseismicforceat theroof
diaphragm. EventhoughtheSEAOSC provisionswerenot incorporatedintotheUBC until 1988, engineerswere
quicktoembracetheseguidelinesintheir designs.
Theverylargedeflectionsobservedinthetestingprogramraisedserviceabilityconcernswiththe
SEAOSC/SCCACI taskcommittee. Slender wallsdesignedtostrengthrequirementsalone, freeof h/t ratios, could
beoverlyflexible, possiblyresultinginpermanent deformation. Onseveral of thefull-scaletest specimens, rebound
studieswereconductedandit wasfoundthat somepermanent deformationwaspossibleinwall panelsprior to
reachingtheoretical yield. QuotingtheGreenBook, Thetestsdemonstratedthat therewasnovalidityfor fixed
height-to-thicknesslimits, but theydidreveal theneedfor deflectionlimitstocontrol potential residual deflectionin
panelsafter serviceloadsexperience. Basedontheir limitedreboundstudyandmuchdiscussion, the
SEAOSC/SCCACI taskcommitteerecommendedanL/100deflectionlimit.
Therecommendedprovisionsof theYellowBookandGreenBook werethebasisof thefirst buildingcode
requirementsinthe1988UBC. Theoneimportant differencebetweentheGreenBookandtheUBC wasthe
deflectionlimit at serviceloadswasmorerestrictivelyset at L/150. Thiswasset byconsensusopinionduringthe
1984-1986UBC codedevelopment process, but it isnot clear what rational basistherewasbehindtherevision.
Another important aspect of boththeGreenBookandUBC equationswasdefiningtheconcretecrackingmoment,
M
cr
, basedonthemodulusof rupture, f 5 f '=, of concrete. Thisistwo-thirdsof thetraditional ACI equation
r c
f 7.5 f '=, but it matchedthefull-scaletest datafar better. ByuniquelydefiningM
cr
andapplyingabilinear
r c
curveequation, theUBC load-deflectioncurvematchedwell withthetest results. SeeFigure2. Theseequations
continuedtobeincorporatedupthroughthe1997UBC.
Historically, theout-of-planeseismicperformanceof slender tilt-upwall panelshasbeenrelativelygood, with
failuresof apanel itself veryrare. Oftentheworst out-of-planeloadingoccursduringcraneliftinginthe
constructionprocess. Inthe1987Whittier Narrows, Californiaearthquake, someout-of-planedamagewasobserved
at thesidesof largewall openings, but thedamagewasassociatedwithpost-constructionsawcut openingsinstalled
without strengtheningor engineering(EERI 1988).
Today, out-of-planetilt-upwall panel designisincorporatedintoACI 318-05Section14.8, andisstill largelybased
ontheoriginal SEAOSC testingandrecommendations.
Thelateral forcecoefficient for out-of-planestructural wall forcesfor SeismicDesignCategoryB andaboveis
providedinASCE 7-05Section12.11.1asF
P
=0.40S
DS
IW
w
. Usingthelateral forcecoefficient todeterminetheout-
of-planewall forces, anengineer normallyselectsvertical designstripstodeterminemoment andreinforcing
requirements. At wall piersbetweenwall openingsandpanel joints, thedesignstripusuallyistheentirepier width,
withloadsaccountingfor theincreasedseismictributaryloadingassociatedwiththepanel portionsaboveandbelow
=
= =
Tilt-up Buildings
Figure 2. Moment-DeflectionCurvesComparingTest DatawithUBC
Panel #25SCCACI-SEAOSC March20, 1981; 6-in-thickreinforcedslender wall
theopenings. Thisapproachtypicallyneglectsanyadditional strengthor stiffnessprovidedbytheportionsof the
wall aboveandbelowtheopenings, usingasimplestripof uniformwidthasananalytical tool.
Cantilever parapetsthat arepart of acontinuouswall element arecheckedseparatelyfor higher seismicforcesper
ASCE 7-05Section13.3.1. Unlikethestructural wall panels, theparapet forcesarebasedonnonstructural
component equations. It isnot appropriatetousethehigher cantilever parapet forcestooffset thewall positive
bendingmoment belowtheroof.
WhereastheUBC equationscheckingstrengthremainedessentiallyinconcert withtheACI 318adoption, the
servicelevel deflectionequationsweresignificantlyaltered. Themost significant differencewasuseof Bransons
equationfor theeffectivemoment of inertia, I
e
, inACI inplaceof theUBC bilinear load-deflectionequation. In
addition, thevaluefor M
cr
withinBransonsequationwasset at thetraditional ACI value.
3 3
(
M M | |
I I =
1 I s I +
cr cr
(=
(
|=
|
.
|=
|
.
e g cr g
M M
\ \ a a
Where,
)
c
f ' M Sf S
cr r
( 5 . 7
L /150
300 ---",
__ __ __"""J"J'J'_J'J'J'
250 -l-----+-----------------------=__.....
M
n
_
_ 200
til
Q.
:i
C
=- 150
c
Q)
E
o
:E 100
50
12 10 8 6
Deflection (in)
4 2
o-L----.--.--.......--!...,..-..,........-,----,---r---r--,............-,---,.-..,...--,----,-..,.......----,--r---r-----r-,---,.----,-..,................,...---j
o
Tilt-up Buildings
TherewasconcernwithinSEAOSC that thefundamental equationsdevelopedasaresult of their landmarktesting
programintheearly1980shadbeensignificantlyrevisedbyACI. Inaddition, theACI 318Commentarycontinued
toreferencetheSEAOSC experimental researchpartiallyasthebasisfor thesenewequations. Inresponse,
SEAOSC formedaSlender Wall TaskGroupin2005toconduct acomprehensivereviewof theoriginal 1981test
dataanddeterminethevalidityof theUBC andACI approaches.
TheSEAOSC Slender Wall TaskGroupreportedtheir findingsinitsUBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison
Summary Report (SEAOSC 2006). TheTaskGroupconcludedthat the1997UBC equationsmatchthetest data
well, yet theACI 318-02equationsdonot correlatewell withthetest dataandtypicallyunderestimatetheservice
loaddeflections. Figure3providesatypical comparisonof theUBC andACI equationswiththeoriginal test data
of oneslender wall specimen. Theother wall specimenshadsimilar comparisons. TheACI equationsfor service
level deflectionfail toproperlyestimatethecrackingmoment andthebilinear natureof theload-deflectioncurve.
Figure 3. Moment-DeflectionCurvesComparingTest DatawithACI 318-05andUBC
Thecurrent ACI 318slender wall provisionshavebeenrevisedfor ACI 318-08resultinginservicelevel deflection
equationsmoreinlinewiththat of the1997UBC.
Thereasonwhyconcreteslender wallsbehavesodifferentlythanpredictedbytraditional ACI equationshasnot
beenclear until recently. Neither theYellowBook, theGreenBook, nor theSEAOSC Slender Wall TaskGroup
discussanytheorybehindthelower crackingmoment M
cr
or thebilinear moment-deflectionequationuniqueto
slender walls. ResearchconductedinAustraliaandCanadahasprovidedgoodexplanationstothedisparitybetween
traditional ACI deflectiontheoryandthefull-scaleslender wall tests(Lawson2007b).
Theconflict betweenM
cr
observationsandtheACI M
cr
equationisassociatedwithinternal concreteshrinkage
stressesfirst investigatedindeflectingflat slabs(ScanlonandMurray1982). Normally, beamspecimenstestedfor
modulusof ruptureareunreinforcedandhavenorestraint, allowingfreeshrinkage. Oncereinforcingisadded,
shrinkageispartiallyrestrainedasthereinforcinggoesintocompression, causingsurfacetensionstressestodevelop
L / 150
..,.,.,,,........,_,......,.,.,,,,._.,..,..,.,,.._..;;_,.,,,.J'W'...,,,.... ..... ........................_""""_:
250
_ 200
o
C.
:i!
C:
:::.. 150
C
CI)
E
o
100
50 -U------+-----------------------------------(
12 10 8 6
Deflection (in)
4 2

o
=
=
=
Tilt-up Buildings
intheconcrete. Thesepre-existingtensionstressescausereinforcedmemberstocrackearlier thanexpectedinplain
concrete. Flexural memberswithlowreinforcement ratiossuchastilt-upslender wallsareespeciallysensitiveto
shrinkagerestraint stress, thussignificantlyreducingtheeffectivecrackingmoment (ScanlonandBischoff 2007,
Gilbert 2001).
Thestiffnessof memberswithonlyacentral layer of reinforcingor that arelightlyreinforceddependsgreatlyonthe
tensioningeffectsof theplainconcretenear thesurface. Oncethisconcretecracks, thereisusuallyanabrupt change
instiffness. Without considerationof theshrinkageeffects, stiffnesscanbesignificantlyunderestimatedandthus
unexpecteddeflectionscanoccur under servicelevel loads. Other buildingcodesaroundtheworldalreadyhave
similar provisionsfor areducedeffectivecrackingmoment or modulusof ruptureduetoshrinkagerestraint,
includingtheAustralianStandardfor ConcreteStructuresAS3600, theCanadianCodeCSA A23.3(for slabs), and
theEurocode. A comparisonof thesecodesinconjunctionwithavailabletestingdataindicatesthat useof 0.67M
cr
or useof f
r
5 f
c
'=intypical slender wall designisappropriateinsteadof thecurrent ACI 318(Scanlonand
Bischoff 2007, Lawson2007b).
Thereducedeffectivecrackingmoment outlinedabovedoesnot fullyexplainthebetter fit of thebilinear curveused
bytheUBC. Bischoff andScanlon(2007) studiedthisissuewithrespect toconcretereinforcedwithFiber
ReinforcedPolymer Barsandfoundsimilar issuespersist amongother thinlightlyreinforcedconcretemembers,
includingconcretetilt-upwall panels
Bischoff identifiedsignificant limitationswithBransonsequationfor I
e
whenappliedtothinconcretemembers
withacentral layer of steel, andhehasproposedasolution. BransonsEquation, first publishedin1963, wasbased
onlarger test beamswheretheratioof gross/crackedmoment of inertia(I
g
/I
cr
) wastypically2.2. Bischoff foundthat
Bransonsequationbecameapoor predictor of deflectionwhenthisratioexceededthree(I
g
/I
cr
>3). Slender
concretewallsarefar abovethis, withcommonvaluesrangingfrom15to25for singlelayer reinforcedwallsand6
to12for double-layer reinforcedwalls. Thusdeflectionisunder predicted.
Bischoff hasproposedanewequationasareplacement toBransonsfor effectivemoment of inertia. Thisequation
matcheswell withbothlarger flexural beamsandthinslender walls, effectivelytransitioningseamlesslytoanear
bilinear load-deflectioncurveat highI
g
/I
cr
ratios.
I
cr I
I s=I cr
e 2 g
q= 1
where
1q= |=
|=M
cr
|=
I
g
|
M
\= a .=
Useof Bischoffsequationwithareduced0.67M
cr
providesasingleapproachtocomputingreasonablyaccurate
deflectionsinlightlyreinforcedslender tilt-upwalls(ScanlonandBischoff 2007, Lawson2007a). Figure4
comparestheload-deflectioncurveusingACI 318-05, replacingBransonsI
e
withBischoffsI
e
, andreplacingthe
ACI M
cr
with0.67M
cr
. Thisprovidesamuchbetter fit thanthecurrent ACI 318-05deflectionequation. Whilethis
proposedcurveisnearlyparallel tothetest data, it appearstoconsistentlyoverestimatetheservicelevel deflections.
Thisdiscrepancymaybeattributedtothepanelsbeingtestedat 160daysinsteadof reachingultimatedrying
shrinkageandthusaresultinglower M
cr.
.
Reveals, recesses, andform-liner surfacetreatmentsmust all beconsideredastheyreducethewall sectionnet
thicknessandflexural depthof thereinforcing. Narrow, reasonablyshallowrevealsthat onlyoccur occasionally
acrossthepanel height oftencanbejustifiedasnot significantlyaffectingthepanel stiffnessfor determinationof
out-of-planedeflections, but thesestill must beincludedinthemoment strengthanalysisif theyexist at critical
designsections.
Tilt-up Buildings
TheequationsinACI 318-05Section14.8areverystraightforwardandcaneasilybewritteninspreadsheet formfor
theengineersownuse. Several commerciallyavailablesoftwarepackagesareavailableonthemarket for designing
or analyzingthesewalls. Thewidelyavailableprogramsmakebasicassumptionsassociatedwithwall openingsand
aretobeconsideredonlyestimates, but areappropriatepractice. Thetrueout-of-planebehavior of atilt-upwall
panel withopeningsismorelikeatwodimensional flat slabwithpenetrationsrequiringuseof general-purpose
finiteelement programstoobtainmoreaccurateresults. However, theinherent changesinconcretestiffness
associatedwithflexural crackingduetothevariousseismicstressesandoriginal liftingstressesmakesthelikelihood
of averyaccuratefiniteelement analysisremoteandthereforenot warranted.
Figure 4. Moment-DeflectionCurveComparisonwithModifiedI
e
andM
cr
Values
Engineersusingfiniteelement programstodesignpanelsarecautionedtoresearchtheunderlyingassumptionsand
equations. Muchof what isknownabout slender wall behavior isbasedonempiricallyderivedequationsfromtest
data. Computer resultsfromprogramsbasedentirelyontheoretical formulasmaybeinerror.
Wall Anchorage, Subdiaphragms and Continuity Ties. Inthemid1960s, engineerswhoworkedclosely
withcontractorsbeganusingwoodledgersasthedefault wall anchoragewithanchor boltsclusteredaroundwood
purlins. Thisresultedinnopositivedirect tieanchoringtheperimeter concretewall panelstothesupportingroof
structure. Instead, theroof plywoodsheathingwassimplynailedawoodledger whichwasboltedtotheinsideface
of thewall panels(SEAONC 2001, chapter 3). 2xsubpurlinsand4xpurlinsweresupportedfromtheledger by
metal hangers. Theglulambeamsandoccasionallytaperedsteel girdersweresupportedontopof thepilastersand
hadseat connectionswithminimal tiecapacity. Thisindirect tiearrangement relieduponthewoodledger incross-
grainbending, averyweak material propertyof wood.
L /150
300
250
..,,,,, ,, ..,o"V'..JV' -.r.rJV'JV'""" ...., , .....",. J'..
I
I
_ 200 __
tn
C.
:s2
C
::- 150
c
CD
E
o
:li: 100
50 -f-H'-------+-------------------------------------i
12 10 8 6
Deflection (in)
4 2
O-f-.......,...-.,.............,......l......r-...,................,..-..,..............,-......---.-----.-....,......-.--,....-.......,.,-,-...,................,..-.,......--,-r----.----,-,--.-----\
o
Tilt-up Buildings
Inthe1971SanFernandoEarthquake, tilt-upbuildingsperformedpoorly. Manywoodledgerssplit length-wisedue
tocross-grainbendingloads, andplywoodedgenailingpulledthroughplywoodpanel edgesastheresult of wall
anchoragetensionloads. Partial roof collapsesandwall collapseswerecommonintheareasof strongground
motion(NOAA 1971, SEAONC, 2001). It wasclear morerestrictivecoderequirementswouldbeneeded.
Beginningwiththe1973UBC, therequirement for positivedirect wall tieswasintroducedandwall anchorageusing
woodcross-grainbendingwasexpresslyprohibited. Inaddition, continuouscrosstieswereintroducedfor concrete
andmasonrywallssupportedbyroof systems. Inorder totransfer seismicforcesfromtheheavyperimeter wallsinto
themainroof diaphragm, continuoustiesor crosstiesarenecessarytodragtheloaduniformlyacrossthediaphragm
depth.
Inthe1976, UBC, theconcept of subdiaphragmswasintroducedasananalytical devicefor transferringforcesfrom
theindividual wall tiestothecontinuouscrossties(SheedyandSheedy, 1992). Insteadof creatingacontinuoustieat
everywall anchoragelocation, continuouscrosstiescanbeplacedat wider spacingusingsubdiaphragms.
Subdiaphragmsareportionsof themaindiaphragmthat spanbetweenthecontinuouscrosstiesandgather thewall
anchorageloadsandtransfer thisloadtothecrossties. Oncetheloadiscollectedintothecontinuouscrosstiesit is
distributedacrossthemaindiaphragmfor further distributiontoshear wallsandframesof thebuilding.
Inthe1979UBC, thewall anchoragedesignforcewasincreased50%from0.2W
p
to0.3W
p
(whereW
p
isthe
tributarywall weight) for seismiczone4. Thecodeimprovementsof the1970swerenot testeduntil the1984
MorganHill, CaliforniaEarthquake. Eventhoughonlyafewtilt-upbuildingssawmoderatelevelsof shaking, it
providedthefirst performancecomparisonof tilt-upbuildingsbuilt beforeandafter the1973and1976code
changes. Several 1960seratilt-upbuildingssufferedwall anchorageor continuitytiefailures. Ontheother hand, a
tilt-upbuildingbuilt tomoremoderncodessawnostructural damagedespitetheestimated0.3g-0.4gground
accelerations(EERI 1985).
TheWhittier NarrowsEarthquakein1987testedsignificantlymoretilt-upbuildingsthantheMorganHill
Earthquake, but forceswerestill onlymoderate. Pre-1973UBC buildingssawfailuresat thewall inledger cross-
grainbending, cross-graintensionsplitsat interior diaphragmareas, anddiaphragmnailingpullingthroughthe
plywoodedges, similar towhat wasobservedintheSanFernandoEarthquake. Incontrast, thetilt-upbuildings
designedunder moremoderncodesperformedmuchbetter. Despitethebetter performanceof themoremodern
codes, therewassomeconcernwhether thecodeprovisionswereadequatetomeet performanceobjectivesunder
verystronglevelsof shaking(EERI 1988).
Researchoninstrumentedrigidwall buildingswithflexiblediaphragmsfollowingthe1984MorganHill (elebi et
al. 1989) andthe1989LomaPrietaEarthquakes(Bouwkamp, Hamburger, andGillengerten1991) indicatedthat the
dynamicresponseof structureswithpredominantlysolidwallsisdominatedbythediaphragms, amplifyingroof
accelerationsandcorrespondingwall anchoragesignificantlymorethanpreviouslythought. Therecorded
amplificationof groundaccelerationstoroof accelerationsresultedinthebasisof a1991UBC revisionincreasing
wall tieforcesanother 50%to0.45W
p
for seismiczone4(SheedyandSheedy1992). Thishigher wall tieforcewas
onlyrequiredat thecenter half of thediaphragmspan.
The1994Northridge, CaliforniaEarthquakewasthefirst test of modernpost-1979buildingcodetilt-upprovisions
under verystrongshaking. Hundredsof tilt-upbuildingswereseverelydamagedwithpartial roof collapses(CSSC
1995, Brooks2000). Damageinpre-1973buildingswasnot necessarilyasurprise, but thenumerouswall anchorage
failuresinpost-1973codebuildingsweretroubling.
Theunexpectedwall anchoragedamagetonewer buildingswasprimarilyattributedtotwomainreasons: inadequate
connectionoverstrengthfor theroof accelerationsandexcessivedeformationof thewall anchor system(APA 1994,
EERI 1996). Light-gaugesteel twist strapswereespeciallyaproblemduetotheir geometryandlimitedoverstrength
(Harriset al. 1998). Researchandpost-earthquakeinvestigationshaveshownthat rooftopaccelerationsmaybethree
tofour timesthegroundacceleration, andinsufficient overstrengthor ductilityhasbeenprovidedinpast connection
practices(elebi et al. 1989, Harriset al. 1998). Basedonobservationsof NorthridgeEarthquakedamage, it was
Tilt-up Buildings
deemedbest toresist brittlefailurethroughtheuseof significantlyhigher designforcesinconjunctionwith
anticipatedmaterial overstrengthinsteadof relianceonductility. Asaresult, wall anchorageforcesat theroof were
increasedfrom0.45W
p
to0.88W
p
/1.4=0.63W
p
(ASD) andtheloadwasappliedover theentirespanof thediaphragm
inthe1997UBC. Material-specificloadfactors(1.4for steel, 0.85for wood, 1.0concrete/masonry) werespecified
toobtainuniformoverstrengthwithintheconnectiontoresist thedemandfrommaximumexpectedroof
accelerationsof 4C
a
. Thisapproachiswell documentedinthe1999SEAOC BlueBook, Recommended Lateral
Force Requirements and Commentary (SEAOC SeismologyCommittee1999, SectionC108.2.8.1).
Asfurther evidenceof theintent of thesewall anchorageprovisions, SEAOC statedthat thereducedR
p
valuefor
nonductileandshallowanchorageinthe1997UBC doesnot applytowall anchoragedesignedusingthis
overstrengthapproach(SEAOC SeismologyCommittee1999).
Noprescriptivedeformationlimitsof thewall tiesystemhavebeenintroducedintotheCode, however the
compatibilityof anchoragesystemflexibilityanddiaphragmshear nailingmust beconsidered. Wall anchorage
systemswithtoomuchflexibilitywill inadvertentlyloadthewoodsheathingedgenailingandeither pull thenails
throughtheedgeor placetheledgersincross-grainbendingor tension. Pre-manufacturedstrap-typewall tiesare
designedtolimit themaximumdeformationto1/8inat their ratedallowableloadbasedonlegacyICBO
AcceptanceCriteria13(ICBO2002), andpre-manufacturedhold-downdevicesusinganchor rodscouldalloweven
greater deformation. Engineersshouldcontact thedevicemanufacturer for additional deformationinformation. The
hold-downdeviceflexibilityissolelywithinthesteel component itself andisadditivetoother sourcesof
deformation. Additional deformationcanbecontributedbyother anchoragecomponents(e.g. boltsandnails) and
installationpractices(e.g. oversizedholes).
In2001, theCityof LosAngelesadoptedamorestringent requirement that limitsthedeformationof thewall
anchorageto3/8 under 3F
P
loading, withnomorethan1/8inoccurringinthesteel connector itself. The3/8in
deformationlimit includescontributionsfromslipinnails, bolts, or screws; woodshrinkage; deformationof steel,
concrete, andwoodcomponents; andinelasticdeformationintheanchor connector betweenthewall andthe
attachedframingmember (LADBS2002). Theintent istorationallylimit thedeformationunder maximumexpected
wall tieforcesat theroof level (3F
P
) toadimensionequal totheminimumnail distancetothesheathingedge(3/8
in). It isrecommendedthat neweditionsof thebuildingcodelimit seismicwall anchoragedeformationusinga
similar approach.
Current Wall Anchorage Provisions
ASCE 7-05Section12.11.2.1governswall anchoragedesignfor most of thetilt-upbuildingsinCalifornia, where
SeismicDesignCategoryC andhigher appliesfor bearingwalls. Inthedevelopment of ASCE 7-05, theintent was
tomaintainthesamewall anchorageforcesasinthe1997UBC for flexiblediaphragmsinhighseismiczones.
SubstitutingC
a
=0.4S
DS
(BSSC 2004b), it canbeconfirmedthat ASCE 7-05Eq. 12.11-1isgenerallyequivalent to
the1997UBC.
Thewall tieforcesof F
P
=0.8S
DS
IW
P
for flexiblediaphragmsaredoublethenormal wall designforceinSection
12.11.1andfour timesthetypical tilt-upbuildingbaseshear toaccount for theexpectedrooftopamplification
associatedwithflexiblediaphragms. A steel material loadfactor of 1.4isappliedtothewall tieforcestoreach
necessarylevelsof material overstrengthasinthepast 1997UBC Section1633.2.8.1. Thissteel component factor
appliestothewall anchoragesystem, andbecausethewall anchoragesystemisdefinedtoincludethewall ties,
subdiaphragm, andcontinuityties, the1.4factor appliestoall steel componentsandmembersinthesesubsystems.
Steel componentsgovernedbywoodcapacity, suchasnailsandboltsinshear, arenot subject tothe1.4multiplier
becauseof thegreater material overstrengthavailablefromwood(Harriset al. 1998). The0.85material loadfactor
for woodcomponentsinthe1997UBC Section1633.2.8.1isneither apart of theASCE 7-05nor the2006IBC
provisions. ThusASCE 7-05will result inamoreconservativedesignof thewoodportionof thewall anchor system
thanthe1997UBC.
Tilt-up Buildings
Tosummarize, theASCE 7-05implementsveryhighwall anchorageforcelevelstoachieveuniformprotection
against brittlefailurewithout relianceuponductility. Thiswasachievedusingarational approachconsidering
inherent overstrengthof variousmaterials. Throughanunrelatedparallel effort, ACI 318-05hasinadvertently
combinedtheelevatedforcelevelsof theoverstrengthapproachinASCE 7-05withnewductilityrequirementsfor
seismicanchorageinACI 318-05AppendixDSectionsD.3.3.4andD.3.3.5. Theseductilityrequirementswere
inadvertentlyaddedontopof theelevatedanchorageforcelevelsinconflict withtheoriginal intent of theASCE
provisions.
Furthermore, 2006IBC Section1908.1.16allowsanadditional 2.5loadfactor ontopof alreadyelevatedanchorage
forcesinASCE 7-05inlieuof theACI ductilityrequirement. TheIBC 2.5loadfactor or ACI ductilityrequirement
usedontopof elevatedwall anchorageprovisionsof ASCE 7-05Section12.11.2.1isnot appropriateandmaybe
difficult toachieveintilt-upwall anchoragedesign.
At non-flexiblediaphragms, wall anchorageprovisionsareprovidedunder ASCE 7-05Section12.11.1resultingin
F
P
=0.40S
DS
IW
p
. Thisvaluefor F
P
issignificantlylower thanthat inflexiblediaphragmsduetothelesser
amplificationassociatedwiththat construction. Seldomaretilt-upwall panelsdefinedasnonstructural walls(walls
that havelessthan200plf superimposedgravityloadandarealsonot lateral force-resistingwalls). Anchorageof
nonstructural wallstonon-flexiblediaphragmsisdesignedunder ASCE 7-05Section13.3withadditional provisions
of Section13.5.3. At nonstructural wallssupportedbyflexiblediaphragms, afootnoteat thebottomof Table13.5-1
referencesSection12.11.2inlieuof theprovisionsof Section13.3, makinganchorageof structural and
nonstructural wallstoflexiblediaphragmsthesame.
Wall anchorageforcesact incompressionaswell astension. Panelizedwoodroof systemsbytheir verynatureare
not erectedtight against theperimeter wall ledger, leavingasmall gaptopotentiallycloseduringseismic
compressionforces. Thisgapisproperlyaresult of castinganderectiontolerancesof construction. Strap-typewall
anchorsthat haveyieldedandstretchedunder tensileforcesarevulnerabletobucklingandlow-cyclefatigueasthe
gapsclose. Cast-in-placeanchor rodsusedinconnectorscanbecheckedfor compression, but it isimportant to
provideanadditional nut against theinterior wall surfacetoprevent theanchor punchingthroughthewall. At steel
ledger conditions, oftenwall anchorageisachievedwithsteel anglestrapsthat areboltedtotheroof structureand
capableof resistingcompressiveforces. Althoughtherehavebeennofailuresof wall panelscollapsinginto
buildings, considerationof compressiveforceswill better maintaintheintegrityof thewall anchoragetiefor tension
forces.
Connectionsthat areloadedeccentricallyor arenot perpendicular tothewall arerequiredtobeinvestigatedfor any
bendingandall resultingforcecomponentsinducedbytheconfiguration. Thebendinginducedbysingle-sided
connectionscombinedwiththewall tieaxial loadmayoverstresstheattachedwoodroof member andbeasourceof
potential failure(Hamburger andNelson1999). It isrecommendedthat wall tieconnectorsbeappliedsymmetrically
wherepossible.
Failuresof beamseatsor spallingof pilastershaveoccurredinrecent past earthquakes(EERI 1996). Wherepilasters
occur, ASCE 7-05Section12.11.2.2.7requiresconsiderationof theforceconcentrationduetothepilaster stiffening
effect onthewall out-of-plane. Theanchorageforceat thetopof thepilaster isdeterminedbyconsideringtwo-way
bendingactionof thewall panel. Thisconcentratedforceisapplieddirectlytoanyframingmember anchoredtothe
topof thepilaster. Reductionof thetypical wall anchorageforceelsewherealongthewall isnot permitted.
Anchorage to Wood Diaphragms. Asinpreviouscodessincethe1970s, wall anchoragetowoodroof systems
isnot allowedtodependuponcross-grainbending, nailinginwithdrawal, or diaphragmsheathingintension. Wall
anchorageloadsaretransferredintothemaindiaphragmwithsubdiaphragmsandcontinuouscrossties. These
provisionsareadirect result of thepoor performanceduringthe1971SanFernandoEarthquake.
Subdiaphragmsareprovidedunder ASCE 7-05Section12.14.7.5.1asananalytical devicetoprovidearational load
pathfor wall anchorage. Subdiaphragmaspect ratiosarelimitedto2to1, andthisprovidessufficient stiffnessthat
theindependent deflectionbetweenthesubdiaphragmandthemaindiaphragmmaybeignored. Tilt-upwarehouse
Tilt-up Buildings
buildingstodayoftenhavelargecolumnspacingof 50, 60, even70feet, resultinginverylargesubdiaphragmspans
andcorrespondingsubdiaphragmdepths. Pursuant toinvestigationsof damagestowooddiaphragmsafter the1994
NorthridgeEarthquake, thejoint taskforcerecommendedcontinuoustiesat specifiedspacingtocontrol crossgrain
tensionintheinterior of diaphragmandsubdiaphragmshear limitedtocontrol combinedorthogonal stressedwithin
thesubdiaphragm. Asaresult, LosAngelesCityandLosAngelesCountyjurisdictionshavetakenaconservative
approachbylimitingspacingof continuoustiesto25ft andsubdiaphragmshearsto300plf. Inarecent updateof
theLosAngelesRegional UniformCodeProgram(LARUCP) aspart of adoptionprocessof the2007California
BuildingCode, thecontinuoustiespacinglimit isincreasedto40ft andshear valueincreasedto75%of thecode-
allowablediaphragmshear inthedeterminationof subdiaphragmdepth. Therevisionswerebasedonimproved
performanceandstandardsfor diaphragmconstructiontoday. (2007LARUCP.)
Thebenefit of the300plf upper boundonsubdiaphragmshear strengthisthereservecapacityavailablefor
orthogonal effectsfromseismicloading. Becausesubdiaphragmsareapart of themaindiaphragm, theyare
theoreticallysubject toshear loadsfrombothorthogonal directions. Considerationof orthogonal loadingeffectsin
diaphragmshearsisnot normal practicetoday, however thisapproachmaybemorerational inlieuof arbitraryshear
capacitylimits. Onesuchapproachworthconsideringistolimit subdiaphragmshearsto1.0/(1.0+0.3) =77%of
their allowablediaphragmshear value, reservingtheremaining23%for orthogonal effectsasdiscussedinthe2003
NEHRP CommentarySection4.2.2(NEHRP 2003).
Researchindicatesthat thedynamicamplificationassociatedwithflexiblediaphragmsamplifiesthewall anchorage
forces, but thisincreaseislimitedbyyieldingof theroof diaphragm. Under lowlevelsof groundmotion, roof
diaphragmsremainelasticandamplifygroundforces3to3times, but under stronggroundmotionlevelsthe
amplificationisreducedtoapproximately2timesduetononlinear behavior. Thisreductioninamplificationis
beneficial tothewall anchoragesystem, becausesystemfailureisnowinitiatinginthemoreductilediaphragm
insteadof thewall anchoragecomponents. However, thisassumesthediaphragmisnot excessivelyconservative.
Becausetilt-upbuildingsareoftenlongandnarrow, diaphragmdesignsaremoregovernedbyforcesinthe
transversedirection, resultinginconservativeoverstrengthinthelongitudinal direction. Thisresultsinmoreelastic
diaphragmbehavior inthelongitudinal direction, andthuslarger wall anchorageforceamplificationsat thenarrow
endsof thebuilding, withforcespossiblyexceedingthelevel of 1.2ganticipatedinthecurrent codeprovisions
(Harriset al. 1998).
Anchorage of Walls to Metal Deck Diaphragms. AlthoughlesscommoninCaliforniathanpanelizedwood
sheathing, flexiblemetal deck diaphragms(without fill) arebecomingmorecommonintilt-upconstructionin
seismicallyactiveareas. Whendesignedproperly, metal deckingcanassist inprovidingwall anchorageand
eliminatetheneedfor subdiaphragmsbyactingitself asthecontinuouscrossties. Important detailingissuesmust be
carefullyconsidered.
Metal deckcanonlyprovidecontinuouscrosstiesparallel tothedeckspandirection. ASCE 7-05Section12.14.7.5.3
specificallyprohibitsuseof metal deckperpendicular tothedirectionof spanfor continuity, becausethedeckflutes
will stretchout andflatten. Wherethedeckingisspliced, acommonstructural member isnecessarytoreceivethe
attachment frombothdeckpanels. Incommonsteel joist (truss) systemswithdoubletopchords, it isnecessarythat
bothdeckpanelsbeattachedtothesameindividual topchordhalf, otherwisecrosstieloadswill beinadvertently
transferredthroughthesteel joist (truss) topchordseparationplateor webwelding, dependingonjoist web
configuration. Another concernat thedeckpanel spliceanddirect ledger attachment istheweldtear-out throughthe
metal deck. Proper deckgaugeandpuddleweldedgedistancemust bemaintainedfor adequatewall anchorage
strength. A better approachistoprovidesteel anglesperpendicular tothewall totransfer wall anchorageintothe
diaphragm, similar toawoodroof systemapproach.
Another challengewithmetal deckdiaphragmsistheneedfor thermal expansionjoints. Metal deckroof diaphragms
aremuchmorevulnerabletotemperatureswingsthanwooddiaphragmsystems, andwiththetrendtowardslarger
roof dimensions, thermal expansionjointsbecomemorelikely. However, theseexpansionjointsinterrupt the
continuityof thewall anchoragesystem(crossties) andthuscreateseveral independent structural unitstobe
analyzedseparately. Thewall anchorageforcesmust befullydevelopedintothemaindiaphragmandtransferredto
Tilt-up Buildings
theapplicableshear wallsbeforereachingtheexpansionjoint. Thisresultsinlarger diaphragmshearswhen
comparedwithwooddiaphragmswithout expansionjoints.
If themetal deckisexpectedtocarrywall anchorageforces, it must beinvestigatedfor tensionandcompression
axial loadsinconjunctionwithactinggravityloads. Theaxial compressionloadsareassociatedwithinwardwall
forcesandrequireaspecial axial/bendinganalysisof thedecking. TheNorth American Specification for Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (AISI 2001) providesdesigncriteriafor thedecking, andtheStructural
Steel EducationCouncil (Mayo2001) illustratesoneapproachfor thiswall anchorage.
Anchorage to Roof Framing. Whether usingapanelizedwoodsheathedroof or ametal deckroof, steel trusses
or joistsarenowthemost commonroof framingmembersintilt-upbuildingsinCalifornia. Thistrendbeganinthe
early1990swhenrisingtimber pricesincreasedthecost of traditional woodroof systems. Intermsof wall
anchorage, theuseof steel trussframingisadvantageousbecausesteel joistsareattachedbydirect weldingat the
steel wall ledger andat interior crosstiesplicelocations. Thiseliminatestheconnectiondeformationor stretch
problemsthat contributedtocross-grainbendingandplywoodedgenailingpullingout of sheathingedgesduring
past earthquakes. Steel joist systemsaretypicallydesignedbyspecialtyengineersinassociationwiththe
manufacturer, andthebuildingdesignengineer isresponsiblefor providingaxial wall tieandcontinuitytieloadsto
themanufacturer alongwithinformationstatingwhichloadfactorsif anyhavealreadybeenapplied(IBC Section
2206.2). Inconditionswhereaxial loadsaretransferredthroughthejoist seat, it must bemadeclear tothe
manufacturer sothat theseat strengthcanbecheckedalso. Therearelimitstotheamount of loadthat manufacturers
cantransfer throughthesejoist seats. Theexplosivegrowthof thesteel joist systemintilt-upbuildingshasoccurred
sincethe1994NorthridgeEarthquake, andit remainstobeseenwhat level of performancemayoccur inthese
buildingswhensubject tosevereshaking.
Anadditional result of the1994NorthridgeEarthquakewasthepassagebytheCityof LosAngelesof anewtilt-up
retrofit ordinance. After estimatingthat onethirdof thenearly1200tilt-upbuildingsintheSanFernandoValley
sufferedsignificant damageinthat earthquake, LosAngelesunveiledanordinancethat wasdevelopedin
conjunctionwithSEAOSC torequirewall anchorageandcontinuitytiesinexistingpre-1976tilt-upbuildings. A
similar ordinancewasadoptedinLosAngelesCountyandinother jurisdictionsnot longafter. Thisordinancedoes
not attempt toforceolder tilt-upbuildingstocomplywithcurrent coderequirements, but insteadaimstoobtain
levelsof performanceconsistent withacceptableminimumlifesafety. Additional earthquakehazardreduction
informationisalsoavailablefromother publications(LA City2002; LA County2002, ICBO2001, SEAONC
2001).
Diaphragms
Themost commonroof systemusedintilt-upconstructiontodayinCaliforniaisthehybridroof. Thisconsistsof
woodstructural-usepanelssuchasplywoodor orientedstrandboard(OSB) nailedtowoodnailersfactoryinstalled
tothetopchordof open-websteel joists. Current tilt-updevelopment trendsincludelarger andtaller buildingswith
moreclear-spaceandclear-height tofacilitatewarehousinganddistribution. Thesetrendsareplacingmoredemand
onthewoodroof diaphragmstospanfarther horizontallywithhigher shear stresses. Fromthe1967UBC and
throughthecurrent 2006CBC, themaximumallowableshear inhorizontal wooddiaphragmsis820plf per IBC
Table2306.3.1. The820plf tablemaximummaybeexceededwithaspecial high-loadwooddiaphragmwith
multiplerowsof fastenersper IBC Table2306.3.2. Inlargetilt-upbuildings, engineershaverelieduponthesehigh-
loaddiaphragmvalueswithshear capacitiesupto1800plf. First introducedasanICBOEvaluationServiceER
document, thesehigh-capacity wooddiaphragmsarenowincorporatedintotheIBC. Special inspectionisrequired,
however manyspecial inspectorsdonot haveexperienceor certificationwiththistypeof inspection. If somedoubt
existsastothequalificationsof theSpecial Inspector, it isrecommendedthat apreconstructionmeetingbeheldto
clarifytheinspectionissues.
LesscommoninCaliforniatilt-upbuildingsistheuseof metal deckastheroof diaphragm. Thesediaphragmsare
capableof higher shearsthanwooddiaphragms, but concernsof thermal expansionoftenlimit thediaphragmwidth
Tilt-up Buildings
byintroducingexpansionjoints, asnotedabove. Metal deckdiaphragmsarecapableof reachingover 3000plf
allowabledesignvalueswithheavygaugematerial andspecial attachments.
Theperformanceof tilt-upbuildingdiaphragmswill bemorecritical nowastheproblemsassociatedwithwall
anchorageareovercome. Withwall anchorageandcollector designforcesfactoreduptomaximumexpectedlevels,
andwithperimeter shear wallsoftenconsistingof solidwall panelsprovidingexcessivelateral strength, ductile
yieldingof theroof diaphragmisthought tobethelikelyfailuremodeinnewstructures. Unfortunately, damageto
thesediaphragmsisnot easilyobserveduntil significant separationsor partial collapsesoccur.
Diaphragm Chords. Diaphragmbehavior issimilar toaflat beam, withdiaphragmchordsactingasbeam
flanges. Withlarger roof diaphragms, higher chordforcesalsooccur. Inthepast, structural chordstypically
consistedof special reinforcingbarsembeddedinthewall panelsnear therooflineconnectedtogether withwelding
acrossthepanel joints. Withthedisappearanceof cast-in-placepilastersor stitchcolumnsinthe1970s, thenewdry
panel jointsresultedinchordconnectionsthat weremorevulnerabletosettlement andconcreteshrinkagestrains.
Distressat chordconnectionsacrosspanel jointswastakingontheformof concretespallingandweld-breakseven
without earthquakes.
Prior tothelate1980s, reinforcingchordbarsweregenerallyof ASTM A615Grade60material, whichwas
vulnerabletoweldembrittlement failures(intheweldedsplices) duetoimproper preheating. Brokenchord
connectionsat theseweldswereobservedinthe1987Whittier NarrowsEarthquake(EERI 1988). Beginningwith
the1985UBC, ASTM A706reinforcingwasintroducedfor weldedlocationsandseismicframereinforcingbecause
of thetight controlsoncarbonequivalencyandyieldlimitsfor that material. ASTM A706requireslesspreheating
andresultsinfewer weldembrittlement problems, andit isthusrecommendedfor weldedchordreinforcing. IBC
Section1908.1.5discouragesweldingof ASTM A615reinforcingbyrequiringareport of material propertiesfrom
theproducer toestablishproper preheating. ASTM A706doesnot havethisrequirement.
Steel ledger systemsbegantoappear inthemid1980s, andthesesteel channelsor angleswereweldedtogether
acrossthepanel jointstofunctionasdiaphragmchords. Thiscircumventedtheweldembrittlement problemwith
reinforcingbar connections, andsteel ledgerswereobservedtohaveperformedverywell intheWhittier Narrows
earthquake(EERI 1988). Steel ledgersarecommonlyusedtodayfor supportingtheroof systemandactingas
diaphragmchordreinforcing.
Another sourceof earthquakedamageinchordconnectionsistheconditionof skewedor angledwall connections.
Withtilt-upbuildingsnowfrequentlybeingplacedonirregularlyshapedlots, buildingplansarenolonger simplyL-
shapedor rectangular. Oftencornersareclippedor angledtoaccommodateadjacent propertylinesor easements.
Tensilechordforcesinflexiblediaphragmsmust resolvethemselvesaroundtheskewedwall connection, andthese
forcesresult inaninwardor outwardthrust component. Thiscomponent isseldomresolvedproperlywitha
connectionintothemaindiaphragm, andit resultsinchordreinforcingor steel ledgersbeingdamaged(EERI 1988,
EQE 1989).
Inlargediaphragmsystems, thenumerouscontinuitytiesrequiredfor thewall anchoragesystemwill behave
inadvertentlyasacollectionof chordelementsacrossthediaphragm. Basedonstraincompatibility, thecontinuity
tiesall assist inprovidingacollectivechordthat distributeschordforcesover alarger portionof theroof structure
(Lawson2007c). Thisapproachiscloser totheactual behavior of thediaphragmandcanresult insubstantially
lower forcesineachchordmember. For simplicity, engineerstypicallymodel chordsasasingleelement at the
perimeter of thebuilding.
Diaphragm collectors. Significant collector forcesareoftenfoundintilt-upconstructionduetothelargeopen
interior spaces, withcollectorsdraggingforcestore-entrant corner shear elementsor interior bracedframeelements.
Transferringtheloadsfromroof framingcollectorsintotheconcretewall panelscanbechallenging, especiallyat re-
entrant cornersthat mayhavetwointersectingcollectors. Typically, thecollector isconnectedtoanembeddedsteel
platewithdragreinforcingusedtodistributetheloadintotheshear wall line. Thecollector loadsarenormally
Tilt-up Buildings
draggedacrosspanel jointsinorder todistributethecollecteddiaphragmloadintosufficient wall length. The
collector loadintheroof structureissubject tothespecial loadcombinationsreferencedinASCE 7-05Section
12.4.3.2.
In-plane Diaphragm Deflection. Intilt-upshear wall buildings, diaphragmdeflectioniscomputedfor the
designof buildingseparationsanddeformationcompatibility. Thein-planeshear wall drift istypicallyinsignificant
comparedwiththediaphragmdeflectionandisusuallyignored. Alsoignorediswall panel out-of-planedeflection
whenconsideringbuildingseparations. Theestimateddeflectionof plywooddiaphragmsmaybeobtainedfrom
analysisper IBC Section2305.2.2. Researchindicatesthat under seismicloading, plywooddiaphragmsarestiffer
thanindicatedbytheconventional diaphragmdisplacement formulasandsubject tolessdisplacement amplification
comparedtoforceamplification(Harriset al. 1998). Inlarger roof systems, manyof thecontinuitytiesact
inadvertentlyascollectivechordsreducingtheactual diaphragmdeflection(Lawson2007c). Useof asinglechord
designmodel will typicallybeconservative; however, dynamicdiaphragmmodelingbeingusedinresearchcould
overestimatethediaphragmperiodandobtainunconservativeresults. Metal deckdiaphragmdeflectionsare
computedusingformulasfurnishedinaparticular product ICC EvaluationReport.
Intilt-upbuildings, diaphragmdeflectionresultsinthecolumnsandperpendicular wallsrotatingabout their bases
duetodiaphragmtranslationat thetop. Assumingthecolumnsandwallsweremodeledwithpinnedbasesduring
their individual design, thisbaserotationispermittedtooccur evenif someunintentional fixityexists. Unintentional
fixitymaybetheresult of standardcolumnbaseplateanchorageor wall-to-slabanchoragecombinedwithanywall-
to-footinganchorage. ACI 318-05Section14.8requiresslender tilt-upwallstobetension-controlledandlimitsthe
factoredvertical concretestressto0.06f
c
. Thisallowspanelstobetter accommodateanylocalizeyieldingat the
basewhilecontinuingtocarrythevertical loads.
Diaphragmdeflectionisnot normallyincludedinthestorydrift limitsof ASCE 7-05Section12.12.1. Storydrift
limitsweredevelopedwiththeintent tolimit thedeformationof thebasicvertically-orientedelementsof theseismic
force-resistingsystem. Intilt-upbuildings, thesevertical elementsdeflect verylittlein-plane, withall of the
translationoccurringat other elements. Storydrift limitsdonot applytodiaphragmdeflection.
Over thepast decade, most practitionershavecalculateddiaphragmdeflectionsonlyfor thepurposesof building
setbacksfrompropertylinesor other adjacent buildings, suchasthat requiredinASCE 7-05Section12.12.3. With
thelarger andmoreflexiblediaphragmsbeingbuilt today, IBC Section2305.2.2isbecomingmoreimportant to
consider:
Permissibledeflectionshall bethat deflectionuptowhichthediaphragmandanyattachedload
distributingor resistingelement will maintainitsstructural integrityunder designloadconditions,
suchthat theresistingelement will continuetosupport designloadswithout danger tooccupantsof
thestructure.
Byintention, thislanguageisnot clearlydefined, withtheapproachleft muchtotheengineersownjudgment. In
low-riseconcreteor masonrybuildings, excessivedeflectionsinhorizontal diaphragmscancauseoverall instability
inwallsandcolumnsfromtheP-deltaeffect. Gravityload-bearingwallsandcolumns, whensubjectedtohorizontal
translationat thetop, will begintoinduceahorizontal thrust intothediaphragm, further exacerbatingthedeflection.
Althoughit wasnot originallyintendedtobeusedtoevaluatediaphragmdeformations, ASCE 7-05Section12.8.7
canbeusedastoinvestigateroof stabilityunder P-deltaeffects.
Diaphragm Re-entrant Corners. Unfortunately, tilt-upstandardpracticehasoftenbeentoignorethestiffness
at short re-entrant corners, withthefalsebelief that theshort re-entrant wallswerenot designatedshear wallsand
wouldsomehowaccommodatethediaphragmmovement. Thismistakenassumptionreflectstheover-simplification
of designmadebyengineerswhenanalyzingtheseveryflexiblediaphragms. Eventhoughdeformation
compatibilityprovisionshavebeeninthecodesincethe1976UBC, designershaveoftenignoredthisprovisionin
tilt-upbuildings. Deformationcompatibilityproblemshavebeendocumentedinthe1984MorganHill Earthquake
Tilt-up Buildings
(EERI 1985), the1987Whittier NarrowsEarthquake(EERI 1988), andthe1989LomaPrietaEarthquake(EERI
1990), wherediaphragmdrift toreapart roofsat unintendedstiff wall elements, suchasat re-entrant cornersand
wherefinwallswerelocated, andrackedinterior partitionwallsincontact witheither theroof or tilt-upwalls.
deformation incompatibility at re-
entrant corner causes roof separation
seismic force
direction
predominant diaphragm
deformation
Figure 5. Effect of Shear Wall at Re-entrant Corner onDiaphragmDeformation
Today, tilt-upbuildingsarereceivingmoreattentionintermsof architectural design, withcityplannersand
architectsarticulatingtheformerlylargeflat wall surfacesinaneffort tomakeindustrial parksandwarehousesmore
aestheticallypleasing. Oftenthisresultsinnumerousre-entrant corners, buttresses, finwalls, or other stiff elements
inadvertentlyresistingthediaphragmdrift. Themost direct approachtoaddressre-entrant cornersistodesignshear
wallsalongeachlineof thecorner, thuseliminatinganydeformationincompatibilityissue. Thissolution
unfortunatelyrequireslongdragstrut or collector lines, andtheconfigurationof there-entrant corner maynot be
suitablefor introductionof ashear wall at that location. Another approachcouldbetoinstall aninterior shear wall
or bracedframeelement near there-entrant wall tominimizethediaphragmdeflectionat there-entrant wall.
Insituationswherethere-entrant cornersor other stiff elementsoccur at locationsof largediaphragmdrift, several
other optionsmaybeavailable. Wherethere-entrant corner or stiff element depthisverysmall, anengineer can
investigatetheoptionof allowingtheelement torockor begintooverturninacontrolledmanner. Theengineer can
calculatetheamount of forcenecessarytorockthestiff element andconservativelyattachadiaphragmstrut to
developthat rockingforceintothemaindiaphragm. Thissolutionpreventsroof separationsduetostiffness
incompatibility, but thedesigner must paycareful attentiontodetailingtoensurerockingpanelsarenot
inadvertentlyjoinedtogether or overlyanchoredtothefoundationunlesstheresultinglarger overturningforceis
accountedfor. Supplemental vertical supportsfor major membersframingintosuchre-entrant cornersshouldbe
considered.
Wheninvestigatingtherockingof apanel, it ispossiblethat thepanel itself isperforatedtothepoint that thewall
piersor frame-likememberswill fail inbendingbeforetherockingrelief takesplace. Inthissituation, thewall piers
Tilt-up Buildings
must maintaintheir integrityandaredetailedunder ACI 318-05Section21.11for framemembersnot proportioned
toresist forcesinducedbyearthquakemotions. There-entrant panel isstill connectedtotheroof structuretodevelop
theloadintothediaphragmnecessarytoachievethepushover capacityof thepiers.
Other solutionsmayinvolvetheuseof seismicisolationor expansionjointsintheroof structure. Dependingupon
theconfiguration, theoffendingre-entrant elementscanbeisolatedfromthemaindiaphragmmovement, however
thisrequirestheisolatedportionsof thebuildingtoremainstableontheir own.
InASCE 7-05, therearenoprovisionsthat indicatetheamount of planoffset or re-entrant depththat thesere-entrant
cornerscanreachbeforerequiringinvestigation. In2000IBC Section1617.4.4.2, shear wall lineoffsetsupto5%of
thebuildingdimensionareconsideredsmall enoughinflexiblediaphragmstoallowthedesigner toneglect the
offset anddesignit asonesingleshear wall linewhendistributinghorizontal diaphragmshears. Inthe2003IBC,
thislanguagewasremovedwhenASCE 7-02becamethereferencedocument for thissection. ASCE 7-05doesnot
havethislanguage, other thanidentifyingplanstructural irregularitiesas15%of thebuildingdimensionregardless
of diaphragmflexibility(ASCE 7-05Table12.3-1). Becauseof themorecritical natureof re-entrant cornersin
flexiblediaphragms, it isunconservativetoignorere-entrant cornersmeasuringupto15%of thebuilding
dimension. It isrecommendedthat engineersaddressthedeformationcompatibilityissueassociatedwithre-entrant
cornerswheretheout-of-planewall offsetsaremorethan5%of thediaphragmspandimensionperpendicular tothe
directionof lateral load, asshowninFigure6.
L, diaphragmspan
interior shear wall
or braced frame
direction
of loading
not more than 5%of L, otherwise provide collector for tributary width
of diaphragmor resolve deformation incompatibility
Figure 6. Planof Typical Tilt-upBuilding
IllustratingGuidelinesfor Re-entrant Corner ConsiderationsinFlexibleDiaphragms
Multiple-Story Diaphragm Compatibility. Originally, tilt-upbuildings wereone-story warehouses with
an occasional woodframe mezzanine. As these buildings gained greater acceptance for office environments, the
mezzaninesgrewtofull secondfloorsandinsomeinstancesthirdfloors. Higher-endofficebuildingsarenowusing
I
Tilt-up Buildings
concretefloor systemsover metal deck, whiletheroof systemremainsaflexiblepanelizedwoodroof or metal deck
roof.
Withconcretepanelsextendingfull height continuouslypast theupper floor, diaphragmdeflectionincompatibilities
betweentheroof andfloor diaphragmscanleadtopanel damageor anchoragefailure. Thistypeof damagewasfirst
observedinthe1989LomaPrietaEarthquakewhereafull-height wall panel wasanchoredtoboththeroof and
secondfloor. Thepanel experiencedcrackingalongthesecondfloor level, indicatingtheinitiationof ahorizontal
hinge(SEAOC 1991).
For analytical purposes, engineersnormallyignorewall continuityandassumethepanel hingesat theintermediate
floor lines, thusanchoringtheout-of-planewall loadbasedonsimpletributarywall areastothefloor androof
levels. Inthissituation, somecrackingandhingingof thepanel at theintermediatefloor lineisanticipatedunder
strongshakinglevels, andthisisacceptableaslongastheaxial gravityloadsarestill characteristicallysmall
(limitedbyACI 318-05Section14.8.2.6) andthewall panel issufficientlyflexibleout-of-plane. A worsescenariois
if thewall isexcessivelystiff out-of-planeandtherelativeroof andfloor movementsprythewall anchorageloose
causingalocalizedcollapse. Inconditionswherediaphragmdrift significantlyvariesfromfloor-to-floor or floor-to-
roof, thedesigner shouldinvestigatethewall anchoragecapacityfor thisadditional effect byanalyzingdeformation
compatibilitiesor designingthestabilityof thefloor tobeindependent of theconcretewall system.
Is Tilt-up Construction Precast or Cast-in-Place?
Inthepast, tilt-upengineeringhasgenerallyfolloweddesignanddetailingprovisionsasfor monolithicconcrete.
Precast concretebuildingsweretraditionallyconsideredasstructurescomprisedof numeroussmall concrete
memberscast at anoff-siteplant andtransportedtothejobsitefor assemblage. Individual beam, column, plank, and
narrowwall membersaretraditional precast elements, andACI 318precast concreteprovisionsweredeveloped
withthat constructiontypeprimarilyinmind. Generally, thejoiningof beamstocolumnsfor frameresistanceor the
couplingof narrowwall elementstogether for compositeshear wall resistancerepresentstraditional precast concrete
resistancetoseismicforces. Intraditional precast construction, theindividual element haslittleor nolateral
resistanceonitsown, but reliesupontheassemblagetoachievelateral resistance.
Incontrast totraditional precast, concretetilt-upconstructionconsistsof panelsthat areindividuallystablewall
elementsthat seldomrequirecouplingdevicesfor compositeaction. Penetrationswithinwallsaresurroundedby
deepbeamsabovewhichinturnaremonolithicallycast towall pier elementsat thesides. Theonlydiscontinuities
areat thevertical panel joints, oftentwentyor thirtyfeet apart, andat thepanel-to-footinginterface. Historically, the
in-planeperformanceandductilityof thislateral forceresistingsystemiscloser tocast-in-placeconstructionthan
traditional precast.
TheACI 318-05definesprecast concreteinSection2.2asa"Structural concreteelement cast elsewherethan
itsfinal positioninthestructure." Under thisbroaddefinition, tilt-upconcreteconstructioncouldbe
consideredassite-cast precast. Infact, thetilt-upconcreteconstructionmethodwasfirst discussedinACI
318-95intheCommentaryfor precast concretestating, "Tilt-upconcreteconstructionisaformof precast
concrete."
InASCE 7-05Table12.2-1, "DesignCoefficientsandFactorsfor SeismicForce-ResistingSystems," therearenow
threecategoriesunder theheadingfor BearingWall Systemsandfor BuildingFrameSystemsthat potentiallyapply
totilt-upbuildingsasaformof precast concreteconstruction. TheseareOrdinaryPrecast Shear Walls, Intermediate
Precast Shear Walls, andSpecial ReinforcedConcreteShear Walls. Thecategoryof IntermediatePrecast Shear
Wallsisnewandrepresentsatransitionindetailingandexpectedperformancebetweenordinaryandspecial
systems. ACI 318-05Commentary21.1indicatesthat theIntermediatePrecast Shear Wall systemisequivalent toa
Cast-in-PlaceOrdinaryReinforcedConcreteShear Wall. However, ASCE 7-05placesheight limitsonthe
IntermediatePrecast systeminSeismicDesignCategoriesD, E, andF, whereasOrdinaryReinforcedConcrete
Shear Wallsarenot permittedinSeismicDesignCategoriesD, E, andF per ASCE 7-05; IntermediatePrecast Shear
Wallsarepermittedrecognizingtheir additional wall pier detailingrequirementsandheight limits. 2006IBC
Tilt-up Buildings
1908.1.8givesdetailingrequirementsfor aspecial wall pier whendesignisbasedonACI 318Sec. 21.7, whileIBC
1908.1.13givesrequirementsfor wall pier detailingwhendesignisbasedonACI 318Sec. 21.13. Asdiscussedlater
under Wall Pier andShear Wall Classifications, theprovisionprescribedunder IBC 1908.1.8wasintroducedby
SEAOC inlegacycodefor highseismicregions(SDC D, E or F), whilethelater provisionprescribedunder IBC
1908.1.13hasbeenintroducedbyothersfor lower seismicregion(SDC C.)
Withthelackof thewordprecast, theapplicabilityof theSpecial ReinforcedConcreteShear Wall categorytotilt-
upbuildingsmaynot beimmediatelyobvious, but aquickreferencetoACI 318-05will clarifythisapplication. The
intent of ACI 318-05towardtheproper classificationof Structural Wallscanbeobtainedbyreviewingthe
provisionsinconjunctionwiththeCommentary. Chapter 21of ACI 318-05, Special Provisionsfor SeismicDesign,
Section21.1- Definitions, providesthefollowingguidance. Structural Wallsaredefinedas"Wallsproportionedto
resist combinationsof shears, moments, andaxial forcesinducedbyearthquakemotions. A shear wall isastructural
wall. Structural wallsshall becategorizedasfollows." A Special Precast Structural Wall isdefinedas"A precast
wall complyingwiththerequirementsof 21.8. Inaddition, therequirementsfor ordinaryreinforcedconcrete
structural wallsandtherequirementsof 21.2.2.3, 21.2.3through21.2.7, and21.7shall besatisfied." The
commentaryfor thisdefinitionstates, "Theprovisionsof 21.8areintendedtoresult inaspecial precast structural
wall havingminimumstrengthandtoughnessequivalent tothat for aspecial reinforcedconcretestructural wall of
cast-in-placeconcrete." Thereforethisestablishesthat aSpecial Precast Structural Wall isequivalent toaSpecial
ReinforcedConcreteStructural Wall.
Development of precast concreteseismicdesignprovisionshasbeenbasedonextensiveresearchwhichresultedin
development of acceptancecriteriadescribedin2003inFEMA 450-2, Commentarysection9.6(BSSC 2004a).
HawkinsandGhosh(2004) provideinformationontestingresearchonthistopic. Muchof theresearchwork has
beendirectedtowardinvestigatingtheseismicperformanceof traditional precast concretestructureswithimproved
connections. ThelandmarkresearchassociatedwiththePRESSS(Precast SeismicStructural Systems) Research
ProgramhasgreatlyinfluencedthespecificACI 318seismicprovisionsfor precast concretesystems. ACI 318-05
Sec. 21.8provisionsonspecial structural wallsconstructedusingprecast concrete, however, wasnot writtenfor tilt-
upwall construction(GhoshandHawkins2006).
Thedevelopment of thespecial precast concretesystemwasseparatefromtheover fifty-year development of the
concretetilt-upsystem. Thecurrent codelanguageisambiguous, becauseACI 318Chapter 21encouragesductile
detailing, includingconfinement reinforcement anddevelopment of tensilereinforcement inhigh-seismicregions.
SEAOC believesanewsystemapproachfor tilt-upsystemisneeded. Duringtheinterim, SEAOC affirmsproper
loadpathandductiledetailingpracticebefollowedinthedesignanddetailingof tilt-uppanels.
Shear Distribution in Walls Loaded In-Plane
Complexpanel configurationsandthewall panelswithextensiveperforationsarerelativelyrecent developments.
Originally, designershadampleamountsof solidwall panelstouseor designate asactingasshear walls. Often,
therewasenoughoverstrengthalongawall linethat littleattentionwaspaidtoexact forcedistributionamongthe
wall panels. It wascommontosimplydividethetotal wall lineshear equallyintoeachpanel or proportional topanel
length, accountingsomewhat for theopenings. Eventhoughpast codesrequiredthat forcesbedistributedin
proportiontoelement stiffnesses, engineersjustifieddesignsbydemonstratingadequacyof thecollectivewall line
asawhole. A seriesof individual panelsmodeledtogether withmultipleopeningconfigurationsandnumerouspanel
jointsmademodelingtoocomplexwithout computersfor theaverageengineer.
Today, withcomputer usagecommonandessential intheoffice, engineershaveenoughcomputingpower tobetter
distributeshear loadsalongcomplicatedshear wall linesinproportiontoindividual panel rigiditiesasdescribedby
ASCE 7-05Section12.8.4, consideringbothshear andflexural stiffnesses. Accuratedistributionof in-planeshear
forcesalongdesignatedshear wall lineshasbecomequitecomplexasbuildingsusemorecomplexpanel
configurationswithnumerousopenings. Theclassicconventional rigidityanalysisoftenusedfor wallsinpoured-in-
placeconcreteor masonryconstructionisnot necessarilyaccuratefor tilt-upwallsunlesseachpanel joint isalso
considered. Thecombinationof repeatingpanel joints, variousopeningarrangements, thickenedwall sections,
Tilt-up Buildings
slopingroof heightsandpartiallycrackedconcretepropertiesresult inaverydifficult analysisif distribution
accuracyisparamount. Normally, thedistributionmaybesimplifiedbyassumingaverageroof heights, average
panel thicknesses, anduncrackedconcreteproperties.
Recognizingthat stiff shear wall elementscouldbecomeoverloaded, crack, andredistributetheir loadstoother
moreflexiblewall pier elements(seewall pier discussionbelow), wall piersarerequiredtobedetailedtoensure
flexural yieldfailureunlessthesumof theshear wall stiffnessesisat least sixtimesgreater thanthesumof wall pier
stiffnesses(IBC 1908.1.8).
Another possibleapproachusedtofurther simplifythedistributionof in-planeshearsistodesignatesolidpanels
alongawall lineastheprimaryshear wallsfor thetotal wall lineshear. Thissimplifiesthedistributionbyignoring
themoreflexiblepanelsandtransferringtheentireseismicloadtoafewstiffer andstronger panelsthrougha
collector. Byignoringportionsof theconcretewall line, theseignoredelementsmaybesubject totheprovisionsof
ACI 318-05Section21.11for concretemembersnot designatedaspart of thelateral force-resistingsystem. The
special detailingof theseignored memberswill providemoreductilebehavior intheevent that thesolidwalls
crackor rockunder overloadandredistributetheseismicforces.
A methodusedbysomeengineerscanbedescribedastheflexible-link approach. Thismethodassumesthat the
chordconnectionsbetweenpanelscanbedesignedtocontainenoughstretchor flexibilitytoeffectivelyisolateor
buffer theindividual panelsfromeachother (Eddington1990, Brooks2000). Trulyisolatedpanelswould
theoreticallyonlyseeseismicforcesfromthetributarydiaphragmlengthincontact withthepanel andforcesfrom
thepanel seismicself-weight. Theflexiblelinkisapanel-to-panel chordconnectionthat hassignificantlymore
flexibilitythanthedifferencesinflexibilitiesbetweenpanels, sothat thechordstretchdeformationdominatesany
relativedrift differencesbetweenpanels. It iscommonintilt-upconstructiontoprevent thebondingof thechord
reinforcing(or slot thecontinuoussteel ledger bolting) inthevicinityof panel jointstohelprelievethermal and
shrinkagestrainsthat develop. Withthisapproach, theunbondedchordlengththat crossesastandardinor in
panel joint isconsideredtheflexible-linkbuffer. Of coursethisflexiblelink must still havesufficient stiffnesstobe
effectiveagainst chordforceswithout excessivediaphragmdeflections, andanalysiscomplicationsoccur when
collectorsat re-entrant cornersapplylargeseismicdragloadstotheendpanel of awall line.
Asjust discussed, thereareseveral availablemethodstodistributingseismicshearswithintheshear wall system.
ASCE 7-05Section12.8.4statesthat seismicstoryshearsshall bedistributedtothevariousvertical elementsof the
seismicforce-resistingsystembasedontherelativelateral stiffnessof theresistingelementsanddiaphragm. The
2003NEHRP Commentary(Section5.2.4) states, Reasonableandconsistent assumptionsregardingthestiffnessof
concreteandmasonryelementsmaybeusedfor analysisindistributingtheshear forcetosuchelementsconnected
byahorizontal diaphragm. Regardlessof whichassumptionsareusedtodistributein-planeshears, adequatelife-
safetyprotectionisexpectedunder theactual distributionaslongasarational distributionapproachisusedandthe
detailingrequirementsassociatedwithwall piersandframeelementsareimplemented. Thisisanareathat could
benefit fromfurther research.
Wall Pier and Shear Wall Classifications
Traditionally, tilt-upbuildingscontainedmanysolidwall panelsthat easilyfit thedefinitionof shear walls.
However, asgreater architectural demandsontilt-upbuildingspusheddoorsandwindowcloser together andcloser
topanel joints, theremainingwall piersbecamenarrower andmoreframe-like. Buildingcodesgavelittleguidance
inclassifyingwhether narrowwall segmentswerebetter judgedasframesor shear walls, andbuildingdepartments
begantoseetilt-upwall-framelikestructuresbeingdesignedunder themorerelaxedshear wall requirements.
Indefiningthedifferent typesof lateral force-resistingsystems, concretewall-framedtypesystemssuchastilt-up
buildingswithdeepspandrelsaboverepeatingsizeableopeningshavenot beenrecognizedandhavenoassigned
seismicresponseR-factor. Codesprior to1991didnot includelower-boundlimitsonshear wall lengths, anddidnot
adequatelycover thedesignanddetailingof slender andnarrowshear wall segments. Observedearthquakedamage
incast-in-placeandprecast shear wallsrepeatedlyshoweddistressduetoshort-columneffectsinnarrowwall piers
Tilt-up Buildings
andshowedaneedfor adequatetransversereinforcement. SEAOC SeismologyCommitteeintroducedacode
changethat wasadoptedintothe1991UBC. Most of theoriginal provisionssustainedtransitionfromUBC to2006
IBC indefiningregionsthat needspecial transversereinforcement inwall piersinorder toconfinelongitudinal wall
reinforcement whensubjectedtoin-planeseismicshear force. WhileIBC Section1908.1.8includesthewall pier
provisionsfromthe1997UBC, similar languagehasnot beenincorporatedintoACI 318-05.
Wall panelssupportingdeepspandrelsaresimilar tocolumnssupportingdiscontinuousshear walls. Whenawall
segment withthelength-to-thicknessaspect ratioexceeds2.5andthecompressiveaxial forceincludingearthquake
islessthanA
g
f
c
/20, thewall pier designprovisionsshouldbemet. Thedesignshear force, V
e
, shouldbe
determinedbyconsideringtheprobableflexural strength, M
pr
, of thewall pier, basedonthereinforcement tensile
stressof 1.25f
y
andacapacityreductionfactor equal toone, anddividingbytheclear height of theopening.
Theminimumlength-to-thicknessaspect ratiowaschosentoensureflexural behavior of thewall segment. A wall
segment that doesnot meet theprescribedaspect ratiomaybedesignedasflexural framemembersunder ACI 318-
05Section21.3if lightlyloadedaxiallyandif it meetscertaingeometriclimitations, otherwisethemorerestrictive
columnrequirementsof ACI 318-05Section21.4arenecessary. Inwall lineswhereonlyafewelementsare
classifiedascolumns, engineershavetheoptiontoignorethesemembersandclassifythemasframeelementsnot
proportionedtoresist forcesinducedbyearthquakemotions aslongastheyaredetailedinaccordancewithACI
318-05Section21.11.
Thespecial reinforcingprovisionsfor wall piersarenot requiredwhenthosepiersunder considerationare
adequatelybracedbyother wall segmentsof substantiallylarger stiffness. Suchlateral bracingelementsmust have
lateral stiffnesstoresist thelateral deflectionsof thestorysuchthat anyresultingdeflectionwill not affect thewall
pier strengthsubstantially. Theratiofor thesumof relativestiffnessesbetweenwall bracingelementstothoseof
wall piersneedstobegreater thanor equal tosixfor thewall pierstobeconsideredadequatelybraced. Thiswas
originallyproposedintheBlueBookandhasbeeninuseinCaliforniaandintheUniformBuildingCodefor a
considerableamount of time, without incident. Somehavequestionedthisrelativestiffnessandhavesuggested
usingavalueof 12basedonaproposedcodechangeinACI 318section10.10.1ontheslendernesseffect of
compressionmembers. At thepresent time, however, thereareneither testsnor documenteddataknowntothe
SeismologyCommitteetojustifyanincreasefromtheoriginal valueof six.
Researchdoneonthintilt-upframepanels(similar towall piers) hasshownthebenefitsof closetiespacinginthe
hingezonewhereflexural yieldinginitiates. Cyclicloadingtestsof full-scaletilt-upspecimensprovideinsight into
thebehavior of wall piersthat havevarioustiespacings. Four-inchtiespacingwaseffectiveinachievingductility
whereaseight-inchandtwelve-inchspacingswerenot effective, allowingprimaryflexural steel tobuckle(Dew,
Sexsmith, andWeiler 2001).
Panel-to-Panel Connections
Fromitsbeginningsinthe1940sandintothe1970s, tilt-upwall panelswerejoinedtogether withcast-in-place
pilastersformedbetweenadjacent panels. Horizontal panel reinforcingextendedintothecast-in-placejoint
effectivelymakingall thepanelsbehavealmost asmonolithicconcrete. Sincethe1970s, panelshavebeenleft
separatedwithdrypanel joints, but buildingdesignsstill requireconnectionsacrossthesejointsfor diaphragm
chordsanddragstruts. Inaddition, someengineersprovideconnectionsacrossthejointsfor overturningresistance.
Intermittent connectionsacrossthepanel jointsarevulnerabletoforceconcentrationsfromconcreteshrinkage
strainsanddifferential foundationsettlement. Theconcretepanelsareoftenliftedintoplaceafter onlyaweekof
curingwithasubstantial amount of concreteshrinkagepotential remaining. Panelsset onpadfootingsinsteadof
continuousfootingsaremoresubject todifferential settlement. Thispotential for relativemovement between
individual panelsrequiresconnectionsacrossthesejointstobestrongandwell developedintotheconcreteto
prevent brittlefailure.
Tilt-up Buildings
Chordconnectionsanddragconnectionstypicallyinvolvetheuseof reinforcingsteel or rolledsteel shapeledgers
directlysplicedat thepanel joints. Toaccommodatetheshrinkagestrainsthat canoccur betweenpanels, the
continuouschordmembersareoftendetachedfromthepanel inthevicinityof thejoint toallowfor horizontal
movement. Inthecaseof reinforcingchordbars, thereinforcingisoftenwrappedor otherwiseunbondedfor ashort
distancefromthepanel joint. Wheresteel angleor channel ledgersareused, horizontallyslottedbolt holesnear the
panel jointsareprovided. Thesemethodsof chorddetachment allowthehorizontal strainstobetter relieve
themselveselasticallyacrosstheunbondedchorddistanceandreducethelikelihoodof brittleweldfailureor
concretespallingat theconnection.
Occasionally, overturningresistanceof shear wall panelsissupplementedwithpanel-to-panel embedment
connections, effectivelygroupingadjacent panelstogether tobehaveasawhole. Oftentheseconnectionsarenon-
ductilewithinsufficient overstrengthtoprevent brittleconcreteconefailureor weldrupture, andarenot suitablein
highseismiczones(Hofheins, Reaveley, andPantelides2002; Lemieux, Sexsmith, andWeiler 1998). Alternatively
for overturningresistance, panelscanbeattachedexclusivelytothefoundationfor uplift forcesallowingthepanels
tomorefreelymoveat their joints. It isrecommendedthat anypanel-to-panel connectionsfor uplift resistancebe
usedsparinglyandonlyif theyarewell developedintotheconcretewithreinforcingweldsdesignedtofullydevelop
thereinforcingbars. ACI 318-05Section21.8for Special structural wallsconstructedusingprecast concrete
referencesSections21.13.2and21.13.3whichrequirepanel-to-panel connectionstoyieldwithinthesteel elements
or reinforcement, or otherwisebedesignedtodevelopat least 1timestheconnectionyieldstrength. TheSEAOC
SeismologyCommitteerecommendsthat panel-to-panel connectionsbedesignedwiththeSpecial SeismicLoad
Combinationsper 2006IBC 1605.4inlieuof developingonly1timestheconnectionyieldstrength.
Wall Connections to the Foundation
Inconcretetilt-upconstruction, manyregional areashaveseentilt-uppanelsnot attachedtothespreadfooting
foundationthat providesbearingsupport for thepanelsthemselves. Inthesebuildings, wall panelsarevertically
supportedonthefoundation, but lateral forcesareresistedonlybypanel connectionstotheslab-on-grade. Typically
theseconnectionsconsist of reinforcingdowelsfromthewall panel andfromslab-on-gradethat lapwithinanarrow
concretepour-stripinthefloor parallel tothewall panel.
ACI 318-05Sections15.8.3.2and16.5.1.3allowprecast concretewall panelstoforegothetraditional footing
connectionrequirementsthat cast-in-placewallshaveinSection15.8.2.2. Theexclusiveconnectiontotheslabis
theoreticallypermissibleprovidedthat arational loadpathisestablishedtotransfer thein-planeandout-of-plane
forcesthroughtheslab-on-gradeandtothesupportingsoil.
However, slab-slidingresistanceisdifficult topredict, especiallywhereaplasticmoisture/vapor retarder isprovided
belowtheslab. Also, it isdesirabletomobilizethelateral slidingstrengthof thefoundations. For thesereasons,
SEAOC SeismologyCommitteeissuedaPositionStatement stronglyrecommendingthat designsinhigh
seismicallyactiveareasincludeeither adirect or indirect connectiontothefoundation(SEAOC 2000). Anexample
of anindirect connectionwouldbepanel dowelstiedintotheslab-on-gradeandadditional footingdowelsalsotied
intotheslab-on-grade. It isverycommontoseetilt-uppanelswithnofoundationconnection, yet therehasnot been
anyreporteddamageassociatedwiththisinpast earthquakes.
At heavilyloadedshear walls, overturningmayrequireanuplift connectionfromthewall panel directlytothe
foundation. ACI 318-05Section21.8for Special structural wallsconstructedusingprecast concrete references
Sections21.13.2and21.13.3whichrequirepanel-to-foundationconnectionstoyieldwithinthesteel element or
reinforcement, or otherwisebedesignedtodevelopat least 1timestheconnectionyieldstrength.
New Thinking
Past performanceof tilt-upbuildingshasbeeninstrumental inmakingcoderevisionstowall anchorageand
subdiaphragmrequirements, but theprocesshasbeenaseriesof incremental reactionarychangesthat havesimply
increasedtheanchorageforceor addedprescriptivedetailinglanguage. Thereisabelief amongsomeengineersand
Tilt-up Buildings
researchersthat anentirelynewapproachmaybeneededintheseismicdesignof low-risebuildingswithrelatively
rigidvertical elementsandwithflexiblediaphragms, suchasiscommonwithtilt-upandmasonrybuildingstoday.
Muchof thecurrent buildingcodeseismicprovisionsweredevelopedwithclassiclumpedmassesat thefloor and
roof assumed. Theseismicresponseof thetraditional lumpedmassmodel isdominatedbythestiffnessof the
verticallyorientedlateral force-resistingsystem, andthisassumptionapplieswell toframestructuresor tall shear
wall structureswithrigidheavydiaphragms.
Buildingswithrigidshear wall systemssupportingflexiblediaphragmshaveseveral uniquepropertiesthat make
thembehavesubstantiallydifferent thanclassicframingtypes. Theshort concreteor masonryshear wallshavevery
littleflexibilitycomparedwiththediaphragm, andthusthediaphragmperioddominatestheoverall buildingseismic
response(Fonseca, Wood, andHawkins1996). Analytical modelingandresearchhasshownthat thisseismic
responsecanbeaccuratelymodeledandpredicted(Fonseca, Hawkins, andWood1999).
Incontrast, theequivalent lateral forceanalysisinASCE 7-05, aswell asthe2006IBC, estimatesbuildingseismic
responseasadirect functionof buildingheight andthelateral force-resistingsystemstiffnessof vertical structural
elements. Inaddition, current codesdeterminediaphragmandwall anchorageforcesasadirect functionof the
groundmotiononly, or sometimesinconsiderationof thevertical lateral force-resistingsystemstiffness, without
anyconsiderationof thedynamicresponseof thediaphragm. Thisinaccuracyincurrent codeshasledsometo
recommendentirelynewcodeprovisionsfor useinrigidshear wall / flexiblediaphragmbuildings. Freeman, Searer,
andGilmartin(2002) providearational approachthat computesseismicresponsemoreaccurately, basedon
diaphragmandwall out-of-planeperiods. Anapproachsimilar toFreemanshasmerit andshouldbeconsideredas
thebasisfor futurecodeprovisions. ASCE 7-05Section12.7.3doesprovidegeneral languagefor analternative
dynamicapproach, however suchacomplexapproachisnot mandatoryfor typical tilt-upbuildingsandisoutsideof
normal engineeringpractices.
Another uniqueaspect associatedwithrigidshear wall / flexiblediaphragmbuildingsisthat lackof diaphragm
stiffnesseffectivelyisolatesadjacent, parallel linesof shear resistancefromeachother. Unlikethecasewithnon-
flexiblediaphragms, anysofteningor degradationof anoverloadedshear wall that isbeginningtofail cannot have
itsloadseffectivelytransferredacrossthediaphragmtoadjacent linesof shear resistanceuntil significant wall
translationhastakenplace. Thisamount of wall translationislikelytoresult incompletefailureof theshear wall
beforeanysignificant sharingof loadstakesplaceamongtheother walls.
Theimplicationisthat theredundancycoefficient, ,=governedbyaredundancyweaknessinonlyonelineof
resistance, isverycritical tothat line, but neednot impact thedesignof other parallel linesof resistanceduetothe
diaphragmisolationeffect. Inatheoretical sense, =shouldapplyonlytospecificlinesof resistancejudged
independently, but thevalueof =shouldbehigher toreflect theextracritical natureof theisolatedproblembeing
unabletosharetheloadthroughtheflexiblediaphragmtoother parallel linesof resistance. However, some
engineersarguethat thepurposeof =isnot toapplyarational approachtostrengtheningnon-redundant elements,
but topenalizetheentirebuildingsystemasadiscouragement toengineers.
Alsorelatedtotheisolationeffectsof flexiblediaphragmsisthecritical natureof strutsor collectorsinrigidshear
wall / flexiblediaphragmbuildings. Again, becauseafailureinacollector linehaslimitedabilitytotransfer loads
throughtheflexiblediaphragmtoother parallel collector lines, thesecollectorsarenon-redundant. ASCE 7-05
Sections12.10.2.1and12.4.3.2havespecial loadcombinationprovisionsfor collectorsthat increasethedesign
loadstoaddresstheir critical nature. Rigidandsemi-rigiddiaphragmsaremoreabletoredistributeloadsthroughthe
diaphragmshouldacollector failureoccur, but current codesdonot differentiatebetweenthetwointhisregard.
Further researchisjustifiedfor rigidshear wall / flexiblediaphragmbuildings, includingtilt-upconstruction. A new
approachtocodeprovisionsgoverningthisbuildingtypewouldallowamorerational considerationof building
response, includingappropriateprovisionsfor redundancycoefficients, collector designs, deformationcompatibility
issues, anddiaphragmdeflectionlimits.
Tilt-up Buildings
In2005, theTilt-UpConcreteAssociation(TCA) formedaseismicdesigntask groupasaproactivemeasureto
advanceresearchontheuniquedynamicbehavior of thisformof construction. Althoughtheworkof TCA isinits
infancy, itscollectionof tilt-upconstructionexpertsandresearchershasgreat potential inguidingfuturecode
revisions. Additionally, in2007theUniversityof BritishColumbiabeganaresearchprogrampartiallyfundedbythe
PortlandCement Associationtostudythedynamicbehavior of tilt-upbuildingsandtheir connectionsasinfluenced
withflexiblediaphragms.
Astilt-upconstructioncontinuestoevolvearchitecturallyandstructurally, newquestionsarisefor engineersto
consider. Thestateof theart intilt-updesignhasmademuchprogressover thelast several decades, but important
questionscontinuetobeat handfor additional research:
Canaparallel set of seismiccodeprovisionsbedevelopedfor rigidshear wall / flexible
diaphragmbuildingsthat considersmoreaccuratelytheir seismicresponse?
Istheselectedmethodof distributingin-planeshearscritical toshear wall performance?
Canasimplifiedmethodof shear distributionachieveacceptableresults?
Aredeformationlimitsfor wall anchoragesystemsnecessary, andif so, howshouldtheybeset?
Aswall anchorageiseliminatedastheweakelement of tilt-upstructures, will themodeof
failuresimplytransfer toanother vulnerableportionof thesystem?
References
ACI-SEAOSC (1982). Report of the task force on slender walls. AmericanConcreteInstitute(SouthernCalifornia
Chapter) andtheStructural EngineersAssociationof SouthernCalifornia, LosAngeles, CA.
AISI (2001). North American specification for design of cold-formed steel structural members. AmericanIronand
Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
APA (1994). Northridge, California Earthquake, Report T94-5. APA - TheEngineeredWoodAssociation(formerly
theAmericanPlywoodAssociation), Tacoma, WA.
ASCE (2006). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05. AmericanSocietyof Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
Bischoff, P. andScanlon, A. (2007). Effectivemoment of inertiafor calculatingdeflectionsof concretemembers
containingsteel reinforcement andfiber-reinforcedpolymer reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 104
(1), J anuary-February, 2007.
Bouwkamp, J ., Hamburger, R.O., andGillengerten, J . (1991). Degradation of plywood roof diaphragms under
multiple earthquake loading. CSMIP90, CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, Divisionof Minesand
Geology(nowCaliforniaGeological Survey), Sacramento, CA.
Brooks, H. (2000). The tilt-up design and construction manual, 5thed. Tilt-upConcreteAssociation, Mt. Vernon,
IA.
BSSC (2004a). Chapter 9, concretestructurerequirementsandcommentary, NEHRP recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, FEMA 450, 2003ed., FEMA 450-1and450-2.
BuildingSeismicSafetyCouncil, Washington, DC.
BSSC (2004b). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures,
FEMA 450, 2003ed., Part 2, Commentary, BuildingSeismicSafetyCouncil, Washington, DC.
elebi, M. et al. (1989). Seismicresponseof large-spanroof diaphragms. Earthquake Spectra. 5(2). Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
CSSC, 1995. Northridge Earthquake, turning loss to gain, SSC Report No. 95-01. CaliforniaSeismicSafety
Commission, Sacramento, CA.
Dew, M., Sexsmith, R., andWeiler, G. (2001). Effect of hingezonetiespacingonductilityof concretetilt-up
framepanels. ACI Structural Journal 98(6), November-December, 2001.
Tilt-up Buildings
Eddington, Ronald(1990). Theflexiblelink. From experience. Structural EngineersAssociationof Central
California, Sacramento, CA.
EERI (1985). TheMorganHill Earthquakeof April 24, 1984, Earthquake Spectra. (1) 3. EarthquakeEngineering
ResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
EERI (1988). TheWhittier NarrowsEarthquakeof October 1, 1987. Earthquake Spectra 4(2). Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
EERI (1990). LomaPrietaEarthquakereconnaissanceReport. Earthquake Spectra. Supplement toVolume6.
EarthquakeEngineeringResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
EERI (1996). NorthridgeEarthquakereconnaissancereport, vol.2. Earthquake Spectra. Supplement C tovol. 11.
EarthquakeEngineeringResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
EQE (1989). The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. EQE Engineering, SanFrancisco, CA.
EQE (1987). Summary of the October 1, 1987 Whittier, California Earthquake. EQE Engineering, SanFrancisco,
CA.
Fonseca, F.S., Wood, S.L., andHawkins, N.M. (1996). Measuredresponseof roof diaphragmsandwall panelsin
tilt-upsystemssubjectedtocyclicloading. Earthquake Spectra. 12(4). EarthquakeEngineeringResearch
Institute, Oakland, CA.
Fonseca, F.S., Hawkins, N.M., andWood, S.L. (1999). Calculatedresponseof tilt-upstructures. Proceedings of
the 8
th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, BritishColumbia, J une, 1999.
Freeman, S.A., Searer, G.R., andGilmartin, U.M. (2002). Proposedseismicdesignprovisionsfor rigidshear wall /
flexiblediaphragmstructures." Proceedings of the Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering (7NCEE). EarthquakeEngineeringResearchInstitute, Oakland, CA.
Gilbert, R.I (2001). Deflectioncalculationandcontrol Australiancodeamendmentsandimprovements. Code
provisions for deflection controls in concrete structures, SP 203-4, AmericanConcreteInstitute,
FarmingtonHills, MI.
Ghosh, S.K., and Hawkins, N. M. (2006). Codification of precast seismic structural systems: An update, PCI
Journal 51(3), May-J une, p. 2-5.
Hamburger, R.O. andNelson, R.F. (1999). Hold-downeccentricityandthecapacityof thevertical woodmember,
Building Standards, November-December, 1999. International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials, Whittier,
CA.
Harris, S. K. et al. (1998). Responseof tilt-upbuildingstoseismicdemands: Casestudiesfromthe1994Northridge
Earthquake. Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on Research on the Northridge,
California Earthquake of January 17, 1994. California(nowConsortiumof) Universitiesfor Researchin
EarthquakeEngineering(CUREE), Richmond, CA.
Hawkins, N. M. andGhosh, S. K. (2004). Acceptancecriteriafor special concretestructural wallsbasedon
validationtesting. PCI Journal, 49(5), September October, p. 78-92.
Hofheins, C.L., Reaveley, L.D., andPantelides, C.P. (2002). Behavior of weldedplateconnectionsinprecast
concretepanelsunder simulatedseismicloads." PCI Journal, J uly-August 2002. Precast/Prestressed
ConcreteInstitute, Chicago, IL.
ICBO(1967, 1973, 1976, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997). Uniform building code. International Conferenceof
BuildingOfficials, Whittier, CA.
ICBO(2001). Guidelines for seismic retrofit of existing buildings, International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials,
Whittier, CA.
ICBO(2002). Acceptance criteria for joist hangers and similar devices, AC13. J anuary2002. ICBOEvaluation
Service, Inc., Whittier, CA.
ICC (2000). International building code. International CodeCouncil, FallsChurch, VA.
Kripanarayanan, K. M. (1974). "Tilt-upload-bearingwalls: A designaid." PCA Engineering Bulletin, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
LA City(2002). Chapter 91 Earthquakehazardreductioninexistingtilt-upconcretewall buildings, 2002 City of
Los Angeles building code. International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials, Whittier, CA.
LA County(2002). Chapter 95- Earthquakehazardreductionfor existingconcretetilt-upbuildings, 2002 County
of Los Angeles building code. International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials, Whittier, CA.
Tilt-up Buildings
LADBS(2002). "Wall anchorageassembliestoflexiblediaphragms Reviseddesigncriteria," InformationBulletin
P/BC 2001-71November 1, 2002. LosAngelesDepartment of BuildingandSafety, LosAngeles, CA.
Lawson, J ohn(2007a). A call for unifieddesign Deflectionlimitsfor tilt-upwall serviceability. Structural
Engineer. J anuary2007, ZweigWhiteInformationServices, Chicago, IL.
Lawson, J ohn(2007b). Deflectionlimitsfor tilt-upwall serviceability ThehistorybehindchangestoChapter 14
of ACI 318. Concrete International, 29(9). AmericanConcreteInstitute, September 2007.
Lawson, J ohn(2007c). Thinkingoutsidethebox: Newapproachestoverylargeflexiblediaphragms. SEAOC
2007 Convention Proceedings, Structural EngineersAssociationof California, Sacramento, CA.
Lemieux, K., Sexsmith, R., Weiler, G. (1998). Behavior of embeddedsteel connectorsinconcretetilt-uppanels.
ACI Structural Journal, J uly-August, 1998.
Mayo, J ohnL. (2001). Metal roof constructiononlargewarehousesor distributioncenters. Steel Tips. J une2001,
Structural Steel EducationCouncil, Moraga, CA.
NOAA (1971). San Fernando, California, Earthquake of February 9, 1971, vol. 1. National Oceanicand
AtmosphericAdministration, WashingtonDC.
Scanlon, A., andMurray, D. (1982). Practical calculationof two-wayslabdeflections." Concrete International, 4
(11). AmericanConcreteInstitute, 1982.
Scanlon, A. andBischoff, P. (2007). Shrinkagerestraint andloadinghistoryeffectsondeflectionof flexural
members. SubmittedtoACI Structural Journal, February2007.
SEAOC (1991). Reflections on the Loma Prieta Earthquake October 17, 1989. Structural EngineersAssociationof
California, Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC SeismologyCommittee(1999). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary 7th ed.
Structural EngineersAssociationof California, Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC (2000). Position statement: Tilt-up wall connections to footings, Structural EngineersAssociationof
California, Seismologyandad-hocTilt-UpCommittees, Sacramento, CA.
SEAONC (2001). Guidelines for seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of tilt-up buildings and other rigid
wall/flexible diaphragm structures, Structural EngineersAssociationof NorthernCaliforniaand
International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials.
SEAOSC (1979). Recommended tilt-up wall design. Structural EngineersAssociationof SouthernCalifornia, Los
Angeles, CA.
SEAOSC (2006). UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 code comparison summary report. J anuary2006. SEAOSC Slender Wall
TaskGroup, Structural EngineersAssociationof SouthernCalifornia, LosAngeles, CA.
Sheedy, P. andSheedy, C. (1992). ConcreteandMasonryWall Anchorage. Building Standards, J uly-August,
1992. International Conferenceof BuildingOfficials, Whittier, CA.
Keywords
concreteshear walls
flexiblediaphragm
low-riseconstruction
tilt-up
wooddiaphragm
steel deckdiaphragm
How To Cite This Publication
Inthewriterstext, thisarticleshouldbecitedas:
(SEAOC SeismologyCommittee2008)
Inthewritersreferencelist, thereferenceshouldbelistedas:
SEAOC SeismologyCommittee(2008). Tilt-upbuildings, September, 2008, The SEAOC Blue Book:
Seismic design recommendations, Structural EngineersAssociationof California, Sacramento, CA. Accessiblevia
theworldwidewebat: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html

Tilt Up Buildings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione 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

Tilt Up Buildings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations

Potrebbero piacerti anche